HomeMy WebLinkAbout!Ch 10.00 AltChapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-1
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a range of reasonable alternatives to
the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” and the
evaluation of the comparative merits of the alternatives. The alternatives discussion in this chapter is
intended to “focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,” even if these alternatives impede to some
degree on the attainment of the project objectives.
Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM has been evaluated for significant direct and/or cumulative
environmental impacts in Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts.
Significant direct and/or cumulative impacts have been identified for the following issues: land use,
aesthetics/landform alteration, transportation, air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, public services (fire and emergency medical services, police services, schools, libraries,
parks), global climate change, hydrology and water quality, agriculture resources, hazards and
hazardous materials, and public utilities (water supply, wastewater facilities, energy supply, recycled
water.
Mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce all direct and cumulative impacts to below
a level of significance, with the exception of aesthetics (direct and cumulative loss of rolling hills and
open space character, and cumulative diminishment of views and scenic resources), air quality (direct
and cumulative inconsistency with air quality plans and exceedance of criteria air pollutant emissions),
noise (short-term direct increase in traffic noise), archaeological resources and human remains
(cumulative loss of resources), potential effects of climate change (direct and cumulative emissions of
ozone precursors), agricultural resources (direct and cumulative loss of agricultural land), water (direct
and cumulative guarantee of long term water supply), energy (direct and cumulative guarantee of long
term energy supply), wastewater (direct and cumulative treatment capacity), and recycled water
(cumulative recycled water supply).
In developing the alternatives to be addressed in this chapter, consideration was given to the ability to
meet the basic objectives of the project and eliminate or substantially reduce the identified significant
environmental impacts. The SPA Plan identifies the project objectives that would implement the Otay
Ranch GDP vision for Village 8 West as indicated below:
1. Create a recognizable “place” that is unique, attractive, and full of cultural and social diversity.
2. Develop distinctive design standards and invest in design excellence to create inspiring and
memorable places; emphasize the appearance and qualities of the public realm; create
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-2
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
streetscapes, pathways, and public spaces of beauty, interest, and functional benefit to
pedestrians.
3. Encourage development patterns that promote orderly growth, prevent urban sprawl, and
promote effective resource management.
4. Protect and enhance the natural environment and increase the quality of life. Design
neighborhoods with compact and multi-dimensional land use patterns that ensures a mix of
uses and joint optimization of transportation modes to minimize the impact of cars, promote
walking and bicycling, and provide access to employment, education, recreation, entertainment,
shopping, and services.
5. Create an appropriately scaled and economically healthy Town Center. Include a wide range of
commercial, residential, cultural, civic, recreational uses, and businesses that serve the daily
needs of nearby residents.
6. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense, vibrant Town Center to
reduce reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
7. Encourage community development in mixed use and compact pedestrian oriented forms to
accommodate all income levels and lifestyles.
8. Foster a compact form facilitated by “form-based planning,” resulting in efficient infrastructure
investments and advanced opportunities to provide socially diverse housing.
9. Retain and recruit a skilled and motivated workforce to ensure economic stability into the future
by providing attainable housing opportunities. Promote jobs that match the skills of existing and
future residents through provision of housing opportunities and choices and by providing an
opportunity for the City to attract a university or related uses by dedication of land for such
purposes.
10. Promote synergistic uses and graceful transitions within the SPA and between the SPA and
neighborhoods of adjacent SPAs to balance activities, services, and facilities. Integrate Village 8
West with existing Otay Ranch development, including connectivity to the Greenbelt.
11. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan, the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the Otay Valley Regional
Park Concept Plan.
12. Encourage the interactivity of a wide range of people, promote community diversity, and enrich
the human experience by providing a broad variety of public spaces and housing types and
styles that appeal to all ages, incomes, and lifestyles.
13. Establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and
anticipated economic conditions.
Three alternatives have been selected for the SPA Plan and TM. They include the following:
■ No Project (No Build) Alternative
■ Reduced Project Alternative #1 – 1,167 Dwelling Units
■ Reduced Project Alternative #2 – 672 Dwelling Units
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-3
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
A summary of the buildout potential of each reduced project alternative compared to the proposed SPA
Plan and TM is shown in Table 10-1. Another alternative considered but eliminated from further analysis
included the development of the project at another location. This was determined to be infeasible
because the project applicant owns the properties in question, and the goal is to complete the vision of
the Otay Ranch GDP, which can only be accomplished at the current project location.
Table 10-1 Alternative Land Use Comparison
Land Use Proposed Project
Reduced Project Alternative #1
– 1,167 Dwelling Units
Reduced Project Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling Units
Neighborhood Edge - Residential
Low-Medium Density (units) 331 301 155
Neighborhood General - Residential
Medium Density (units) 290 287 192
Neighborhood Central - Residential
Medium-High Density (units) 530 428 325
Town Center (units) 899 151 0
Commercial (square feet) 300,000 170,000 104,000
Neighborhood Park (acres) 7.5 0 0
Open Space (acres) 23.5 23.5 40.4
Total Residences 2,050 1,167 672
An analysis of the alternatives to the project is presented in Sections 10.1 through 10.3, below. Each
subject area included in Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis, has been evaluated under each
alternative. A concluding Section 10.4 provides a summary of the comparative assessment and a
discussion of the alternatives’ ability to meet the project objectives. A discussion of the environmentally
superior alternative is provided in Section 10.5.
As required under Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must identify the
environmentally superior alternative. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project Alternative is
determined to be the most environmentally superior project, then another alternative among the
alternatives evaluated must be identified as the environmentally superior project. Section 10.5 identifies
the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
10.1 No Project (No Build) Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(B) states that the No Project (No Build) alternative is “a
circumstance under which a project does not proceed” and may be considered the environmental
effects of the property remaining in its existing state. The No Project (No Build) Alternative assumes that
no SPA Plan would be developed for Village 8 West and that the project area would remain unchanged.
Accordingly, the site characteristics of this alternative would be equivalent to the existing conditions for
each category analyzed in this EIR. The potential impacts of this alternative are compared to the
proposed project below.
Land Use
Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in a less than significant impact
related to physical division of an established community because no community exists on site and the
undeveloped area would be compatible with surrounding land uses. If the site were to remain
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-4
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
undeveloped, open rolling hills would be retained, maintaining the existing character of the project site.
The land use incompatibility regarding the City of San Diego water pipeline would be avoided under this
alternative because no development would be constructed that would impede access to the pipelines .
Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not conflict with the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch RMP because the site would remain open space and would not include
any land uses that would conflict with these resource plans. However, the No Project (No Build)
Alternative would have the potential to conflict with the General Plan and GDP because it would not
implement the development envisioned for Village 8 West is these documents.
Aesthetics/Landform Alteration
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic roadways,
visual character or quality, lighting and glare, sensitive landforms, and steep slopes compared to the
project. Under this alternative, views of the project and the character of the site would remain
unchanged. Additionally, no new sources of light, glare, or shading would be introduced. The project’s
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative aesthetic impact would be avoided.
Similar to the project, this alternative would result in less than significant impact related to consistency
with General Plan and GDP policies related to aesthetics and landform alteration.
Transportation and Traffic
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in reduced direct impacts to traffic and level of
service standards and congestion management compared to the project because no new vehicular trips
would be generated by this alternative. However, the proposed extensions of Main Street and Otay
Valley Road across the project area would not be implemented under the No Project (No Build)
Alternative. These extensions are part of the envisioned circulation network for Otay Ranch and would
provide important connections between village and access to SR-125 and the region. These roadways
would be incomplete without development on the Village 8 West site; therefore, long -term cumulative
traffic impacts would likely still occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative and mitigation may not
be possible without development within the project area. Without the regional connections that would
be provided by the Village 8 West SPA Plan circulation network, traffic generated by future growth
would be concentrated on fewer roadways. Therefore, this alternative would potentially result in a
greater cumulative traffic impact compared to the project.
Additionally, impacts related to emergency access and alternative transportation policies would be
greater under this alternative because evacuation, emergency response, and alternative transportation
facilities to adjacent development areas would not be enhanced under this alternative. No new points of
access, trails, pathways, bicycle paths, or transit routes proposed for Village 8 West would be developed.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would be inconsistent with General Plan polices to increase use of
alternative modes of transportation. For example, Objective LUT 17 in the Land Use and Transportation
Element is to plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit. The
No Project (No Build) Alternative would conflict with planned transit routes for the Otay Ranch area.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid impacts to air traffic patterns compared to the project
because no development would occur. No roadways would be constructed under this alternative;
therefore, impacts related to safety hazards would be less than significant, similar to the project.
