HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2002-021 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-021
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYiNG THE FINAL SECOND TIER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-01) FOR THE
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA PLAN; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT;
ADOPTiNG A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDiNG
CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTiNG PROGRAM PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, McMillin Land Development, submitted an application requesting approval
of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Village Six ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report 98-01 (EIR 98-01) was issued for
public review on September 28, 2001, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating for
Draft EIR 98-01 on November 14, 2001, to close the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating for
EIR 98-01 on January 9, 2002, and certified EIR 98-01 and adopted the findings of fact,
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Further, the Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council certify the document
and adopt the findings of fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 98-01) was prepared on the
Village Six Sectional Planning Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, FEIR 98-01 incorporates, by reference, the prior EIR's that address the
subject property including the Chula Vista General Plan EIR; the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
Program EIR (90-01), the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update (94-03); Otay Ranch
SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR (95-01); Final Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch
SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (97-03); the Otay Water District Resources Master Plan
Final Master EIR (97-04); the Village Six SPA Plan; the Village Six Public Facilitiea Finance
Plan; the Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33); the Final Eastlake III
Woods and Vistas Replanning Program EIR (01-01), as well as their associated Findings of Fact
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated December 17, 2001, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution,
conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR 98-01 are feasible and have
not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the
Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not
merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted mitigation
measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "B" of
Resolution 2002-021
Page 2
this Resolution, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of
Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANN1NG COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public heatings on EIR 98-01 held on January 9, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the ~:ecord of this proceeding. These documents, along
with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings
for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources
Code §21000 et seq.).
II. FEIR 98-01 CONTENTS
That FEIR 98-01 consists of the following:
1. Second Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan (including technical
appendices); and
2. Public Comments and Responses to Comment
3. Errata
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 98-01")
III. ACCOMPANYiNG DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 98-01
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 98-01, the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution), and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) are prepared in accordance
with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resoumes Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines
(California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of
the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
Resolution 2002-021
Page 3
That the City Council finds that the FEIR 98-01 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. CEQA F1ND1NGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in
full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact,
Exhibit "A" of this Resolution.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives,
certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or
cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the
form set forth in Exhibit "A," identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations
that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
C. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 98-01 and in the Findings of Fact for this
project, which is Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in
the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as
the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
D. Infeasibility of Altematives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 98-01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section
XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the
project, which were identified in FEIR 98-01, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level or meet the project objectives.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit "B." The City Council
further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the
permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components
and comply with thc mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VII NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Resolution 2002-021
Page 4
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') (Public Resources Code §21000 et
seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council finds that FEIR 98-01, the
Findings of Fact (with the revisions related to the Birch Road/SR-125 interchange) and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution), and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) have been prepared in
accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), CEQA
Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, the City Council certifies EIR 98-01 and
adopts the Findings of Fact (with the revisions related to the Birch Road/SR-125 interchange)
and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director ~!I,Y Attorney
Resolution 2002-021
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 22nd day of January, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
Shlrley Hortoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk '~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2002-021 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 22na day of January, 2002.
Executed this 22na day of January, 2002.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
R2002-021
Exhibit A
SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SlX
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA)
PLAN
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
December 17, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DEFINITIONS 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
IV. BACKGROUND 6
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 6
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA 9
VII. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS 11
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 11
A. Land Use 16
B. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality 17
C. Biological Resources 19
D. Cultural Resources 21
E. GeoLogy 23
F. Paleontological Resources 25
G. Agriculture 27
I. Transportation/Traffic 31
J. Air Quality 35
K. Noise 38
L Public Facilities 40
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES 51
A. Land Use 51
B. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality 52
C. Biological Resources 52
D. Cultural Resources 52
E. Agriculture 53
F, Water Resources and Water Quality 53
G. Transportation/Traffic 54
H. Air Quality 62
I. Public Facilities 63
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 67
A. No Project Alternative 70
B. Reduced Density Alternative 72
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRiDING CONSiDERATIONS 74
FINDINGS OF FACT
INTRODUCTION
The Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR)1 prepared for this project
addressed the potential environmental effects of a proposed project for Village Six of the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area, the adoption of a Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan with associated regulatory documents, and the adoption of an
amendment to the circulation element of the Chula Vista General Plan.
In addition, the EIR evaluated two alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project
alternative, which assumes no development of the Village Six SPA Plan area, and a
reduced intensity alternative.
These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, 15000 et seq.).
'[ The EIR (City of Chula Vista 98-01 ) incorporates previously prepared documents, including the City of
Chula Vista General Plan EIR, Final Program EIR tbr the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-
Regional Plan EIR (90-01). City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Final Program EIR (94-03)
Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR (95-0l), Final Second Tier EIR for Otay
Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (EIR 97-03), Otay Water District Water Resources Master
Plan, Final Master EIR (EIR 97-04), Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33), Village
Six SPA Plan. Public Facilities Finance Plan for Village Six, EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning
Program EIR (EIP. 01-01) by reference.
Il.
DEFINITIONS
"ADT" means average daily traffic.
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
"BMPs" means best management practices.
"CDFG" means California Department of Fish and Game.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"City" means City of Chula Vista.
"CNEL" means community noise equivalent level.
"Conceptual TMs" means Conceptual Tentative Map.
"CPF" means Community Purpose Facilities. '
"dB(A)" means A-weighted decibels.
"du/ac" means dwelling units per acre.
"EIR" means Second Tier Environmental Impact Report.
"GDP" means General Development Plan.
"GMOC" means Growth Management Oversight Conunittee.
"gpd" means gallons per day.
"mgd" means tnillion gallons per day.
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program.
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
"OTC" means Olympic Training Center.
2
"OWD" means Otay Water District.
"PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan.
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards.
"SAMP" means Subarea Water Master Plan.
"SANDAG" means San Diego Association of Governments.
"SCAQMD" means South Coast Air Quality Management District.
"SPA" means Sectional Planning Area.
"SR" means State Route.
"SWPPP" means storm water pollution prevention plan.
"SWRCB" means State Water Resources Control Board.
"USACE' means U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
"USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Village Six SPA Plan proposes development of 2,086 dwelling units (883
single-family and 1,203 multi-family units) on approximately 237 acres. The remaining
149 acres would be developed with non-residential uses, including community purpose
facilities, schools, a public park, commercial uses, open space, and circulation rights-of-
way.
A private high school is proposed for the southern area of the project. Should the high
school not be developed, the underlying land use would permit the consU'uction of 146
single-family homes. If the single-family homes are built instead of the high school, the
total number of units proposed for the project would be 2,232. Both the high school and
the residential use options are considered in the EIR. A tentative map would have to be
processed for these residential units to be developed, and subsequent environmental
review, if needed, would be completed by the City of Chula Vista. A private high school
and associated church facilities are proposed in the southeast corner of the village within
the areas designated R-I 1/S-2 and CPF-2, respectively. The high school is proposed to
include 245,000 square feet of building space and associated outdoor activity areas. The
school is anticipated to have a capacity of 2,200 students, a faculty of about 150, and a
staff of approximately 50 employees.
Approximately 7.2 million cubic yards of earthwork is proposed in two separate
operations as a part of the project. All graded material will be reused on-site to achieve
balanced earthwork. The Village Core will be generally fiat and grading will be designed
to be sensitive to the requirements for the regional transit.
A 14.3-acre borrow/storage site will be located south of Birch Road and will be used for
the borrowing or storage of up to 300,000 cubic yards of material. A 42-acre
borrow/storage site will be located east of SR-125 within Planning Area 12 and will be
used for the borrowing or storage of up to one million cubic yards of material.
Discretionary Actions
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
include the adoption of a SPA Plan for Village Six and the reclassification of Birch Road
between La Media and SR-125 from a four-lane major to a six-lane major arterial road.
The City Council xvill also determine whether the final EIR is complete and in
compliance with CEQA as part of the certification process.
With the adoption of a SPA Plan, specific development can occur only after the approval
of a variety of permits and maps. Subsequent environmental review will be required for
4
the tentative maps and conditional use permits. The actions to which the final EIR applies
are the adoption of the SPA Plan for Village Six, and the amendments m the Otay Ranch
GDP and Circulation Element of the General Plan that are necessary to reclassify Birch
Road to a six-lane major arterial.
The City is the Lead Agency and has discretionary power of approval for all the actions
sought by the applicant for the proposed project. The final EIR is intended to satisfy
CEQA requirements for environmental review of those actions. Future discretionary
approvals may be required. No other actions by other agencies or jurisdictions have been
identified that would be required to accomplish the project as proposed.
Project Goals and Objectives
As specified in the Village Six SPA plan, the objectives of the proposed project are
detailed as follows:
hnplement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan,
particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan;
Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Program to ensure that public
facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the
demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements;
Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban
sprawl;
Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the city of Chula
Vista and surrounding neighborhoods;
Establish a pedestrian-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and to promote walking, as well as the use of bicycles,
buses, and regional transit;
Promote synergistic uses between villages to balance activities, services, and
Accentuate the relationship of the land plan with its natural setting and the
physical character of the region, and promote effective management of natural
resources by concentrating development into less sensitive areas, while preserving
large contiguous open space areas with sensitive resources;
Contribute to the unique Otay Ranch image and identity that differentiates Otay
Ranch from other communities;
Wisely manage limited physical resources;
Implement development consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch
resource conservation and management plans; and
Establish a land use and facility plan that assures village viability in consideration
of existing and anticipated economic conditions.
IV.
BACKGROUND
Village Six is one of 11 urban villages in the Otay Ranch GDP. The Otay Ranch is a
master-planned community encompassing approximately 23,000 acres and includes a
broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development. Civic and
community uses--such as libraries, parks, and schools--and about 11,375 acres
preserved as open space are also included within the Otay Ranch. Each village is based
on the "village concept" that blends multi-family homes and shops with parks, schools,
and civic activities in a core area within the Village. The Village Core is surrounded by
single-family houses in secondary areas. All are tied together by pedestrian facilities.
The Otay Ranch GDP was adopted by the City and the County of San Diego in October
1993. Both agencies were involved in the development and approval of the plan because
the planning area included land falling within the jurisdiction of both agencies. The Otay
Ranch GDP established goals and objectives for the development of the area. As part of
the review and approval process for the GDP, a Program Ell>, was prepared.
Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP, SPA plans are required to
be approved before final development entitlements can be considered. The proposed
SPA Plan will further refine the development standards, land plans, goals, objectives, and
policies for Village Six.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the
following:
The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the project;
The Draft and Final Second Tier EIR for the project (EIR g98-01), including
appendixes and technical reports;
All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documents
prepared by the planning consultant, the project applicant, the environmental
consultant, the McMillin Companies, the Otay Ranch Company, and the City, that are
before the decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public
and public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the
EIR for the project;
All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the
public in connection with this project, up through the close of the public hearing;
Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not available or
adequate, with respect to this project or the EIR for the project;
Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public heatings for this project;
All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with this
project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and
Matters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council
considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, and including but not limited to the following:
- Chula Vista General Plan;
~o!e¥~mt ?m'ti~ns ,~f the To!ling C~de': ~,~f t~¢ City:
7
- Final Program EIR for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-Regional
Plan EIR (90-01);
- City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Final Program EIR (94-03);
- Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR (95-01);
- Final Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments
(EIR 97-03);
- Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan, Final Master EIR (EIR 97-04);
- Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33);
- Village Six SPA Plan;
- Public Facilities Finance Plan for Village Six SPA;
EastLake IH Woods and Vistas Replanning Program EIR (EIR 01-01); and
- Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow,
Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision
on the Village Six SPA plan, even if not every document was formally presented to the
City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the
Village Six SPA Plan. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in
the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or
legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approving the Village Six
SPA Plan. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Ix~cal Agency Formation Commi&sion (1978) 76
Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988) 205 Cal. App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal.Rptr. 620].) Other
~onume,,tq i~*~,,ep~ced t. he ~'xpert ',',dvice pro'~idcd ~o Ci() Staff o~' co~sultants, wino ~hen
provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the
underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the
Village Six SPA Plan. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10);
Browning-Ferris b~dustries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d
852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus
(1995) 33 Cai.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)
8
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEOA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by
CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the
significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis
added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social,
or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, section
21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant
environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency
must issue written findings reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The
first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The
second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The
third potential finding is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code
section 21061.1 defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
,'(~-;~! ;~d t~'bt~lf~,.;r-~! rr,,ctors." CEQ,~, Cu~!~lin~::; :~ccfi~n '.5364 adds :mol1~ ~'~tcto~:
"legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
("Goleta 1I") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 410, 417 [183
Cal. Rptr. 898].) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent
that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
9
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills
Homeowners Assm v. CiO' of Oakland (1993) 23 Cai.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal. Rptr.2d
182].)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA
Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen .the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code, section 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to
reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be
mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978)
83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that
an agencY had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects
by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant
impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question
has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened
but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
in short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,
where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that
would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however,
where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project
lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
10
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible
environmentally superior alternatives, a public agency, after adopting proper findings,
may nevertheless approve the project if the agency f'n:st adopts a statement of overriding
considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's
"benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects."
(CEQA Guidelines, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code,
section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he wisdom of
approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of
interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it
simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52
Cal.3d 553,576.)
VI/.
LEGAL EIq"ECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Ell>, are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City (or
"decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the
applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to
implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational
or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the
City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with
these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l), the City, in adopting
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as
prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is
designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other
responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The
program is described in the document entitled Village Six SPA Mitigation Monitoring
11
Reporting Program. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the
compliance period.
SIGNIFICANT EIq-~ECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Second Tier EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental
effects (or "impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the
adoption of feasible nfitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided.
The project will result in significant irreversible environmental changes with regard to the
following issues: land use, transportation/traffic, biological resources,
hydrology/drainage, landform alteration/visual quality, geology/geologic hazards, noise,
air quality, cultural/paleontological resources, and public facilities. These significant
environmental changes or impacts are discussed in Subsequent EIR 98-01 in Table 1-2 on
pages 5-22 and in Chapter 5.0, pages 57-243.
Land Use
Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the
character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use.
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
The overall change to the original Otay Ranch topography and the change from a rural to
more urban use constitute a significant, adverse landform and aesthetic impact.
Development would require grading over the entire village. The proposed grading would
reflect the original topography by incorporating a step-down design from east to west.
The proposed project would result in long-term direct potentially significant nighttime
view impacts. The direct lines of sight to the field lighting and the general illum~m~tiop
over tl~e stadium and basebail field would also have long-term direct and indirect
potentially significant nighttime impacts.
Sound barriers built as part of the project would represent a significant visual impact if
the portion of the barrier that is constructed as a wall is higher than eight and a half feet.
t2
Biology
There are no direct, adverse impacts to biological resources. Because biological condi-
tions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and northern harrier to
occupy the site between project approval and development.
The Village Six SPA Plan would have indirect, long-term significant impacts on
biological resources if the project fails to preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional open
space proportionally and concurrently with development.
Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would eliminate
approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor species. The
Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant impact. The
Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact.
Cultural Resources
Impacts to the recorded sites on the property are considered significant. Because of the
extent of past agricultural disturbance to the area, only midden-beating subsurface
deposits represent potentially significant cultural resources.
Geology
The exposure of a residential community and individual persons to ground acceleration
generated from potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-term,
significant impact associated with implementation of the proposed project. Compliance
with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes, and standard
practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California, would reduce the
potential impact resulting from seismic-induced ground shaking below a level of
significance.
Paleontological Resources
Grading impacts to alluvium would potentially impact paleontological resources.
Diego Formation would result in a significant, direct, long-term impact.
Agriculture
The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops would result in
a significant impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of limited
agricultural resources. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with
13
agricultural operations would create indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts -'
between the agnicultural uses and urban uses.
Housin~ulation
No significant adverse housing and population impacts have been identified.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Project implementation may result in on-site flooding and off-site runoff flooding effects
downstream, which would have long-term, direct and indirect, significant impacts.
Project implementation may also result in uncontrolled discharge of pollutants with "first
flush" events which would have a long-term, indirect, significant impact.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Direct impacts could result to traffic on Otay Lakes Road between H Street and
Telegraph Canyon Road as a result of project approval.
Cumulative impacts could result to Olympic Parkway between SR-125 and EastLake
Parkway, and between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. Cumulative impacts
could also occur on Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway, between
H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, and between Bonita Road and H Street.
Without the completion of SR-125, other intersections and roadways would be
significantly impacted. These include the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste
Road and the segment of 1-805 between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road.
At the time off-site improvements are designed and proposed, additional environmental
review may be required to determine potential impacts related to construction, including
water quality, traffic, and impacts to paleontological resources, and the need for specific
mitigation measures to address these potential impacts.
Air Quality
The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of significant
temporary construction equipment exhaust emissions, plus long-term significant
cumulative emissions from project-generated vehicle trips. The proposed project would
result in long-term operational emissions, primarily from vehicle emissions that will
exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
14
Noise
Potential sources of noise related to the proposed Village Six SPA Plan include
construction noise, traffic-generated noise, and commercial noise. Traffic on La Media,
Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, and SR-125 would cause a significant noise impact.
Public Services/Utilities
POTABLE WATER
The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and
place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The impact to water
storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of facilities does not
coincide with the anticipated growth associated with the Village Six SPA.
RECYCLED WATER
The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the use of recycled water
and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The increase in
use of recycled water has been planned for by OWD and will not have a significant
impact. However, the impact to recycled water storage and distribution facilities would
be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's
anticipated growth.
SEWER
The existing sewage disposal system does not have enough capacity to accommodate
flows from the Village Six SPA Plan, which would result in a near-term significant
impact until upgrades to the system are completed.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant impact to law
enforcement because of the predicted increase in calls for service and the additional
travel time requh'~d tn mqw~'r th ,~ 9 C~!lc'
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for
response time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. Impacts to fire and
emergency medical services would be significant if construction of these facilities does
not coincide with the project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for
services.
15
SCHO0~
Project implementation would result in a significant impact to schools unless construction
of facilities coincides with student generation and associated service demands.
L~RARYSERVICE
A significant impact wonld result if construction of new library facilities and provision of
additional documents does not coincide with project implementation and associated
population growth.
PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES: PARKS AND RECREATION
Project implementation would generate increased demand for parks and recreation
facilities. A significant impact could result if dedication of parkland and construction of
new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project population
growth.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Potentially significant impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials could result -
from implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan.
A. LAND USE
Standards of Significance:
A significant land use impact is identified if the project could:
physically divide an established conm~unity.
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural corrrmunity
conservation plan.
Significant land use impacts would also occur if the project fails to comply with the
applicable mitigation measures established by the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and the
Otay Ranch GDP findings of fact, as amended by subsequent projects. These measures
include the requirement that SPA plans establish standards for landscaping, grading, and
16
buffering to prevent land use interface impacts such as noise, lighting, and loss of privacy
from occurring between internal land uses, particularly between single- and multi-family
residential land uses and between residential and non-residential land uses. In addition,
the Program EIR requires that the applicant implement the RMP to protect biological
resources within Otay Ranch.
Impact:
Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in
the character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use. 0EIR, Subchapter 5.1,
page 75].
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in the
conversion of the site from undeveloped to intensive urban uses, as identified in Program
EIR 90-01.
Mitigation Measure:. No feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact to
less than significant levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated.
B. LANDFORM ALERATION/VISUAL QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
A significant land use impact is identified if the project could:
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or obstruct or substantially alter the
visual character of a designated public view.
,~ubsta~tial!v ~e~'r~de ~'ce?&: restore-scs i~cl~clh~g bur not limited to ~rees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway.
conflict with the goals and policies established for preserving scenic highways and
roads.
result in architecture, urban design, landscaping, or landforms that negatively detract
from the prevailing aesthetic character of the site or surrounding area.
17
· create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area.
Impact:
Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in
the character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use, and would have a
significant impact resulting from field lighting and general illumination at the
high school stadium and baseball field. [EIR, Subchapter 5.2, pages 87-99].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(t) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in the
conversion of the site from undeveloped to intensive urban uses, as identified in Program
EIR 90-01. Under both the CEQA Guidelines and the Program EIR, the proposed project
would result in long-term direct potentially significant nighttime view impacts. The direct
lines of sight to the field lighting and the general illumination over the stadium and
baseball field would also have long4erm direct and indirect potentially significant
nighttime impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
5.2-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading and
building plans that conform to the landform grading guidelines contained in the
proposed Village Six SPA Plan and grading ordinance, the Otay Ranch GDP, and
the General Plan. The plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building and the City Engineer.
5.2-2 Prior to approval of the final maps, the developer of the private high school shall
prepare a lighting plan that shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of
streetlights and athletic facilities lights on-site. The plan shall comply with the
City's minimum standards for roadway lighting and shall address all exterior
Planning and Building.
5.2-3 The conditional use permit (CUP) for the private high school shall include a
provision that requires that stadium and baseball field lights shall not be used after
10:00 P.M. on Sunday through Thursday and shall not be used after 11:00 P.M. on
Friday and Saturday.
18
5.2-4 As a condition of the CUP, the installation of lights at the stadium or at the
baseball field shall not be permitted until a lighting consultant experienced in
stadium lighting designs lighting standards to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building. To the extent feasible, for the events to be conducted
within the stadium and baseball field the lights shall be designed to direct
downward and shall be shielded such that the light bulbs are not exposed to any
residential areas in either Village Six or Village Seven. Lights shall be installed
pursuant to the lighting plan approved by the Director of Planning and Building.
5.2-5 Noise barriers in excess of eight feet in height shall consist of a wall and berm
combination. The wall height in this combination barrier shall not exceed eight
feet, with the remaining portion of the overall height accomplished through
berming. Appropriate landscaping of the wall/berm combination shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Noise barrier details
and plans shall be reviewed and approved as part of the review and adoption of
tentative maps.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it:
has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
· has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
h~, .~ ~lhqt~ti:~l ~dv~;,-?, cf~'e(.:~ ~m fedcraI!) [rotected wetlands a:~ d~fi~c~.l ~y
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means,
interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
conidors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Ic)
Impact:
,, The Village Six SPA Plan would have indirect, long-term significant impacts on
biological resources if the project fails to preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional
open space proportionally and concurrently with development. [EIR, Subchapter
5.3, page 112].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or shall be incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or
avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: There are no direct, adverse impacts to biological resources. Because
biological conditions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and
northern harrier to occupy the site between project approval and development.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 113].