Air Quality
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact
related to air quality violations because no construction or operational emissions would result from this
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-5
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
alternative. Impacts related to sensitive receptors would also be avoided because no new potential toxic
air contaminant sources or sensitive receptors would be developed in Village 8 West. Similar to the
proposed project, no new receptors would be proposed in the vicinity of the Otay Landfill and odor
impacts would be less than significant. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no impact
related to consistency with the RAQS and SIP because no new criteria air pollutant emissions or growth
would occur under this alternative. The significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative air quality
impacts that would result from the project would be avoided. Similar to the project, the No Project (No
Build) Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to consistency with General Plan
and GDP air quality policies.
Noise
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid impacts related to excessive noise levels compared to
the project because no new noise sources or sensitive receptors would be developed in Village 8 West,
and no traffic would be generated on site. Impacts related to groundborne vibration and temporary
increase in ambient noise would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative because no
construction would occur. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not contribute to any perceived
increase in ambient noise levels. Because there would be no sensitive receptors on the site, there would
be no potential exposure to quarry noise under this alternative. Similar to the project, the No Project
(No Build) Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to aircraft noise and
consistency with General Plan and GDP noise policies.
Biological Resources
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any impacts related to special status plant and
wildlife species, riparian habitat, and other sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands,
and consistency with the MSCP and RMP because no development would occur. Less than significant
impacts related to wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites would also be avoided.
Cultural Resources
Potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts related to archaeological resources, human
remains, and paleontological resources would be avoided under the No Project (No Build) Alternative
because no earth-disturbing construction activities would occur. Similar to the project, the No Project
(No Build) Alternative would be consistent with General Plan and GDP policies related to cultural
resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Since there are no historical resources located on
the Village 8 West site, potential impacts to these resources would not change with this alternative (no
impact).
Geology and Soils
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid potentially significant impacts related to exposure to
seismic related hazards, soil stability, expansive soils, and soil erosion and topsoil loss that would occur
under the project because no new development would occur. Similar to the proposed project, the No
Project (No Build) Alternative would be consistent with General Plan and GDP geotechnical policies and
would not require any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Public Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Police Services, Schools, and Libraries. The No Project (No Build)
Alternative would not result in any impacts to fire and emergency medical services, schools, and
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-6
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
libraries because no increase in demand for these services would occur under this alternative; therefore,
the ability to meet the City’s services standards would not be affected. Impacts related to schools siting
would be reduced compared to the project because no new schools would be needed or developed;
therefore, no soil testing or geotechnical investigations would be required to identify potential siting
conflicts. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would be consistent with all General Plan and GDP
policies related to fire and emergency medical, police, school, and library services and there would be
no impact on the GMO standards.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails. No development would occur under the No Project (No Build
Alternative) that would result in additional use of existing or need for new facilities. Impacts related to
construction of new facilities would decrease compared to the project. However, the No Project (No
Build) Alternative would result in increased impacts related to the City’s parkland standard compared to
the project. A portion of the Otay Ranch Community Park is proposed for Village 8 West. This park is
intended to provide an important recreational resource for the Otay Ranch area and the park would
remain incomplete under this alternative. Without implementation of the SPA Plan parkland system, a
significant impact related to the parks and recreation standard could occur. The No Project (No Build)
Alternative would also result in a conflict with General Plan Policy LUT 81.1, which is to develop a large
community park to serve Otay Ranch. A portion of this park is proposed within Village 8 West, which
would not be completed under the No Project (No Build) Alternative. In addition, the alternative would
conflict with the parkland designations of the Otay Ranch GDP, Greenbelt Master Plan, and Chula Vista
Parks and Recreation Master Plan because facilities identified in these plans would not be developed.
Global Climate Change
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any impact related to GHG emissions and
compliance with AB 32 because no construction or operation emissions of GHGs would occur under this
alternative. Additionally, the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to
exacerbation of air quality problems as a result of climate change would be avoided under this
alternative because the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any emissions of ozone
precursors that would contribute to exacerbation of air quality problems as a result of climate change.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any impacts related to water quality standards,
erosion and siltation, surface runoff, drainage capacity, and water quality degradation compared to the
project because no changes to the existing drainage pattern would occur, and no construction or
development activities would take place that would generative pollutants. Similar to the project, this
alternative would not interfere with groundwater supplies and recharge, place housing or structures
within a 100-year flood hazard boundary, conflict with General Plan and GDP policies related to
hydrology and water quality, expose people or structures to significant risk of loss from flooding, or
result in an increased risk of exposure to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Agricultural Resources
The direct and cumulative significant and unavoidable impact related to conversion of agricultural
resources would not occur under this alternative because no development would be implemented on
the site, and no potential agricultural land would be converted to non-agricultural use. Potentially
significant impacts related to land use conflicts would be avoided because no development would occur
on site. Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any conflict with
agricultural policies.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-7
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No development would occur under this alternative; therefore, no hazardous materials would be
transported, used, or disposed of for construction or operation. Impacts related to the accidental
release of hazardous materials, hazards to schools, and historic use of pesticides would be avoided
because no ground disturbing activities with the potential to disturb contaminated soil would occur, and
no new schools would be developed. Less than significant impacts related to wildland fire would be
avoided because no new development would occur. A Fire Protection Plan would not be required. The
potential for a wildland fire on the project would still exist, but the No Project Alternative would not
expose any new structures or people to the risk.
Similar to the project, there would be no impacts related to listed hazardous sites because no sites are
listed in Village 8 West. The impact associated with the project related to airport hazards would be
avoided because no development would occur and no notification in compliance with the Brown Field
ALUCP would be required. Impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans would be
greater under this alternative because the circulation system would not be constructed through the site
thereby hindering emergency response to the area. Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build)
Alternative would not conflict with any General Plan and GDP policies related to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Housing and Population
No impacts related to population growth would occur under this alternative because no residential or
economic growth would occur and no infrastructure would be installed. Similar to the project, the No
Project (No Build) Alternative would not displace any housing or people. However, the No Project
Alternative would conflict with any General Plan and GDP housing and population policies that
encourage a variety of housing types in the city because it would not implement the range of residential
development envisioned for Village 8 West in the General Plan, including affordable housing.
Public Utilities
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any impacts related to water, wastewater
treatment, solid waste, recycled water, and energy compared to the project because no development
would occur. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any increase demand for these
services. The potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts related to long-term guarantee of
water supply and energy, capacity of wastewater treatment facilities, and recycled water supply would
be avoided under this alternative.
Mineral Resources
The less than significant impacts related to mineral resources would be the same as the proposed
project under this alternative because no development would occur under the No Project (No Build)
Alternative and the small portion of Village 8 West designated MRZ-2 would remain available for future
extraction. Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any conflict
with mineral resources policies. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-8
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
10.2 Reduced Project Alternative #1
As shown in Table 10-1, Reduced Project Alternative #1 (the 1,167 dwelling unit plan) would include the
development of 1,167 residential units, compared to 2,050 units under the proposed Village 8 West SPA
Plan and TM. This alternative was derived from the intention to provide a more suburban approach to
development in the SPA Plan area. This alternative reduces residential development by almost 50
percent, and promotes a more horizontal mixed-use pattern in place of the more vertical mixed-use
town center plan. In addition, it significantly reduces residential density in the town center and the
maximum density in the other transects to approximately half of the proposed project.
The greatest reduction in development would occur in the Town Center, which would be reduced to 151
units compared to 899 under the proposed SPA Plan, which encourages horizontal mixed-use rather
than vertical. Under the Reduced Project Alternative #1, no residential units would be developed in
Planning Areas B, C, H-1, or L. These areas include mixed-use development under the proposed project.
Multi-family residential units would still be developed in Planning Areas F and J, at reduced densities
compared to the project. Commercial development in the Town Center would also be reduced to
170,000 square feet, compared to 300,000 square feet under the proposed project. Additionally, the
Neighborhood Park proposed for the project would be eliminated under this alternative. The park area
(Planning Area T) would be designated for single-family residential development to further reduce
density in the Neighborhood General Zone. Figure 10-1 summarizes the Reduced Project Alternative #1
site utilization plan. The potential impacts of this alternative are compared to the proposed project
below.
Land Use
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in a less than significant
impact related to physical division of an established community because no community exists on site ,
and the proposed land uses would be compatible with surrounding planned land uses. Similar to the
project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would not conflict with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
and the Otay Ranch RMP. This is because this alternative would propose similar commercial and
residential development areas as the proposed project, a greater amount of open space, a Preserve
Edge Plan, and would not include any land uses that conflict with these resource plans. The land use
incompatibility associated with the impedance of access to the City of San Diego water line would still
occur under this alternative.
However, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in a significant impact related to consistency
with the GDP and Chula Vista General Plan because this alternative would not implement the objectives
and policies envisioned in the General Plan and GDP. For example, this alternative would conflict with
Objective LUT 81 of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element, which is the
development of a higher density, mixed-use, transit-oriented town center positioned on the intersection
of Main Street and La Media Road, surrounded by lower intensity residential use and a large community
park. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 proposes only two mixed-use planning areas (Planning Areas F
and J) and does not propose high density residential or retail development. The Town Center would
continue to be centered on the intersection of Main Street and La Media Road; however, the mixed-use
planning areas would only be located west of La Media Road, rather than surrounding the Main Street
and La Media Road couplet intersections. Therefore, this alternative would result in an additional land
use impact compared to the project.
0 400 800
Feet ±REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE #1 SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
FIGURE 10-1
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST EIR
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2012
Off-site Facilities Corridor/
Greenbelt Trail Connection
Low Medium Density Residential Village (LMV)
Land Use
Town Center (TC)
Medium High Density Residential (MH)
Medium Density Residential (M)
Open Space (OS)
Open Space (Preserve)
Park (P)
School
* Lotting and grading to be determined at Tentative Map
Commercial and Residential
Town Center – 18 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
Target C'ml
Sq.Ft. (K)(2)
B 1.4 T-4: TC 0 0
C 6.9 T-4: TC 0 20
F 3.0 T-4: TC 54 14
H-1 7.8 T-4: TC 0 82
H-2 1.3 T-4: TC 0 7
J 5.4 T-4: TC 97 10
L 14.2 T-4: TC 0 37
X 0.7 T-4: TC 0 0
Subtotal 40.7 151 170
Medium High Density Residential – 14.5 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
E 5.3 T-3: NC 77
I 6.8 T-3: NC 99
M 8.5 T-3: NC 123
O 8.9 T-3: NC 129
Subtotal 29.5 428
Medium Density Residential
Attached/Detached – 8.5 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
Q 14.7 T-2: NG 125
T 9.5 T-2: NG 81
U 9.5 T-2: NG 81
Subtotal 33.7 287
Low Medium Density Residential Village – 4.5 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
N 19.6 T-2: NE 88
P 26.9 T-2: NE 121
V 20.5 T-2: NE 92
Subtotal 67.0 301
TOTAL 170.9 1167 170K(3)
Public, Quasi Public, and Other
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)(4)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect (1) Description
R MH 5.8 SD: CPF CPF(4)
Subtotal 5.8
Potential School (S) Sites(5)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect (1) Description
D TC 20.2 T-4: TC Middle
S MH 11.4 T-3: NC Elementary
Subtotal 31.6
Parks (P)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect (1) Classification
A P 17.4 SD: P Community
G TC 3.0 SD: P Town Square
Subtotal 20.4
Open Space (OS)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect (1) Classification
Y CVOSP(6) 15.6 T-1: OP Preserve
(MSCP)
OS-1 OS 23.5 T-1: OS Open Space
Subtotal 39.1
Other
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect (1) Description
W TC 2.4 SD: R Basin
Right-of-Way NA 30.1 NA Arterials
Subtotal 32.5
TOTAL 129.4
SPA Total Area: 300.3 Gross Acres (7)
(1)Transects are defined in Chapter 3 of the SPA Plan.
(2)See Chapter 9 of the SPA Plan regarding Intensity Transfer
(3)34,000 square feet of office; 136,000 square feet of retail (excludes Live/Work)
(4)As defined by CVMC 19.48
(5)School sites will revert to the underlying use if sites are not accepted by the school district. Parcel D shall revert to Town
Center and Parcel S shall revert to Medium High Density Residential.
(6)Chula Vista Open Space Preserve
(7)Acreage does not include 19.6-acre San Diego Reservoir
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-10
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-11
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Aesthetics/Landform Alteration
Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in similar less than significant
direct impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic roadways, and steep slopes. This alternative would
accommodate structures with heights up to 60 feet tall, similar to the proposed project, and would
result in similar grading. Potentially significant impacts related to alteration of Rock Mountain and
shading within the Town Center would still occur under this alternative. Although densities would be
reduced, similar land uses would be developed across the Village 8 West SPA. Similar to the project,
implementation of the design guidelines in the SPA Plan would reduce direct impacts to a less than
significant level. However, significant direct and cumulatively considerable impacts related to scenic
resources and visual character would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative, similar to the
project because loss of open rolling hills would still occur. Similar to the project, this alternative would
result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with General Plan and GDP policies related
to aesthetics and landform alteration.
Transportation and Traffic
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in reduced direct and cumulative impacts to traffic and
level of service standards and congestion management compared to the project. Less vehicular trips
would be generated by this alternative: 22,185 ADT compared to 26,104 ADT under the project as
proposed, based on the trip generation rates utilized in the traffic impact analysis (RBF 2013). This
alternative assumes half of the internal capture rate of the proposed project because it would include
some mixed-use development and a town center that provides retail and commercial opportunities for
residents, but does not propose high density development to the extent of the proposed project.
This alternative would result in a similar maximum number of daily construction trips compared to the
proposed project because similar construction activities would be required; however, the length of
construction, and the associated temporary increase in trips, would be reduced because less
construction would occur. Similar to the proposed project, the mitigation measures that would be
implemented for this alternative’s operational impacts would also reduce temporary construction
impacts to a less than significant level.
Impacts related to General Plan and GDP emergency access, road safety, and transportation policies
would be less than significant under this alternative, similar to the project, because the circulation
system proposed for Village 8 West would also be implemented under Reduced Project Alternative #1.
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would also result in similar impacts to air traffic patterns compared
to the project because the same maximum building heights would be allowed under this alternative.
FAA notification would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Air Quality
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in reduced impacts related to air quality violations
compared to the project because fewer construction and operational emissions would result from this
alternative. Similar to the project, direct and cumulative construction emissions would remain significant
and unavoidable under this alternative due to the amount of grading required.
Operational emissions would also be reduced because vehicle trips and area sources would be reduced
compared to the project. Significant VOC emissions would be reduced by approximately 34 percent.
Significant NOx emission would be required by approximately 7 percent. Significant PM10 impacts would
be reduced by approximately 15 percent compared to the proposed project. However, as shown in
Table 10-2, VOC, NOx, and PM10 emissions would still be significant because the significance thresholds
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-12
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
would still be exceed. Direct and cumulative Impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the
project.
Table 10-2 Operation Maximum Daily Emissions – Reduced Project Alternative #1
Emissions Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/ day)
CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
Vehicular Sources(1) 310 33 26 1 170 33
Area Sources
Natural Gas(2) 19 2 31 0 0 0
Hearth (fireplaces)(3) 1 0 1 0 0 0
Landscape 36 5 0 0 0 0
Consumer Products 0 60 0 0 0 0
Architectural Coatings(4) 0 12 0 0 0 0
Reduced Project Alternative #1 Total Emissions 366 112 58 1 170 33
Proposed Village 8 West Total Emissions 427 169 69 1 201 39
Significance Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No Yes Yes No Yes No
CO = carbon monoxide; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
(1) Modeling assumptions: Calculations assume the full development of project at buildout (2030). Output is for summer
emissions, with the exception of hearth emissions, where winter emissions were added to the daily emissions for a worst-
case condition.
(2) Other assumptions include: Based on an ADT of 22,185 trips and an estimated vehicle trip length of 4.62 miles, which
accounts for internal capture from mixed-use development, the reduction in vehicle trips compared to similar
developments that do not provide access to transit, and the TDM program in the SPA Plan. A 4 percent vehicular emission
reduction for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions was applied for traffic light synchronization based on the SCAQMD CEQA
Air Quality Handbook (1993). Assumes buildings comply with 15 percent above 2008 Title 24 standards.
(3) Assumes 15 percent of homes would have fireplaces, consistent with assumptions of the GPA/GDPA SEIR. No wood
burning fireplaces would be allowed.