5.3-1 Focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to grading. If
occupied burrows are detected, passive relocation of the species shall be
conducted to avoid impacts from grading.
5.3-2 Focused surveys for active nests of the northern harrier shall be conducted prior to
grading. If active nests are detected, and if construction activities occur between
March 1 and July 3 i, construction activities shall be restricted within 900 feet of
the active nest sites.
5.3-3 Prior to recording each final map, the applicants shall convey land within the Otay
Ranch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of
development area.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact:
· The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant
impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
2O
Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would
eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor
species.
Mitigation Measure: No feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact to
less than significant levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would:
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5. This includes:
a) resources that are eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources and
the National Register of Historic Places; and
b) resources that are locally designated as historically significant, or the City finds
the resource historically significant based on substantial evidence.
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This includes:
a) resources that are associated with an event or person of recognized significance in
California or American history or of recognized scientific importance in
pmhistory;
b) resources that can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and
is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research
questions;
c) resources that have a special or particular quality such as the oldest, best example,
largest, or last surviving example of its kind; and
d) resources that are at least 100 years old and possess substantial strafigraphic
integrity, and/or involve important research questions that historical research has
shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.
21
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Impact:
Development of the proposed project could adversely affect cultural resources.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.4, page 117].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
Explanation: There are eight sites that could potentially be affected by the completion of
the project. Several of these resources are recorded as single, isolated artifacts, while
others are recorded as including a variety of flaked and ground stone artifacts. It is
possible that these resources no longer exist on the property. Current vegetative cover is
too dense to permit adequate field inspection and evaluation of potential remains.
Because of the restricted surface visibility and the potential for prehistoric cultural
resources on the property, impacts to cultural resources are considered significant.
Because of the extent of past agricultural disturbance to the area, only midden-bearing,
subsurface deposits represent potentially significant cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.4, pages 117-118].
5.4-l Concurrent with the start of grading, the project area should be brushed and a
field reconnaissance should be conducted and the presence or absence of midden-
bearing deposits determined. All brushing and grading within Village Six shall be
monitored. The monitoring of the brushing and grading shall be conducted by one
or more archaeologists, as dictated by the size of the grading operation. All utility
archaeological monitor. Any resources that are graded shall be intensively
monitored during grading to ensure that any important features, isolates, or
deposits are either recorded and collected or excavated. Should any resources be
encountered during the monitoring of the brushing or grading which were not
previously recorded, the grading shall be temporarily stopped or redirected to
another area while the nature of the discovery is evaluated. Any resources that
may be encountered shall require testing to determine their significance. If the
22
testing demonstrates that a resource is significant, then a data recovery program
shall be prepared in accordance with mitigation measure 5.4-2.
5.4-2 If, as a result of the reconnaissance conducted in accordance with 5.4-1 above, a
midden deposit is identified, a research program shall be prepared to recover a
valid sample of the materials present within the site.
5.4-3 If a midden-beating deposit is identified, a data recovery program shall be
completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This program shall be
completed under the direction of a qualified archaeologist to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
E. GEOLOGY
Standards of Significance:
Impacts to geology and soils are considered significant if the proposed project:
exposes people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.
(2) strong seismic ground shaking.
(3) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
(4) landslides.
,, results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
is located on a geologic unit or on soil that is unstable or that would become
unstable :ma res t v~f the project, .d po,e.,t /Il3 =s~l~t n* on- or off :Cite Izmdslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
· is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property; and
has soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal of waste
water.
23
In addition, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it falls to comply
with the applicable geology and soils mitigation measures established by the Otay Ranch
GDP Program EIR. Therefore, a significant impact would result if the project:
falls to provide site-specific geotechnical studies based on proposed development
plans to specifically evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential
slope instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction, and rippability characteristics for
the tentative map review;
falls to incorporate mitigation measures developed by qualified geotechnical
engineers in compliance with statutes and state-of-the-art professional standards;
e fails to conduct on-site soils investigation by a qualified geotechnical consultant
to evaluate the potential for significant impacts due to erosion and expansion for
the tentative map review; and
e fails to incorporate mitigation measures for erosion control and soil expansion.
Impact:
The exposure of a residential community and individual persons to ground
acceleration generated from potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a
direct, long-term, significant impact associated with implementation of the
proposed project.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: There are no active faults underlying the project site. The La Nacion fault
zone is potentially active, which means it has not offset geologic formations younger than
11,000 years old and does not present a risk to residential development. The only
potential for significant seismic hazards is associated with ground shaking due to seismic
activity within the Rose Canyon fault zone. The most significant probable seismic event
,vi,b. the ~,otet~ti:~! ~c, aff,.-ct Villag~ Si~ ,~ ~tld b~ ~ 70 iimg~fii~d~ evc~t o~ fi~e Rose
Canyon fault zone resulting in an estimated peak ground acceleration of 0.19 g. A seismic
event with the potential to affect noncritical structures would likewise emanate from the
Rose Canyon fault zone, with a magnitude of 6.5 and a corresponding ground
acceleration of 0.14 g.
Expansive soils within pavement, foundation, or slab subgrade could heave when wetted,
resulting in cracking or failure of these development improvements. Development on
compressible soils could potentially settle under increased load and damage structures,
24
roads, and property. The design of proposed Village Six SPA Plan structures would
comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and standard practices of
the Association of Structural Engineers of California.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.5, page 126].
5.5-1 During construction, liquefiable soils within the colluvium/alluvium shall be
removed and replaced with compacted fill.
5.5-2 During construction, highly expansive soils shall be kept below finish grade.
Where excavations expose highly expansive materials at finish grade, these
materials shall be excavated a minimum of four feet below finish grade. Where
excavations expose very highly expansive material at finish grade, these materials
shall be excavated a minimum of five feet below finish grade. The excavations
shall be replaced with a compacted fill soil that has a low to moderate expansion
potential.
5.5-3 During construction, the developer shall remove loose, compressible soils and
replace as compacted fill in areas that will be subjected to new fill or structural
loads.
5.5-4 During grading, the developer shall construct earthen buttresses on unstable
slopes with drains installed, as warranted, at the rear of the buttresses to control
groundwater.
5.5-5 Grading of building pads shall be designed so that foundations bear entirely on a
relatively uniform depth of compacted fill. This may be accomplished by over
excavating the cut portion of the building pad.
5.5-6 Prior to approval of grading plans for the proposed project, the applicant shall
submit an additional geotechnical investigation. The detailed analysis shall be
subject to approval of the City Engineer. The analysis shall include, but not be
limited to a deli,eatiou of speci~c !oc~tiot~, where liquefiable, colllpi'es~iv~,', ami
expansive soils would affect structural stability and where graded slopes would
expose bedrock susceptible to instability.
F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it:
25
Directly or indirectly destxoys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
Impact:
Grading impacts to alluvium would potentially impact paleontological resources.
Destruction of the paleontological resources from either the Otay Formation or
the San Diego Formation would result in a significant, direct, long-term impact.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.6, page 130].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the E1R to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut
into geological formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. Areas of the Otay
Formation may be exposed during grading and construction activities.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.6, page 131].
5.6-1 Prior to issuance of any on-site (or off-site) grading permits, the applicant shall
confirm to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out
the following mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrade
meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. (A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology
or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.)
5.6-2 A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting
of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (Otay
and San Diego Formations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. The
paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect
alluvium). (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.)
5.6-3 If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. h~ instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the
paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner.
26~
Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor), a
screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be set up.
5.6-4 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and
maps, shall be deposited (with the applicant's permission) in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum. A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the results of
the mitigation program. This report shall include discussion of the methods used,
stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
G. AGRICULTURE
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on agriculture if it:
· converts Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Falxniand of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use.
,, conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
involves other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.
Impact:
· ,The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops would
result in a significant impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or
impairment of limited agricultural resources. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and
chemicals associated with agricultural operations would create indirect, short-
term, potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban uses.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.7 pages 134-135].
lh'~d~g~ Pursua~t t~ ~ecticm 1500! (~I~.(~) of*he CEQA Guidelines, changes or ~lterafi(ms
are required in, or incoiporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: Historically, the Village Six SPA Plan area has been used for dry farming,
as well as cattle and sheep grazing. Crop production was limited to hay and grains due to
limited water availability; however, with advancements in water importation and
irrigation, tomato cultivation increased and truck farnfing was introduced. Cattle grazing
and cultivation of wheat and barley continue as active uses on-site. The Agricultural
27
Management Map for Otay River, Jamul-Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro Mountains
(Baldwin Vista 1989) delineates intensities of allowed agricultural use within Otay
Ranch. According to this map, cultivation and cattle grazing activities are allowed on the
Village Six SPA Plan property. There is no land currently subject to the Williamson Act
on the Village Six property.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.7, pages 135 - 136].
5.7-1 The agricultural plan included in the Village Six SPA Plan shall be implemented
for the area as development proceeds on the project. The following measures shall
be implemented by the developer, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Building:
a) A 200-foot buffer shall be maintained between developed property and
ongoing agriculture operations;
b) Vegetation shall be provided to shield adjacent urban development (within
400 feet) from agriculture activities where pesticides are to be applied;
c) Notification of adjacent property owners of potential pesticide application
shall be given through newspaper advertisements; and
d) Fencing shall be provided to ensure the safety of Village Six SPA
residents.
H. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on water resources and water
quality if it:
City of Chula Vista Engineering Standards for storm water flows and volumes;
substantially depletes groundwater or interferes substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level;
28
substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increases
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
· creates or contributes runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provides substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrades water quality;
alters an existing ! 00-year floodplain or flood regime;
· places housing within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or
redirect flood flows;
· exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
exposes people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Impact:
· Project implementation may result in on-site flooding and off-site runoff flooding
effects downstream, which would have long-term, direct and indirect, significant
impacts. Project implementation may also result in uncontrolled discharge of
pollutants with "first flush" events which would have a long-term, indirect,
significant impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would result in an
increase in the amount of runoff during storms due to the overall increase in impervious
surfaces area. Based on the amount of additional development area, the surface runoff in
a 100-year storm event would increase with implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan.
The existing Q50 and Ql00 flows associated with the Village Six area is 221 cfs and
272 cfs, respectively. When SR-125 is constructed these flows will increase to 248 cfs
and 306 cfs, respectively. With the proposed completion of the Village Six SPA Plan,
and the construction of SR-125, Qs0 flows are anticipated to be 437 cfs and Qlo0 flows
will be 538 cfs.
The increase in runoff flows has the potential to impact downstream drainage facilities in
Poggi Canyon. The existing Poggi Canyon detention basin has been designed to handle
projected flows from Village Six. This detention basin is intended to serve as a regional
drainage facility and has been constructed to reduce impacts to downstream facilities.
In the short term, Village Six SPA Plan site preparation and grading, including clearing,
trenching, and other earthwork, will generate sediment that could affect water quality. To
reduce the impacts to water quality, construction activities will have to comply with all
applicable regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.9, pages. 148-149].