(4) Assumes model defaults for low VOC coatings (250 grams of VOC per liter or less).
Source: CARB 2007.
Impacts related to sensitive receptors would be comparable to the project because similar land uses
would be allowed under this alternative, including gas stations. Impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Impacts related to odors would be the same under this alternative. No new receptors would be located
in the vicinity of Otay Landfill. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would not exceed the RAQS growth
assumption for Village 8 West (1,556 residential units). However, this alternative would still result in
new significant and unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions, and would thus still be inconsistent with
the RAQS and SIP. Direct and cumulative Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to
the project. Less than significant impacts related to consistency with General Plan and GDP air quality
policies would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #1.
Noise
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in fewer impacts related to excessive noise levels
compared to the project because reduced traffic volumes would result in lower noise levels. However,
due to cumulative increases in traffic, including the Reduced Project Alternative #1 trips, this
alternative’s direct and cumulative impacts would still be significant. The reduced density in the Town
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-13
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Center would also reduce exposure of NSLU to noise from HVAC units and community parks. However,
NSLU would still be proposed in areas adjacent to commercial and community park uses, such as mixed-
use Planning Areas F and J and the middle school site (Planning Area D). Impacts to residences in
Planning Areas B, C, G, H1, H2, and L would be eliminated because no residences are proposed in these
areas under the Reduced Project Alternative #1. However, outdoor usable areas in the Town Center in
these planning areas would still have the potential to be exposed to excessive noise. The mitigation
measures required for the proposed project would also be required for the Reduced Project Alternative
#1 for direct and cumulative impacts.
Less than significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and potentially significant temporary
increases in ambient noise would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #1
because similar construction activities would occur and short-term traffic related noise would increase.
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would reduce impacts related to the substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels compared to the project because fewer trips would be generated from Village 8
West. However, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 trips in combination with trips from cumulative
growth would still result in significant increases in traffic noise levels. Less than significant impacts
related to aircraft noise and consistency with General Plan and GDP noise policies would be similar to
the project.
Biological Resources
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in the same potentially significant but mitigable
impacts related to special status plant and wildlife species, riparian habitat, and other sensitive natural
communities, federally protected wetlands, and consistency with the MSCP and RMP compared to the
project because this alternative would have the same development footprint as the project. The
mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would also be required under this alternative.
Cultural Resources
Impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant under the Reduced Project
Alternative #1, similar to the project, because no historical resources are located in Village 8 West.
Potentially significant impacts related to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological
resources would be the same as the proposed project because this alternative would have the same
development footprint as the project and would require ground disturbing activities. Similar to the
proposed project, impacts to unknown historic and archaeological resources, human remains and
paleontological resources would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable due to the potential for
discovery of these resources in Village 8 West. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1
would be consistent with General Plan and GDP policies related to cultural resources, and impacts would
be less than significant.
Geology and Soils
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in the same potentially significant impacts related to
exposure to seismic related hazards, soil stability, soil erosion and topsoil loss, and expansive soils that
would occur under the project because similar development would occur across Village 8 West. The
geotechnical recommendations and compliance with applicable regulations as required by the project
mitigation measures would also be required for this alternative. Similar to the project, the Reduced
Project Alternative #1 would be consistent with General Plan and GDP geotechnical policies and would
not require any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-14
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Public Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Police Services, Schools, and Libraries. The Reduced Project
Alternative #1 would result in a reduced demand for fire and emergency medical services, schools, and
libraries because fewer residential units would be constructed, and the Reduced Project Alternative #1
would generate less population growth. However, new development under this alternative would still
have the potential to affect the ability for services to meet the City’s services standards if the services
are not provided commensurate with need.
Potentially significant impacts related to schools siting would be similar compared to the project
because the two new schools proposed for Village 8 West would also be developed under this
alternative in the same locations. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would be
consistent with all General Plan and GDP policies related to fire and emergency medical, police, school,
and library services with implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails. Based on the CVMC method for calculating parkland
requirements, which is more conservative than the GDP and Quimby Act method, the Reduced Project
Alternative #1 would require 10.3 acres of parkland to serve the development. This alternative would
provide 20.4 acres of community park and town square parkland. However, similar to the proposed
project, impacts related to deterioration of existing park facilities would be significant if parkland would
not be provided concurrently with demand. Similar to the project, Reduced Project Alternative #1 would
have potentially significant impacts related to the City’s parks and recreations standard if parkland
would not be provided concurrently with demand. The mitigation measures identified for the proposed
project would be required to ensure adequate park facilities would be provided.
Impacts related to construction of new facilities would decrease compared to the project because less
construction would occur. The Neighborhood Park proposed for Village 8 West would not be developed.
This alternative would not conflict with the parkland designations and policies of the General Plan, Otay
Ranch GDP, or Greenbelt Master Plan. However, this alternative would result in a conflict with the Chula
Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan because it would not include the Neighborhood Park identified
for Village 8 West in the Master Plan. Impacts related to park policies would increase compared to the
project.
Global Climate Change
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in a less than significant impact related to GHG
emissions and compliance with AB 32, similar to the proposed project. Total construction and
operational emissions of GHGs would be reduced under this alternative. Commercial and residential
land uses would be reduced by approximately 40 percent compared to the proposed project; therefore,
it is assumed that GHG emissions from implementation of the proposed project would also be reduced
approximately 40 percent.
Additionally, the significant and unavoidable impact related to exacerbation of air quality problems as a
result of climate change would be reduced under this alternative because operational emissions of
ozone precursors would be reduced. Direct and cumulative impacts related to the potential effects of
climate change would still be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in similar impacts related to water quality standards,
erosion and siltation, surface runoff, drainage capacity, and water quality degradation compared to the
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-15
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
project. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 has the same development footprint as the project and
would result in similar impacts to the existing drainage pattern, and similar construction and
development activities would take place. Generation of pollutants during operation would be slightly
reduced because less development would occur. Similar to the project, mitigation would be required to
reduce hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, this
alternative would not interfere with groundwater supplies and recharge, place housing or structures
within a 100-year flood hazard boundary, conflict with General Plan and GDP policies related to
hydrology and water quality, expose people or structures to significant risk of loss from flooding, or
result in an increased risk of exposure to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Agricultural Resources
A significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to conversion of agricultural
resources would occur under this alternative, similar to the project, because this alternative would have
the same development footprint as the project would result in the conversion of land to non-agricultural
use. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would potentially result in land use
conflicts unless an agricultural plan would be implemented to prevent land us conflicts. This alternative
would not result in any conflict with agricultural policies and impacts would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be similar to the project
under this alternative because similar land uses are proposed. Impacts would be slightly reduced
because less development would occur. Impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials,
hazards to schools, and historic use of pesticides would also be similar because this alternative would
result in ground disturbing activities with the potential to disturb contaminated soil, and both new
schools proposed for Village 8 West would be developed. Similar to the project, impacts related to listed
hazardous sites would be less than significant because no sites are listed for Village 8 West.
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in similar impacts related to airport hazards compared
to the project because similar building heights would be allowed. Impacts related to emergency
response and evacuation plans would be similar under this alternative because the circulation network
proposed for Village 8 West would be fully implemented. Less than significant impacts related to
wildland fire would be similar to the project because similar development would occur along the edge of
the project area, and a Fire Protection Plan would be implemented. Similar to the project, the Reduced
Project Alternative #1 would not conflict with any General Plan and GDP policies related to hazards and
hazardous materials.
Housing and Population
Less than significant impacts related to population growth would be reduced under this alternative
because less residential and economic growth would occur. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project
Alternative #1 would not displace any housing or people, or conflict with any General Plan and GDP
housing and population policies.
Public Utilities
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in reduced demand for water, wastewater treatment,
solid waste, recycled water, and energy compared to the project because less development would
occur. However, the mitigation measures identified for the project to ensure provision of public utilities
concurrent with development would also be required under this alternative. Similar to the project,
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-16
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
future water supply, wastewater treatment, and energy availability cannot be guaranteed; therefore,
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative although demand would be
reduced. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, recycled water impacts would remain significant
and unavoidable until recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant is available to meet the
projected future recycled water demand.
Mineral Resources
Compared to the proposed project, impacts related to mineral resources would be the same under this
alternative. Development of the portion of Village 8 West designated MRZ-2 would not result in a
significant impact associated with mineral resources, because excavation of on-site resources would not
be precluded. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would not result in any conflict
with mineral resources policies. Impacts would be less than significant.