5.9-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study
shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and shall include:
a) peak runoff at each inlet, outlet, interceptor, concentration, or confluence
point, both predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions;
b) the integration of the proposed system with the existing and proposed
downstream drainage facilities to effectively control flows within the
entire system; and
c) maps showing existing and postdevelopment conditions for existing
topography and proposed grading plans incorporating a drainage system
design with main lines and detention/desilting facilities pursuant to
Section 3-202.1 of the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual; and on-site
detention/desilting facilities shall be incorporated in the design for the
5.9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
SWPPP including assignment of maintenance responsibilities for review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The SWPPP
shall be consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the BMPs of
the RWQCBi BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall include but shall not be
limited to the following:
30
a) Temporary erosion control measures designed in accordance with the
Chula Vista Grading Ordinance shall be employed for disturbed areas and
shown on the grading plans;
b) No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in
place during the winter and spring months;
c) Sediment will be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other appropriate measures, and shown on the grading plans;
d) Silt and oil and other contaminants will be prevented from entering the
storm drain system or removed from the system, by a means acceptable to
the City Engineer. Storm drain inlets shall be labeled "No Dumping-
Drains to Ocean";
e) All parking lots shall be designed to allow storm water runoff to be
directed to vegetative filter strips or oil-water separators to control
sediment, oil, and other contaminants; and
f) Permanent energy dissipaters will be included for drainage ouflets.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
I. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Standards of Significance:
The City has developed traffic standards, which were used by LLG to evaluate the
proposed project. The traffic impacts would result in a significant transportation/traffic
impact if they would exceed the following thresholds for intersections, street segments,
freeways, and Congestion Management Program thresholds. The following criteria are
from "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies" (February 13, 2001).
Short-term (Study Horizon Year 0 to 4)
1. Intersections
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F; and
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
31
b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met.
2. Street Lines/Segments
If the ADT methodology indicates LOS C or better, the impact is not
significant. If the ADT methodology indicates LOS D, E, or F, die
GMOC method should be used. The following criteria would then be
used.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F;
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume; and
iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met.
3. Freeways
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
i. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F; and
ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT
on that freeway segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met.
Long Term (Study Horizon Year 5 and later)
1. Intersections
"~'~i:c~ !,i~:~:it~ ii ~,:~ iff )dt '~1~ i'~G~wi~}g <:t~i~cfia arc inet:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F; and
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cunmlative impact if only #1 is met.
2. Street Lines/Segments
2
Use the planning analysis using the volume-to-capacity ratio methodology
only. The GMOC analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four-
year horizon.
a. Project specific impact if all three of the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F;
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume; and
iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment.
b. Cumulative Impact if only #1 is met. However, if the intersections
along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the
segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis
is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street
segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is
significant regardless of intersection LOS.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph
(a) above occurs at study horizon year 10 or later, and is off-site and
not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered cumulative. Study
year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is between 8
and 13 years in the future. In this case of a traffic study being
performed in the period of 2000 to 2002, because the typical model
will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e., 2005, 2010, 2015,
and 2020) study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG
model for year 2010 and would be 8 years in the future. If the model
year is less than 7 years in the future, study horizon year 10 would be
13 years in the future.
d. In the event a direct identified project-specific impact in paragraph (a)
above occurs at study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is off-
site and not adjacent to this project, but the property immediately
,d!~',mt t~ the icte~,t~fi~cl ?r~,?ct s:p~cific impacl is ~1!~(~ propo:,ed to be
developed in approximately the same time frame, an additional
analysis may be required to determine whether or not the identified
project-specific impact would still occur if the development of the
adjacent property does not take place. If the additional analysis
concludes that the identified project-specific impact is no longer a
direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative.
33
3. Freeways
a. Project-specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
i. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F; and
ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT
on that freeway segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only 4/1 is met.
Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Project traffic and roadway improvements must be in compliance with the SANDAG
CMP. The CMP was adopted by SANDAG on November 22, 1991, and is intended to
directly link land use, transportation, and air quality through level of service
performance. The CMP requires an enhanced CEQA review of all large projects that are
expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 peak hour trips.
In 1993, the Institute of Transportation Engineers California Border Section and the San
Diego Region Traffic Engineer's Council established a set of guidelines to be used in the
preparation of traffic impact studies that are subject to the enhanced CEQA review
process. This published document, which is titled 1993 Guidelines for Congestion
Management Program Transportation Impact Reports for the San Diego Region, requires
that a project study area be established as follows:
· All streets and intersections on CMP roadways or on "regionally significant
arterials" where the project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction.
® Mainline freeway locations where the projects will add 150 or more peak hour
trips in either direction.
Per these guidelines, East H Street, 1-805, Telegraph Canyon Road, and SR-125 were
analyzed, as required to satisfy the CMP.
Impact:
,, Direct project impacts would occur on Otay Lakes Road between H Street and
Telegraph Canyon Road. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 177].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, to a level of insignificance.
34
Explanation: If development exceeds 944 units without SR-125, widen to six lanes or
construct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes Road that provide additional capacity
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.10, page 181].
5.10-1 If development exceeds 944 un/ts without SR-125, it is necessary to widen Otay
Lakes Road to six lanes or construct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes
Road that provide additional capacity to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
J. AIR QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality if it:
· conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
· violates any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
· results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
· exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations such as ozone
or respirable particulates (PM- 10).
· creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition, the APCD has recommended using the following thresholds (Table 5.11-1)
adopted from those established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD):
35
TABLE 5.11-1
SCAQMD THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Project Construction Project Operation
Carbon monoxide 550 pounds/day 550 pounds/day
Reactive organic compounds 75 pounds/day 55 pounds/day
Nitrogen oxide 100 pounds/day 55 pounds/day
Sulfur dioxide 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day
Particulates 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day
SOURCE: SCAQMD (2000).
Exceeding these thresholds, either during project construction or upon buildout and
occupancy, would result in a significant air quality impact~
Impact
· The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of
significant temporary construction equipment exhaust emissions, plus long-term _
significant cumulative emissions from project-generated vehicle trips. The
proposed project would result in long-term operational emissions, primarily from
vehicle emissions that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the E1R. With implementation of all
feasible mitigation, construction activity emissions would still exceed the identified
significance threshold for NO× and PM-10 by a wide margin. The only mitigation
available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of
the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: Prqject operations related emissions, including those from stationarv and
mollie sources, m'e projected to exceed SCAQMD.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures for air quality impacts are
feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.1 I, page 195].
5. I 1- 1 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction and placed as notes on all gn'ading plans:
36
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment
units;
b) Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment;
c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical;
d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment;
e) Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment;
f) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust;
g) Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust;
h) Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust;
i) Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during
building;
j) Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path
within a construction site prior to public road entry;
k) Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on
public roads;
1) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30
minutes of occurrence;
m) Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any
vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred;
n) Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty
material onto public roads;
o) Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce
blow-off during hauling; and
p) Suspend ail soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds
exceed 25 miles per hour.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated.
37
K. NOISE
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to noise if it:
e results in exterior noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL in residential areas and
outdoor recreational areas and 70 CNEL in office and commercial districts.
results in interior noise levels that exceed 45 dB CNEL for single-family and
multi-family residential homes.
o creates a substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
· results in noise levels that violate the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 19.68.010
of the Municipal Zoning Code).
Impact:
Potential sources of noise related to the proposed Village Six SPA Plan include
construction noise, traffic-generated noise, and commercial noise. Traffic on La
Media, Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, and SR-125 would cause a significant
noise impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation:
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.12, pages 204-206].
5.12-1 Prior to the approval of tentative maps, the applicant shall submit an acoustical
study for approval by the Director of Building and Planning, which includes the
following:
a) Location and heights of noise barriers in accordance with Figure 5.12-1 of
the EIR;
38
b) A detailed analysis which demonstrates that barriers or setbacks have been
incorporated into the project design, such that noise exposure to residential
receivers placed in useable exterior areas are at below 65 dB CNEL; and
c) A detailed analysis, which demonstrates that barriers or setbacks have
been incorporated into the project design, such that, when considered with
proposed construction specifications, interior noise levels shall not exceed
45 db CNEL.
Should grading or traffic assumptions change during the processing of the
tentative map, the barriers shall be refined to reflect those modifications.
5.12-2 The applicant shall grant an easement to the City along that portion of the project
adjacent to SR-125 for future construction of required noise mitigation bamers.
The applicant shall construct the noise barriers adjacent to SR-125 as shown on
Figure 5.12-1 prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the adjacent
neighborhood or the opening of SR-125, whichever occurs earlier. Noise barrier
design and construction adjacent to SR-125 shall be coordinated with the City,
Caltrans, and California Transportation Ventures (CTV). All other required noise
barriers adjacent to Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, and Birch Road shall be
shown on the grading plan or a wall and fence plan to be approved prior to
issuance of the first grading permit within any adjacent neighborhood. Walls
adjacent to Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, and Birch Road shall be
constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the adjacent
neighborhood.
5.12-3 Prior to approval of building permits for commercial development, a report shall
be prepared demonstrating that HVAC equipment is designed to ensure that noise
levels from the equipment will not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance Standards.
5.12-4 If balconies are proposed for the multi-family uses adjacent to SR-125, prior to
approval of building plans an acoustical analysis of site plans and building plans
shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Director of Planning and
Building to ensure that they meet the 65 dB(A) CNEL exterior.
5.12-5 The water pump station shall be placed within an enclosure capable of reducing
the noise of the pumps such that, when operating, the sound pressure level at a
distance of 50 feet from the pumps is 50 decibels or less. Prior to the installation
of the pump station, the applicant shall provide an acoustical report demonstrating
that the proposed pumps and enclosure meet this condition, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Building.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
39
L. PUBLIC FACILITIES
POTABLE WATER
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on potable water if it:
encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of water or use of water
in a wasteful manner.
results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services.
contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility.
In addition, according to City threshold standards, impacts to water resources would be
significant if the proposed project exceeds City threshold standards which ensure that
adequate supplies of quality water, appropriate for intended use, are available. The
standards require the following actions:
a) The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the
appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level;
b) The project applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a
SPA Plan application; and
c) The project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior
to the development of each Otay Ranch SPA.
Impact:
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to potable water supply
and storage. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 216].
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water
consumption and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The
impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of
facilities does not coincide with the anticipated growth associated with the Village Six
SPA Plan.
40
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 216-217].
5.13.1-1 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be approved prior to the approval of
any tentative map. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system
infrastructure including timing and cost by phase' of development and must be
in compliance with the OWD Master Plan.
5.13.1-2 Prior to approval of the first tentative map, the applicant shall provide the City
with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate pumping and storage capacity
is available or will be available concurrent with need.
5.13.1-3 Prior to approval of each Tentative Map, the applicant shall provide the City
with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate storage capacity exists or will
be available concurrent with need.
5.13.1-4 Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in
accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance
Plans (PFFP) for the Village Six SPA Plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
RECYCLED WATER
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on recycled water service if it:
· encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of water or use of
water in a wasteful manner.
results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services.
creates a public health risk.