10.3 Reduced Project Alternative #2
As shown in Table 10-1, Reduced Project Alternative #2 (the 672 dwelling unit plan) would include the
development of 672 residential units, compared to 2,050 units under the proposed project. This
alternative is a low-density alternative based on the minimum densities accommodated by the proposed
land uses, shown in Figure 3-3. The lower density alternative is intended to provide more open space
and eliminate mixed-use development.
The greatest reduction in development would occur in the Town Center. Under this alternative, no
mixed-use development is proposed and no residential development would occur in the Town Center.
Residential densities would also be reduced in the Neighborhood Edge, Neighborhood General, and
Neighborhood Central Zones. Commercial development in the Town Center would also be reduced to
104,000 square feet, compared to 300,000 square feet under the project. Additionally, the
Neighborhood Park proposed for the project would be eliminated under this alternative. The park area
(Planning Area T) would be designated for single-family residential development to further reduce
density in the Neighborhood General Zone.
The development footprint would be reduced under this alternative. Portions of Planning Areas N, P,
and V of the proposed project would be replaced with an open space designation. This alternative would
include 40.4 acres of open space, compared to 23.5 acres under the project. This additional open space
area would provide additional transition from developed areas to the MSCP Preserve, but would not be
incorporated into the Preserve. Figure 10-2 summarizes the Reduced Project Alternative #2 site
utilization plan. The potential impacts of this alternative are compared to the proposed project below.
Land Use
Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in a less than significant impact
related to physical division of an established community because no community exists on site and the
proposed land uses would be compatible with surrounding planned land uses. Similar to the project, the
Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not conflict with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Otay
Ranch RMP. The land use incompatibility associated with impedance of access to the City of San Diego
water line would also still occur under this alternative.
0 400 800
Feet ±REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE #2 SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
FIGURE 10-2
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST EIR
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. 2012
*
*
*
Off-site Facilities Corridor/
Greenbelt Trail Connection
Low Medium Density Residential Village (LMV)
Land Use
Town Center (TC)
Medium High Density Residential (MH)
Medium Density Residential (M)
Open Space (OS)
Open Space (Preserve)
Park (P)
School
* Lotting and grading to be determined at Tentative Map
(1)Transects are defined in Chapter 3 of the SPA Plan.
(2)See Chapter 9 of the SPA Plan regarding Intensity Transfer
(3)21,000 square feet of office; 83,000 square feet of retail (excludes Live/Work)
(4)As defined by CVMC 19.48
(5)School sites will revert to the underlying use if sites are not accepted by the school district. Parcel D shall revert to Town
Center and Parcel S shall revert to Medium High Density Residential.
(6)Chula Vista Open Space Preserve
(7)Acreage does not include 19.6-acre San Diego Reservoir
Commercial and Residential
Town Center
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
Target C'ml
Sq.Ft. (K)(2)
B 1.4 T-4: TC 0 5
C 6.9 T-4: TC 0 12
F 3.0 T-4: TC 0 8
H-1 7.8 T-4: TC 0 47
H-2 1.3 T-4: TC 0 5
J 5.4 T-4: TC 0 6
L 14.2 T-4: TC 0 21
X 0.7 T-4: TC 0 0
Subtotal 40.7 0 104
Medium High Density Residential – 11 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
E 5.3 T-3: NC 58
I 6.8 T-3: NC 75
M 8.5 T-3: NC 94
O 8.9 T-3: NC 98
Subtotal 29.5 325
Medium Density Residential
Attached/Detached – 6 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
Q 13.9 T-2: NG 83
U 18.2 T-2: NG 109
Subtotal 32.1 192
Low Medium Density Residential Village – 3 du/ac
Planning
Area
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Target Res.
Units(2)
N 15.7 T-2: NE 47
P 17.9 T-2: NE 54
V 18.1 T-2: NE 54
Subtotal 51.7 155
TOTAL 154.0 672 104K(3)
Public, Quasi Public, and Other
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)(4)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Description
R MH 5.8 SD: CPF CPF(4)
Subtotal 5.8
Potential School (S) Sites(5)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Description
D TC 20.2 T-4: TC Middle
S MH 11.4 T-3: NC Elementary
Subtotal 31.6
Parks (P)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Classification
A P 17.4 SD: P Community
G TC 3.0 SD: P Town Square
Subtotal 20.4
Open Space (OS)
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Classification
Y CVOSP(6) 15.6 T-1: OP Preserve
(MSCP)
OS-1 OS 40.4 T-1: OS Open Space
Subtotal 56.0
Other
Planning
Area
GDP
Land Use
Gross
Acres Transect(1) Description
W TC 2.4 SD: R Basin
Right-of-Way NA 30.1 NA Arterials
Subtotal 32.5
TOTAL 146.3
SPA Total Area: 300.3 Gross Acres (7)
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-18
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-19
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in a significant impact related to consistency with the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan, as amended, because this
alternative would not implement the development envisioned for Village 8 West, or the related
objectives and policies. For example, this alternative would conflict with Objective LUT 81 of the Chula
Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element, which is the development of a higher density,
mixed use, transit-oriented town center positioned on the intersection of Main Street and La Media
Road, surrounded by lower intensity residential use and a large community park. The Reduced Project
Alternative #2 does not propose any mixed-use development or high density residential or commercial
development. The Town Center would continue to be centered on the intersection of Main Street and La
Media Road; however, is would not include mixed-uses as envisioned in the General Plan. Therefore,
this alternative would result in an additional land use impact compared to the project.
Aesthetics/Landform Alteration
Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in similar less than significant
direct impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic roadways. Similar to the proposed project, this
alternative would accommodate structures with heights up to 60 feet tall. Therefore, potentially
significant impacts related to lighting and glare would also occur under this alternative.
This alternative would reduce the grading footprint by approximately 17 acres compared to the
proposed project and impacts to steep slopes by approximately four acres; however, this alternative
would still result in some grading on Rock Mountain and would substantially change the visual character
of Village 8 West and existing views of the project site. Implementation of a Landscape Master Plan
would reduce impacts to Rock Mountain to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project.
This alternative would require the same grading in the northern portion of the project area, less grading
in the southern portion of the project area and, although densities would be reduced, similar land uses
would be developed. Similar to the project, implementation of the design guidelines in the SPA Plan
would reduce visual character impacts; however, this alternative would still result in a significant and
unavoidable direct and cumulative impact to visual character and quality because the loss of rolling hills
would occur. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in less than significant impact related to
consistency with General Plan and GDP policies related to aesthetics and landform alteration.
Transportation and Traffic
Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in reduced direct and
cumulative impacts to traffic and level of service standards and congestion management because
approximately 37 percent less vehicular trips would be generated by this alternative: 16,238 ADT
compared to 26,104 ADT under Village 8 West as proposed, based on the trip generation rates utilized in
the traffic impact analysis (RBF 2013). This alternative assumes an internal capture rate that is
approximately 25 percent of the internal capture rate of the project because the Reduced Project
Alternative #2 would continue to provide commercial and retail opportunities for residents but would
not include any mixed-use or high-density development.
This alternative would include the full circulation network proposed for Village 8 West. The mitigation
measures 5.3-7 through 5.3-16 and 5.3-18 through 5.3-20 would not be required under this alternative
because this alternative would not reach the equivalent dwelling units and associated trips that would
mandate these measures. However, mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-6, and 5.3-17 would still be
required.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-20
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
This alternative would result in a similar maximum number of daily construction trips compared to the
proposed project because similar construction activities would be required; however, the length of
construction and the associated temporary increase in trips would be reduced because less construction
would occur. Similar to the proposed project, the mitigation measures that would be implemented for
this alternative’s operational impacts would also reduce temporary construction impacts to a less than
significant level.
Similar to the project, impacts related to emergency access, road safety, and transportation policies
would be less than significant under this alternative, because the circulation system proposed for Village
8 West would also be implemented under Reduced Project Alternative #2. The Reduced Project
Alternative #2 would also result in similar impacts to air traffic patterns compared to the project
because the same maximum building heights would be allowed under this alternative. FAA notification
would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Air Quality
Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in reduced impacts related to
air quality violations because a smaller volume of construction and operational emissions would result
from this alternative. This alternative would result in similar construction activities as the project, but
would require approximately 17 fewer acres of grading, paving, and building construction compared to
the project (a 7 percent reduction). Therefore, construction emissions would be reduced. However,
similar to the project, construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable under this
alternative due to the amount of grading required, and the potential for simultaneous construction
activities.
Operational emissions would also be lower because vehicle trips and area sources would be reduced
compared to the project. As shown in Table 10-3, NOx, and PM10 emissions would be reduced to a less
than significant level under this alternative. VOC emissions would be reduced by approximately 57
percent; however, direct and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to
the project, for these pollutants.
Impacts related to sensitive receptors would still potentially occur to residences along the edge of
Planning Areas E, I, and M because they would be exposed to similar uses in these areas as the proposed
project. Impacts would be less than significant with the mitigation required for the project.
Impacts related to odors would be the same under this alternative because no new receptors would be
located in the vicinity of Otay Landfill as the project. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not
exceed the RAQS growth assumption for Village 8 West (1,556 residential units); however, this
alternative would still result in new significant and unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions and would
remain inconsistent with the RAQS and SIP. Similar to the project, direct and cumulative impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. Less than significant impacts related to General Plan and GDP air
quality policies would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #2.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-21
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-3 Operation Maximum Daily Emissions – Reduced Project Alternative #2
Emissions Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/ day)
CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
Vehicular Sources(1) 228 24 19 1 125 24
Area Sources
Natural Gas(2) 14 1 20 0 0 0
Hearth (fireplaces)(3) 0 0 1 0 0 0
Landscape 24 3 0 0 0 0
Consumer Products 0 34 0 0 0 0
Architectural Coatings(4) 0 11 0 0 0 0
Reduced Project Alternative #2 Total Emissions 266 73 40 1 125 24
Proposed Village 8 West Total Emissions 427 169 69 1 201 39
Significance Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No Yes No No No No
CO = carbon monoxide; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
(1) Modeling assumptions: Calculations assume the full development of project at buildout (2030). Output is for summer
emissions, with the exception of hearth emissions, where winter emissions were added to the daily emissions for a worst-
case condition.
(2) Other assumptions include: Based on an ADT of 17,854 trips and an estimated vehicle trip length of 4.62 miles, which
accounts for internal capture from mixed-use development, the reduction in vehicle trips compared to similar developments
that do not provide access to transit, and the TDM program in the SPA Plan. A four percent vehicular emission reduction for
VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions was applied for traffic light synchronization based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (1993). Assumes buildings comply with 15% above 2008 Title 24 standards.
(3) Assumes 15 percent of homes would have fireplaces, consistent with assumptions of the GPA/GDPA SEIR. No wood burning
fireplaces would be allowed.
(4) Assumes model defaults for low VOC coatings (250 grams of VOC per liter or less).
Source: CARB 2007.
Noise
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in reduced direct and cumulative impacts related to
exposure of on-site receptors to excessive noise levels compared to the project because less traffic
would result in lower noise levels within Village 8 West. However, due to cumulative increases in traffic,
including the Reduced Project Alternative #2 Trips, substantial traffic noise would still be generated by
the on-site roadways. No impacts to residences would occur in the Town Center; therefore, impacts to
residences in Planning Areas B, C, F, H1, H2, J, and L would be eliminated under this alternative.
However, NSLU would still be proposed in areas adjacent to commercial and neighborhood park uses,
such as Planning Areas E, I, and M and the middle school site (Planning Area D). Outdoor usable areas in
the Town Center would also have the potential to be exposed to excessive noise. The mitigation
measures required for the proposed project would also be required for the Reduced Project
Alternative #2.
Less than significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and potentially significant temporary
increases in ambient noise would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #2
because similar construction activities would occur and short-term traffic related noise would increase.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-22
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce impacts related to the substantial permanent increase
in off-site ambient noise levels on off-site roads compared to the project because fewer trips would be
generated from Village 8 West. However, due to cumulative increases in traffic on off-site roadways,
including the Reduced Project Alternative #2 trips, impacts would still be significant. The short-term
significant impact that would result from the project would still occur under this alternative.
Less than significant impacts related to aircraft noise and consistency with General Plan and GDP noise
policies would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #2.
Biological Resources
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in reduced impacts related to special status plant and
wildlife species, riparian habitat, and other sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands,
and consistency with the MSCP and RMP compared to the project because this alternative would have a
smaller development footprint compared to the project. Approximately 10 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub and approximately 7 acres of extensive agricultural habitat that would be directly impacted
under the project would be designated as open space under the Reduced Project Alternative #2.
However, potentially significant direct impacts would still occur under this alternative, including impacts
to coastal sage scrub.
Indirect impacts to the Preserve would be reduced under this alternative because less development is
proposed to the north and east of the Preserve. However, development would still occur adjacent to the
Preserve to the northeast and indirect impacts to sensitive species outside of the Preserve would have
the potential to occur along the edge of development and open space, similar to the proposed project.
The mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would also be required for direct and
indirect impacts under this alternative.
Cultural Resources
Similar to the project, impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant under the
Reduced Project Alternative #2 because no historical resources are located in Village 8 West. Potentially
significant impacts related to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources
would be reduced under this alternative because the alternative development footprint would be
reduced compared to the project. However, impacts to unknown resources would still have the
potential to occur as a result of ground-disturbing construction activities. Similar to the project,
cumulative impacts related to unknown archaeological resources and human remains would be
significant and unavoidable. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would be
consistent with General Plan and GDP policies related to cultural resources, and impact would be less
than significant.
Geology and Soils
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in similar potentially significant impacts related to
exposure to seismic related hazards, soil stability, soil erosion and topsoil loss, and expansive soils that
would occur under the project because similar development is proposed across the majority of the
project area. The geotechnical recommendations and compliance with applicable regulations as
required by the project mitigation measures would still be required for development under this
alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would be consistent
with General Plan and GDP geotechnical policies and would not require any septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-23
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Public Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Police Services, Schools, and Libraries. The Reduced Project
Alternative #2 would result in less demand for fire and emergency medical services, schools, and
libraries because fewer residential units would be constructed, and the Reduced Project Alternative #2
would generate less population growth. However, new development under this alternative would still
have the potential to affect the ability for services to meet the City’s services standards if the services
are not provided commensurate with need. The mitigation measures required for the project would also
be required for Reduced Project Alternative #2.
Impacts related to schools siting would be similar compared to the project because the two new schools
proposed in the SPA Plan and TM would also be developed under this alternative in the same locations.
Therefore, the mitigation measures required for the project would also be required for this alternative.
Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would be consistent with all General Plan and
GDP policies related to fire and emergency medical, police, school, and library services with
implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails. Based on the CVMC method for calculating parkland
requirements, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would require 6.0 acres of parkland to serve the
proposed development. This alternative would provide 20.4 acres of community park and town square
parkland. However, similar to the proposed project, impacts related to deterioration of existing park
facilities would be significant if parkland would not be provided concurrently with demand. Impacts
related to construction of new facilities would decrease compared to the project because the
Neighborhood Park proposed in the SPA Plan and TM would not be constructed.
Similar to the project, Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in similar potentially significant
impacts related to the City’s parks and recreation standard because mitigation would be required to
ensure parkland is provided concurrent with demand. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative
would not conflict with the parkland designations and policies of the General Plan, GDP, or Greenbelt
Master Plan. However, this alternative would result in a conflict with the Chula Vista Parks and
Recreation Master Plan because it would not include the Neighborhood Park identified for Village 8
West in the Master Plan. Impacts related to park policies would be greater than the proposed project.
Global Climate Change
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would further minimize the less than significant impact related to
GHG emissions and compliance with AB 32 identified for the proposed project because construction and
operational emissions of GHGs would be reduced under this alternative. Commercial and residential
land uses would be reduced by approximately 65 percent compared to the proposed project; therefore,
it is assumed that GHG emissions from implementation of the proposed project would also be reduced
approximately 65 percent.