41
Impact:
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to recycled water supply
and storage. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 219-220].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the E1R to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in recycled
water use and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. There is
a projected recycled water demand of 121,644 gpd for Village Six. The increase in
recycled water demand has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a significant
impact. The impact to recycled water storage and pumping facilities could be significant
if construction of new facilities d .....
oes not coincide w~th the project s anticipated growth.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 220].
5.13.2-I The applicant shall provide for adequate recycled water storage and
distribution facilities, which shall be constructed in accordance with the
Subarea Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water
infrastructure improvements are described in the Village Six Plq~'}' and the
SPA Plan. The proposed PFFP identifies the development impact fees that the
applicant shall pay to mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the
applicant's obligation to construct or pay for the necessary mitigation, and the
phasing improvements. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant
would provide written proof from OWD that adequate water storage and
distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed project area.
5.13.2-2 A complete Subarea Master Plan shall be required prior to approval of the
tentative map. The recycled water system shall be designed at that time and the
timing and cost shall be identified by phase of development.
5.13.2-3 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for review
and approved by OWD prior to the approval of any tentative map. The Master
Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing
and cost by phase of development and must be in compliance with the OWD
Master Plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
42
SEWER
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on sewer service it if:
results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services.
· contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility.
creates a public health risk.
exceeds City Engineering Standards.
Impact:
· Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to sewer
services. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 225].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The City has established criteria to estimate sewage flows from different
land uses. Singie-family dwelling units are estimated to produce an average of 265 gpd
and multi-family dwelling units are assumed to produce 75 pement of the sewage
generated in a single-family dwelling unit, or 199 gpd. Commemial/industrial uses, and
CPFs generate 2,500 gpd/acre. Elementary schools are assumed to produce 15
gpd/student and high schools are assumed to produce 20 gpd/student. The average daily
sewage flow from the proposed Village Six SPA Plan is estimated to be 581,692 gpd.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pp. 225].
5.13.3-1 Prior to recording final maps, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that the
Poggi Canyon Interceptor has adequate capacity in the interim to handle
projected sewage flows. The calculation of existing and anticipated sewage
flow has determined that two capital improvement projects are needed to
provide capacity for the proposed development. These include the completion
of the Salt Creek Interceptor Reach 9B connection to regionally exceed 947
EDUs (Improvement P-l) and increasing the size of the Poggi Canyon line
beneath 1-805 (Improvement P-2) to regionally exceed 3,770 EDUs.
43
5.13.3-2 Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in
accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities
Financing Plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on police services if it:
exceeds threshold standards, such as the ability to respond to Priority One
emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 84 pement of the cases
and maintain an average response time to all Priority One calls of 4.5 minutes or
less.
exceeds threshold standards to respond to Priority Two urgent calls, throughout
the city within 7 minutes in 62 percent of cases, and maintain an average response
time to all Priority Two calls of 7 minutes or less.
Impact:
The project would cause an incremental increase in calls for police services. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, page 229].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The Police Department is not currently meeting the threshold standards for
either Priority One or Priority Two calls. Development of Village Six would result in an
incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of the project, officers
would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service. Increased
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 229].
5.13.5-1 Significant impacts to police services shall be addressed on a citywide level
through the payment of public facility fees. The proposed PH-P describes
public facilities fees for police services based on equivalent dwelling units by
44
development phase. The applicant shall pay the public facilities fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on tim protection services if it:
reduces the ability to respond to calls throughout the city within seven minutes in
85 percent of the cases.
Impact:
The project would increase the demand for fire services. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13,
pages 230-231 ].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold
standard for response time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However,
as population growth in the service area warrants, fire stations would be cons~'ucted
within Villages Two and Nine of the Otay Valley parcel and within Village Thirteen of
the Proctor Valley parcel. These stations would help ensure adequate service within the
requirements of the GMOC threshold standards. Impacts to fire and emergency medical
services would be significant if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the
project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for services.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 231].
~ire ~orvi,'e r,!eilitie~, ':h:~![ he ,ci~ianced {>r provided iri accordalice with the f¢es
and phasing in the approved PFFP for the Village Six SPA Plan.
5.13.6-2 The City shall continue to monitor Fire Department responses to emergency
fire and medical calls and report the results to the Growth Management
Oversight Committee on an annual basis.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
45
SCHOOLS
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on fire protection services if it:
~ results in a residential population that exceeds the capacity of existing or
planned schools.
o results in the need for new, altered, or expanded school services.
According to Otay Ranch GDP, impacts would be significant if the proposed project
locates schools:
· in areas where disturbing factors such as traffic hazards, airports, or other
incompatible land uses are present.
in areas where they are not integrated into the system of alternative transportation
corridors, such as bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit.
· where private elementary and secondary schools are not spaced far enough from
public schools and each other to prevent an overconcentration of school impacts.
· without at least 10 usable acres for an elementary school.
· without a central location to residential development.
· adjacent to a street or road which cannot safely accommodate bike, foot, and
vehicular traffic.
in areas not adjacent to parks, thereby discouraging joint field and recreation
facility uses.
· at an unsafe distance (as required by law) from contaminants or toxins in the soil
or groundwater from landfills, fuel tanks, agricultural areas, power lines, utility
easements, and so on.
· inside of floodplains; on unstable soils; or near fault lines.
Impact:
Project implementation would result in a significant impact to schools unless
construction of facilities coincide with student generation and associated service
demands. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 233-234~.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
46
Explanation: Project implementation would have a significant impact on schools. The
estimate of the number of students to be generated by the proposed project upon buildout
was based on the current student generation factors used by each of the school districts.
The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,366.4 students between
elementary, middle school, and high school grades.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 234].
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
LIBRARY SERVICE
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on library services if it:
· fails to meet the threshold standard of 600 gross square feet of library space,
adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 population.
° fails to meet the minimum planning guidelines for space requirements and size of
collection of library facilities which are outlined in the Pubic Facilities Element of
the Chula Vista General Plan (Chapter 3, Section 5.6):
(1) library space of 0.5 gross square feet per capita;
(2) three books per capita; and
(3) one periodical subscription per each 150-200 residents.
Impact:
Impacts to library services are considered significant. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13,
r~lm- 2361
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The City currently does not meet the 3.0 books/capita criteria established
by the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. Implementation of the
Village Six SPA Plan would result in an increased demand on existing library services,
47
including a need for a total of 4,161 square feet of library facilities based on the expected
project population of 6,279 people. If the housing alternative is developed on
neighborhood R-11/S-2 the population is projected to be 6,718 people with a proportional
increase in the requirement for library facilities.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, page 236].
5.13.8-1 Library facilities, supplies, and services shall be financed in accordance with
the approved fees and phasing in the PPtW for the Village Six SPA Plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on park and recreational facilities
if it:
results in a residential population that exceeds the capacity of existing or planned
park and recreation facilities.
does not conform to the park dedication standard of three acres of neighborhood
and community parkland per 1,000 residents.
e is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and other adopted
plans addressing parks, trails, and other recreational amenities.
does not provide 15 acres of regional park and open space per 1,000 Otay Ranch
residents.
Impact:
A significant impact could result if dedication of parkland and construction of
new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project
population growth.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
48
Explanation: A 7.6-gross-acre neighborhood park (7.0 acre net) is planned in the Village
Core adjacent to the elementary school site (Figure 5.13-5). The remainder of the
parkland requirement would be provided with funding and phasing of community parks
as identified in the PFFP. The regional parks requirements would be met through fair-
share conudbution to the funding for regional park acquisition and facilities development,
or satisfied through the dedication of off-site parkland per the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. 0EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, page 240].
5.13.9-1 Neighborhood parks shall be financed and constructed on-site in accordance
with the fees and phasing approved in the PFFP for the Village Six SPA Plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to hazardous materials
if it:
creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
enfits hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a significant
hazard to the public or the environment would be created.
is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
49
is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would result in a safety
hazard for people residing or Working in the project area.
impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas.
Impact:
Potentially significant impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials
could result from implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1 ) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: Village Two West and Village Three, located on the western edge of the
Otay Valley parcel, include planned industrial land uses. In addition to industrial land
use, the Program EIR identified that there could be risks from future Otay Ranch
development. Planning Area 12 and the proposed University sites are anticipated to
include a variety of research facilities, university laboratories, and major retail centers.
The above uses could involve hazardous materials. These materials would be transported
on the future regional circulation system. Because of this, there is a minor potential for
traffic accidents involving hazardous materials to occur in the project area. The use,
transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted in compliance
with the relevant regulations of federal, state, and local agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health Services, and Caltrans. Due to
the low probability of an uncontrolled spill, impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
Subchapter 5.13, page 243].
5 14.1 The transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials shall be conducted in
compliance with the relevant regulations of federal, state, and local agencies,
including the EPA, California Department of Heath Services (DHS), and
California Department of Transportation.
50
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects" (Pub. Resources Code section 21082.2, subd. (b)). Several development
proposals have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the
Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego in proximity to Village
Six. These "current or probable furore" development proposals would affect many of the
same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the Village Six SPA
Plan.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative
impacts have been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted
for the cumulative impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This
reflects the inability of the Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding
jurisdictions (i.e., City of San Diego, City of National City, Caltrans, and Mexico) and
the contribution of these jurisdictions to cumulative impacts. The project along with the
other related projects will result in the following irreversible cumulative environmental
changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to pages from the EIR.
A. LAND USE
Impact: The proposed Village Six SPA Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the Otay
Ranch and other surrounding properties, would contribute to the conversion of over
30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses. The overall loss of open space associated with
the conversion would have a significant cumulative land use impact.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve the Otay Ranch GDP, the City
r~m~cil f~,und that th~e ~1!~- n!~ r,,'!sib!e ~e:~sure,~ that w,~!~! ~'~itig~tc ~l~c imp~tc: below ~/
level of significance. A Statement of OvenSding Considerations was adopted. The City
Council determined that the cumulative land use impact was acceptable because of the
specific ovenSding considerations.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation, other than the No Project alternative, is available to
lessen or avoid this impact.
51
B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/VISUAL AESTHETICS
Impact: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to a
change in the visual quality of the region.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: The visual quality would be affected by the change in character from a
rural to an urban setting and overall landform alteration. Impacts to the nighttime visual
setting would also occur from the cumulative addition of lights as Otay Ranch and
surrounding proposed projects are implemented.
Mitigation Measure: Cumulative visual impacts related to the change in visual character
for the Otay Ranch and other major projects in the region would remain significant. No
mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to reduce this impact, and
therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related
to a change in the visual character of the Village Six Project Area that cannot be fully
mitigated.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to a
significant cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would
eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor
species. The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant
impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to
reduce this impact, and therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant
cumulative impacts related to raptor foraging habitat that cannot be fully mitigated.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to a
significant cumulative loss of cultural resources.
52
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: The Otay Ranch Program EIR made a Finding of Overriding
Considerations, whereby the benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweigh the significant
cumulative impacts to cultural resources. No new cumulative impacts beyond those
previously analyzed in the original Program EIR would occur from implementation of the
project. However, because of the continuing depletion of the archaeological record
through general development, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would remain
significant and unmitigated.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to
reduce this impact. Therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant
cumulative impacts related to raptor foraging habitat that cannot be fully mitigated.
E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact: Cumulative development of Otay Ranch and surrounding properties would
result in the permanent loss or impairment of lands suitable and historically used for
production of coastal-dependent crops.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: Although the area is not currently used for this type of agricultural
production, the region represents an agricultural resource because of its coastal climatic
conditions. The cumulative commitment of agricultural land to urban uses would be
irreversible.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to
reduce this impact. Therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant not
mitigated cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources; such impacts cannot be
fi~!lv miti eared
F. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY
Impact: The increase in runoff and decrease in water quality would have a significant
cumulative impact to the quality and quantity of runoff.
53
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance.
Explanation: The recently developed and proposed communities would involve the
creation of substantial areas of new impervious surfaces. These additional impervious
surfaces would reduce the amount of infiltration of storm water. A decrease in potential
recharge to the groundwater basin and an increase in the runoff would result. Urban
activities, including but not limited to construction, would add contaminated materials to
this increased quantity of surface water runoff. The surface water quality, particularly in
the Otay River, Pogg/ Canyon, and Telegraph Canyon drainage basins, would be
affected.
Mitigation Measure: The increase in runoff and decrease in water quality would have a
significant cumulative impact on these drainage basins. The mitigation measures, as
specified above, will be incorporated into final design plans based on the surface water
modeling and will reduce the potential cumulative impacts to a level below significance.
G. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Olympic Parkway between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10,
Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: At buildout, Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway is
anticipated to operate at LOS F.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
Subchapter 5.13, Table 540.6 page 181].
5.10-2 The General Plan shall be amended to designate this portion of the roadway as an
Enhanced Prime Arterial with eight lanes. The required amendment shall be
adopted no later than the first General Plan Amendment considered for adoption
in 2002. The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards construction of the
two additional lanes.
54
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Olympic Parkway between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. [EIR, Subchapter
5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: At buildout, Olympic Parkway from EastLake Parkway to Hunte Parkway
is anticipated to operate at LOS F.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, Table 5-10.6 page 181].
5-10.3 The applicant shall contribute a fair share toward the construction to six-lane
Prime Arterial standards.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on tray Lakes Road between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10,
Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
anticipated to operate at LOS F.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13 Table 5-10.6 page 181J.
5.10-4 The General Plan shall be amended to designate this portion of the roadway as an
Enhanced Prime Arterial with seven lanes. The required amendment shall be
55
adopted no later than the first General Plan Amendment considered for adoption
in 2002. The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards construction of the
additional eastbound lane.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. [EIR, Subchapter
5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Until improvements are made, Otay Lakes Road between H Street and
Telegraph Canyon Road operating as a four-lane major is anticipated to function at LOS
F.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5. ! 3, Table 5-10.6 page 182].
5.10-5 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards widening to six lanes or
towards intersection improvements that provide additional capacity along Otay
Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and H Street. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10,
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
56
Explanation: Until improvements are made, Otay Lakes Road between H Street and
Bonita Road, operating as a four-lane major, is anticipated to function at LOS F.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, page 182].
5.10-6 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the widening to six lanes or
towards intersection improvements that provide additional capacity along Otay
Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact: Other intersections and roadways prior to the construction of SR-125 would be
significantly impacted if developed units exceed 9,429 dwelling units.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Prior to the construction of SR-125 the capacity of the circulation system
is projected to be limited.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 182]
5.10-7 Prior to the construction of SR-125, the City shall stop issuing new building
permits for Village Six when the City, in its sole discretion, determines:
a) building permits for a total of 9,429 dwelling units have been issued for
projects east of 1-805.
b) an alternative measure has been selected by the City in accordance with
the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance.
The start date for counting the 9,429 dwelling units is January 1, 2000. Notwith-
standing the foregoing, the City may issue building permits if the City decides in
its sole discretion that: (1) traffic studies demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer; (2) that the circulation system has additional capacity without
exceeding the GMOC traffic threshold standards; (3) other improvements are
57
constructed which provide additional necessary capacity; (4) the City selects an
alternative method of implementing the GMOC standards.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
to the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road if SR-125 is not completed.
[E1R, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: At buildout, the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road is
anticipated to operate at LOS F.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, page 182]. ~-
5.10-8 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the future signalization of this
intersection.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact:
The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts to
1-805 between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10,
Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
the agency making the findings. Such other changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. In the case of improvements
required to 1-805 between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, the changes or
alterations required are the responsibility of Caltrans.
Explanation: Additional lanes are required to maintain an acceptable level of service on
Interstate 805.
58
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.13, page 183].
5.10-9 Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS on 1-805.
Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and
SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated.
Impact: Access to the project from perimeter roadways is required prior to project
development. [EIR, S ubc hapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Circulation system improvements are required to ensure adequate access
to the subject project.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 183].
5.10-10 Prior to approval of the first final map, which triggers the installation of the
related street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
construct and secure a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect
wiring at the following intersections:
La Media and J Street;
La Media and Birch Road;
Birch Road and Street R; and
~irch ~::d a~d CPw ~ ^,,'~.~,~,.
The applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals as part of the
improvement plans for the related street and shall install underground
improvements, standard luminaries in conjunction with the construction of the
related street improvements. In addition, the applicant shall install mast arms,
signal heads, and associated equipment if traffic signal warrants are met as
determined by the City Engineer.
59
Once 75 percent of the residential units within Village Six have been
constructed, the applicant shall conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis at the
Palomar Street?'R" Street and the "R" Street?'J" Street intersections. If traffic
signal warrants are met at either or both of the intersections, the applicant shall
constxuct a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect wiring.
Prior to approval of the first final map, which triggers the installation of the
related street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
construct and secure the necessary modifications, as required by the City
Engineer, including interconnect wiring to the following intersections:
Olympic Parkway and La Media Road; and
Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street.
The applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals as part of the
improvement plans for the associated street.
Prior to the approval of a CUP for the private high school, the applicant shall
prepare a site-specific access study and provide the required improvements
acceptable to the City Engineer.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact: Village Core traffic operations would have significant traffic impacts. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.10, page 184].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Circulation issues internal to the Village Core need to be reviewed to
ensure that traffic flows are adequately considered for non-residential uses.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5~ 13, page 184].
5.10-11 All site plans for non-residential uses (with the exception of schools) shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may
require a project-specific traffic study if the project has the potential for
resulting in unanticipated circulation impacts. Recommendations to reduce
60
potentially significant impacts shall be incorporated into the site plan or
required as a condition of project approval.
Potential traffic impacts resulting from development and operation of the
schools shall be reviewed by the respective school districts when specific
projects are under consideration. All street improvements shall be coordinated
with the City and the City shall request review of ail draft plans.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Secondary Impacts Associated with Off-Site Traffic Mitigation Improvements
Impact: At the time off-site improvements are designed and proposed, additional
environmental review may be required to determine potential impacts related to
construction, including water quality, traffic, and impacts to paleontological resources,
and the need for specific mitigation measures to address these potential impacts. [EIR,
Subchapter 5.10, page 186].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The off-site traffic improvements described above for direct and
cumulative traffic impacts could create secondary 'impacts associated with land use,
biological resources, construction-related water quality impacts, construction-related
traffic impacts (potential land closures, traffic delays, and hazards), aesthetics/landform
alteration, noise, and cultural/paleontological resources. Although these off-site roadway
improvements have not been designed or engineered, the area potentially affected by the
widening is described below along with an evaluation of potential impacts. Program-
level mitigation requirements are identified below to reduce the impacts to below a level
of significance at the time the improvements are designed.
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 186-187]
5.10-12 Prior to approval of a roadway improvement project, a biological
reconnaissance based on detailed grading and design plans shall be conducted
by the applicant to document any impacts to sensitive biological resources.
Any impacts to sensitive biological habitats shall be mitigated pursuant to the
61
mitigation ratios described in the draft or approved Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan.
5.10-13 Prior to issuance of any grading permits for a roadway improvement, a
detailed acoustical study for the affected roadway segment shall be prepared
to determine the need for any noise attenuation measures for adjacent
sensitive land uses.
5.10-14 Prior to the approval of the design plans for a roadway improvement, a
detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared to ensure that potential aesthetic
impacts associated with any grading necessary for the improvement are
mitigated.
5.10-15 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, monitoring of
any grading for the presence of cultural and paleontological resources shall be
required. If such resources are encountered during grading operations, the
protocol described in Section 5.6 of this EIR shall be required.
5.10-16 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, applicable
construction-related water quality mitigation measures shall be required by the
City Engineer.
5.10-17 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, preparation of
a traffic control plan for delays and hazards associated with construction
impacts shall be prepared by the applicant and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
5.10-18 For the widening of Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph
Canyon Road, plans prepared for the improvements shall be designed to avoid
impacts to the church and the library.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
H. AIR QUALITY
Impact: Cumulative impacts to air quality related to long-term mobile emissions would
be significant.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
62
Explanation: The development of Village Six will impact air quality through the
vehicular traffic generated by project residents. Regionally, site-related travel will add to
regional trip generation within the local air basin.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant
impact to less than significant levels.
I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
WA~R
Impact: Cumulative impacts to water quality would be significant.
Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Explanation: The proposed project plus cumulative development would incrementally
increase regional water consumption. Water supplies in southern California fluctuate with
precipitation, climatic conditions, and disputes over water rights from imported sources.
Cumulative impacts to water supply associated with ongoing development on a regional
scale are anticipated. The additional demand for the Village Six SPA Plan in conjunction
with the other proposed and approved projects within the Chula Vista area would be
approximately 77.2 mgd.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant
impact to less than significant levels.
SEWER
Impact: The cumulative impact to the sewer system is significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
signi [5c,q~t m~vironment~ql ~ffect ~m idemified ix the ~Ur~. ~mpleme~,,tatio~ of the ;,".e~::~res
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The combined effect of buildout of the Otay Ranch GDP with other
surrounding GDPs would result in a total estimated sewage flow of 35.6 mgd. Additional
wastewater transmission and treatment facilities would be necessary to handle this flow
level.
63
Mitigation Measure: Proposed mifigaton requires that each applicant construct or
contribute toward the cost of constructing required regional wastewater facilities in
proportion to the flows contributed. The provision of regional facilities in conjunction
with project-specific improvements would reduce the impacts to below the level of
significance.
INTEGRAI~D WASTE MANAGEMENT
Impact: The cumulative impact to integrated waste management is significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Buildout of the southern portion of San Diego County would result in a
substantial increase in the generation of solid waste. Landfill capacity in the region is
limited. The cumulative impact is potentially significant. All new development within
the region would have to comply with the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego
programs and regulations concerning long-term solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure: The cumulative impact will be reduced by providing additional
solid waste facilities and recycling facilities, transporting trash outside the region to less
impacted areas, and meeting state-mandated recycling goals. The PFFP establishes the
fees and phasing associated with contributing toward the cost of construction of any
regional facilities. The implementation of these measures reduces the cumulative impact
to below the level of significance.
LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE PROTECTION, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Impact: The cumulative impact to law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency
medical services is significant.
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The overall population growth would substantially increase demands on
law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services. The cumulative
64
impact would be significant. Staffing and new facilities would be required to adequately
accommodate the population increase expected at buildout.
Mitigation Measure: The measures specified in the PFFP will ensure that these services
are provided incrementally but concurrent with need. With the development of master
plans for fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical services, the cumulative
impacts would be reduced to a level below significance.
SCHOOLS
Impact: The cumulative impact on the school districts is significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The combined new students that would be generated by the residential
development proposed in the region would continually require new schools, staff, and
supplies be provided throughout buildout. As development occurs, school fees or
assessments would be paid. Elementary, junior, and high school sites have been
designated within specific Otay Ranch villages under the Otay Ranch GDP.
Mitigation Measure: The measures specified in the PFFP will ensure that schools are
provided in accordance with need. Implementation of the PFP'P along with the
development of the school master plan would mitigate the cumulative impact on schools
to below a level of significance.
LmRARY SERVICES
Impact: The cumulative impact on the libraries is significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
~!re re~{red iT! or ir~ea~,'pc~r~i'ect into. ~he project ;l~:t ,,~ill st~bstantially avoid th~
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Population growth in the Village Six SPA Plan region would result in the
need for substantial additional library space, books, and staff. The impact would be
cumulatively potentially significant. The Otay Ranch GDP provides for the
establishment of a "main library" as part of the Eastern Urban Center development.
65
Mitigation Measure: Paymems of the development impact fees established for libraries
would reduce the cumulative impact to a level of insignificance.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Impact: The cumulative impacts on local and regional park and recreational facilities
would be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Cumulatively, the proposed and approved projects in the region would
place substantial demands on neighborhood, community, and regional parks.
Mitigation Measure: Regional park and community park financing would be provided
through the PFFP requirements. Implementation and design would be addressed through
the Village Six Neighborhood Park Conceptual Master Plan. The cumulative impacts
would be reduced to below the level of significance with the long-term provision of both
local and regional parks.
HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Impact: The cumulative impacts resulting from the risk of upset and potential exposure
to hazardous materials is significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations
are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
E,:p[a~at~on~ The potential risk of ~idversc health ~.:ffccts ;tssocii¢ied with the usc,
transport, and storage of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste would
increase with build out of cumulative projects.
Mitigation Measure: The potential for a significant cumulative impact would be reduced
to a level less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Program EIR and adherence to applicable laws and regulations.
66
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVF, S
Because the project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as
outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternative to the project as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or
more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant
environmental effects. Where, as in this project, significant environmental effects remain
even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decision makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Subsequent EIR.
Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project
alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where
the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation
to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts
would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253
Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83
Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this project, in
adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
if project alternatives are feasible, the decisionmakers must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to
the project, the decisionmakers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the
project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain
the basic objectives of the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR
to examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these
alternatives "w,~tld impede to some degree: thc :~ttainmcnt of the project ottjcctives."
[CEQA Guidelines section 15126.]
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as
"infeasible" pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term
'~feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: feasible means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." [Pub. Resources
Code section 21061.1] The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of
67
"feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364
states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or
mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social,
or technological factor." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a
different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement
under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency
shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been
certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would
occur if the project is approved or carded out unless the public agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
(1) "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(1)]
(2) "Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency. [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, sub& (a)(2)]
(3) "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3)]
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (CiO, of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 410, 417 [183
Cal. Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental,
~0cip~l ~:~d tecbn01ogica~ factors." (~l~id.; se~. als~ &~q~?d~ biii[~, i'io~e~!?.,~ers As.v~. ~,.
City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cai.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal. Rptr.2d 182]).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in
significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and
other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the
finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to
68
meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the project best meets the finally
approved project objectives with the least environmental impact.
The detailed discussion in Sections IX and X demonstrate that all but three significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided
through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional,
formal mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated
impacts are the following:
Air quality (direct and cumulative - conformance with regional plans, construction
emissions project operations emissions);
,, Transportation/traffic circulation (cumulative - 1-805: Bonita Road to Telegraph
Canyon Road); and
· Landform alteration and visual quality (cumulative - contribution to open space
conversion).
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any
alternatives identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with
respect to the impacts listed above. (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527 [147
Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr.
426].) As the following discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both
feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects, and the extent to which
particular aitematives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to
them, these findings will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also
address the environmental merits of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of
impacts---even though such a far-ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The
findings ~vill also assess whether each alternative is feasible in light of the City's
objectives for the Project.
~i~c City .~ ~cvicw oi project altcntanvcs is guided primarily by the need lo leduce
potential impacts associated with the Project, while still achieving the basic objectives of
the Project. Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate
and implement development over a large area. More specific objectives include those
previously listed in Section II~.
69
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126, subdivision (d)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the
"No Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as
well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and conununity services."
Under the No Project alternative, the Village Six SPA Plan area would remain essentially
in its existing undeveloped condition. The impacts associated with project
implementation and the potentially significant cumulative impacts of proposed and
approved developments in the area would not occur under this scenario. The No Project
alternative would thus nullify impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,
biological resources, cultural/paleontological resources, geology/geologic hazards,
hydrology, land use, noise, public facilities, traffic/circulation, and utilities/service
systems. However, as part of the City's General Plan and adopted GDP, the Village Six
SPA Plan area is an area planned for development, and it is likely that similar
development would be proposed for the site in the future.
With respect to water quality, no structural systems are currently in place to control the
pollutants associated with the existing land uses of dry fanning and grazing, such as
organic matter, animal wastes, pesticides, and fertilizer. Based on the proximity to the
lakes and the streambed, the potential hazards to runoff and water quality are considered
moderate to high. The No Project alternative would thus continue the current runoff
conditions.
Although the No Project alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the
proposed project, it would not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the
proposed project.
Finding:
1. The No Project alternative would not provide housing, which conflicts with the
housing goals of the General Plan which recommends that housing be provided
I'o[ all income gmUl)S.
2. This alternative does not provide employment opportunities.
3. This alternative provides little or no support for public transit, conflicting with the
adopted General Plan transit goals.
4. Retention of the project site in its existing state as primarily agricultural fields
would be inconsistent with the approved General Plan and existing Otay Ranch
7O
General Development Plan land use designations for the site. In addition, key
subregional traffic routes established in the Circulation Element would not be
implemented.
5. Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals
of the General Plan and would require re-evaluation of the existing GDP. The
project proposes to provide regional-serving public facilities designated in the
conununity plan, including Circulation Element roads, schools, parks, open space,
water conveyance facilities, and other infrastructure. These facilities would be
needed to support sun'ounding developments whether the project is implemented
or not. The No Project alternative would require that these facilities be provided
without the benefit of the dedications and financial participation from private
development, which may delay or preclude facilities from being provided. The
reduction in dwelling units will result in a loss of contributions into the PFFP
from the dwelling units/structures that would otherwise have made payments
upon issuance of building permits. The loss of units under the No Project
alternative would result in a shortfall of contributions into the PFFP and
potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities currently
identified in the PFFP for construction in this area.
7. The City and County would receive much lower long-term revenues in the form
of property and sales tax, resulting from the nondevelopment of residential areas.
Implementation of the No Project alternative would achieve very few of the objectives
established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily preserve
the open space and other natural features on the project site, it would amount to a failure
to attempt to plan the site for eventual development, despite the planned community
designation contemplated by the General Plan and GDP.
The No Project alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project
area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public
services and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the
City's circulation; and to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and
infrastructure. The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation
of fmnre pro.iected pop~_~!,~tlo~ ,,, ~,, ~rc~! . ~ sonab ) ~los¢ ~c~ [uturc job-growth a'eas
within the city, as well as the construction of affordable housing consistent with the
City's goals.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project alternative is not
feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
Cai.App.4th at 715.)
71
B. REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Reduced Density alternative, the residential intensity of development would be
reduced by approximately 29 percent by decreasing the total number of multi- and single-
family residential units. The Reduced Density alternative would retain the high school
and the church and reduce both the single-family and multi-family densities. It retains
the elementary school, public park, open space, and circulation roadways.
The grading for this alternative would remain essentially the same. The entire site would
be graded to accommodate the modified residential use. Because grading would remain
essentially the same, impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology and soils,
agriculture, paleontology, and landform are equivalent between the proposed project and
the Reduced Density alternative.
The traffic generated by the Village Six Reduced Density alternative would be reduced
by approximately 4,995 ADT, for a total of 27,784 ADT. The significant traffic impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would be
reduced but would not be avoided. As the significant traffic impacts are cumulative, the
traffic mitigation measures would be unchanged from those required of the proposed
project; this is because the 15 percent reduction in ADT would not bring significant
traffic impacts below the thresholds for significance.
Air quality impacts associated with vehicular trips would also be reduced under this
alternative. While short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would not
be reduced, because the area and extent of grading would remain essentially the same as
that for the proposed project, there would be a slight decrease in overall long-term air
quality impacts associated with power generation and the operation of on-site commercial
facilities due to the reduced population. Overall, the reduction in air quality impacts
would be minor and the cumulative impact would remain significant and unmitigable.
Development of Otay Ranch is based on the Village Concept, which plans for a Village
Core with land uses that will meet the day-to-day needs of the village residents. The
Reduced Density alternative reduces the amount of multi-family dwelling within the
Village Core. The Reduced Density alternative does not provide the multi-family
commercial and public uses in the Village Core.
The Reduced Density alternative would reduce the amount of housing available within
Village Six by approximately 29 percent. This would reduce the ability of the City to
meet the projected need for an additional 13,500 dwelling units by 2005. The Reduced
Density alternative would not be in confomlance with the policies outlined in
SANDAG's Growth Management Plan. The lack of housing concurrent with needs as
72
shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan would result in a
potentially significant impact.
The grading plan for the Reduced Density alternative would be very similar to the
grading plan required for the proposed project. The proximity of future development to
major roadways would remain unchanged. The mitigation measures for noise impacts to
future development areas would also be expected to remain unchanged. Mitigation
measures for noise impacts associated with construction would remain unchanged. The
Reduced Density alternative, therefore, does not avoid or lessen noise impacts.
Since the Reduced Density alternative does not propose significant grading modifica-
tions, there would not be a measurable reduction in the volume or quality of the runoff
from the site.
The following project objectives would be achieved by the Reduced Density alternative:
1. Promote synergistic uses between Village Six, the neighborhoods of EastLake,
and adjacent Otay Ranch villages to balance activities, services, and facilities;
2. Implement the City's Growth Management Program to ensure that the public
facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the
demand for and benefiting from the improvements;
3. Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban
sprawl;
4. Develop, maintain, and enhance a sense of community identity;
5. Accentuate the relationship of the land use plan with its natural setting and the
physical character of the region and promote effective management of natural
resources by concentrating development into less sensitive areas while preserving
large, contiguous open space areas with sensitive resources; and
6. Add to the creation of a unique Otay Ranch image and identity that differentiates
Ot~y r~anch fi'~:w ctl~er
The Reduced Density alternative would not meet the following goals and objectives:
l. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan,
particularly the tray Ranch General Development Plan, the Resource
Management Plan, the Facility Implementation Plan, the Village Phasing Plan,
and the Service/Revenue Plan;
73
2. Establish a pedestrian-oriented village with an urban core to reduce reliance on
the automobile and to promote walking as well as the use of bicycles, buses, and
public transit;
3. Establish a land use and facility plan that assures the viability of Village Six in
consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions; and
4. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
The GDP envisions higher residential densities than proposed by the Reduced Density
alternative. The purpose of the higher densities is to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit-oriented development and to wisely manage limited natural resources through the
concentration of development in the least environmentally sensitive areas while
preserving large tracts of open space. Reduction in density, as proposed under the
Reduced Density alternative, would provide insufficient density in the Village Core to
support transit facilities and to promote pedestrian-oriented land use design.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the Reduced Density alternative is not
feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
Cai. App.4th at 715.)
XlI.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED
VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN EIR
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas,
described in detail in these Findings of Fact:
* Land Use;
Landfonn Alterations/Aesthetics;
Biological Resources;
Agricultural Resources;
· Transportation, Circulation and Access; and
~, Air Quality.
The City has adopted all feasible nfitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these
significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the
impacts.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based
on this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives (1) meets
project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the proposed project.
As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15043 and 15093. This provision
allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a
justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental
effects that have not been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's
judgment, the project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where
another substantive law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or
the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from
taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding
considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the
decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in
the Final EIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose more
stringent standards or measures.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather,
EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be
"adverse." (Pub. Resource Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition
to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial
impacts must also be addressed. (See, Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190,
206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377].) Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from information about
project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding
considerations. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.)
The City finds that the proposed project would have the following substantial, social,
environmental and economic benefits. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is
sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that
not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its
determ~mttion that eat5 individual reasoli is ,,',t[ficient. The substantial evidence
supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are
incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of
Proceedings, as defined in Section IV.
Environmental Protection and Prese~wation
The Village Six SPA Plan will convey 332.73 acres into the Otay Ranch open space
preserve. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) has established performance standards
75
for achieving an 11,375-acre Otay Ranch open space preserve. Compliance relies on
progressive acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the designated Otay Ranch
Preserve areas with each development approval. Village Six would have an indirect,
long-term, potentially significant impact related to biological resources management
unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and concurrently
with development.
The preserve includes an open space system that incorporates public education programs,
links community to natural areas, and preserves and restores sensitive habitats, special
landforms, and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system of paths and trails will connect
the urban villages and their parks, forming a passive and active recreation network
throughout the area. The RMP adopted by the Chula Vista City Council has the
following functions.
Serves as a plan-wide multi-species/habitat and cultural resources management
program;
,, Provides the funding, phasing, and ownership mechanisms necessary to
effectively protect and manage on-site resources over the long term;
Plans for coordinated, controlled public use and enjoyment of the Management
Preserve established as part of the RMP consistent with protection of sensitive
resources;
* Provides certainty that the open space will be preserved in perpetuity by requiring
irrevocable dedications of open space acreage; and
* Preserves/protects cultural resources.
The RMP provides for management, resource enhancement and restoration, research,
education, and interpretive activities to ensure that resource values in areas to be
preserved are maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. The RMP also addresses cultural,
paleontological, recreational, and agricultural resource protection needs in addition to
sensitive habitats. Finally, the RMP provides an opportunity to establish large blocks of
i~i~rco~c~tcd natural opel~ space. By linking the Otay Ranch Management Preserve
system to large and adjacent publicly owned open space lands with resource values
similar to those found on the Otay Ranch property, the RMP contributes to the creation of
an overall regional open space system, providing more than 35,000 acres of
interconnected open space in Otay Ranch and the immediate vicinity. The RMP
identifies the preservation of sensitive habitats that contain approximately 100 species of
sensitive plants and animals.
76
Community Planning and Development
Development Patterns Which Minimize the Adverse Impacts of Development on Air
Quality and Congestion. The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San
Diego air basin. Most of this pollution is attributable to motor vehicles. The Village Six
SPA Plan and the Village concept of the Otay Ranch GDP are designed to minimize
automobile trip length and thereby reduce pollutant contributions to regional air quality
that would otherwise result if jobs and housing were provided for in a typical suburban
development pattern.
Otay Ranch's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide housing
proximate to this employment center. A mixed~use development, the GDP will promote
linkage of trips, reduce trip length, and encourage use of alternative modes of
transportation such as biking, walking and use of transit. The GDP creates a multi-modal
transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single-passenger vehicle
trips. Designed to encourage walking, biking, use of transit and reduced reliance on
automobiles, the GDP clusters high-density, high-intensity development in villages near
transit and light rail terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are
close by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The GDP and the Village Six SPA Plan provide the opportunity to comprehensively plan
development that meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure, and
environmental preservation. These benefits are made possible by Otay Ranch's size and
scope. The Otay Ranch GDP includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and
public services that are typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The
regional planning process undertaken for the GDP involved long-range inter-
jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum achievement of policies and regulations
of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County.
The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the GDP include the
following:
Comprehe~iw~ ('~msider:~tio~ of the ~DP cumulafi~ effects;
Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air
quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure, and public services planning; and
o Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities.
The GDP includes a provision for designating land for regional purpose facilities. These
facilities are provided by the County and are currently housed in County-owned facilities,
77
where available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation
of land for regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide
better opportunities for users of these facilities than is currently available with new
development.
Housing Needs
The GDP will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a
wide variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the' cost of housing compared
to other uses (e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of
other uses in the Otay Ranch area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The
GDP will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable
land for residential development.
The Village Six SPA Plan would increase the housing stock in the City by approximately
2,086 dwelling units. This proposed level of development is included in the adopted
planning for the City. The project represents a future housing supply for the region.
Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the demand
for housing. If the high school is not built, an additional 146 units could be constructed
for a total of 2,232 units.
SANDAG has forecasted a need for an additional approximately 13,500 additional
dwelling units within the city of Chula Vista by 2005. The Village Six SPA Plan would
enact the SANDAG policies by implementing a bus system, providing a pedestrian-
oriented development, preserving open space adjacent to the project, offering new homes,
increasing the tax base for the City, and providing right-of-way for the regional transit
system.
The Village Six SPA Plan would provide five percent low-income and five percent
moderate-income housing. This constitutes 202 affordable units, half of which are
designated as low-income housing and half as moderate-income housing. The proposed
10 percent affordable housing is consistent with the objectives of the City's Housing
Element and the Otay Ranch GDP requirements.
The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the GDP and included in the Otay Ranch
gervlce Revenue Plan concluded that, at buildout, the GDP will have a net positive
impact on both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Because it is
anticipated that during buildout there will be short-term periods in which the costs to
service Otay Ranch exceed revenues, the GDP includes a reserve fund program, which
protects the City and County by correcting any operating deficiencies incurred by the
affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal shortfall. Financing of the
78
reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the responsibility of the
applicant.
The project will provide for significant community-wide public facilities. As the plan is
implemented, it will be responsible for constructing public facilities and infrastructure to
serve the project and incidentally the subregion. These facilities include:
,, Improvements to regional backbone circulation system;
· Schools serving the subregion including the on-site elementary; and
A public park and greenbelt and community trails.
The project would also generate new temporary construction-related jobs that would
enhance the economic base of the region.
For these reasons, on balance the City Council finds there are economic, social, and other
considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's
unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable effects
are considered acceptable.
79
R2002-021
Exhibit B
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Inffoduction
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of
Chula Vista for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to
comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs
to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is
dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified
and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project
approval process.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the
mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating information on the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes
the following:
Monitoring team qualifications
Specific monitoring activities
o Reporting system
Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project is the adoption of a SPA plan for Village Six of the Otay Ranch
GDP. There is also an amendment to the GDP to redesignate Birch Road to a six-lane
major arterial between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. It also includes an evaluation of
two Conceptual Tentative Maps and the proposed use of an area as a church and private
high school.
Village Six is defined by the Otay Ranch GDP as an Urban Village and is planned for
transit-oriented development. The proposed Village Six SPA Plan proposes development
approximately 237 acres. The transit center and multi-family housing is located around a
village core. One hundred forty-nine acres would be developed with nonresidential uses,
including community purpose facilities (CPF), an elementary school, a private high
school, a public neighborhood park, commercial uses, open space, and circulation rights-
of-way.
A private high school is proposed for the southern area of the project within the area
designated R-11/S-2. Should the high school not be developed, the underlying land use
would permit the construction of 146 single-family homes. If the single-family homes are
built instead of the high school, the total number of units proposed for the project would
be 2,232. Both the high school and the residential use options are considered in this
document. A tentative map would have to be processed for these residential units to be
developed, and subsequent environmental review would be completed by the City of
Chula Vista.
The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP, Chula Vista General Plan, and
adopting the SPA Plan are described in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) text.
The Ell;i, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be
potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the Ell;[ include
land use, traffic circulation and access, biological resources, landform
alteration/aesthetics, water resources and water quality, geology and soils, noise, air
quality, housing and population, agriculture, cultural resources, paleontological resources,
hazards/risk of upset, and public services and utilities. The environmental analysis
concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and
potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of
recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation '
were identified for traffic circulation and access, water resources and water quality,
geology and soils, agriculture, landform alteration/aesthetics, noise, air quality, cultural
resources, paleontological resources, hazards/risk of upset, and public services and
utilities.
Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or
potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Village Six SPA Plan therefore
addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
Mitigation Monitoring Team
A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted
as conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be
accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs),
and the MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula
Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience
in working under trying field circumstances; .
2
Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
· Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of
cost-effective mitigation options; and
" Excellent communication skills.
The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following:
Implement and manage the monitoring program;
Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring;
· Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final
construction monitoring;
· Act as liaison between the City of Chula Vista and the applicant's contractors;
,, Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs
and ESs in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project
requirements, construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort;
· Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit
conditions;
· Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation
or proposed additional mitigation;
· Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project
environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and
· Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and
personnel responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance.
The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in
performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities
· Maintain a working knowledge of the Village Six permit conditions, contract
documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation
requirements for his or her assigned construction area;
Assist the MM and the applicant's construction contractors in coordinating with City
of Chula Vista compliance activities;
# Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit
conditions; and
,, Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist
the MM as necessary in preparing status reports.
The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when
environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project
implementation and to provide direction for mitigation.
Program Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties
involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority
of the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be
addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss
specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All
parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted
and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort.
Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City
of Chula Vista would include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and
the construction crew supervisor. The MM would distribute to each Environmental
Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain
to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are
anticipated to be implemented.
[n addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation
monitoring report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of
the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions
addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the
MMR and file it with the MM following the monitoring activity. The MM will then
include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive
construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe
t. hC l]laJOl* accomplishments of the monitoring progn'am, summarize problems encountered
in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed, to overcome
problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In
addition, and if appropriate, each EM or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily
log report to the MM. The dally log report will be used to record and account for the
monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status repons, as
determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance repons and
will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This
type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula Vista to confirm the implementation
and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project.
Actions in Case of Noncompliance
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the
adopted conditions of approval:
Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or
task delay; and
Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
In each case, the MM would notify the applicant's contractor and the City of Chula Vista
of the noncompliance, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily basis.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program
should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies
include "stop work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations,
citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program
understand the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding
actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table sununarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are
recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language
appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan
has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors,
the City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will further refine the mitigation measures.