Additionally, the significant and unavoidable impact related to exacerbation of air quality problems as a
result of climate change would be reduced under this alternative because operational emissions of
ozone precursors would be reduced. However, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would still have the
potential to exacerbate air quality problems because it would result in significant and unavoidable VOC
emissions. Direct and cumulative impacts related to effects of climate change would be significant and
unavoidable, similar to the project.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-24
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in reduced impacts related to water quality standards,
erosion and siltation, surface runoff, drainage capacity, and water quality degradation compared to the
project. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 has a smaller development footprint than the project, and
would result in fewer changes to the existing drainage pattern, and fewer construction and
development activities would take place. Generation of pollutants during operation would be reduced
because less development would occur. However, similar to the project, mitigation would be required to
reduce hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, this
alternative would not interfere with groundwater supplies and recharge, place housing or structures
within a 100-year flood hazard boundary, conflict with General Plan and GDP policies related to
hydrology and water quality, expose people or structures to significant risk of loss from flooding, or
result in an increased risk of exposure to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Agricultural Resources
A significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to conversion of agricultural
resources would occur under this alternative, similar to the project. This alternative would have a
smaller development footprint compared to the project; however, the undeveloped area would be
designated open space and would not be available for agricultural use. This alternative would result in
the same conversion of land to non-agricultural use compared to the project. Potentially significant
impacts related to land use conflicts would also occur under this alternative unless an agriculture plan is
implemented. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not result in any conflict
with agricultural policies. Impacts related to agricultural zoning and policies would be less than
significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be similar to the project
under this alternative because similar land uses are proposed. Impacts would be slightly reduced
because less development would occur and less population growth would be generated. Impacts related
to accidental release of hazardous materials, hazards to schools, and historic use of pesticides would
also be similar to the project because this alternative would result in similar ground disturbing activities
with the potential to disturb contaminated soil. Similar to the project, impacts related to listed
hazardous sites would be less than significant because no sites are listed for Village 8 West.
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts related to airport hazards compared
to the project because similar building heights would be allowed. Impacts related to emergency
response and evacuation plans would be similar under this alternative because the circulation network
proposed for Village 8 West would be fully implemented.
Impacts related to wildland fire would be similar to the project because similar development is proposed
along the wildland interface at the development edge of the project area, and a Fire Protection Plan
would be implemented. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not conflict
with any General Plan and GDP policies related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Housing and Population
Direct impacts related to population growth would be reduced under this alternative compared to the
project because less residential and economic growth would occur. Similar to the project, the Reduced
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-25
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Project Alternative #2 would not displace any housing or people, or conflict with any General Plan and
GDP housing and population policies.
Public Utilities
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in less demand for water, wastewater treatment, solid
waste, recycled water, and energy compared to the project because less development would occur and
less population growth would be generated. However, the mitigation measures identified for the project
to ensure provision of public utilities concurrent with development would also be required under this
alternative. Similar to the project, future water supply, wastewater treatment, and energy availability
cannot be guaranteed; therefore, impacts related to water supply, wastewater and energy would
remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative although demand would be reduced.
Additionally, similar to the proposed project, recycled water impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable until recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant is available to meet the
projected future recycled water demand. This impact would be reduced under the Reduced Project
Alternative #2 because demand for recycled water would be reduced under this alternative.
Mineral Resources
Impacts related to mineral resources would be the same as the project under this alternative.
Development of the small portion of Village 8 West designated MRZ -2 would not be a significant impact
because excavation of significant mineral resources would not be precluded . An additional portion of
the MRZ-2 would be designated open space under the Reduced Project Alternative #2. The open space
designation would not preclude excavation of mineral resources in this area. Similar to the project, the
Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not result in any conflict with mineral resources policies. Impacts
would be less than significant.
10.4 Fulfillment of Project Objectives
The following sections provide a discussion of whether each alternative would meet the project
objectives. A summary comparison of the alternatives considered to the project objectives is shown in
Table 10-4.
Table 10-4 Comparison of Consistency with Project Objectives
Objective
Project Alternatives
No Project
(No Build)
Alternative
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
1. Create a recognizable “place” that is unique, attractive, and full of
cultural and social diversity. No Yes Yes
2. Develop distinctive design standards and invest in design excellence
to create inspiring and memorable places; emphasize the appearance
and qualities of the public realm; create streetscapes, pathways, and
public spaces of beauty, interest, and functional benefit to
pedestrians.
No Yes Yes
3. Encourage development patterns that promote orderly growth,
prevent urban sprawl, and promote effective resource management. No Yes Yes
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-26
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-4 Comparison of Consistency with Project Objectives (continued)
Objective
Project Alternatives
No Project
(No Build)
Alternative
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
4. Protect and enhance the natural environment and increase the
quality of life. Design neighborhoods with compact and multi-
dimensional land use patterns that ensures a mix of uses and joint
optimization of transportation modes to minimize the impact of cars,
promote walking and bicycling, and provide access to employment,
education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services.
No Yes Partial
5. Create an appropriately scaled and economically healthy Town
Center. Include a wide range of commercial, residential, cultural,
civic, recreational uses, and businesses that serve the daily needs of
nearby residents.
No Partial No
6. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense,
vibrant Town Center to reduce reliance on the automobile and
promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and regional transit.
No Yes Yes
7. Encourage community development in mixed use and compact
pedestrian oriented forms to accommodate all income levels and
lifestyles.
No Partial No
8. Foster a compact form facilitated by “form-based planning,” resulting
in efficient infrastructure investments and advanced opportunities to
provide socially diverse housing.
No Yes Yes
9. Retain and recruit a skilled and motivated workforce to ensure
economic stability into the future by providing attainable housing
opportunities. Promote jobs that match the skills of existing and
future residents through provision of housing opportunities and
choices and by providing an opportunity for the City to attract a
university or related uses by dedication of land for such purposes.
No Yes Partial
10. Promote synergistic uses and graceful transitions within the SPA and
between the SPA and neighborhoods of adjacent SPAs to balance
activities, services, and facilities. Integrate Village 8 West with
existing Otay Ranch development, including connectivity to the
Greenbelt.
No Yes Yes
11. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Chula
Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan.
No Partial Partial
12. Encourage the interactivity of a wide range of people, promote
community diversity, and enrich the human experience by providing a
broad variety of public spaces and housing types and styles that
appeal to all ages, incomes, and lifestyles.
No Partial Partial
13. Establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with
consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. No Yes Yes
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-27
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
No Project (No Build) Alternative
This alternative would not attain any of the 13 objectives of the project because no SPA Plan or TM
would be adopted and no development would occur. Therefore, the No Project (No Build) Alternative
would not accomplish any of the following:
■ Create a recognizable place, develop design standards;
■ Encourage an orderly growth pattern;
■ Design neighborhoods with compact and multi-dimensional land use patterns;
■ Create a town center;
■ Establish a pedestrian-oriented village;
■ Encourage community development in mixed use and compact pedestrian oriented forms;
■ Retain and recruit a skilled and motivated workforce to ensure economic stability into the future
by providing attainable housing opportunities;
■ Foster a compact form facilitated by form-based planning;
■ Promote transitions with and between SPAs;
■ Implement the goals of the General Plan and GDP; or
■ Establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and
anticipated economic conditions.
Reduced Project Alternative #1
This alternative would attain nine of the 13 objectives of the project and would partially attain the
remaining four objectives. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would meet Objective 1 because it would
create a recognizable place. It would meet Objectives 2 and 3 because it would develop design
standards and encourage an orderly growth pattern. This alternative would meet Objectives 4 and 6
because it would design neighborhoods with compact and multi-dimensional land use patterns and
establish a pedestrian-oriented village. It would meet Objective 9 because it would retain and recruit a
skilled and motivated workforce to ensure economic stability into the future by providing attainable
housing opportunities. This alternative would foster a compact form facilitated by form-based planning
and promote transitions with and between SPA plan areas; therefore, it would meet Objectives 8 and
10. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would meet Objective 13 because it would establish a plan that
is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions.
The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would create a town center, but under this alternative the Town
Center would include only limited residential and commercial uses. The Town Center would not be
appropriately scaled in comparison to town centers in neighboring villages, or to serve the daily needs of
residents in Village 8 West as well as surrounding development. This alternative would only partially
encourage community development in mixed use and compact pedestrian oriented forms because
mixed-use development would be limited to Planning Areas F and J. The remaining town center area
would not include mixed-use residential development. This alternative would partially implement the
goals of the General Plan and GDP because it would provide similar land uses, but not to the extent
planned for in the GDP and General Plan. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide a range of
housing types and styles; however, choices would be limited compared to the proposed project.
Additionally, the number of mixed-used residential units that would have the potential to provide
affordable housing would be reduced by approximately 60 percent. Therefore, the Reduced Project
Alternative #1 would only partially meet Objectives 5, 7, 11, and 12.
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-28
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Reduced Project Alternative #2
This alternative would attain seven of the 13 objectives of the project, would partially attain four
objectives, and would not attain 2 objectives. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would create a
recognizable place and would therefore meet Objective 1. This alternative would meet Objectives 2 and
3 because it would develop design standards and encourage an orderly growth pattern. It would meet
Objective 6 because it would establish a pedestrian-oriented village. This alternative would meet
Objectives 8 and 10 because it would foster a compact form facilitated by form-based planning and
promote transitions with and between SPA plan areas. This alternative would establish a plan that is
fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions and
would therefore meet Objective 13.
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would protect and enhance the natural environment, but would not
design compact neighborhoods with a mix of land uses. This alternative would partially implement the
goals of the General Plan and GDP because it would provide similar land uses, but not to the extent
planned for in the GDP and General Plan. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide range of
housing types and styles; however, choices would be limited compared to the proposed project.
Additionally, no mixed-used residential units, which have potential provide affordable housing, would be
developed under this alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would only partially
meet Objectives 4, 9, 11, and 12.
The Reduced Project Alternative would not meet Objective #5 because the Town Center would not
include any residential use, and less commercial uses. The Town Center would not be appropriately
scaled in comparison to town centers in neighboring villages, or to serve the daily needs of residents in
Village 8 West as well as surrounding development. This alternative would not meet Objective #7
because no mixed-use development is proposed.
10.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, as it would
entirely avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics (direct and
cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), noise (short-term direct), archaeological resources and
human remains (cumulative), potential effects of climate change (direct and cumulative), agricultural
resources (direct and cumulative), water supply (direct and cumulative), wastewater treatment capacity
(cumulative), recycled water (cumulative), and energy (direct and cumulative). However, as the No
Project (No Build) Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, another environmentally
superior alternative must be identified among the remaining alternatives.
The Reduced Project Alternative #2 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as it would
reduce traffic (direct and cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), noise (direct and cumulative),
biological resources (direct), public services (direct), water quality (direct), and public utilities (direct and
cumulative) impacts. Mitigation measures 5.3-7 through 5.3-16 and 5.3-18 through 5.3-20 identified for
potential traffic impacts would not be required under this alternative and mitigation measure 5.5-3
would not be required for excessive noise impacts to residences in Planning Areas B, C, F, G, H1, H2, J,
and L because no residences are proposed in these areas. However, as with the Reduced Project
Alternative #1, this alternative would not avoid any of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with aesthetics (cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), noise (short-term direct),
archaeological resources and human remains (cumulative), potential effects of climate change (direct
and cumulative), agricultural resources (direct and cumulative), water supply (direct and cumulative),
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-29
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
wastewater treatment capacity (cumulative), recycled water (cumulative), and energy (direct and
cumulative). This alternative would reduce significant VOC emissions by approximately 57 percent and
energy use by approximately 65 percent. Table 10-5 provides a generalized summary comparison of the
project and the three project alternatives.
Table 10-5 Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to Proposed Project
Issue Areas
Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
No Project
(No Build)
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
5.1 Land Use and Planning
Land Use Compatibility PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, & Regulations LS LS ▲ ▲ ▲
Cumulative NCC NCC ▲ ▲ ▲
Conflicts with HCPs or NCCPs PS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
5.2 Aesthetics/Landform Alteration
Scenic Vistas LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Scenic Resources PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Visual Character or Quality PS SU ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Lighting and Glare PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Landform Alteration PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Visual Character Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
5.3 Transportation and Traffic
Traffic and Level of Service Standards S LS ▲ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ▲ ▼ ▼
Congestion Management S LS ▲ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ▲ ▼ ▼
Air Traffic Patterns PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Road Safety LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Emergency Access LS LS ▲ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▲ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Transportation Policies LS LS ▲ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-30
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-5 Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to Proposed Project (continued)
Issue Areas
Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
No Project
(No Build)
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
5.4 Air Quality
Air Quality Violations S SU ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▼ ▼
Sensitive Receptors PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Objectionable Odors LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Air Quality Plans S SU ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▼ ▼
Consistency with Air Quality Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
5.5 Noise
Excessive Noise Levels S LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▼ ▼
Excessive Groundborne Vibration LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Aircraft Noise LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Noise Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
5.6 Biological Resources
Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species S LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural
Communities S LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Federally Protected Wetlands S LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Local Policies, Ordinances, HCP and NCCP PS LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
5.7 Cultural Resources
Historical Resources LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Archaeological Resources PS LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▼
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-31
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-5 Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to Proposed Project (continued)
Issue Areas
Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
No Project
(No Build)
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
Human Remains PS LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▼
Paleontological Resources PS LS ○ ▬ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▼
Consistency with Cultural Resource Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
5.8 Geology and Soils
Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Soil Stability PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Expansive Soils PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Geotechnical Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
Waste Water Disposal Systems LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
5.9 Public Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Facilities LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Fire Protection Service Standard PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Consistency with Fire and Emergency Medical
Service Policies PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Police Services
Police Service Facilities LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Police Service Standard PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Consistency with Police Service Policies PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Schools
School Facilities PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Schools Siting PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with School Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Libraries
Library Facilities LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Library Service Standard PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Consistency with Library Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-32
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-5 Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to Proposed Project (continued)
Issue Areas
Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
No Project
(No Build)
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails
Deterioration of Facilities PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
New Recreational Facilities LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Parks and Recreation Standard PS LS ▲ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Park Policies LS LS ▲ ▲ ▲
Cumulative CC LCC ▲ ▲ ▲
5.10 Global Climate Change
Compliance with AB 32 LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC LCC ○ ▬ ▬
Potential Effects of Global Climate Change PS SU ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▼ ▼
5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality Standards PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Groundwater Supplies and Recharge LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Erosion or Siltation PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Surface Runoff PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Exceed Drainage Capacity PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Degradation of Water Quality PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
100-Year Flood Hazards LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Water Quality Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
Flooding LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Inundation LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
5.12 Agricultural Resources
Direct Conversion of Agricultural Resources PS SU ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Land Use Zoning Conflicts PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Agricultural Resource Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-33
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-5 Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to Proposed Project (continued)
Issue Areas
Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
No Project
(No Build)
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
5.13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Routine Use and Accidental Release of Hazardous
Materials PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Hazards to Schools PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Existing Hazardous Materials Sites LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Airport Hazards PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Wildland Fires LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Hazard Policies PS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
Historic Use of Pesticides PS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
5.14 Housing/Population
Displacement of Housing and People LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Housing and Population Policies LS LS ▲ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
5.15 Public Utilities
Water
New Water Treatment Facilities LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Long-Term Water Supply and Entitlements PS SU ○ ▬ ▬
Compliance with City-wide Supply Thresholds PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Consistency with Water Supply Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Wastewater
Adequate Wastewater Facilities PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
New Wastewater Treatment Facilities PS SU ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with City Engineering Standards LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Wastewater Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▬ ▬
Solid Waste
Sufficient Landfill Capacity LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Solid Waste Regulations LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Solid Waste Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Chapter 10 Alternatives
Otay Ranch Village 8 West EIR
CV EIR 10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 Page 10-34
City of Chula Vista
November 2013
Table 10-5 Summary of Alternative Impacts Compared to Proposed Project (continued)
Issue Areas
Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
No Project
(No Build)
Reduced Project
Alternative #1 –
1,167 Dwelling
Units
Reduced Project
Alternative #2 –
672 Dwelling
Units
Recycled Water
New Recycled Water Facilities PS LS ○ ▼ ▼
Consistency with Recycled Water Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▼ ▼
Energy
Energy Resources S SU ○ ▼ ▼
Wasteful Use of Energy LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Energy Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative CC SU ○ ▼ ▼
5.16 Mineral Resources
Mineral Resource Availability LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Mineral Resource Recovery Sites LS LS ○ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ○ ▬ ▬
Consistency with Mineral Resources Policies LS LS ▬ ▬ ▬
Cumulative NCC NCC ▬ ▬ ▬
▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts to issue when compared to project.
▬ Alternative is likely to result in a similar impacts to issue when compared to project.
▼ Alternative is likely to result in less impacts to issue when compared to project, however, impacts would still be significant
before and/or after mitigation.
○ No impact would occur as a result of the Alternative.
CC = Cumulatively Considerable
LCC = Project would contribute to a cumulative impact, but contribution would less than Cumulatively Considerable
LS = Less Than Significant Impact
NCC = Not Cumulatively Considerable (A cumulatively considerable impact would not occur)
PS = Potentially Significant
S = Significant Impact
SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact