The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013/12/17 Item 12 Attachment 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-10-03) FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS November 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..............................................................................1 11. ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................1 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................3 IV. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................6 V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS............................................................................................6 VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA...............................................................................8 VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS......................................................................................10 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...........................................10 IX SIGNIFICANT DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......11 X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES ............................86 XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES...........................................105 XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................117 BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map Environmental Impact Report (EIR); EIR-10-03; SCH No. 2010062093 FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map (TM) addresses the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the Final EIR evaluates three alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the following: (1) No Project-No Build Alternative; (2) Reduced Project Alternative #1; and (3) Reduced Project Alternative #2. The final EIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21094, and tiers from the certified the Supplemental EIR (SEIR 09-01/SCH #2004081066) to the City's General Plan Update EIR (EIR 05-01/SCH #2004081066) and the General Plan Update EIR (EIR#05-01/SCH #2004081066) (2005 PEIR). These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15000 et seq.). II. ACRONYMS ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CVESD Chula Vista Elementary School District City City of Chula Vista CVMC Chula Vista Municipal Code CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level EIR Environmental Impact Report FAA Federal Aviation Administration GDP General Development Plan GDPA General Development Plan Amendment GPA General Plan Amendment 1 GPU General Plan Update GMOC Growth Management Oversight Commission HCP Habitat Conservation Plans HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning NOX Nitrogen Oxides NSLU Noise Sensitive Land Uses OWD Otay Water District PFDIF Public Facilities Development Impact Fee PFFP Public Facility Finance Plan PM10 Course particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns PM2.5 Fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns PPV Peak Particle Velocity RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy RMP Resource Management Plan RWQCD Regional Water Quality Control Board SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SAMP Subarea Master Plan SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SIP State Implementation Plan SPA Sectional Planning Area TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TM Tentative Map USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WSAV Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of approximately 300 acres of land in Otay Ranch known as Village 8 West, located entirely within the city of Chula Vista, California, near the southeasterly edge of the city limits. Chula Vista is located in San Diego County, approximately 13 miles southeast of the downtown area of the city of San Diego, and approximately 7 miles north of the U.S./Mexico international border. Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the GDP defines Village 8 West as an urban village. The GDP states, "Urban villages are adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores." Village 8 West has been planned in transects to provide organization for development that focuses activity within the Town Center, transitioning into residential opportunities and rural open space at the edges. Uses include an elementary school, a middle school, a variety of parks, various open space areas, multi-family and single- family residential units, and mixed-use areas. The most intense development would be concentrated near the Town Center, with building heights and density gradually decreasing to the south, away from the Town Center. The proposed land uses and proposed maximum residential unit yield for Village 8 West are provided below in Table 1. TABLE 1 VILLAGE 8 WEST SPA LAND USES Area Residential Office Commercial Land Use (Acres) (Units) (Square feet) (Square feet) Mixed Use(TC) 40.7 899 50,000 250,000 Multi-family(MH) 29.5 530 -- -- Cluster Single-family/Town homes(M) 26.2 290 -- -- Single-family(LMV) 67.0 331 -- -- Schools 31.6 -- -- -- Community Purpose Facility 5.8 -- -- -- Parks 27.9 -- -- -- Open Space 39.1 -- -- -- Arterial Rights-of-Way and Basin 32.5 -- -- -- Total 300.3 2,050 50,000 250,000 TC=Town Center, MH = medium-high density, M = medium density, and LMV= low-medium density Source: Otay Land Company, LLC. Section Planning Area(SPA)Plan for Village 8 West, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California. Prepared by William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. May 2012. Village 8 West would include an off-site utility corridor to the south of the project site. The corridor would be 30 feet wide, including a 20-foot sewer corridor to connect to existing sewer facilities, and a 10-foot storm drain corridor to direct drainage to Otay River. A 12-foot paved utility access road would be included within the 30-foot utility corridor. This utility access road would provide access for the off-site utilities and would serve as a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park trail system. The project would also require 4.6 acres of off-site grading on the City of San Diego reservoir site in the middle of Village 8 West. 3 The Village 8 West circulation system would provide a system of roadway and trail corridors to support both vehicular and non-vehicular modes of transportation. This system includes the extension of existing and planned roads, trails, and transit from adjacent villages as well as internal systems to serve the project site. Streets in the community are designed as "complete" streets, considering all modes of transportation by providing vehicular travel lanes, bike lanes or bike routes, sidewalks, and transit lanes where appropriate. The SPA Plan includes plans to provide adequate infrastructure to the proposed development, including water distribution, recycled water distribution, sewer service, and storm water collection. The Tentative Map (TM) for Village 8 West details how the utilization plan would be implemented. The map includes the various land uses, proposed grading, and street layout. In addition, a TM depicts proposed utilities, easements and conceptual trail design. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following: ■ Adoption of the Village 8 West SPA Plan and associated documents including but not limited to: - Village 8 West SPA Plan - Air Quality Improvement Plan - Agricultural Plan - Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan - Preserve Edge Plan - Fire Protection Plan - Affordable Housing Plan - Water Conservation Plan - Parks, Recreation, Open Space Master Plan - Emergency Disaster Plan - Public Facility Finance Plan ■ Approval of a tentative map to establish the location of development and open space lots and identify the infrastructure requirements for Village 8 West. ■ Approval of a development agreement amendment including conditions of approval for development within the Village 8 West SPA Plan area. ■ Certification of a Final EIR and adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Future development proposed in accordance with the project would require discretionary approvals. Such future discretionary actions are anticipated to include (but are not be limited to) the following: Design Review Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Final Maps, Subarea Master Plans, Building Permits, and Grading Permits. While future discretionary actions will require 4 future environmental review, once certified, this EIR can be relied upon for relevant environment analysis. The City Council will determine whether the Final EIR is complete and in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certification process. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As specified in the Final EIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows: 1. Create a recognizable "place" that is unique, attractive, and full of cultural and social diversity. 2. Develop distinctive design standards and invest in design excellence to create inspiring and memorable places; emphasize the appearance and qualities of the public realm; create streetscapes, pathways, and public spaces of beauty, interest, and functional benefit to pedestrians. 3. Encourage development patterns that promote orderly growth, prevent urban sprawl, and promote effective resource management. 4. Protect and enhance the natural environment and increase the quality of life. Design neighborhoods with compact and multi-dimensional land use patterns that ensure a mix of uses and joint optimization of transportation modes to minimize the impact of cars, promote walking and bicycling, and provide access to employment, education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services. 5. Create an appropriately scaled and economically healthy Town Center. Include a wide range of commercial, residential, cultural, civic, recreational uses, and businesses that serve the daily needs of nearby residents. 6. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense, vibrant Town Center to reduce reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and regional transit. 7. Encourage community development in mixed use and compact pedestrian oriented forms to accommodate all income levels and lifestyles. 8. Foster a compact form facilitated by "form-based planning," resulting in efficient infrastructure investments and advanced opportunities to provide socially diverse housing. 9. Retain and recruit a skilled and motivated workforce to ensure economic stability into the future by providing attainable housing opportunities. Promote jobs that match the skills of existing and future residents through provision of housing opportunities and choices and by providing an opportunity for the City to attract a university or related uses by dedication of land for such purposes. 10. Promote synergistic uses and graceful transitions within the SPA and between the SPA and neighborhoods of adjacent SPAs to balance activities, services, and facilities. Integrate Village 8 West with existing Otay Ranch development, including connectivity to the Greenbelt. 11. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. 5 12. Encourage the interactivity of a wide range of people, promote community diversity, and enrich the human experience by providing a broad variety of public spaces and housing types and styles that appeal to all ages, incomes, and lifestyles. 13. Establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. IV. BACKGROUND Otay Ranch is a partially developed master-planned community that proposes a broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development interwoven with civic and community uses, such as libraries, parks, and schools. The community is 23,000 acres in size, and includes an open space preserve system consisting of approximately 11,375 acres. Village 8 West is one of the designated fourteen villages within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area. The GDP was most recently amended in 2013. The GDP establishes land plans, design guidelines, objectives, policies, and implementation measures that apply to all portions of Otay Ranch while supporting a balance of housing, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, civic facilities, and open spaces. The majority of development is intended to be clustered in villages, with conveniently located features and well-defined edges such as the Chula Vista greenbelt, open spaces, and wildlife corridors. The proposed SPA Plan is a document that refines and implements the land use plans, goals, and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP for the development of Village 8 West. Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP, review and City Council approval of SPA plans is required before final development entitlements can be considered. V. 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 EIR for the project (EIR #10-03), including appendices and technical reports; ■ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; ■ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the City's actions on the project; 6 ■ 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 the EIR, up through the close of the public hearing; ■ Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public meetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not available or adequate; ■ Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public hearings for this project; ■ All findings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers 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; - General Plan Update Final EIR (EIR #05-01, SCH #2004081066) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; - General Plan Amendment/Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment and Supplemental EIR (SEIR 09-01, SCH #2004081066) - Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City; - City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan; 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 Donna Norris, City Clerk, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approving the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620]). Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the project (see Pub. Resources Code, section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browing-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 5751; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4t' 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]). 7 V11. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation nneoaunan available which would substantially 6yaoan the significant environmental effects of such projects." (emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CE(]A "are intended to 8SSiSt public 8g8nCi8S in SySiern8tiC8||y identifying both the significant 8ffBCtS Of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effeCtS" (emphasis added). Section 21002 Q0eS OO to St8iS that "in the event kh8M specific economic, SOCi8|. Orother conditions make infeasible such project alternatives orauch mitigation meonures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one ormore significant effects." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are iDlp|e[DeOted, in p8rt, through the requirement that @QeDCieS must adopt findings before approving projects forvvhichE|Rearerequined (eeePub. Resources Code, 821081. aubd. (a); CEC>AGuide|ines. 8 15091. subd. (o)). For each significant environmental effect identified in on E|Nfor a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible COOC|uSiOOS. The first such finding is that ''[C]h8OgeS or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which ovoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final E|F|" /CE(}A Guidelines, § 15091. uubd. (@)/1\). The SeCODd permissible finding is that ^[S]uCh Ch8DQeS or 8|ten3UOOS 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 orcan and should be adopted by such other agency" (CE{JA Guidelines, & 15091. aubd. (a)(2)\. The third potential finding is that ^'[S]peCifiC eCOnOnniC' |eg8|' SOCi8|' LeChnO|O0iC8|' Or Other COnSider8UOnS' including provision Of employment opportunities for highly trained workere, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives idantified in the final E|R^ /CE(]A Guidelines, @ 15091. aubd. (a)/3\). Public Resources Code section 21081.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable ofbeing accomplished in 8 SUCCeSSfU| manner within 8 ne8SOn8b|e period Of time, taking into 8CCOUni eCOnOnniC' envinunnnanta|, social and technological faotora.^ CECAGuidelines section 15304adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52Ca|.3d553. 505 [278Ca|.F{ptr. 410]). The concept of"feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying gO8|S and objectives Of 8 project (See City of Del Mer x City of San [)/*go /1982\ 133 Co|.App.3d 410. 417 ['83 Co|.Rptr. 898]). ^ '[F]eanibi|itv' under CEQAencompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, SOCi8|' and LeChnO|UgiC8| h]CLOrS" (/bid.; See also 8equo}ah Hills Homeowners Assn. x City ofOakland (1993) 23 Ce|.App4th 704. 715 [29 Ca|.Rptr.2d 182]). The CEQ/\ Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" o significant environmental effect and rnena|y "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 21001. on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 in boned, uses the term ''rniUgote" rather than ''mubetanUo||y lessen." The CEC)A Guidelines therefore equate ^D1iUg@UDg" with ''SubSt@OU@||y |USSUOiDg." Such an understanding of the statutory term is 8 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, § 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 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 environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these 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 modifications 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, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)). With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576). 9 VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City (or "decision makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted concurrently with these findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. The mitigation measures referenced in the MMRP are adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated both through the process of implementing the Village 8 West SPA Plan and through the process of constructing and implementing the project. VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these findings, also concurrently adopts a MMRP. 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 Otay Ranch Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area Plan Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. The monitoring program will serve the dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. 10 IX. SIGNIFICANT DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY OF EFFECTS The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts") resulting from the project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated or avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in Section XII below. This Section (IX) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the project. The project will result in direct and/or indirect significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues: land use and planning; aesthetics/landform alteration; transportation/traffic; air quality; noise; biological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; geology and soils; public services; global climate change; hydrology and water quality; agricultural resources; hazards and hazardous materials; and public utilities. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in the Final EIR in Chapter 1, Table 1-2, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis. No significant effects were identified for housing and population and mineral resources (Final EIR, Table 1-2). IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, the appendices to the EIR, and the administrative record, finds the project which would mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR in the following categories: land use and planning; aesthetics/landform alteration; transportation/traffic; air quality; noise; biological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; geology and soils; public services; hydrology and water quality; agricultural resources; hazards and hazardous materials; and public utilities. A brief summary of each environmental topic that would be mitigated to below a level of significance is provided below. Land Use and Planning Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to land use compatibility and conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). No significant effects were identified for conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Aesthetics/Landform Alteration Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to scenic resources, lighting and glare, and landform alteration. No significant direct effects were identified for scenic vistas and consistency with visual character policies. Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with visual character and quality are discussed under the 11 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts heading, below. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Transportation/Traffic Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to traffic and level of service standards, congestion management, and air traffic patterns. No significant effects were identified for road safety, emergency access, and consistency with transportation policies. Air Quality Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors. No significant effects were identified for objectionable odors and consistency with air quality policies. Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality violations and conflicts with air quality plans are discussed under the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts heading, below. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Noise Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts related to excessive noise levels, short-term permanent increase in noise level, and temporary increases in ambient noise levels. No significant effects were identified for excessive groundborne vibration, aircraft noise, and consistency with noise polices. Biological Resources Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species; riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities; federally protected wetlands; and conflicts with local policies, ordinances, HCP, or NCCP. No significant effects were identified for wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources. No significant effects were identified for historical resources and consistency with cultural resource policies. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Geology and Soils Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to exposure to seismic related hazards, soil erosion or topsoil loss, soil stability, and expansive soils. No significant effects were identified for consistency with geotechnical policies and waste water disposal systems. Public Services Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to fire protection service standard, consistency with fire and emergency medical service policies, 12 police service standard, consistency with police service policies, school facilities, schools sitting, library service standard, deterioration of parks and recreation facilities, and parks and recreation standards. No significant effects were identified for fire and emergency medical facilities, police service facilities, consistency with school policies, library facilities, consistency with library policies, new recreation facilities, and consistency with park policies. Hydrology and Water Quality Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to water quality standards, erosion or siltation, surface runoff, exceed drainage capacity, and degradation of water quality. No significant effects were identified for groundwater supplies and recharge, 100-year flood hazards, consistency with water quality policies, flooding, and inundation. Agricultural Resources Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to land use zoning conflicts. No significant effects were identified for consistency with agricultural resource policies. Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with loss of farmland are discussed under the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts heading, below. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials, hazards to schools, airport hazards, consistency with hazard policies, and historic use of pesticides. No significant effects were identified for transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; existing hazardous material sites; emergency response and evacuation plans; and wildland fires. Public Utilities Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in potentially significant impacts to compliance with city-wide water supply thresholds, adequate wastewater facilities, and new recycled water facilities. No significant effects were identified for new water treatment facilities, consistency with water supply policies, consistency with city wastewater engineering standards, consistency with wastewater polices, sufficient landfill capacity, solid waste regulations, consistency with solid waste policies, consistency with recycled water policies, wasteful use of energy, and consistency with energy policies. Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with long-term water supply and new wastewater treatment facilities are discussed under the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts heading, below. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. 13 DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION FOR IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Land Use and Planning Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to land use and planning; if it would: 1. Physically divide an established community (incompatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses). 2. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community habitat conservation plan. Impact: Land Use Compatibility A significant land use compatibility impact would occur if the on-site City of San Diego water lines would not be relocated before development of Village 8 West. Therefore, impacts associated with waterline easements are considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.1.4). Explanation Several water transmission lines traverse the project site that are owned, operated, and maintained by the City of San Diego. These pipelines would not provide water to the project, but the SPA Plan and TM would construct development above ground where these pipelines are currently located. The construction of the proposed development would impede the availability of access to these pipeline easements. The project proposes to relocate these pipelines into the future public rights of way within La Media Road, Otay Valley Road, Street A and the future park access road/service road. If relocation of these water transmission pipelines did not occur prior to construction of the proposed development, a conflict with the existing City of San Diego waterline easements would occur. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.1.3). Mitigation Measures 5.1-1 Waterline Agreement. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall provide evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, that the: i. Applicant has entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego to relocate the City of San Diego waterlines within Village 8 West to a location approved by both the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. ii. City of San Diego has abandoned any water main easements not needed as a consequence of the relocation of the City of San Diego waterlines within Village 8 West. 5.1-2 Waterline Relocation. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit within Village 8 West, the applicant shall relocate the City of San Diego waterlines to the satisfaction of the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. 14 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to land use compatibility to a less than significant level. Impact: Conflicts with HCPs or NCCPs The project would have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive species that would conflict with the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Additionally, the project would have significant impacts related to biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and concurrently with development, in accordance with the provisions of the city MSCP Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) (Final EIR Section 5.1.4). Explanation The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch RMP are the habitat conservation and community habitat conservation plans applicable to Village 8 West. The design of Village 8 West is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch RMP through specific adherence to conditions of coverage and mitigation/conveyance requirements for covered projects, as defined in Section 7.6 of the Chula Vista MSCP, and the Otay Ranch RMP. The infrastructure and trail corridor that would traverse the Preserve is consistent with the requirements and criteria of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and would not conflict with the adopted MSCP. The MSCP siting criteria were developed for the implementation of planned and future facilities within the Preserve, including infrastructure associated with Village 8 West. The proposed facilities would not significantly impact MSCP narrow endemic species with implementation of the mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-19 identified in Section 5.6, Biological Resources in the EIR. These measures would implement the conservation strategies of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Additionally, implementation of the Preserve Edge Plan, Agricultural Plan, and Fire Protection Plan would ensure the development in Village 8 West would be consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP. Therefore, potential land use impacts under this threshold would be considered less than significant (Final EIR Section 5.1.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measure 5.6-1 through 5.6-19 would reduce impacts to HCPs and NCCPs (listed below under the Biological Resources heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.6.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-19 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to conflicts with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch RMP to a less than significant level. 15 Aesthetics/Landform Alteration Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to aesthetics/landform alteration if it would: 1. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic highway. 2. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 3. Alter areas of sensitive landforms and grade steep slopes that may be visible from future development and roadways that negatively detract from the prevailing aesthetic character of the site or surrounding area. Impact: Scenic Vistas The project would alter a portion of the east-facing slope of Rock Mountain. Therefore, direct impacts to scenic vistas are considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Explanation Rock Mountain is a designated scenic resource within the project area as identified in the Chula Vista General Plan. Implementation of the proposed Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 3-16) would result in grading a portion of the east-facing slope of Rock Mountain. There would be no physical impact to the landmark peak of the mountain. The resulting manufactured slope would be approximately 90-120 feet above the ground surface at its tallest point, with slope ratios ranging from 2:1 to 4:1. While the Otay Ranch GDP and Design Plan, the City's Subdivision Manual and the Village 8 West SPA Plan all have landform grading guidelines and landscaping concepts that reduce aesthetics impacts to Rock Mountain, until a Landscape Master Plan is prepared that demonstrates conformance with the foregoing guidelines and requirements, this impact would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 Landscape Master Plan. Prior to issuance of the first final map for Village 8 West, the applicant shall prepare to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), a Landscape Master Plan. The Landscape Master Plan shall demonstrate compliance with GDP Policies pertaining to softening manufactured slopes, particularly on Rock Mountain and other visible manufactured slopes greater than 25 feet in height, through plant selection, placement, and density, etc. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.2-1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. 16 Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to scenic vistas to a less than significant level. Impact: Lighting and Glare New sources of nighttime lighting from parks, mixed-use residential, commercial, multi-family residential, and Community Purpose Facility uses may be incompatible with surrounding development and inconsistent with applicable regulations. Structures with three or more stories may result in substantial shading. Potential impacts associated with light and shade/shadow cannot be determined until the location, size, and orientation of future buildings are established. Therefore, impacts associated with lighting and shade/shadow are considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Explanation Development-specific photometric analyses are necessary for more light-intensive land uses (parks, mixed-use residential, commercial, multi-family residential, and CPF uses) in order to ensure that the project would comply with all applicable regulations and be compatible with surrounding land uses. Impacts related to nighttime lighting would be potentially significant until such analyses are prepared (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Buildings heights in Village 8 West would be allowed to be up to four stories, or 60 feet, in height in the Town Center, and three stories tall, or 45 feet, in the Neighborhood Center Zone, as defined in Section 3.3 of the SPA Plan, Zone Standards. As such, there is a potential for streets, structures and public places in the Town Center and Neighborhood Center Zone to be shadowed by an adjacent building or buildings depending on certain conditions. In addition, wind access can be affected by building height and mass. Because the potential impacts associated with shade, shadow and wind access impact cannot be determined until the specific location, size, and orientation of future buildings are established, this impact could be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Mitigation Measures 5.2-2 Lighting Plan and Photometric Analysis - Parks. Concurrent with the preparation of site-specific plan(s) for park sites, including the town center park, Planning Area A and Planning Area T and prior to issuance of a building permit for any park, the applicant shall prepare, or in the case of the City being the lead on the preparation of the site specific plan, the applicant shall fund the preparation of a lighting plan and photometric analysis. The plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) and evaluate the proposed height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting for compliance with the City's performance standards for light, and glare (Chula Vista Municipal Code19.66.100). 5.2-3 Lighting Plan and Photometric Analysis — New Structures. Concurrent with design review and prior to the issuance of building permits for mixed-use residential, commercial, Community Purpose Facility and multi-family residential, the applicant shall prepare a lighting plan and photometric analysis. The plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) and evaluate the proposed height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting for compliance with the City's performance standards for light, and glare (Chula Vista Municipal Code19 19.66.100). 17 5.2-4 Shadow Analysis. Prior to design review approval for any structure three stories and above, the applicant shall prepare to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), a shadow analysis demonstrating that adjacent shadow-sensitive uses are not permanently shadowed, and/or any other approved city-standard in place at the time the shadow analysis is performed. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.2-2 through 5.2-4 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to lighting and glare to a less than significant level. Impact: Landform Alteration Grading on a portion of the east-facing slope of Rock Mountain would be a potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Explanation The project is required to comply with a combination of development standards, including the landform grading and landscaping design requirements of the Otay Ranch GDP and Design Plan, Village 8 West SPA Plan, Subdivision Manual and Grading Ordinance. Landform grading has been proposed as shown on the Tentative Map. The landscaping requirements include preparation of a Landscape Master Plan prior to approval of the first Final Map, and subsequent landscape and irrigation construction plans prior to construction that would reduce the potential aesthetic impacts from visible manufactured slopes. However, until the Landscape Master Plan and subsequent landscape and irrigation construction plans have been approved, impacts would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Mitigation Measure Mitigation measure 5.2-1 would also reduce impacts to landform alteration (listed above under the Aesthetics/Landform Alteration, Impact: Scenic Vistas heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.2.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.2-1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to landform alteration to a less than significant level. 18 Transportation/Traffic Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to transportation/traffic if it would: 1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. City of Chula Vista Traffic Impact Criteria Impact: Traffic/Level of Service Standards and Congestion Management The project would result in direct impacts related to access and frontage and direct impacts on roadways and intersections under the Existing Plus Project, Year 2015, Year 2020, Year 2025, and Year 2030 scenarios. Based on the Intersection Lane Volume Analysis, a significant direct impact would occur to the 1-805 southbound ramps at Main Street. Therefore, impacts related to traffic level of service standards and congestion management would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.3.3). Explanation Access and Frontage According to Section 12.24 of the City's municipal code, access related impacts would occur if access and frontage improvements are not provided concurrent with development; therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur. Existing Plus Project Under the Existing Plus Project scenario, the following intersections would experience a direct impact from implementation of the project (Final EIR Section 5.3.4): ■ Olympic Parkway/1-805 northbound ramps (AM — Level of Service (LOS) F) ■ Main Street/Magdalena Avenue (AM — LOS E, PM — LOS F) Under the Existing Plus Project scenario, the following roadway segments would experience a direct impact from implementation of the project (Final EIR Section 5.3.4): ■ Olympic Parkway: 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue (LOS E) ■ Olympic Parkway: Brandywine Avenue to Heritage Road (LOS E) 19 • Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road 1oLoMedia Road (LOS F) • Magdalena Avenue: Birch Road toMain Street (LOS F) Long-Term Impacts Under the Year 2015 acenario, no direct impacts to roadway segments or intersections would OCCUr from innp|8nnent8dOn Of the project. However, 8 potentially significant innp8Ci vvOU|d OCCUr related tocompliance with the GK8(]. Under the Year 2020 SCSn8riO' the fO||Ovving intersection and nO8dvv8y SSgnn8nt vvOU|d experience odirect impact from implementation ofthe project: • Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue (PM - LOS F) • Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road toLaMedia Road (LOS E) Under the Year 2025 SCeO@[iO' the fO||OwiOQ iOt8[SeCdOOS and FO8dvv8y segments VVOu|d experience 8direct impact from implementation Ofthe project: • Birch Road/La Media Road (AM - LOS F. PW1 - LOS F) • Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway (AM - LOS F. PK4 - LOS F) • Main Street/Eastlake Parkway (AM - LOS F. PyW - L(]S F) • Birch Road: LoMedia Road tu8R-125 (LOS F) • Magdalena Avenue: Birch Road toMain Street (LOS F) • Eastlake Parkway: Birch Road toMain Street (LOS F) Under the Year 2030 scenario, the following intersections and n]8dvv8y segments vvOU|d experience odirect impact from implementation ofthe project: • Birch Road/La Media Road (AM - LOS F. PM - LOS F) • Birch Rood/8R-125northbound ramps (AM - LOS F) • Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway (AM - LC}S F. PM - L[)G E) • Main Street/|-8O5northbound ramps (PM - LOS E) • Main Street/La Medio Couplet - Westbound Main Street/northbound LaMedia Road (AM - LOS F) - Eastbound Main Street/southbound La Media Road (AM - LOS F. PK4 - LOS F) - Eastbound Main Street/northbound LoMedia Road (AM - LOS F\ • Main Street/K4agda|enoAvenue (AM - LO8 F' PK4 - LOS F) • Main Street/Eastlake Parkway (AM - LOS F) • Main Street: |-805toBrandywine Avenue (LOS [}) • Main Street: Brandywine to Heritage Road /LOS [J\ 20 Based on the ILV Analysis, a significant direct impact would occur to the 1-805 southbound ramps at Main Street Circulation System Assumptions If the assumed roadway improvements are not in place prior to commencement of each scenario, additional traffic impacts could occur. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur if assumed improvements are not developed as prescribed in the traffic impact analysis. Mitigation Measure Growth Management Ordinance Compliance (Section 19.09 of the CVMC) 5.3-1 Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road to Oleander Avenue: Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 2,463 rd dwelling unit for development east of 1-805 (commencing from April 4, 2011), the applicant may: i. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the Growth Management Ordinance traffic threshold standards; or ii. Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional necessary capacity to comply with the Growth Management Ordinance traffic threshold to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; or iii. Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining Growth Management Ordinance traffic threshold compliance; or iv. Enter into agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch applicants that alleviates congestion and achieves Growth Management Ordinance traffic threshold compliance for Olympic Parkway. The agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that will need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a timeline for such construction, and provide assurances for construction, in accordance with the city's customary requirements, for said infrastructure. If Growth Management Ordinance compliance cannot be achieved through i, ii, iii, or iv above, then the City may, in its sole discretion, stop issuing new building permits within the project area, after building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for any development east of 1-805 after April 4, 2011, until such time that Growth Management Ordinance traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the satisfaction of the City Manager. These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and policies in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to traffic thresholds set forth in the Growth Management Ordinance. On-site Circulation Mitigation 5.3-2 Main Street/La Media Road Intersection: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the first equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Main Street and La Media Road. 21 5.3-3 Main Street/Magdalena Avenue Intersection: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the first equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct the west leg of this intersection and modify existing striping to provide access to Village 8 West. The applicant shall secure or construct a stop sign on the southbound approach. 5.3-4 Main Street: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the first equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Main Street from La Media Road to Magdalena Avenue as a two-lane, two-way street to provide access to Village 8 West. 5.3-5 La Media Road: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the first equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct La Media Road from existing terminus south of Santa Luna Street to Planning Areas N, I and J south of Main Street as a two-lane, two- way street to provide access to Village 8 West. 5.3-6 Otay Valley Road: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 302nd equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Otay Valley Road from south of Main Street to Village 8 West Street A as four-lane major roadway, or construct the improvement at the first final map for the applicable planning areas as listed in Table 4.1.4 of the Public Facilities Finance Plan, whichever comes first. 5.3-7 Main Street (La Media Road to Magdalena Avenue): Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 1,388t" equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct the remaining two lanes of Main Street through the couplet, install traffic signals at new couplet intersections, and restripe Main Street as a one-way segment for each leg of couplet, or construct the improvements at the first final map for the applicable planning areas as listed in Table 4.1.4 of the Public Facilities Finance Plan, whichever comes first. 5.3-8 La Media Road: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 1,388" equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct the remaining two lanes of La Media Road through the couplet, install traffic signals at new couplet intersections, and restripe La Media Road as a one-way segment for each leg of couplet, or construct the improvements at the first final map for the applicable planning areas as listed in Table 4.1.4 of the Public Facilities Finance Plan, whichever comes first. 5.3-9 Otay Valley Road: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 1,388tn equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Otay Valley Road as a four-lane major roadway from Village 8 West Street A to the Village 8 West eastern project boundary and install stop control on side streets until a traffic signal is warranted, or construct the improvements at the first final map for the applicable planning areas as listed in Table 4.1.4 of the Public Facilities Finance Plan, whichever comes first. 5.3-10 Main Street/Magdalena Avenue Intersection: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 1,388t" equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall re-stripe the Main Street/Magdalena Avenue intersection to include dual eastbound left turn lanes and one eastbound through lane, and secure or construct a traffic signal, or construct the improvements at the first final map for the applicable planning areas as listed in Table 4.1.4 of the Public Facilities Finance Plan, whichever comes first. 22 5.3-11 Village 8 West Street A: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 2,234th equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Street A as a local street from Main Street to Otay Valley Road and provide signalized access at Otay Valley Road and at Main Street, or construct the improvements at the first final map for the applicable planning areas as listed in Table 4.1.4 of the Public Facilities Finance Plan (whichever comes first). Direct Impact Mitigation 5.3-12 Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue Intersection: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 1,388nd equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall: 1) secure or construct a northbound right turn overlap phase to reduce delay to the northbound right turning volume and provide a overall capacity improvement to the intersection, and 2) secure or construct the extension of the westbound left turn pocket, if not already completed by 2015. 5.3-13 Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road to La Media Road: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 1,388nd equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Santa Victoria Road from Heritage Road to La Media Road and shall construct Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road. 5.3-14 Birch Road/La Media Road, Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway, and Main Street/Eastlake Parkway Intersections; Birch Road from La Media to SR-125; Magdalena Avenue from Birch Road to Main Street; and Eastlake Parkway from Birch Road to Main Street: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 2,234th equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Main Street from the existing terminus east of Village 8 West to Eastlake Parkway, including the construction of an overcrossing at SR-125. 5.3-15 Birch Road/La Media Road, Birch Road/SR-125 Northbound Ramps, Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway, Main Street/1-805 Southbound Ramps, and Main Street/1-805 Northbound Ramps Intersections; Birch Road, La Media to SR-125; Birch Road, SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway; Main Street, 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue; and Main Street, Brandywine Avenue to Heritage Road: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 2,610th equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall construct SR-125 northbound and southbound ramps at Main Street. 5.3-16 Main Street/La Media Road Couplet, Main Street/Magdalena Avenue, and Main Street/ Eastlake Parkway Intersections: Prior to the issuance of the final map that contains the 2,610th equivalent dwelling unit, the applicant shall secure or construct Otay Valley Road from the Village 8 West eastern boundary to Village 9 Street A, including the construction of an overcrossing at SR-125. Circulation System Assumptions 5.3-18 The Year 2020 scenario assumes the following roadway improvements: i. Construction of Main Street from Village 9 Street A to Eastlake Parkway as a six-lane gateway ii. Construction of Otay Valley Road, from Village 9 Street A to the University site four-lane major street. 23 If the project equivalent dwelling unit limit for study Year 2015 (302 equivalent dwelling units) is exceeded prior to these roadway segments being constructed and open to traffic, then one of the following steps shall be taken as determined by the City Engineer: i. Development in Village 8 West shall stop until those assumed future roadways are constructed by others; or ii. City and the applicant shall meet to determine the need for the incomplete roadway segments. A number of factors, including changes to the tolling structure at SR-125, may affect the traffic patterns in the Otay Ranch. Additional traffic analysis of the roadway network and levels of service assessment may be necessary to determine if such improvements are necessary and the scope and timing of additional circulation improvements; or iii. Applicant shall construct the missing roadway links and receive a transportation development impact fee credit for those improvements as applicable; or iv. An alternative measure is selected by the city in accordance with the city of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. v. All to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.3-19 The Year 2025 scenario assumes the following intersection and roadway improvements: i. Construction of Olympic Parkway/Santa Victoria intersection ii. Construction of Santa Victoria/Heritage Road intersection iii. Construction of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street; re-stripe southbound Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street to include dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right turn lane iv. Widening of Heritage Road from Main Street to Avenida de la Vistas from a Class II collector to a six-lane prime arterial. If the project equivalent dwelling unit limit for study Year 2020 (1,388 equivalent dwelling units) is exceeded prior to these intersections or roadway segments being constructed and open to traffic, then one of the following steps shall be taken as determined by the City Engineer: i. Development in Village 8 West shall stop until those assumed future roadways are constructed by others; or ii. City and the applicant shall meet to determine the need for the incomplete roadway segments. A number of factors, including changes to the tolling structure at SR-125, may affect the traffic patterns in the Otay Ranch. Additional traffic analysis of the roadway network and levels of service assessment may be necessary to determine if such improvements are necessary and the scope and timing of additional circulation improvements; or 24 iii. Applicant shall construct the missing roadway links and receive a transportation development impact fee credit for those improvements as applicable; or iv. An alternative measure is selected by the city in accordance with the Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. v. All to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.3-20 The Year 2030 scenario assumes the following roadway improvement: i. Construction of Main Street from Heritage Road to La Media Road as a six-lane prime arterial If the project equivalent dwelling unit limit for study Year 2025 (2,234 equivalent dwelling unit) is exceeded prior to this roadway segment being constructed and open to traffic, then one of the following steps shall be taken as determined by the City Engineer: i. Development in Village 8 West shall stop until the assumed future roadway is constructed by others; or ii. City and the applicant shall meet to determine the need for the incomplete roadway segment. A number of factors, including changes to the tolling structure at SR-125, may affect the traffic patterns in the Otay Ranch. Additional traffic analysis of the roadway network and levels of service assessment may be necessary to determine if such improvements are necessary and the scope and timing of additional circulation improvements; or iii. Applicant shall construct the missing roadway link and receive a transportation development impact fee credit for those improvements as applicable; or iv. An alternative measure is selected by the city in accordance with the Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. v. All to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-16 and 5.3-18 through 5.3-20 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to traffic level of service and congestion management standards to a less than significant level. Impact: Air Traffic Patterns Potentially significant impacts could result from the location of structures proposed in Village 8 West within a Federal Aviation Administration notification area. (Final EIR Section 5.3.3). 25 Explanation The project area is located within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Height Notification Boundary, Part 77 Airspace Surfaces, Airport Overflight Notification Area for residential development, and Review Area 2 of the Airport Influence Area. Due to the height limits proposed in the Village 8 West SPA Plan, it is not anticipated that development of even the tallest structures would result in an obstruction to air traffic. However, because the project area is located within the FAA Height Notification Boundary and Airport Overflight Notification Area, proper notification in compliance with the Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (Final EIR Section 5.3.3). Mitigation Measure Mitigation measures 5.13-2 through 5.13-4 would reduce impacts related to air traffic patterns (listed below under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact: Airport Hazards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.13.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.13-2 through 5.13-4 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to air traffic patterns to a less than significant level. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would: 1. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact: Sensitive Receptors The project would have the potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) during operation if the project does not comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) siting criteria. Therefore, direct impacts to sensitive receptors are considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.4.4). Explanation CARB considers dry cleaning facilities and gas stations to be stationary sources of TAC emissions that should not be located near sensitive receptors. Based on CARB siting recommendations within the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, a detailed health risk assessment should be conducted for proposed sensitive receptors within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater), 50 feet of a "typical" gas station (a facility with a throughput of less 3.6 million gallons per year), or within 300 feet of a dry cleaning facility that uses perch loroethlyene. Although the SPA Plan would include primarily residential and commercial uses, the proposed land uses may allow the 26 development of gas stations and dry cleaning facilities, as these are common uses within mixed-use and resident-serving development. Dry cleaning facilities and gas stations are allowable in the Town Center, subject to a conditional use permit. However, only storefront dry cleaning facilities or facilities that do not use perch loroethlyene are allowable in the Town Center, subject to a conditional use permit. Due to physical size constraints, large gas stations with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or more would not be permitted within the compact Town Center. Development of a typical-sized gas station in Village 8 West would be possible, but would be subject to the CARB siting recommendations and would not be allowed within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor. Additionally, new sources of TAC emissions such as gas stations are required to obtain authority to construct and operate from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), at which time location-specific details are analyzed. Sources must comply with established criteria, as established in SDAPCD Rule 1200, requiring demonstration that risks are below thresholds and that sources are constructed and operated with appropriate controls. Compliance with SDAPCD standards is required as mitigation to ensure that risks associated with toxic exposure of sensitive receptors to gas stations is less than significant (Final EIR Section 5.4.4). Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Toxic Air Contaminants Emission Criteria Compliance. Prior to approval of the building permit for any uses that are regulated for toxic air contaminant emissions by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) that the use complies with established criteria (such as those established by San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 1200 and California Air Resources Board). Specifically, gas stations would not be allowed to be constructed within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board siting recommendations. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.4-4 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to sensitive receptors to a less than significant level.. Noise Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to noise if it would: 1. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the Chula Vista General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. 2. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 3. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 27 Impact: Excessive Noise Levels Implementation of the project would have the potential to result in exposure to excessive noise levels from traffic noise and operational sources including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and recreational facilities. Explanation Mechanical HVAC equipment located on the ground or on rooftops of new buildings would have the potential to generate noise levels which average 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, and may run continuously during the day and night. Depending on where it is located, HVAC equipment could have the potential to generate noise that may exceed the city hourly noise limit for adjacent single-family residences and noise sensitive land uses (NSLU) (such as parks) of 55 dBA during daytime hours (45 dBA at night), the limit for adjacent multi-family residences of 60 dBA during daytime hours (50 dBA at night), or the limit for daytime-only NSLU (such as a school) of 55 dBA. Residences or other NSLU located in or in close proximity to a mixed-use building or other building that requires an HVAC system could result in a potentially significant impact. Multi-family residences throughout the Town Center and Neighborhood Center Zone would potentially be exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL or greater from traffic noise, which would exceed the city noise compatibility guidelines, and would also trigger the Title 24 requirement for the preparation of acoustical studies for all multi-family residences potentially exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Outdoor usable areas, such as outdoor dining patios, in the Town Center would also potentially be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL from traffic noise. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.5-7 and Figure 5.5-3, single- family residences along Otay Valley Road would potentially be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels would have the potential to exceed 45 dBA CNEL in multi-family residences in the Town Center and Neighborhood Center Zone and single- family residences along Otay Valley Road; therefore, a potentially significant impact related to interior noise levels would also occur. Additionally, commercial or retail uses that include outdoor useable space such as an outdoor dining area are compatible with noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL and would have the potential to be exposed to traffic noise in excess of this standard. Multi-purpose fields in the Community Park would have the potential to generate noise levels of approximately 54 dBA at 50 feet, and a skate park facility would have the potential to generate noise levels of 70 dBA at 50 feet. The Community Park would have the potential to exceed the daytime one-hour 60 dBA Leq limit if the loudest noise sources are placed within 160 feet of multi-family residences in the Town Center and Neighborhood Center Zones. Potentially affected would be the residences in Planning Areas B, C, E, and F. A Neighborhood Park is proposed in the southern area of the project site and would accommodate uses such as athletic fields, sports courts, play equipment, and picnic areas. Some residences may be located at the western edge of Planning Area T within 45 feet of the park and would have the potential to be exposed to excessive noise (Final EIR Section 5.5.3). Mitigation Measures 5.5-1 Noise Attenuation in the Neighborhood Edge Zone (Planning Area N) and Neighborhood General Zone (Planning Areas Q and U). Prior to the approval of grading permits for residential development along Otay Valley Road within Planning Areas N, Q, and U 28 in the Neighborhood Edge and Neighborhood General Zones (as shown in Figure 3-3, Utilization Plan), the applicant shall be responsible for the preparation of a subsequent acoustical study based on the final map design and implementation of any measures recommended as a result of the analysis to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). The study shall include, but not be limited to the following: i. Location, height, and building material of the noise barriers in accordance with Figure 5.5-4. Heights are provided relative to final pad elevation. Required heights may be achieved through construction of walls, berms or a wall/berm combination; ii. A detailed analysis which demonstrates that barriers and/or setbacks have been incorporated into the project design, such that noise exposure to residential receivers placed in all useable outdoor areas, including multi-family residential patios and balconies, are at or below 65 dBA CNEL; and iii. Should grading, lot configuration, and/or traffic assumptions change during the processing of any final maps, the barriers shall be refined to reflect those modifications. 5.5-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis — Single-family Residences. Concurrent with design review and prior to the approval of building permits for single-family residential development where the exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL (Planning Areas N, Q, and U), the applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis ensuring that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources will be at or below 45 dBA CNEL. Design-level architectural plans will be available during design review and will permit the accurate calculation of transmissions loss for habitable rooms. For these lots, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, the design for these units may need to include ventilation or an air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed based on the result on the interior acoustical analysis. 5.5-3 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis — Multi-family Residences. Concurrent with design review and prior to the approval of building permits for multi-family areas where first and/or second floor exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL and/or where required outdoor area (patios or balconies) noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL (Planning Areas B, C, E, F, H1, H2, I, J, L, M, and O), the applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with California's Title 24 Interior Noise Standards (i.e., 45 dBA CNEL) and the City's Exterior Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines for outdoor use areas (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL). Design-level architectural plans will be available during design review and will permit the accurate calculation of transmissions loss for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed based on the result on the interior acoustical analysis. 5.5-4 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis — Non-Residential Noise Sensitive Land Use. Concurrent with design review and prior to the approval of building permits for any non- residential noise sensitive land use (schools, neighborhood parks, outdoor use areas, some Community Purpose Facility uses, etc.) area where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL (Planning Areas B, C, D, F, G, H1, H2, I, J, M, L, R, S, and T), the applicant shall be responsible for the preparation of an acoustical analysis ensuring that exterior noise levels at the boundary 29 of the proposed noise sensitive land use will be below 65 dBA CNEL and implementation of any measures recommended as a result of the analysis. Measures to reduce noise levels may include, but would not be limited to, setback of structures from the roadway, installing acoustic barriers, or orienting outdoor activity areas away from roadways so that surrounding structures provide noise attenuation. The analysis shall also demonstrate that barriers or setbacks have been incorporated into the project design, such that, when considered with proposed construction specifications, ground level and upper story interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Roof-ceiling assemblies making up the building envelope shall have a sound transmission class value of at least 50, and exterior windows shall have a minimum sound transmission class of 30 in compliance with the California Green Building standards code. 5.5-5 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis — Office Uses. Concurrent with design review and prior to the approval of building permits for any office area where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA CNEL (Planning Areas H2, J, and L), the applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis, and construct any attenuation measures identified therein, to ensure that exterior noise levels at the property line of the proposed office building will be below 70 dBA CNEL. Measures to reduce noise levels may include, but would not be limited to, setback of structures from the roadway, installing acoustic barriers, or, in mixed-use buildings, orienting offices away from roadways so that surrounding structures provide noise attenuation. . 5.5-6 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Concurrent with design review and prior to the approval of building permits for non-residential development requiring HVAC equipment, the applicant shall prepare a report demonstrating that HVAC equipment is designed to ensure that noise levels from the equipment will not exceed the Chula Vista noise ordinance standards. Noise from HVAC equipment shall be reduced by either the installation of acoustical shielding around all new rooftop HVAC equipment, or by placing the HVAC equipment below grade in basement space. 5.5-7 Shielded Private Outdoor Usable Space for Town Center Residences. Private usable outdoor space for new residential or commercial development such as patios, balconies, or outdoor dining areas in the Town Center shall be located or protected from noise to ensure noise levels are below 65 dB CNEL. The proposed plan for private residential open space shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to design review. 5.5-8 Site Specific Acoustic Analysis - Community Park and Neighborhood Park. Concurrent with the preparation of site-specific plan(s) and prior to the approval of a precise grading plan for the Community Park or Neighborhood Park, the applicant shall prepare, or in the case the City being the lead on the preparation of the site specific plan, the applicant shall fund the preparation of an acoustical analysis shall be conducted to ensure that noise levels generated from any active uses at the Community Park or Neighborhood Park, such as sports fields and a skate park, do not exceed the exterior noise limits of the receiving land use category as identified in the Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of any measures recommended as a result of the analysis. Measures to reduce noise levels may include, but would not be limited to, siting of structures or buildings to provide setbacks between active areas and adjacent noise sensitive uses or construction of a wall to provide noise attenuation. Final noise attenuation design shall be determined by a site- specific acoustic analysis conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, or their designee. 30 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.5-1 through 5.5-8 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to excessive noise levels to a less than significant level. Impact: Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Short-term increases in noise levels would remain significant until the proposed roadway system is complete (Final EIR Section 5.5.3). Explanation Five roadway segments would result in a significant increase in noise under the Existing Plus Project scenario: Birch Road, La Media Road to SR-125; Birch Road, SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway; La Media Road, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road; La Media Road, Birch Road to Main Street; and Magdalena Avenue, Birch Road to Main Street. Traffic-related noise is reduced either by constructing noise barriers, lowering traffic speeds, or by reducing traffic. Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM would include the construction of new roadways that would provide new connections from the project area to the regional transportation system. These new connections would reduce long-term traffic on the roadways surrounding the project site by routing some cumulative traffic through Village 8 West instead of the surrounding roadways. Additionally, these connections would direct traffic generated by Village 8 West away from the existing off-site roadways and reduce associated traffic noise. Mitigation is required to ensure that this circulation system would be implemented concurrently with Village 8 West. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-20 would also reduce impacts related to short-term increases in traffic noise (listed above under the Transportation/Traffic: Level of Service Standards and Congestion Management heading, listed below in Section X, Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures, and listed in the Final EIR Section 5.3.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-20 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to permanent increases in noise level to a less than significant level. Impact: Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Construction of the project would have the potential to generate noise levels and that would significantly impact biological resources (Final EIR Section 5.5.3). 31 Explanation Noise from construction activities would also have the potential to impact sensitive wildlife species in the MSCP Preserve areas to the south and west of the project site. Construction noise exceeding an hourly average sound level of 60 dBA would potentially impact special status wildlife species by inhibiting audible communication between potential mates and between parents and offspring. Based on the worst-case construction noise level of 87 dBA at 50 feet, determined using the RCNM model, and an attenuation rate of 6 dBA for every double of distance, construction activities would have the potential to exceed 60 dBA up to 1,100 feet from the source. Blasting activities would have the potential to exceed 60 dBA up to 1,600 feet from the source. Construction noise emanating from the southern parcels within Planning Area P, the southern and western parcels within Planning Area V, the western portion of Planning Area E, and the southwest area of Planning Area A would exceed potentially exceed 60 dBA within the MSCP Preserve areas and significant construction noise impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.5.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.6-3, 5.6-6, 5.6-7, 5.6-8, 5.6-9, and 5.6-11 would also reduce impacts related to construction noise (listed below under the Biological Resources, Impact: Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.6.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-3, 5.6-6, 5.6-7, 5.6-8, 5.6-9, and 5.6-11 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to temporary increases in ambient noise level to a less than significant level. Biological Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to biological resources if it would: 1. Have 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 CDFW or USFWS. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 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. 32 4. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impact: Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Implementation of the project would result in significant direct and indirect impacts to several sensitive species, including coast barrel cactus, Otay tarplant, San Diego marsh elder, California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, cactus wren, rufous-crown sparrow, orange-throated whiptail, burrowing owl, raptors and breeding migratory birds (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Explanation Implementation of the project would result in significant direct and indirect impacts to several sensitive species through the direct removal of the species, or habitat that supports the species. Impacts to each sensitive species are summarized below. Coast barrel cactus. Implementation of the project would result in the direct loss of all 200 coast barrel cactus identified within the project site and off-site improvement area. This impact would be significant. Otay tarplant. Implementation of the project would result in the direct loss of all 3,500 Otay tarplant individuals identified within the project area. This impact would be significant. San Diego marsh elder. Implementation of the project would result in the direct loss of all ten San Diego marsh elder individuals identified within the project area. This impact would be significant. Burrowing owl. Occupied burrowing owl habitat and two active burrows in the project area would be affected by implementation of the project. This impact would be significant. Cactus wren. Although no cactus wrens were observed on or off site, the project would result in a potentially significant impact to the cactus wren if this species is detected in suitable habitat during pre-construction surveys or subsequent construction biological monitoring. The cactus wren occurs in coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub, which are found on the site and in the off-site improvement area. The loss of habitat would be significant if the cactus wren is detected before or during construction. California gnatcatcher. Habitat for the California gnatcatcher, including coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub, would be removed upon implementation of the project. The direct loss of California gnatcatcher habitat would be a significant impact. Least Bell's vireo. Least Bell's vireo occurs in mulefat scrub, which is found in the off-site improvement area. Mulefat scrub, which provides habitat for the least Bell's vireo, would be removed upon implementation of the off-site access corridor. Loss of this habitat would be a significant impact if least Bell's vireo is detected before or during construction. 33 Orange-throated whiptail. One orange-throated whiptail was observed on the Village 8 West within coastal sage scrub habitat. Implementation of the project would remove the coastal sage scrub habitat where the orange-throated whiptail was observed. This impact would be significant. Raptors. The project would reduce on-site agricultural vegetation, which serves as suitable habitat for sensitive raptor species including burrowing owl, white-tailed kite and northern harrier. Therefore, the removal of this vegetation would result in a significant impact. Additionally, impacts to avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may occur if suitable habitat is removed or impacted during the bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31). Therefore, impacts related to raptors and breeding migratory birds would be significant. Rufous-crown sparrow. Although no rufous-crown sparrow were observed, development of the project would result in a potentially significant impact to the rufous-crown sparrow if this species is detected in suitable habitat, including coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub, during pre-construction surveys or subsequent construction biological monitoring. Suitable habitat for this species would be removed as a result of the project; therefore, impacts to the rufous-crown sparrow would be significant (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Mitigation Measure In addition to the measures listed below, mitigation measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-3, 5.11-1 through 5.11-5, and 5.6-17 through 5.6-19 would also reduce impacts to sensitive species. 5.6-1 Maritime Succulent Scrub Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits (including clearing and grubbing or grading permits) the applicant shall prepare a restoration plan to restore impacted maritime succulent scrub at 1:1 ratio, pursuant to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. A total of 1.05 acres of maritime succulent scrub will require restoration. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation strategy; species salvage and relocation, appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The maritime succulent scrub restoration shall be prepared by a city-approved biologist pursuant to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan restoration requirements. The applicant shall also be required to implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee). 5.6-2 Resource Salvage Plan. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a resource salvage plan for areas with salvageable resources, including, but not limited to, Otay tarplant, a Chula Vista narrow endemic species, Plantago erecta (Quino checkerspot butterfly larval host plant), coast barrel cactus, and San Diego sunflower. The resource salvage plan shall, at a minimum, evaluate options for plant salvage and relocation, including native plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, application of plant materials on manufactured slopes, and application/relocation of resources within the Preserve. Relocation efforts may include seed collection and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site and will be based on the most reliable methods of successful relocation. The program shall contain a recommendation for method of salvage and relocation/application based on feasibility of implementation and likelihood of success. The program shall include, at a minimum, an implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring 34 program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. The resource salvage plan shall be prepared by a city-approved biologist. The applicant shall also be required to implement the resource salvage plan subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director (or their designee). 5.6-3 Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Coastal Cactus Wren, and Least Bell's Vireo Pre- Construction Survey. For any work proposed between February 15 and September 15 (March 15 and September 15 for least Bell's vireo), a pre-construction survey for the coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, and least Bell's vireo shall be performed in order to reaffirm the presence and extent of occupied habitat. The pre- construction survey area for the species shall encompass all potentially suitable habitat within the project work zone, as well as a 300-foot survey buffer. The pre-construction survey shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) by a qualified biologist familiar with the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The results of the pre-construction survey must be submitted in a report to the Development Services Director (or their designee) for review and approval prior to the issuance of any land development permits and prior to initiating any construction activities. If California gnatcatcher, cactus wren or least Bell's vireo is detected, a minimum 300-foot buffer delineated by orange biological fencing shall be established around the detected species to ensure that no work shall occur within occupied habitat from February 15 through August 15 for Coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, and March 15 through September 15 for least Bell's vireo. On-site noise reduction techniques shall be implemented to ensure that construction noise levels not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the location of any occupied sensitive habitat areas. The Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site-specific conditions. If the results of the pre-construction survey determine that the survey area is unoccupied, the work may commence at the discretion of the Development Services Director (or their designee) following the review and approval of the pre- construction report. 5.6-4 Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey. Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing and grubbing or grading permits), the applicant shall retain a city- approved biologist to conduct focused pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the city-approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan subject to the review and approval by the wildlife agencies and city including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction-related activities. 5.6-5 Revegetation Plan. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading and construction permits, the applicant shall provide a revegetation plan to restore 0.7 acre of temporary impacts associated with off-site planned and future facilities. The revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified city-approved biologist familiar with the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee). 35 5.6-6 Biological Construction Monitoring. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for any areas adjacent to the Preserve and the off-site facilities located within the Preserve, the applicant shall provide written confirmation that a city-approved biological monitor has been retained and shall be on site during clearing, grubbing, and/or grading activities. The biological monitor shall attend all pre-construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated project activities that may be in violation of the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and/or permits issued by any other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the project. 5.6-7 Pre-Construction Education. Before construction activities occur in areas adjacent to and/or containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by a city- approved biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 5.6-8 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Compliance. To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (January 15 to August 31). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the applicant shall retain a city-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of which must be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by the city, shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the city. The city-approved mitigation monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. 5.6-9 Northern Harrier Pre-Construction Survey. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, the applicant shall retain a city- approved biologist to conduct focused surveys for northern harrier to determine the presence or absence of this species within 900 feet of the construction area. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction. The results of the survey must be submitted to the city for review and approval. If active nests are detected by the city-approved biologist, a biological monitor shall be on site during construction to minimize construction impacts and ensure that no nests are be removed or disturbed until all young have fledged. 5.6-10 Construction Fencing and Signage. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits, the applicant shall install fencing in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well-installed fencing and signage shall be in place wherever the limits of grading are adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities or other biological resources, as identified by the qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans for areas adjacent to the Preserve and for 36 all off-site facilities constructed within the Preserve. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 5.6-11 Indirect Impact Avoidance. In accordance with the Chula Vista Adjacency Management Guidelines and the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Edge Plan, and in addition to mitigation measure 5.11-1, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, the following measures shall be implemented to further reduce indirect impacts (from lighting, noise, invasive, toxic substances, and public access) to sensitive biological resources located in the adjacent Otay Ranch Preserve areas: i. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan and photometric analysis shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) to ensure lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve has been directed away from the Preserve, wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and, if applicable, type of shielding measures required to minimize light spillage into the Preserve. Where necessary, development shall provide adequate shielding with non-invasive plant materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other methods to protect the Preserve and sensitive species from night lighting. Consideration shall be given to the use of low- pressure sodium lighting. ii. Construction-related noise shall be limited within and adjacent to the Preserve during the typical breeding season of January 15 to September 15. Construction activity within and adjacent to any occupied sensitive habitat areas must not exceed 60 dBA Leq, or ambient noise levels if higher than 60 dBA Leq, during the breeding season. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for areas within or adjacent to the Preserve, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), an acoustical analysis to demonstrate that the 60 dBA Leq noise level is not exceeded at the location of any occupied sensitive habitat areas as determined based on the results the required biological pre-construction surveys. The acoustical analysis shall describe the methods by which construction noise shall not exceed 60 dBA Leq. Noise abatement methods may include, but are not limited to, reoperation of specific construction activities, installation of noise abatement at the source, and/or installation of noise abatement at the receiving areas. 5.6-12 Retain Existing Vegetation. Existing vegetation shall be retained where possible during construction activities and grading activities shall be limited to the immediate area required for construction. 5.6-13 Landscape Plan. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for areas within the 100-foot Preserve edge, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), landscape plans to ensure that the proposed plant palette is consistent with the plant list contained in Attachment A of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Preserve Edge Plan. The landscape plan shall also incorporate a manual weeding program for areas adjacent to the Preserve. The manual weeding program shall describe at a minimum, the entity responsible for controlling invasive species, the maintenance activities and methods required to control invasives, and a maintenance/monitoring schedule. 37 5.6-14 MCSP Preserve Boundary Delineation. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for the project, the applicant shall submit wall and fence plans depicting appropriate barriers to prevent unauthorized access into the Otay Ranch Preserve. The wall and fence plans shall, at a minimum, illustrate the locations and cross-sections of proposed walls, fences, informational and directional signage, access controls, and/or boundary markers along the Preserve boundary and any off-site pedestrian trails as conceptually described in the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Edge Plan. The required wall and fence plan shall be subject to the approval the Development Services Director (or their designee). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-14 identified above; measures 5.6-17 through 5.6-19, listed below under Local Policies, Ordinances, HCP and NCCP; measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-3, listed below under Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impacts and in the Final EIR Section 5.4.5; and measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-5, listed below under Hydrology and Water Quality and in Final EIR Section 5.11.5, are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to sensitive plant and wildlife species to a less than significant level. Impact: Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities The project would result in significant direct impact to coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, non-native grasslands, mule fat scrub, and freshwater marsh habitat. Therefore, impacts are considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Explanation Any removal of a sensitive vegetation community is considered a significant impact because these habitats have the potential to support sensitive species. Implementation of the project would result in direct impacts to five sensitive vegetation communities, including freshwater marsh, coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage scrub), maritime succulent scrub, mulefat scrub, and non-native grassland. Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities are identified in Table 5.6-3 in the EIR. Impacts to these vegetation communities would be considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Mitigation Measure Mitigation measures 5.6-1, 5.6-2, 5.6-5, 5.6-6, 5.6-7, 5.6-10 through 5.6-19 (listed above and below under the Biological Resources, Impact: Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species, Impact: Federally Protected Wetlands, and Impact: Local Policies, Ordinances, HCP and NCCP headings and in the Final EIR Section 5.6.5), 5.4-1 through 5.4-3 (listed below under Significant and Unavoidable Direct Impacts and in the Final EIR Section 5.4.5), 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 (listed below under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5) would also reduce impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. 38 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-1, 5.6-2, 5.6-5, 5.6-6, 5.6-7, 5.6-10 through 5.6-19, 5.4-1 through 5.4-3, 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level. Impact: Federally Protected Wetlands United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulated jurisdictional waters and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional channels would be significantly impacted by development of the project (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Explanation A total of 0.23 acre of ACOE jurisdictional waters and 0.95 acre of CDFW jurisdictional channels would be impacted by implementation of the project. Impacts to USACE and CDFW jurisdictional waters and channels would be considered significant and would require mitigation in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Section 404 permit from the USACE. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would be required to be issued prior to the project receiving a Section 404 permit. Additionally, impacts to wetlands and channels would be required to be mitigated in order to be consistent with the city's wetlands protection program. Impacts to jurisdictional water and wetlands are considered significant. (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Mitigation Measures In addition to the mitigation measures listed below, implementation of mitigation measures 5.11- 1 and 5.11-5 would reduce impacts to federally protected wetlands (listed below under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5). 5.6-15 Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits that impact jurisdictional waters, the applicant shall prepare a wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan. This plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. Areas under the jurisdictional authority of Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be delineated on all grading plans. Creation areas shall occur within the Otay River watershed in accordance with the wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant shall also be required to implement the wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director (or their designee), Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 5.6-16 Regulatory Permits. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits for areas that impact jurisdictional waters, the applicant shall provide evidence that all required regulatory permits, such as those required under Sections 39 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, have been obtained. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-15 and 5.6- 16 (listed above), and 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 (listed below under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to federally protected wetlands to a less than significant level. Impact: Local Policies, Ordinances, HCP and NCCP The project would have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive species that would conflict with Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Explanation The project would have significant impacts related to biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and concurrently with development, in accordance with the provisions of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch RMP (Final EIR Section 5.6.3). Mitigation Measure Mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-7, and 5.6-9 through 5.6-16 would also reduce potential impacts related to conflicts with the MSCP Subarea Plan (listed above under the Biological Resources, Impact: Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species and Impact: Federally Protected Wetlands headings and in the Final EIR Section 5.6.5). 5.6-17 Annexation into Otay Ranch Preserve Community Facilities District No. 97-2. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the SPA Plan, the applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer and annex the project area within the Otay Ranch Preserve Community Facilities District No. 97-2. 5.6-18 Otay Ranch Preserve Land Conveyance. Prior to recordation of each final map the applicant shall convey land within the Otay Ranch Preserve to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner Manager or its designee at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area, as defined in the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. Access for maintenance purposes shall also be conveyed to the satisfaction of the Preserve Owner Manager, and each tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement with the Preserve Owner Manager stating that it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Otay Ranch Preserve Community Facilities District No. 97-2 has generated sufficient revenues to enable the Preserve Owner Manager to assume maintenance responsibilities. The applicant shall maintain and manage the offered conveyance property consistent with the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Phase 2 until the Otay Ranch Preserve Community Facilities District No. 97-2 has generated sufficient revenues to enable the Preserve Owner Manager to assume maintenance and management responsibilities. 40 5.6-19 Area-Specific Management Directives. Prior to the Preserve Owner Manager's acceptance of the conveyed land in fee title, the applicant shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Preserve Owner Manager, area specific management directives for the associated conveyance areas, which shall incorporate the guidelines and specific requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, management requirements of Table 3-5 of the Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and information and recommendations from any relevant special studies. Guidelines and requirements from these documents shall be evaluated in relationship to the Preserve configuration and specific habitats and species found within the associated conveyance areas and incorporated into the area specific management directives to the satisfaction of the Preserve Owner Manager. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-17 through and 5.6-19 (listed above), as well as mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-7 and 5.6-9 through 5.6-16 (listed above under the Biological Resources, Impact: Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species and Impact: Federally Protected Wetlands headings) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to consistency with local policies, ordinances, HCP and NCCP to a less than significant level. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to cultural and paleontological resources if it would: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 2. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impact: Archaeological Resources Construction activities associated with the project could inadvertently result in significant impacts to presently unknown archaeological resources that may be uncovered during clearing and grading. It is not anticipated that construction would extend beyond the defined area of potential effect. However, a mitigation measure is included below, consistent with the recommendations of the cultural resources report (Appendix F1 of the EIR), to avoid a potentially significant impact that could occur if construction activities inadvertently extended in the proximity of site CA-SDI-12809 (Final EIR Section 5.7.3). 41 Explanation Both of the archeological resources identified on site are culturally significant as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The project would not result in impacts to known archaeological resources as long as construction activities do not extend beyond the disturbance limits. However, given the presence of archeological resources on site, the project would have the potential to impact unknown archaeological resources during earth-disturbing construction activities. This impact would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.7.3). Mitigation Measures 5.7-1 Protective Fencing. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits for the SPA Plan and associated off-site facilities, including clearing, grubbing, and grading, the applicant shall install protective fencing (i.e., orange snow fence or similar) along the area of potential effect in the area of CA-SDI-12809 as directed by a qualified archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the site throughout the construction of the off-site facilities (including clearing, grubbing, grading, and installation) to ensure that unanticipated finds are handled in an appropriate and professional manner and that required fencing remains intact and project related construction activities do not extend beyond the approved limits of work. 5.7-2 Archaeological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the applicant shall provide written confirmation and incorporate into grading plans, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), that a principal investigator as listed by the Secretary of the Interior (Code of Federal Regulations Title 36, Section 61) has been retained in an oversight capacity to ensure than an archeological monitor(s) will be present during all cutting of previously undisturbed soil. If these cutting activities would occur in more than one location, multiple monitors shall be provided to monitor these areas, as determined necessary by the principal investigator. 5.7-3 Resource Discovery Procedure. During the initial grading of previously undisturbed soils within Village 8 West and the off-site improvement area, prehistoric and historic resources may be encountered. In the event that the monitor identifies a potentially significant site, the archaeological monitor shall secure the discovery site from further impacts by delineating the site with staking and flagging, and by diverting grading equipment away from the archaeological site. Following notification to the Development Services Director (or their designee), the archaeological monitor shall conduct investigations as necessary to determine if the discovery is significant under the criteria listed in CEQA and the environmental guidelines of the City of Chula Vista. If the discovery is determined to be not significant, grading operations may resume and the archaeological monitor shall summarize the findings in a letter report to the Development Services Director (or their designee) following the completion of mass grading activities. The letter report shall describe the results of the on-site archeological monitoring, each archaeological site observed, the scope of testing conducted, results of laboratory analysis (if applicable), and conclusions. The letter report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) prior to release of grading bonds. Any artifacts recovered during the evaluation shall be curated at a facility approved by the Development Services Director (or their designee). For those prehistoric/historic resources that are determined to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented: 42 i. An alternate means of achieving mitigation shall be pursued. In general, these forms of mitigation include: 1) site avoidance by preservation of the site in a natural state in open space or in open space easements, 2) site avoidance by preservation through capping the site and placing landscaping on top of the fill, 3) data recovery through implementation of an excavation and analysis program, or 4) a combination of one or more of the above measures. Procedures for implementing the alternative forms of mitigation described herein are further detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted as part of the 1993 Otay Ranch General Development Plan Program EIR (EIR 90-01). ii. For those sites for which avoidance and preservation is not feasible or appropriate, the applicant shall prepare a Data Recovery Plan. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following: 1) a statement of why data recovery is appropriate as a mitigating measure, 2) a research plan that explicitly provides the research questions that can reasonably be expected to be addressed by excavation and analysis of the site, 3) a statement of the types and kinds of data that can reasonably be expected to exist at the site and how these data will be used to answer important research questions, 4) a step-by-step discussion of field and laboratory methods to be employed, and 5) provisions will be stated for curation and storage of the artifacts, notes, and photographs. In cases involving historic resources, archival research and historical documentation shall be used to augment field-testing programs. Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has been fully evaluated and mitigated to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). All significant artifacts collected during the implementation of the Data Recovery Plan shall be curated at a facility approved by the Development Services Director (or their designee). iii. Following the completion of mass grading operations, the applicant shall prepare a plan that addresses the temporary on-site presentation and interpretation of the results of the archaeological studies for the project. This could be accomplished through exhibition within a future community center, civic building and/or multi-purpose building. This exhibition will only be for temporary curation of those materials being actively used for interpretation and display, and that permanent curation of artifacts and data shall be at a regional repository when one is established. All significant artifacts collected during the implementation of the Data Recovery Plan shall be permanently curated at a facility approved by the Development Services Director (or their designee). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.7-1 through and 5.7-3 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Impact: Human Remains Construction activities associated with the project could inadvertently result in significant impacts to presently unknown human remains that may be uncovered during clearing and grading (Final EIR Section 5.7.3). 43 Explanation Results of the cultural resources record search and survey did not identify any human remains or records of human remains in Village 8 West. However, given the presence of archeological resources on the site, regardless of cultural significance, previously unknown human remains may be present in the project area and off-site improvement area. Ground-disturbing construction activities, grading, and trenching associated with the project would have the potential to uncover human remains. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, without an archaeological monitor on-site during construction to identify evidence of remains and ensure proper regulatory compliance, ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the SPA Plan and TM would have the potential to result in a significant impact to human remains (Final EIR Section 5.7.3). Mitigation Measure 5.7-4 Human Remains Disturbance Protocol. If human remains are discovered during grading or site preparation activities within Village 8 West or off-site improvement area, the archaeological monitor shall secure the discovery site from any further disturbance. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendent will assist the Development Services Director (or their designee) in determining what course of action shall be taken to deal with the remains. Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has been fully evaluated and mitigated to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). The Archaeological Monitor shall summarize the findings in a letter report to the Development Services Director (or their designee) following the completion of mass grading activities. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.7-4 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to human remains to a less than significant level. Impact: Paleontological Resources Geological formations underlying Village 8 West and off-site improvement areas have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources (Final EIR Section 5.7.3). Explanation Direct impacts to paleontological resources would have the potential to occur during earthwork activities, such as mass grading operations on site, or trenching activities associated with the proposed off-site improvements. Ground-disturbing construction would cut into the geological formations within Village 8 West that have a high potential for containing fossilized material. The 44 majority of Village 8 West is underlain by the Otay Formation. This formation would be disturbed by grading activities, especially in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the project area, and during construction of proposed off-site improvements. Quaternary alluvial and terrace deposits, also considered fossiliferous, occur in the southeastern portion of Village 8 West. These sedimentary deposits would be disturbed by grading activities on site, and trenching in the off-site improvement area. These direct impacts would have the potential to adversely affect unique fossilized remains. Therefore, ground-disturbing construction activities associated with Village 8 West would have the potential to result in a significant impact to paleontological resources (Final EIR Section 5.7.3). Mitigation Measure 5.7-5 Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the SPA Plan or off-site improvement area, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Development Services Director (or their designee) that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. A pre-grade meeting shall be held among the paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors. 5.7-6 Paleontological Monitor. A paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the Otay Formation or Quaternary alluvial and terrace deposits to inspect cuts for contained fossils. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. i. The monitor shall be on site on at least a quarter-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic formations (Holocene alluvial deposits) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. He or she shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits with unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvium). ii. In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately sensitive formations, the per-day field monitoring time shall be increased. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring, at the discretion of the Planning Department, shall be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity (Santiago Peak Volcanics). 5.7-7 Fossil Discovery Procedure. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short time frame. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete whale skeleton) may require an extended salvage time. In these instances, 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. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances and at the discretion of the paleontological monitor to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. 5.7-8 Fossil Recording. Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be completed. This report 45 shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.7-5 through and 5.7-8 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Geology and Soils Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to geology and soils if it would: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42); strong seismic ground shaking; seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or landslides. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards Grading activities could result in slope instabilities or landslides within the project area (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Explanation Although no evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities was cited in the Geotechnical Investigation, grading activities associated with cut slopes could result in slope instabilities within the project area because grading could expose bentonitic claystone beds on the finished slope faces. Thus, slope stability is considered to be a potentially significant impact (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Mitigation Measures 5.8-1 Geotechnical Recommendations. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit for Village 8 West, the applicant shall verify that the applicable recommendations in the 46 Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., dated October 22, 2010, have been incorporated into the final project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These recommendations address issues including but not limited to site grading, backdrain systems, undercuts, excavation and fill, monitoring, and soil testing. Geotechnical review of grading plans shall include a review of all proposed storm drain facilities to ensure the storm water runoff would not interfere with the proposed geotechnical recommendations. 5.8-2 Slope Factor of Safety. All graded slopes shall have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Strategies to increase stability may include, but are not limited to, a stability buttress or sheer pins. All slopes stability strategies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to exposure to seismic related hazards to a less than significant level. Impact: Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss Impacts associated with soil erosion and topsoil loss during and following project construction would be potentially significant without compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Explanation During construction, erosion (including loss of topsoil), can occur or be accelerated by site preparation activities. Vegetation removal throughout the site could reduce soil cohesion, as well as the buffer provided by vegetation from wind, water, and surface disturbance, which could render the exposed soils more susceptible to erosive forces. Additionally, newly exposed soils from excavation or grading activities may also be vulnerable to erosion. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized during construction activities. Following construction, implementation of the proposed drainage plan would reduce the long-term potential for erosion. Even though the project includes features and would implement best management to a less than significant level, these features are also prescribed as mitigation measures to assure implementation through buildout of the project (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Mitigation Measure Implementation of mitigation measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 in Section 5.11 would also reduce impacts related to soil erosion and topsoil loss (listed below under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in Final EIR Section 5.11.5). 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 effect as 47 identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-5 (listed below under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in and in Final EIR Section 5.11.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to soil erosion or topsoil loss to a less than significant level. Impact: Soil Stability The presence of loose compressible materials within Village 8 West could become unstable as a result of the project. As a result, there is the potential for landsliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction and/or collapse (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Explanation Loose, compressible soils are found over much of the project area, including slope wash, topsoil and the undocumented artificial fill, and the highly weathered portions of older alluvium, terrace, Tertiary Fanglomerate, Otay Formation and metavolcanic rock. These materials may settle under increased loads, or due to an increase in moisture content from changes in irrigation or site drainage. Thus, soils could become unstable over time. As a result, there is the potential for landsliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction and/or collapse as a result on compressible soils. These impacts are considered to be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Mitigation Measure Mitigation measures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 would also reduce impacts related to slope stability (listed above under the Geology and Soils, Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.8.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 (listed above under the Geology and Soils, Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.8.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to soil stability to a less than significant level. Impact: Expansive Soils Soils within Village 8 West have high to very high expansion potential. Development of structures on these soils could create substantial risks to life or property (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Explanation The predominately clayey sand and sandy clay materials, such as bentonite clays, within the Otay Formation, as well as the other materials on site, have a high to very high expansion potential in some areas. However, due to the wide range of expansion potential typically exhibited by soils in this area, areas may possess a very low expansion potential. Expansive 48 soils within pavement, foundation or slab subgrade could heave when wetted, resulting in cracking or failure of these developments improvements. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact (Final EIR Section 5.8.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 would also reduce impacts related to expansive soils (listed above under the Geology and Soils, Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.8.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 (listed above under the Geology and Soils, Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.8.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level. Public Services Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to public services if it would: 1. Further reduce the ability of properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units to respond to calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 80 percent of the calls; or 2. Be inconsistent with General Plan, GDP, and other objectives and policies regarding fire protection and emergency medical services thereby resulting in a significant physical impact. 3. Exceed the city's growth management threshold standard for police services to respond to Priority One emergency calls throughout the city (within 7 minutes in 81 percent of the cases and an average response time to all Priority One calls of 5.5 minutes or less); and/or exceed the city's growth management threshold standard to respond to Priority Two urgent calls throughout the city (within 7 minutes in 57 percent of cases and an average response time to all Priority Two calls of 7.5 minutes or less). 4. Be inconsistent with General Plan objectives and policies regarding police protection thereby resulting in a significant physical impact. 5. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for educational facilities services. 49 6. Locate 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 a concentration of school impacts; with 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 from contaminants or toxins in the soil or groundwater from landfills, fuel tanks, agricultural areas, power lines, utility easements, and so on; or inside of floodplains; on unstable soils; or near fault lines. 7. Fail to meet the city's growth management threshold standard of 500 gross square feet of library space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 population. 8. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 9. Fail to meet the City's growth management threshold standard for parks and recreation of three acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents east of 1- 805. Impact: Fire Protection Service Standards The anticipated increase in residential population of 5,737 people and the employment base from 300,000 square feet of commercial and office development would increase demand on fire and emergency medical services. The increase in demand would be significant if fully operational and appropriately equipped and staffed fire stations are not provided commensurate with the demand on fire and emergency medical services (Final EIR Section 5.9.1.3). Explanation Project build-out would result in a residential population of approximately 5,737 people and approximately 300,000 square feet of non-residential uses. This increase in residences and commercial facilities would result in an increase in demand for fire and emergency medical services, and an increase in demand for water for fire protection. An increase in demand for fire and emergency medical services could also increase response times. American Medical Response has indicated that one relocated medical unit and one new medical unit would be needed to adequately serve Village 8 West. Implementation of the project would require the collection of Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF). The PFDIF addresses the project's proportional impact on capital facilities, such as structures and equipment, associated with the fire protection. It does not address the impact associated with operations and maintenance for those facilities. It is the city's policy to use public funds such as property taxes, sales taxes, and fees generated by the project to cover the incremental costs associated with providing fire services. Development within Village 8 West would be required to pay the PFDIF, as well as all future taxes and fees adopted by the city to cover fire protection services. While the combination of PFDIF fees from the applicant, implementation of the Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP), and compliance with existing city policies and mechanisms would ensure that the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) threshold standard is achieved. This 50 impact would be potentially significant if these mechanisms are not enforced. Therefore, mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures 5.9.1-1 Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Prior to the approval of each building permit, the applicant shall pay a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Public Facilities Finance Plan. Subject to approval of the City Council, in lieu of paying the required impact fee, the applicant may satisfy that requirement through a written agreement, by which the applicant agrees to either pay the fee or build the facility in question, pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 5.9.1-2 Growth Management Program's Fire and Emergency Medical Service Threshold Standard. The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor the Chula Vista Fire Department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission on an annual basis. 5.9.1-3 Fire Code Compliance. Prior to the approval of each building permit and to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista Fire Marshal, the project shall meet the provisions of the current city-adopted California fire code. In meeting said provisions, the project shall meet the minimum fire flow requirements based upon construction type and square footage. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.1-1 through 5.9.1-3 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to fire protection service standards to a less than significant level. Impact: Consistency with Fire and Emergency Medical Service Policies The increase in fire and emergency medical service demand associated with the project would be significant if fully operational and appropriately equipped and staffed fire stations are not provided commensurate with the demand on fire and emergency medical services (Final EIR Section 5.9.1.3). Explanation Table 5.9-3 and 5.9-4 in Section 5.9.1.3 in the Final EIR evaluates the consistency of the project with the applicable General Plan objectives and GDP objectives. While the combination of PFDIF fees from the applicant, implementation of the PFFP, and compliance with existing city policies and mechanisms would ensure that the GMOC threshold standard is achieved. This impact would be potentially significant if these mechanisms are not enforced. Therefore, mitigation is required (Final EIR Section 5.9.1.3). 51 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.9.1-1 through 5.9.1-3 would also reduce impacts related to consistency with fire and emergency medical service policies (listed above under the Public Services, Impact: Fire Protection Service Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.9.1.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.1-1 through 5.9.1-3 (listed above under the Public Services, Impact: Fire Protection Service Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.9.1.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to consistency with fire and emergency medical service policies to a less than significant level. Impact: Police Service Standards The project would result in a potentially significant increase demand on police protection if additional police officers are not provided commensurate with demand (Final EIR Section 5.9.2.3). Explanation The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) does not currently meet the GMOC response time thresholds for Priority Two calls. The project would incrementally increase Priority Two calls, which could make meeting the priority threshold more difficult. Additional staffing and equipment would be required to bring the CVPD in compliance with the Priority Two call threshold (Final EIR Section 5.9.2.3). Mitigation Measures 5.9.2-1 Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the applicant(s) shall pay a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Public Facilities Finance Plan, unless stated otherwise in a separate development agreement. 5.9.2-2 Growth Management Program's Police Threshold Standard. The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor the Chula Vista Police Department responses to emergency calls and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission on an annual basis. 5.9.2-3 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Features. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, site plans shall be reviewed by the Chula Vista Police Department or their designee to ensure the incorporation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design features and other recommendations of the Chula Vista Police Department, including, but not limited to, controlled access points to parking lots and buildings; maximizing the visibility along building fronts, sidewalks, and public parks; and providing adequate street, parking lot, and parking structure visibility and lighting. 52 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.2-1 through 5.9.2-3 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to police service standards to a less than significant level. Impact: Consistency with Police Service Policies The project would conflict with police service policies if additional police officers are not provided commensurate with demand (Final EIR Section 5.9.2.3). Explanation Table 5.9-5 and 5.9-6 in Section 5.9.1.3 in the Final EIR evaluates the consistency of the project with the applicable General Plan objectives and GDP objectives. While the combination of PFDIF fees from the applicant, implementation of the PFFP, and compliance with existing city policies and mechanisms would ensure that the GMOC threshold standard is achieved, this impact would be potentially significant if these mechanisms are not enforced. Therefore, mitigation is required (Final EIR Section 5.9.2.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.9.2-1 through 5.9.2-3 would also reduce impacts related to consistency with police service policies (listed above under the Public Services, Impact: Police Service Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.9.2.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.2-1 through 5.9.2-3 (listed above under the Public Services, Impact: Police Service Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.9.2.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to consistency with policy service policies to a less than significant level. Impact: School Facilities Project implementation would result in a significant impact to elementary and middle schools unless construction of an elementary school, a middle school, and high school coincides with student generation and associated service demands (Final EIR Section 5.9.3.3). Explanation The Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) has estimated that buildout of the proposed SPA Plan's 2,050 residential units would generate approximately 556 elementary school students (Final EIR Section 5.9.3.3). To provide for future elementary school demand, an 11-acre elementary school site has been designated as Parcel S on the site plan. This site 53 would be reserved for acquisition by the school district. If selected by the CVESD, this school site would be large enough to accommodate up to 750 students and would be adequate to serve the project. Until such time that the school would be completed, students residing within Village 8 West would attend schools in neighboring villages as determined by the school district. Currently, the CVESD has excess capacity for 1,728 elementary school students. There is sufficient capacity throughout the district at this time to accommodate additional elementary school students. However, an impact to the CVESD would occur if the proposed elementary school site is not protected to serve future demand. The project would generate approximately 175 middle school students. According to the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD), the Village 8 West project is within the Eastlake Middle School attendance area. To fulfill the educational need of new middle school students, a 21-acre middle high school site has been designated on the site plan in Planning Area D. This school would be large enough to accommodate up to 1,000 students; therefore, it would be adequate to serve buildout of the project. The site would be reserved for acquisition by the SUHSD. Until such time that the school would be completed, students residing within Village 8 West would attend schools in neighboring villages as determined by the school district. This could result in temporary impact on neighboring schools. The project would generate approximately 291 high school students. According to the SUHSD, high school students residing in Village 8 West would attend Olympian High School, located in Village 7, adjacent to the proposed middle school. Olympian High School was constructed according to the GDP in order to accommodate planned growth in the area surrounding the school, including Village 8 West. However, this high school does not have the capacity to accommodate all of the high school students from Village 8 West. In the future, high school students from Village 8 West or currently attending Olympian High School may be able to attend the proposed school in Village 11. Another high school is being planned at the intersection of Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway. Until such time that another school would be completed, the project would result in temporary impact on Olympian High School. Mitigation Measures 5.9.3-1 School Service Fees. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall provide the city with evidence or certification by the Chula Vista Elementary School District that any fee charge, dedication, or other requirement levied by the school district has been complied with or that the district has determined the fee, charge, dedication or other requirements does not apply to the construction. 5.9.3-2 School Site Protection. Prior to approval of a final map for private development on Planning Areas D or S, designated for future schools, the applicant shall provide evidence from the Chula Vista Elementary School District or Sweetwater Unified High School District that the site has not been determined by the district to be needed for use as a school site. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.3-1 and 5.9.3-2 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made 54 binding On the applicant. |rno|8rn8nt8UOn of these mitigation rn88SUr8S will r8dUC8 significant direct impacts related to mnhom| facilities kzo less than significant level. Impact: Schools Siting The potential 8xiSiS for pesticides/herbicides to OCCUr at the fUtUnS SChOO| site and for pOt8nU8| unstable soils to occur on site (Final E|F| Section 5.8.3.3). Explanation The proposed school sites must comply with the CVEG[] and state standards regarding health and safety iaouea, including the potential for toxins in the soil. The possible presence of pesticide/herbicides has been detected in on-site soils in some areas of the project. As such, 3ddidOO8| testing vvOu|d be required prior to grading and any CODt8O0iD3ted SOi|S VVOu|d need to be nomwdiated in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and RVVC>CB requirements. AddiUVno||y, unstable eni|e could occur on site and the region is seismically active (Final BRGection 5.9.3.3). Mitigation nAeasmmym Mitigation measures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 (listed above under the Geology and 8oi|e. Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards heading and in the Final BR Section 5.8.5\ and 5.13-1 (listed be|uvv under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Disposal, or Release heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.13.5) would reduce impacts related k) school siting. Finding Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will nubehanho||y |onnen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the E|F| toa level of insignificance. Gpecifica||y, mitigation measures 5.8-1. 5.8-3. 5.13-1 (listed above under the Geology and Soils, Impact: Exposure to Seismic Related Hazards headinQ, and below under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials Tnanaport, Use, Diapoaa|, or Release heading) are feasible and ahe|| be required as condition of approval and OU8d8 binding OD the @pp|iCGDL |0p|80eDtGUOO of these 0iUQaUOD OU8GSu[eS will reduce significant direct impacts related SChOO| Siting to less than significant level. Impact: Library Service Standard The project would increase demand on library aervicea, which would be significant if library resources are not provided commensurate with demand (Final EIR Section 5.9.4.3). Explanation Village 8 West would generate a demand for approximately 2.885 square feat of additional library facilities within the City. The city does not Cu[[8DUy 0O8t the GyWOC threshold St8Dd@nd Of 500 square feet Of library service for every 1.000 residents. AS envisioned in Chula Vista's Library Facilities Master P|on, o future library is proposed in the EUC that would serve Village 8 VVeoL Construction of the Rancho del Rey and the library facility proposed in the EUC would result in a total of 60,000 gross square feet of library space. This amount would accommodate the increase in population as o result of the development proposed in Village 8 VVeot. and 55 maintain acceptable service ratios. Library facilities would also be permitted throughout Village 8 West. However, the project's increase in demand on library services would be significant if library resources are not provided commensurate with demand (Final EIR Section 5.9.4.3). Mitigation Measures 5.9.4-1 Public Facility Development Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the applicant shall pay a required Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Public Facilities Finance Plan. 5.9.4-2 Growth Management Program's Libraries Threshold Standard. The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor library facilities and services and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission on an annual basis. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.4-1 and 5.9.4-2 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to the library service standard to a less than significant level. Impact: Deterioration of Parks and Recreation Facilities The project would increase demand on recreational facilities, which would be significant if the proposed parks and recreational facilities are not provided commensurate with demand (Final EIR Section 5.9.5.3). Explanation The project would potentially increase use of existing and proposed regional and community parks. However, the project would provide parks and recreational facilities to serve the population of Village 8 West. The project would exceed the requirements of the GDP, Quimby Act, and Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). The project would provide a total of 27.9 acres of parks, of which 27.1 acres are eligible for credit to meet city and GDP parkland requirements. However, if construction of new parks would not coincide with development of residences in Village 8 West, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.9.5.3). Mitigation Measures 5.9.5-1 Public Facility Development Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the applicant shall pay recreation facility development impact fees (part of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee) in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Public Facilities Finance Plan, subject to approval of the Director of Library and Recreation. 5.9.5-2 Park Acquisition and Development Fees. Prior to the approval of each final map for the project, or, for any residential development project within Village 8 West that does not require a final map, prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall pay applicable Park 56 Acquisition and Development in-lieu fees for the area covered by the final map(s). The payment of in-lieu fees shall be in accordance with the phasing indicated in the Project's approved SPA Plan, and a park agreement, if any, subject to approval of the Director of Library and Recreation. In-lieu fees shall be based on the Park Acquisition and Development fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits, unless stated otherwise in a parks or development agreement. 5.9.5-3 Growth Management Program's Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard. The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor parks and recreation services and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission on an annual basis. 5.9.5-4 Dedication of Parkland. Prior to approval of the first final map for the project, the applicant shall offer for dedication all public parkland identified in the Project's approved SPA Plan, or as approved by the Director of Library and Recreation. Park facilities such as the Neighborhood Park and Town Square indentified as being required to meet the overall park obligation shall be identified on the first final map. 5.9.5-5 Town Square Park. Prior to issuance of the final map containing the 383rd residential building permit, the Town Square Park shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Library and Recreation. 5.9.5-6 Park Development Agreement. Prior to the approval of the first final map for Village 8 West the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides the following: dedication of public park sites, payment of Park Development Agreement Fees, schedule for completion of improvements, including utilities to streets adjacent to the park sites, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Library and Recreation. Under the current method for delivery of new parks the city will award a design-build contract for the Project's neighborhood park. The agreement will include provisions that in the event the City chooses not to go forward with a design-build contact, the applicant will be obligated to fully comply with the Parkland Ordinance and park threshold standards by constructing the parks in accordance with all City standards and under a time schedule as specified in the agreement. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.5-1 through 5.9.5-6 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreational facilities to a less than significant level. Impact: Parks and Recreation Standard The project would increase demand on recreational facilities, which would be significant if the proposed parks and recreational facilities are not provided commensurate with demand (Final EIR Section 5.9.5.3). 57 Explanation According to the CVMC Chapter 17.10, the method used to calculate the amount of actual required park space is 460 square feet developed park land per each single-family unit and 341 square feet per each multi-family unit. According to this method, Village 8 West would be obligated to provide approximately 17.8 acres of parkland. Village 8 West would provide a total of 27.1 acres of eligible parks. The excess park acreage in Village 8 West represents aggregated park acreage obligation from Village 8 West and Village 9 and it is the intent of the Village 8 SPA Plan to obligate the dedication of such park acreage from Village 8 West to satisfy a portion of Village 9's park obligation as needed. However, if construction of new parks would not coincide with development of residences in Village 8 West, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.9.5.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.9.5-1 through 5.9.5-6 would also reduce impacts related to the parks and recreation growth management threshold standard (listed above under the Public Services, Impact: Deterioration of Parks and Recreation Facilities heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.9.5.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.5-1 through 5.9.5-6 (listed above under the Public Services, Impact: Deterioration of Parks and Recreation Facilities heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.9.5.5) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to the parks and recreation standard to a less than significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to hydrology and water quality if it would: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including City of Chula Vista engineering standards for storm water flows and volumes. 2. Substantially alter 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 the site or City of Chula Vista Engineering Standards for storm water flows and volumes. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off the site. 58 4. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 5. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impact: Water Quality Standards Construction and operational activities could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Explanation Pollutants associated with construction would degrade water quality if they were washed by storm water or non-storm water into surface waters. Sediment is often the most common pollutant associated with construction sites because of the associated earth-moving activities and areas of exposed soil. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and hazardous materials such as paints and concrete slurries discharged from construction sites could also impact aquatic plants and animals downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm drainage channels to downstream surface waters and could impact aquatic wildlife, wetland or riparian habitat and aesthetic value. Construction activities would potentially result in a significant change in local receiving water quality if best management practices (BMPs) are not put in place to prevent polluted runoff from entering the Wolf Canyon or Otay River There are multiple pollutants associated with operations of land uses proposed in Village 8 West including sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticies. The San Diego Bay is impaired for organic compounds. Therefore, organic compounds are a pollutant of concern associated with the project. Increased runoff from the development of future land uses as designated in the project area, and an associated increase in impervious surfaces, would potentially result in the contribution of non-point source pollution, including organic compounds, into Wolf Canyon and Otay River, and ultimately San Diego Bay, that would degrade water quality (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Mitigation Measures 5.11-1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for the Village 8 West SPA Plan area or any land development permit, including clearing and grading, the project applicant shall submit a notice of intent and obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for construction activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Adherence to all conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The applicant shall be required under the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Permit to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and monitoring plan that shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be incorporated into the grading and drainage plans and shall specify both construction and post-construction structural and non-structural best management practices on site to reduce the amount of sediments and pollutants in construction and post-construction surface runoff before it is discharged into off-site storm water facilities. Section 7 of the City's Storm Water Manual outlines construction site best management practices requirements. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall also address operation and maintenance of post-construction pollution 59 prevention measures, including short-term and long-term funding sources and the party or parties that will be responsible for said measures. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall incorporate construction and post-construction best management practices as outlined in the Village 8 West Edge Plan. The grading plans shall note the condition requiring a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and monitoring plans. 5.11-2 Supplemental Water Quality Report. Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the applicant shall submit a supplemental report to the Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Village 8 West prepared by Hale Engineering dated December 8, 2011 that identifies which on-site storm water management measures from the Water Quality Technical Report have been incorporated into the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If a storm water management option is chosen by the parcel owner that is not shown in the water quality technical report, a project-specific water quality technical report shall be prepared for the planning area, referencing the Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Village 8 West for information relevant to regional design concepts (e.g., downstream conditions of concern) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.11-3 Post-Construction/Permanent Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the City Engineer shall verify that parcel owners have incorporated and will implement post-construction best management practices in accordance with current regulations. In particular, applicants are required to comply with the requirements of Section 2c of the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan, the Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual, and the Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Village 8 West or any supplements thereto to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Specifically, the applicant shall implement low impact development best management practices in the preparation of all site plans and, the applicant shall incorporate structural on-site design features into the project design to address site design and treatment control best management practices as well as requirements of the hydromodification management plan. The applicant shall monitor and mitigate any erosion in downstream locations that may occur because of on-site development. 5.11-4 Limitation of Grading. The project applicant shall comply with the Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual limitation of grading requirements, which limit disturbed soil area to 100 acres, unless expansion of a disturbed area is specifically approved by the Director of Public Works. With any phasing resulting from this limitation, if required, the project applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, erosion and sediment control best management practices in areas that may not be completed, before grading of additional area begins. 5.11-5 Hydromodification Criteria. The project applicant shall comply, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, with city hydromodification criteria or the hydrograph modification management plan, as applicable, addressed regionally at the SPA Plan level concurrent with grading and improvement plans for the 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-5 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made 60 binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to water quality standards to a less than significant level. Impact: Erosion or Siltation Impacts associated with altering 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 would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Explanation Natural channel flow occurs on site and development of Village 8 West would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Village 8 West is currently composed of three drainage areas that flow either directly to Otay River or to Wolf Creek, which is a tributary to Otay River. Following implementation of the project, the site would be divided into five drainage basins. The northern portion of the site would drain to Wolf Canyon via two of five proposed storm drain systems. The other three storm drain systems would drain the remainder of the site south to the Otay River. The remaining project areas that are not included in one of these five drainage areas consist of areas that would remain as open space, including the Preserve. Drainages serving the southern basin would be susceptible to increased erosion resulting from increased peak flow rates, increased runoff volumes, and duration, which would result in a potentially significant impact (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 in Section 5.11 would also reduce impacts related to soil erosion and siltation (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-5 (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to erosion or siltation to a less than significant level. Impact: Surface Runoff Impacts associated with altering 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 flooding on- or off-the site would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Explanation Village 8 West currently consists almost entirely of permeable surfaces. The project, which would involve the replacement of the permeable surfaces and exposed soils with urban development, would substantially change the amount of impervious surface area within the 61 project. Therefore, drainages serving the southern basin would be susceptible to increased peak flow rates and increased runoff volumes, which would result in a potentially significant flooding impact (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Mitigation Measure Implementation of mitigation measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 in Section 5.11 would also reduce impacts related to surface runoff (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-5 (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to surface runoff to a less than significant level. Impact: Exceed Drainage Capacity Impacts associated with creating or contributing runoff water would potentially exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems if the proposed drainage features are not implemented (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Explanation A drainage system has been designed for the project with the capacity to convey post-project flows during the 100-year storm event and includes energy dissipaters to minimize the potential for erosion. The project would reduce flows to Wolf Canyon and would not result in an increase in siltation or erosion as a result of increased flows to Otay River. Therefore, the project would not result in runoff water that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems. Even though the project includes features to reduce the amount and rate of runoff to a less than significant level, these features are also prescribed as mitigation measures to assure implementation and facilitate monitoring through buildout of the project (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 in Section 5.11 would also reduce impacts related to drainage capacity (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-5 (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of 62 approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to drainage capacity to a less than significant level. Impact: Degradation of Water Quality Construction and operation of the proposed project would potentially generate pollutants or runoff that would degrade water quality (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Explanation The BMPs proposed in the water quality report would ensure that runoff associated with development of infrastructure and mass grading of the site would not result in a substantial source of polluted runoff that would degrade water quality. The proposed drainage system would not result in an increase in erosion or siltation off site. However, supplemental water quality studies are required to indentify which site-specific BMPs identified in the water quality technical report would be necessary for individual development projects to comply with the manual. Therefore, impacts related to water quality would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.11.2). Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-5 in Section 5.11 would also reduce impacts related to water quality (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-5 (listed above under the Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact: Water Quality Standards heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.4) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to water quality to a less than significant level. Agricultural Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to agricultural resources if it would: 1. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Impact: Land Use Zoning Conflicts Impacts related to land use zoning conflicts and consistency with agricultural resource policies would be potentially significant if the Agriculture Plan is not implemented concurrent with development (Final EIR Section 5.12.3). 63 Explanation Agricultural activities in the city are allowed on lands zoned for Planned Community (P-C) on an interim basis. The SPA area is zoned planned community and interim agricultural land uses are allowed within Village 8 West, although no agricultural activities currently take place on the site. Interim agricultural activities would continue to be permitted on the project site during the phased development of the project, but would cease upon full project buildout. Development is not required to maintain the potential for agricultural land used in the planned community zone. Impacts related to land use zoning conflicts and consistency with agricultural resource policies would be potentially significant if the Agriculture Plan is not implemented concurrent with development (Final EIR Section 5.12.3). Mitigation Measures 5.12-1 Agricultural Plan. The Agricultural Plan included in the SPA Plan shall be implemented as development proceeds in Village 8 West. The following measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Development Services Director (or their designee): i. Prior to approval of each building permit, the applicant shall ensure that a 200-foot fenced buffer shall be maintained between development and any ongoing agricultural operations on the property. ii. In those areas where pesticides are to be applied, the farmland owner shall utilize vegetation to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet) from agricultural activities. Use of pesticides shall comply with federal, state and local regulations. iii. If permitted interim agricultural uses require the use of pesticides, the farmland owner shall notify adjacent developed property owners of potential pesticide application a minimum of 10 days prior to application through advertisements in newspapers of general circulation. Limits shall be established as to the time of day and type of pesticide applications that may be used. The use of pesticides shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.12-1 (listed above) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to land use zoning conflicts to a less than significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials if it would: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or create a significant hazard to the 64 public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 2. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 4. 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 5. Be inconsistent with General Plan, GDP, and other objectives and policies regarding hazards thereby resulting in a significant physical impact. 6. Result in an increase in the uses, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste materials and an associated increase in the risk of an upset condition in the area; and/or the historic use of pesticides would result in soil contamination and health effects. Impact: Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Disposal, or Release Potentially significant impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials could result from the exposure of construction workers, future residents, and the future on-site schools to pesticide residue occurring in soils on the site (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Explanation The Phase I ESA prepared for the Village 8 West area identified the possible presence of pesticides/ herbicides in shallow soil from the historical agricultural use within the area. Herbicides reportedly have historically been and are currently used on site but pesticides have not recently been used on site. Research conducted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture indicated that detectable concentrations of at least one of the dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or dichlorodiphenyldichloro- ethylene compounds had been found in soil throughout California's agricultural areas associated with the application of pesticides from 1944 to 1974. According to the San Diego County Department of Agriculture, Weights, and Measures permits, the pesticide 2,4-D Amine was applied to adjacent parcels to the west and east of the project. Elevated levels of pesticides in the near surface soils at the project area could be disturbed from grading and trenching activities and result in an increased health risk to construction workers on site and future inhabitants of the proposed development, particularly the future residential and school uses, and potentially impact water quality through storm water runoff. This impact is potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Mitigation Measures 5.13-1 Soil Assessment. Prior to issuance of a mass grade permit, the applicant shall prepare a soils assessment to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to determine if residual pesticides, herbicides, and/or arsenic are present on site. The assessment shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances 65 Control guidance document. The assessment shall include analysis for organochlorine pesticides that include compounds such as toxaphene, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, dichlorodiphenyltri-chloroethane, and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, which have been historically identified at properties in the site vicinity. The concentrations of the contaminants shall be compared to Department of Toxic Substances Control soil screening levels for residential land use. If levels of contamination exceeding the Department of Toxic Substances Control screening levels are found on site, a Soil Reuse Plan shall be prepared prior to construction on site. The Soil Reuse Plan shall include a determination of the suitability of the soils for on-site or off-site reuse, any special handling provisions that shall be incorporated as part of the site grading activities, and the procedure for the proper remediation and disposal of the contaminated soils, either on site or off site. The results of the limited soil assessment and the Soil Reuse Plan shall be submitted to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, the Development Services Director (or their designee), and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and approval, prior to implementation. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.13-1 (listed above) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to routine use and accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Impact: Hazards to Schools Potentially significant impacts related to hazards to schools could result from the exposure of construction workers, future residents, and the future on-site schools to pesticide residue occurring in soils on the site (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Explanation The Phase I ESA prepared for the Village 8 West area identified the possible presence of pesticides/ herbicides in shallow soil from the historical agricultural use within the area. Elevated levels of pesticides in the near surface soils at the project area could be disturbed from grading and trenching activities and result in an increased health risk to future school uses. This impact is potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measure 5.13-1 would also reduce impacts related to hazards to schools (listed above under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact: Routine Use and Accidental release of Hazardous Materials heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.13-1 (listed above under the Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Disposal, or 66 Release heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to hazards to schools to a less than significant level. Impact: Airport Hazards Potentially significant impacts could result from the location of structures proposed in Village 8 West within a FAA notification area (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Explanation Village 8 West is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast of Brown Field, a City of San Diego municipal airport. Due to the limited height allowed in Village 8 West, it is not anticipated that development of the tallest structures would result in an obstruction to air traffic. However, because Village 8 West is located within the FAA Height Notification Boundary and Airport Overflight Notification Area, proper notification in compliance with the Brown Field ALUCP is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Mitigation Measures 5.13-2 Federal Aviation Administration Notification. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the first structure and/or dwelling unit within the Airport Influence Area of Brown Field, the applicant shall prepare and file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that no objects related to development in Village 8 West would present a hazard to air navigation. 5.13-3 Federal Aviation Administration Clearance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first structure and/or dwelling unit within the Airport Influence Area of Brown Field, the applicant shall obtain and provide proof of Federal Aviation Administration clearance to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). 5.13-4 Airport Overflight Agreement. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for those areas within the overflight notification area for Brown Field, the applicant shall record the Airport Overflight Agreement with the County Recorder's office, and provide a signed copy of the recorded Airport Overflight Agreement to the Chula Vista Development Service Director (or their designee). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.13-2 through 5.13-4 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to airport hazards to a less than significant level. Impact: Consistency with Hazard Policies Potential conflicts with the GDP hazards policies could occur as a result of pesticide residue occurring in soils on the site (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). 67 Explanation Potentially elevated levels of pesticides in the near surface soils at the project area could be disturbed from grading and trenching activities and result in an increased health risk to construction workers on site and future inhabitants of the proposed development,. This impact is potentially significant because it would conflict with GDP goals to promote public safety and provide public protection from manmade hazards (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measure 5.13-1 would also reduce impacts related to consistency with hazard Policies (listed above under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact: Routine Use and Accidental release of Hazardous Materials heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.13-1 (listed above under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact: Routine Use and Accidental release of Hazardous Materials heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to consistency with hazard policies to a less than significant level. Impact: Historic Use of Pesticides Potentially significant impacts related to historic use of pesticides could result from the exposure of construction workers, future residents, and the future on-site schools to pesticide residue occurring in soils on the site (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Explanation As previously described, the Phase I ESA prepared for the Village 8 West area identified the possible presence of pesticides/ herbicides in shallow soil from the historical agricultural use within the area. Elevated levels of pesticides in the near surface soils at the project area could be disturbed from grading and trenching activities and result in an increased health risk to construction workers on site and future inhabitants of the proposed development, particularly the future residential and school uses, and potentially impact water quality through storm water runoff. This impact is potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.13.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measure 5.13-1 would also reduce impacts related to consistency with hazard Policies (listed above under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact: Routine Use and Accidental release of Hazardous Materials heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5). 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.13-1 (listed 68 above under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact: Routine Use and Accidental release of Hazardous Materials heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.11.5) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts related to historic use of pesticides to a less than significant level. Public Utilities Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to public utilities if it would: 1. Exceed city threshold standards which seek to ensure that adequate supplies of quality water, appropriate for intended uses, are available. The standards require the applicant must request and deliver to the city service availability letters from the appropriate water district for each project; the applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with the SPA Plan application; and the project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior to the development of each Otay Ranch SPA. 2. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments. 3. Require or result in the construction of new recycled water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impact: Compliance with City-wide Water Supply Thresholds Until future developers provide service availability letters and get approved Subarea Master Plan (SAMPs) from Otay Water District (OWD), the project would not be in compliance with the city threshold standards (Final EIR Section 5.15.1.3). Explanation The Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (WSAV) prepared by the OWD describes current and long-range storage capacity and ensures that the OWD would be able to absorb the forecasted growth for Village 8 West. The WSAV also provided documentation of entitlements and contracts, and a financial analysis of OWD's maintenance and future water supplies. The WSAV report concludes that adequate long-term water supply will be available to the project. The Overview of Water Service prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering also provides information that existing and OWD off-site conveyance and storage facilities would be adequate to serve Village 8 West (see Appendix K2 in the Final EIR). However, future individual developers within Village 8 West would be required to obtain service availability letters and submit SAMPs for OWD approval in order to ensure that the project is consistent with the city GMO thresholds. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.15.1.3). 69 Mitigation Measures 5.15.1-2 Service Availability Letters. Prior to approval of each final map, the applicant shall request and obtain a service availability letter from the Otay Water District and submit the letter to the City of Chula Vista. 5.15.1-3 Subarea Master Plan Preparation. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall provide a Subarea Master Plan to the Otay Water District. Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on the site and off the site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plan and Subarea Master Plan. The Subarea Master Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to: i. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity; ii. The proposed points of connection and system; iii. The estimated water demands and/or sewer flow calculations; iv. Governing fire department's flow requirements (flow rate, duration, hydrant spacing, etc); v. Agency Master Plan; vi. Agency's planning criteria (see Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the Water Agencies Standards); vii. Water quality maintenance; and viii. Size of the system and number of lots to be served. 5.15.1-4 Subarea Master Plan Approval. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall obtain Otay Water District's approval of the Subarea Master Plan for potable water. Any on-site and off-site facilities identified in the Subarea Master Plan required to serve a final mapped area shall be secured or constructed by the applicant prior to the approval of the final map and in accordance with the phasing in the Public Facilities Finance 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.15.1-2 through 5.15.1-4 (listed above) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to compliance with city-wide water supply thresholds to a less than significant level. 70 Impact: Adequate Wastewater Facilities A significant impact would occur if adequate wastewater facilities are not provided concurrently with new demand (Final EIR Section 5.15.2.3). Explanation The approximately 549,700 gallons per day generated by the project is within the city's remaining capacity of 4.664 million gallons per day. However, the project would be phased over a period of up to 20 years. The city's sewer system would potentially reach capacity during this time. If adequate sewer facilities are not provided concurrently with demand, a significant impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.15.2.3). Mitigation Measures 5.15.2-1 Sewer System Improvements. The applicant shall finance or install all on-site and off-site sewer facilities required to serve development in Village 8 West in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.15.2-2 Salt Creek Development Impact Fee. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall pay the Salt Creek Development Impact Fee at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance and corresponding to the sewer basin that the building will permanently sewer to, unless stated otherwise in a development agreement that has been approved by the City Council. 5.15.2-3 Density Transfer Technical Report. Prior to design review approval in accordance with the Intensity Transfer provision in the Village 8 West SPA Plan, the applicant shall provide an update to the Overview of Sewer Service for Otay Ranch Village 8 West (Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. 2010) with each proposed project requesting an intensity transfer. The technical study shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that adequate on-site wastewater infrastructure will be available to support the transfer. The transfer of residential density shall be limited by the ability of the on-site sewerage facilities to accommodate flows. 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.15.2-1 through 5.15.2-3 (listed above) is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to adequate wastewater facilities to a less than significant level. Impact: New Recycled Water Facilities If recycled water facilities are not provided concurrently with demand, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.15.4.3). 71 Explanation Recycled water would be provided to the project by extending the 680 Zone recycled water system from the 12-inch line in La Media Road to the north. Some 927 Zone recycled water piping exists in the northeast corner of the project but no 927 Zone service is proposed within Village 8 West. The slopes on the western edge of the project that approach elevations of up to 600 feet will require private booster systems at the landscape connections. Therefore, construction of the recycled water infrastructure required by buildout of the project would not result in significant environmental effects. However, if the proposed recycled water facilities are not constructed concurrently with demand, the project would result in an additional impact related to water supply because a greater amount of potable water would be needed. If recycled water facilities are not provided concurrently with demand, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final EIR Section 5.15.4.3). Mitigation Measures 5.15.4-1 Subarea Master Plan Preparation. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall provide a Subarea Master Plan to the Otay Water District. Recycled water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on the site and off the site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plan and Subarea Master Plan. The Subarea Master Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to the following information related to recycled water: i. Existing recycled water pipeline locations, size, and capacity; ii. The proposed points of connection and system; iii. The estimated recycled water demand calculations; and iv. Size of the system and number of lots to be served. 5.15.4-2 Subarea Master Plan Approval. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall obtain Otay Water District approval of the Subarea Master Plan for recycled water. Any on- site and off-site facilities identified in the Subarea Master Plan required to serve a final mapped area shall be secured or constructed by the applicant prior to the approval of the final map and in accordance with the phasing in the Public Facilities Finance 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 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.15.4-1 and 5.15.4-2 (listed above) are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce significant direct impacts related to new recycled water facilities to a less than significant level. 72 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE DIRECT IMPACTS CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." The project will implement mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental changes to a less than significant level for all issues except the following, which would result in significant and unavoidable direct and/or indirect impacts: scenic resources and visual character (degradation of rolling hills), air quality (consistency with existing plans, increased criteria pollutants), potential effects of climate change (exacerbate air quality problems), agricultural resources (conversion of agricultural resources), and public utilities (water, wastewater, and energy). A brief summary of each environmental topic that would result in a significant and unavoidable direct or indirect impact is provided below. Aesthetics/Landform Alteration The project would result in development on the site; therefore it would permanently alter the character of the project site from open rolling hills to an urban environment and would be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Air Quality Construction of the project would result in significant and unavoidable emissions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5. Operation emissions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and PM10 would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the project is inconsistent with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). Impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would also be significant and unavoidable, consistent with the conclusion of the GPA/GDPA SEIR air quality analysis. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Global Climate Change The potential to exacerbate air quality problems as a result of ozone precursor emissions remains significant. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance without regulating the habits and purchases of individuals. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Agricultural Resources The incremental loss of agricultural lands (farmland of local importance, grazing land), which was considered a significant impact in the 1993 Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, remains significant. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance without restricting the development proposed in the Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM to allow interim agricultural uses to continue in perpetuity. This incremental loss remains 73 significant and unavoidable. Cumulative inn000te oeeonoied with this issue are discussed in Section )(. below. Public Utilities NO nnidg8iiOn nn88SUr8S are available to guarantee 8 long-term water supply would be 8v@i|8b|8 to serve the project. As such, any increase in water demand would be considered significant. Thenafore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The project in combination with foreseeable growth may require sewerage treatment that exceeds the City's existing wastewater treatment C@p@Cih/. AS the |OC8tiOn and SCOpS of construction for any future expanded Or n8vv|y developed treatment facilities is unknovvn, the development of treatment oopooitv beyond the Cih/'S eXiSUOQ and 8||OC8ted C8p@Cih/ may result in pOteDd8||y significant and unavoidable impacts 8SSOCi8t8d with COnSirUCiiOn of new or expanded facilities. NO mitigation mS8SUr8S are available to assure that energy resources will be available toadequately serve the projected increase in population nauu|Ung from the project. Thenefona, impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. Cumulative inopuota associated with this issue are discussed in Section X. below. DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE DIRECT IMPACTS The project would result in significant and unavoidable direct impacts to aesthetics/landform 3|te[8dOO (visual Ch@[3Cte[ or quality), 3i[ quality (3i[ quality vi0|8UODS and 8i[ quality p|@DS). g|Ob@| C|im8i8 Ch8n08 (potential 8ff8CtS of global climate change), 8griCU|tUr8| nBSOUrC8S (direct conversion of agricultural nauouroeu), and public utilities (long-term water supply and entitlements, new wastewater treatment facilities, and energy [eSOu[CeS}. /\ diSCuSSiOD of the impacts for these issues ieprovided below. Aesthetics/Landform Alterations Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant aesthetics/landform alteration impact if it would: 1. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its Su[R}uOdiDQS Impact: Visual Character or Quality The project would permanently alter the character of the project site from open, rolling topography to urban development (Final E|R Section 5.2.3) Explanation ofImpact The 8E|Rfor the GPA/GOPA identified o significant impact to visual character as o result of development of the land uses proposed in the GPA. The 8E|R identified mitigation measure 5.2.5-1 from the 2005 GPU E|Rto reduce impacts related to visual character. The mitigation nneosuna consists of requirements for building and grading plans to protect visual character to the extent feasible. The proposed SPA Plan for Village 8 West would implement the 74 requirements of SEIR mitigation measure 5.2.5-1, including a grading plan in conformance with the city grading ordinance; grading standards that ensure manufactured slopes are contoured, blend, and mimic with adjacent natural slopes; and landscape performance standards and landscape plans that maintain views, are consistent with open space areas, and addresses streetscapes, provides landscape intensity zones, greenbelt edge treatments, and slope treatment for erosion control. Development Codes in Chapter 3 of the SPA Plan specifies development standards for the entire project area, specific transect zones, as well as individual development types. Chapter 4 of the SPA Plan, Community Design, establishes design guidelines for the project area as a whole, as well for specific land uses and the Town Center. Consistent with the conclusion of the 2013 SEIR, because the project would permanently alter the character of the project site from open rolling hills development, impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 5.2.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measure 5.2-1 would reduce impacts related to visual character or quality (listed above under the Aesthetics/Landform Alteration, Impact: Scenic Vistas heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.2.5). Finding Mitigation measure 5.2-1 (listed above under the Aesthetics/Landform Alteration, Impact: Scenic Vistas heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.2.5) would reduce impacts to visual character or quality by ensuring grading on steep slopes would be visually softened. However, because the project would result in development on the site, it would permanently alter the character of the project site from open rolling hills to an urban environment. No mitigation is available to maintain the undeveloped character of the site. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not substantially lessen this impact compared to the project because a loss of rolling hills would still occur. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact if it would: 1. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 2. Result in a conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the RAQS or State Implementation Plan (SIP). 75 Impact: Air Quality Violation Implementation of the project would have the potential to result significant criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation (Final EIR Section 5.4.4) Explanation of Impact Construction Construction of the project would result in significant emissions of nitrogen oxides, PM,o, and PM2.5 during grading, and additional significant emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would result from simultaneous construction activities. Operation Operation of the proposed project would result in significant PM,o emissions from vehicular use, and significant VOC and nitrogen oxide emissions from vehicular and area sources. Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 Short-term Air Quality Violations Reduction Measures. The following techniques to reduce construction emissions shall be implemented during all construction activities: i. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). ii. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. iii. Use electrical construction equipment as practical. iv. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. v. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. vi. Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. vii. Stabilize (for example hydroseed) graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. viii. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. 5.4-2 Dust Control Measures. Mitigation of PM10 impacts requires active dust control during construction. As a matter of standard practice, the City of Chula Vista shall require the following standard construction measures be included on all grading plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and shall be implemented during construction to the extent applicable: i. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable San Diego Air Pollution Control District dust control agents twice daily during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable Air Pollution 76 Control District dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible. ii. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. iii. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced. iv. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather. v. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered. vi. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the city and/or Air Pollution Control District to reduce dust generation. vii. To the maximum extent feasible: a. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. b. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. viii. Equip construction equipment with pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, to the extent available and feasible. ix. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. x. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). 5.4-3 Construction Best Management Practices. During all construction activities for the project, the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following best management practices to reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust (PM,o and PM2.5). Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following best management practices shall be included on all grading plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be implemented during construction to the extent applicable: i. All construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology devices certified by the California Air Resources Board. A copy of each unit's best available control technology documentation shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ii. Approach routes to the site shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt. 77 iii. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the construction site prior to public road entry. iv. Install wheel washers or rumble plates adjacent to a paved apron prior to any vehicle entry on public roads. v. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. vi. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. vii. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. viii. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues should turn their engines off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction emissions should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and shall be discontinued during second stage smog alerts. ix. During construction, site grading activities within 500 feet of a school in operation shall be discontinued or all exposed surfaces shall be watered to minimize dust transport off site to the maximum degree feasible, when the wind velocity is greater than 15 miles per hour in the direction of the school. x. During blasting, utilize control measures to minimize fugitive dust. Control measures may include, but are not limited to, blast enclosures, vacuum blasters, drapes, water curtains, or wet blasting. Finding Implementation of mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 (listed above) would reduce significant emissions of nitrogen oxides, PM,o, and PM2.5 during grading and significant nitrogen oxides emissions during surface improvements, but not to a less than significant level. Additionally, simultaneous construction activities would still have the potential to result in exceedances of the significance thresholds for nitrogen oxides, VOCs, PM1o, and PM2.5- Additional available mitigation measures to reduce emissions would require the use of electric powered earth movers or aqueous diesel fuel. Use of electric power earth movers is not feasible because a large enough power source that would be needed to supply energy to such large equipment is not available on the site. A commitment to use aqueous diesel fuel is currently not feasible because this fuel is not widely used or available in San Diego County. However, the project would incorporate electrically powered tools and smaller equipment that would be served by hard wired temporary power sources until more permanent power sources are available. If a reliable source of diesel aqueous fuel becomes available, it would be used during project construction. Use of an alternative fuel type of such as natural gas or propane instead of electricity is not a feasible alternative because these fuels would increase nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions. Therefore, construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 5.4.7). 78 Regarding operational emissions, all applicable measures of the Otay GDP Final Program EIR mitigation measures to reduce vehicular emissions have already been incorporated into the SPA Plan, such as provision of bike lanes, providing services near residences, and providing transit support facilities such as bus stops. The project trip generation rates account for the approximately 40 percent reduction in vehicle trips that would occur as a result of the mixed-use areas, transit use, and availability of pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed as part of the SPA Plan. In addition, future vehicular emissions may be lower than estimated due to increasingly stringent California fuel efficiency requirements. Some measures cannot be implemented at the SPA level, such as providing video-conference facilities in work places or requiring flexible work schedules. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available at the project level to reduce vehicular emissions. Additionally, there are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Operation emissions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and PM,o would be significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 5.4.7). Therefore, while mitigation measure 5.4-1 through 5.4-3 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would reduce construction or operational emissions to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to air quality to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Air Quality Plans Implementation of the project would conflict with applicable air quality plans (Final EIR Section 5.4.4) Explanation of Impact The project would have the potential to result in air pollutant emissions from increased traffic on area roadways and increased number of area sources that may lead to air quality violations. As discussed under the previous impact, operational and construction emissions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides and VOCs) would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of BMPs and other mitigation in measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3. Additionally, although the project would be consistent with all applicable transportation and area source control measures proposed in the RAQS to reduce emissions in the region, implementation of the project would exceed the growth projections in the RAQS (1,556 residential units) (Final EIR Section 5.4.7). 79 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would minimize impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans (listed above under the Air Quality, Impact: Air Quality Violations heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.4.5). Finding As discussed under the previous issue, all applicable measures of the Otay GDP Final Program EIR mitigation measures to reduce vehicular emissions have already been incorporated into the SPA Plan. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available at the project level to reduce vehicular emissions. Additionally, there are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Operation emissions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and PM,o would be significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 5.4.7). Mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would minimize construction emissions, but not to below the significance thresholds. Infrastructure and fuel needed to further reduce construction emissions are not readily available. Therefore, while mitigation measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-3 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, these measures would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not reduce pollutant emissions to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to air quality to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant global climate change impact if it would: 1. Result in substantially increased exposure of the project from the potential adverse effects of global warming identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Impact: Potential Effects of Global Climate Change The project would have significant impacts related to regional and local air quality resulting from vehicular emissions of ozone precursors (Final EIR Section 5.10.3) 80 Explanation of Impact Throughout the state and the region, global climate and local microclimate changes could cause an increase in the frequency and duration of exposure to air pollutants. The San Diego Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for ozone, as discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR, Air Quality. As described above under the Air Quality heading, operation of the project would have the potential to exceed the significance thresholds for ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides or VOCs), particularly as a result of vehicular emissions. Therefore, implementation of the project would have the potential to result in additional ozone in the basin that would contribute to increased exposure to ozone-related ailments (Final EIR Section 5.10.3). Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers (Final EIR Section 5.10.3). Finding As described above under the Air Quality heading, the applicable mitigation measures of the 1993 Program EIR for the GDP (EIR 90-01), 2005 GPU EIR, and 2013 SEIR for the GPA/GDPA (EIR 09-01) have already been incorporated into the project to reduce vehicle trips and are accounted for in the projected average daily trip for the project. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available at the project level to reduce vehicular emissions other than reducing vehicle trips. There are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that emissions of ozone precursors would be reduced to a less than significant level. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not reduce emissions of ozone precursors to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to climate change to below a level of significance, impacts to climate change would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Agricultural Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant agricultural impact if it would: 1. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. 81 Impact: Direct Conversion of Agricultural Resources Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM would result in a significant impact to agricultural resources, due to the on-site loss of approximately 250 acres of farmland of local importance and grazing land. (Final EIR Section 5.12.3) Explanation of Impact The project would convert approximately 250 acres of farmland of local importance and grazing land to urban uses resulting in a countywide incremental loss of agricultural land. Once fully developed, the project would eliminate the potential for agricultural activity to occur on site; however, portions of Village 8 West may continue to be used for grazing or dry farming while adjacent uses are developed. Agricultural use of Village 8 West is currently constrained by the lack of a reliable and affordable source of water. Additionally, the General Plan states that agricultural production in Chula Vista is not significant in terms of countywide agricultural value and is not a major factor in the local economy. Long-term agricultural uses are not planned for the city. Nevertheless, the project will contribute to an incremental loss of grazing land and is considered a significant impact. Additionally, if agricultural activities occur on site, the potential for short-term land use conflicts between agricultural land uses and the proposed urban land uses may increase. This incompatibility was identified as a short-term impact in the 1993 Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and was associated with noise, odor, rodents, and chemical applications. Conflicts would cease upon completion of Village 8 West construction because agricultural land uses would be phased out during development. (Final EIR Section 5.12.3). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measure 5.12-1 would minimize impacts related to conversion of agricultural resources (listed above under the Agricultural Resources, Impact: Land Use Zoning Conflicts heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.12.5). Finding With implementation of mitigation measure 5.12-1 (listed above under the Agricultural Resources, Impact: Land Use Zoning Conflicts heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.12.5), agricultural impacts related to short-term land use incompatibilities would be reduced to below a level of significance. However, the incremental loss of agricultural lands (farmland of local importance, grazing land) is significant. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance without restricting the development proposed in the Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM to allow interim agricultural uses to continue in perpetuity. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be to below a level of significance because loss of agricultural land would occur. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. 82 Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to agricultural resources to below a level of significance, impacts to agricultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Public Utilities Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to public utilities if it would: 1. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements. 2. Require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of would cause significant environmental effects. 3. Increase the demand of energy resources to exceed the available supply or cause a need for new and expanded facilities. Impact: Long-Term Water Supply and Entitlements Long-term water supply availability cannot be guaranteed; therefore, the increase in water demand that would result from implementation of the project would be potentially significant (Final EIR Section 5.15.1.3). Explanation Although the Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSAV) for the Village 8 West SPA Plan and the water supply and reliability studies from OWD identify adequate water supplies for Village 8 West, the WSAV cannot ensure that water resources will be available when needed. Conditions such as unanticipated drought conditions or delays in providing planned infrastructure would potentially interfere with projected water supply. As stated in the 2005 GPU EIR and 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR, because a long-term water supply is not assured, increases in water demand would result in a significant impact. Therefore, because there is no assurance of a long-term supply of water in the future, the increase in water consumption associated with Village 8 West would be significant (Final EIR Section 5.15.1.3). Mitigation Measures 5.15.1-1 Density Transfer Technical Report. Prior to design review approval in accordance with the Intensity Transfer provision in the Village 8 West SPA, the applicant shall provide an update to the Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Village 8 West (Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. 2010) with each proposed project requesting an intensity transfer. The technical study shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that adequate on-site water infrastructure will be available to support the transfer. The transfer of residential density shall be limited by the ability of the on-site water supply infrastructure to accommodate flows. 83 Finding Mitigation measure 5.15.1-1 reduces impacts related to density transfers to a less than significant level by ensuring that infrastructure is available to serve the modified land use plan. The WSAV verifies that the OWD has adequate water supply for the project. Additionally, the project would comply with the Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance, implement a WCP, and utilize recycled water to reduce water demand. However, no mitigation measures are available to guarantee a long-term water supply would be available to serve the project. As such, any increase in water demand would be considered significant. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance, impacts to water supply would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: New Wastewater Treatment Facilities The proposed project would require sewerage treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated additional treatment capacity. Therefore, impacts associated with new wastewater treatment facilities are considered significant (Final EIR Section 5.15.2.3). Explanation The proposed project could require sewage treatment capacity beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated additional treatment capacity. Implementation of respective General Plan policies would ensure that treatment capacity would be provided by the City; however, the means by which additional treatment capacity would be acquired is unknown. The City's options include the acquisition of treatment capacity from a San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority member agency, including the City of San Diego, or construction of a Chula Vista treatment facility. Final determination on the means by which additional treatment capacity would be acquired has not yet been made. As the location and scope of construction for any newly developed treatment facilities are unknown, and the development of treatment capacity beyond the City's existing and allocated capacity may result in impacts on the environment. It is conservatively concluded that a potentially significant environmental impact associated with construction of new or expanded treatment facilities may occur (Final EIR Section 5.15.2.3) 84 Mitigation Measures The means by which additional capacity is obtained from the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority or other sources to support treatment city-wide is unknown at this time; therefore, necessary mitigation measures cannot be determined. Finding As the location and scope of construction of future expanded or newly developed treatment facilities is unknown, the significant impacts that may result from the development of treatment capacity beyond the City's existing and allocated capacity are also unknown. Therefore, mitigation measures cannot be determined at this time. It is conservatively concluded that impacts related to development would be potentially significant and unavoidable. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 and Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be to below a level of significance because any increase in water demand would be significant. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance, impacts to energy resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Energy Resources Although development pursuant to the project would be required to comply with state and city building and energy codes and regulations related to reduction in energy use, there is no long- term assurance that energy supplies will be available as needed to support subsequent development projects. Therefore, impacts associated with energy consumption would be significant (Final EIR Section 5.15.5.3). Explanation Implementation of the Village 8 West SPA Plan would result in a increase in electricity demand. Although City programs and policies would result in more efficient use of energy, they do not ensure that increased resources will be available when needed. SDG&E has indicated that without an increased import capacity, including a new substation within the Otay Ranch area, future energy needs could not be assured. The new substation would be located in the EUC, south of the east end of Hunte Parkway. Construction of the substation is expected to begin in late 2014 and is expected to be placed in service in late 2015 (SDG&E 2012). The 120 megavolt amperes substation would provide infrastructure necessary to provide power to buildout of Otay Ranch, but would not generate electricity or guarantee that adequate supply would be available. Therefore, because there is no assurance of a long-term supply of energy in the future, any increase in energy consumption on the project site would be significant (Final EIR Section 5.15.5.3). 85 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are available that would guarantee future energy supplies. Finding The 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR included mitigation measure 5.3.5-1, as identified in the 2005 GPU EIR, to be incorporated into future SPA plans to reduce impacts related to energy use. This plan required continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action Plan and continued implementation of the Adaptation Strategies to lessen the impacts from energy. The project is consistent with this mitigation measure because it includes a non-renewable energy conservation plan to reduce energy use. Implementation of this plan would reduce average energy consumption, including the development of land use patterns and project features which reduce the reliance for project residents to utilize the automobile, encourage the use of regional mass transit facilities, and reduce fossil fuel consumption through better siting and design. Application of the city Energy Code, requiring a 15 percent less energy use than the state 2008 Energy Code, would add to the overall decrease in energy use throughout the project area. Therefore, average energy consumed by future occupants of Village 8 West would not be excessive, and would in fact be less than the regional average and less than statewide business-as-usual projections made by the CARB as part of its GHG emissions forecasting. However, these project features would not guarantee that future energy supplies will be available as needed to support future development project. Any increase in energy use on the project site is considered significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are available that would guarantee future energy supplies. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 and Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be to below a level of significance because any increase in energy demand would be significant. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance, impacts to energy resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY OF EFFECTS Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects" (Pub. Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (b)). These "current or probable future" development proposals can affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the project. Potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with 86 development of the project in conjunction with those projects specifically within the project area. A detailed discussion of cumulative impacts is included in Section 6.0 of the Final EIR. In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have been taken into consideration. The project, along with other related projects, will result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant environmental changes related to aesthetics/landform alteration, air quality, cultural resources, global climate change, agricultural resources, and public utilities (Final EIR, Table 1-4). IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, the appendices to the EIR, and the administrative record, finds the project would mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following cumulatively considerable environmental effects identified in the EIR in the following categories: transportation/traffic; noise; biological resources; paleontological resources; and public services. A brief summary of each environmental topic that would be mitigated to below a level of significance is provided below. Transportation/Traffic Absent mitigation, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact at seven intersections and seven roadway segments in year 2030. Noise The proposed project's contribution to long-term traffic noise would be less than significant. However, absent mitigation, commercial equipment, including HVAC systems, would contribute to noise levels that exceed City standards, which may affect neighboring projects. Biological Resources Absent mitigation, implementation of Village 8 West would contribute to the loss of biological resources within the Otay Ranch and Chula Vista Subarea. Paleontological Resources Because the extent of potential paleontological resources is unknown at this time, cumulative impacts are concluded to be significant. Geological formations underlying the project area and off-site improvement area have been identified as having high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Ground-disturbing activities would have the potential to encounter paleontological resources. Public Services Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM for Village 8 West in combination with cumulative development in the city would result in an increased demand for fire and emergency medical services, police services, and libraries. If growth would outpace service provider's ability to expand and serve new development, a cumulative impact would occur. 87 DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION FOR IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Transportation/Traffic Cumulative Impact: Traffic and Level of Service Standards and Congestion Management The proposed project and cumulative growth would result in an increase in regional traffic that would cause regional intersections and roadway segments to operate at a deficient level of service. Explanation The Otay Ranch Village 8 West Traffic Impact Analysis Report (RBF 2013), Appendix B to the EIR, included an analysis of the proposed project's contribution to cumulative regional traffic. The analysis included a Mitigated Year 2030 scenario that analyzed the potential traffic impacts that would occur as a result of buildout of Village 8 West and the cumulative growth in the region through the year 2030. At full buildout, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact at the following intersections: ■ Birch Road/La Media Road (LOS F -AM and PM Peak Hour) ■ Birch Road/SR-125 northbound ramps (LOS F -AM Peak Hour) ■ Birch Road/Eastlake Parkway (LOS F - AM Peak Hour, LOS E - PM Peak Hour) ■ Main Street/1-805 northbound ramps (LOS E - PM Peak Hour) ■ Main Street/La Media Couplet - Westbound Main Street/northbound La Media Road (LOS F -AM Peak Hour) - Eastbound Main Street/southbound La Media Road (LOS F - AM and PM Peak Hour) - Eastbound Main Street/northbound La Media Road (LOS F - AM Peak Hour) ■ Main Street/Magdalena Avenue (LOS F -AM and PM Peak Hour) ■ Main Street/Eastlake Parkway (LOS F -AM Hour) Additionally, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact to the following roadway segments in year 2030: ■ Birch Road: La Media Road to SR-125 (LOS F) ■ Birch Road: SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway (LOS F) ■ Main Street: 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue (LOS D) ■ Main Street: Brandywine Avenue to Heritage Road (LOS D) ■ Heritage Road: Main Street to Entertainment Circle (LOS E) ■ Heritage Road: Entertainment Circle to Avenida de Las Vistas (LOS D) ■ Eastlake Parkway: Birch Road to Main Street (LOS D) 88 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-16 and 5.3-18 through 5.3-20 (listed above in Section IX and in Final EIR Section 5.3.5) and the following measure would mitigate impacts related to level of service standards and construction management. 5.3-17 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall pay their fair share into Chula Vista's Transportation Development Impact Fee program for cumulative impacts related to: i. Olympic Parkway/1-805 northbound ramps intersection ii. Olympic Parkway: 1-805 to Brandywine roadway segment iii. Olympic Parkway: Brandywine to Heritage Road roadway segment iv. Olympic Parkway: Heritage Road to La Media Road v. Heritage Road: Main Street to Entertainment Circle roadway segment vi. Heritage Road: Entertainment Circle to Avenida de Las Vistas roadway segment vii. Eastlake Parkway: Birch Road to Main Street roadway segment Findings 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 cumulative effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-20 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to traffic level of service standards and congestion management to a less than significant level. Noise Cumulative Impact: Excessive Noise Levels Commercial equipment, including HVAC systems, would contribute to noise levels that exceed City standards, which may affect neighboring projects. Explanation Village 8 West would be adjacent to future development proposed in the GDP to the east in Village 8 East, to the west in Village 4, and to the north in Village 7. According to the GDP, these villages would be developed with similar land uses compared to Village 8 West, including commercial, residential, and parkland development. Commercial equipment, including HVAC systems, would contribute to noise levels that exceed City standards, which may affect neighboring projects. Therefore, a potentially significant cumulative impact could occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.5-2 through 5.5-8 (listed above in Section IX and in Final EIR Section 5.5.5) would ensure that operational noise levels comply with city standards. Findings 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 cumulative 89 effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.5-2 through 5.5-4 and 5.5-7 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to excessive noise levels to a less than significant level. Biological Resources Cumulative Impact: Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species, Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities, Federally Protected Wetlands, and Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites Implementation of Village 8 West would contribute to the loss of biological resources within the Otay Ranch and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea. Explanation The Otay Ranch PEIR identified significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources in Otay Ranch due to loss of raptor foraging habitat. Subsequent to the certification of the PEIR and adoption of the Otay Ranch GDP, the City adopted the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The MSCP planning program provided for mitigation of cumulative impacts from regional development on sensitive species and their habitats on a regional basis, including raptor forage habitat. As such, a cumulatively considerable impact would occur if a project would be inconsistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, and federally protected wetlands, which would be considered cumulatively considerable if impacts are not mitigated consistent with MSCP requirements. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-19 (listed above in Section IX and in Final EIR Section 5.6.5) would ensure compliance with the MSCP Subarea Plan. Findings 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 cumulative effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.6-1 through 5.6-19 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources to a less than significant level. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Cumulative Impact: Paleontological Resources Cumulative buildout would result in an increased probability of disturbance to paleontological resources causing potentially significant cumulative impacts. 90 Explanation Cumulative buildout would result in an increased probability of disturbance to paleontological resources causing potentially significant cumulative impacts. However, this could be a positive effect of development due to fact that the discoveries of paleontological resources contribute to important scientific information about the natural history in southwestern San Diego County. As discussed in Section 5.7, Cultural Resources, geological formations underlying the project area and off-site improvement area have been identified as having high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Therefore, the project could result in significant impacts to sensitive paleontological deposits if unknown paleontological resources are uncovered and not properly recovered. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.7-5 through 5.7-8 (listed above in Section IX and in Final EIR Section 5.7.5) would reduce project-related impacts to paleontological resources. Findings 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 cumulative effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.7-5 through 5.7-8 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Public Services Cumulative Impact: Fire and Emergency Medical Services Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM for Village 8 West in combination with cumulative development in the city would result in an increased demand for fire and emergency medical services. If growth would outpace the CVFD's ability to expand and serve new development, a cumulative impact would occur. Explanation Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM for Village 8 West in combination with cumulative development in the city would result in an increased demand for fire and emergency medical services. If growth would outpace the CVFD's ability to expand and serve new development, a cumulative impact would occur. However, Section 19.09 (Growth Management) provides policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements. Section 19.09.040B specifically requires that "properly equipped and staffed fire and medical shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven minutes in 80 percent of the cases." Section 19.09 also requires a PFFP and the demonstration that public services such as fire services meet the GMOC quality of life threshold standards. A project that is consistent with the city GMO quality of life threshold standards would not result in a cumulative impact. The Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM has been prepared in coordination with the CVFD. According to the CVFD, all areas of Village 8 West are within a CVFD five minute response time area. However, mitigation is required to ensure that the project would meet the GMOC 91 standards for hn3 protection, including paying its fair Sh2n3 Of funding for public S8miC8S with each building penniL Mitigation nAemmmree Mitigation measures 5.9.1-1 through 5.9.1-3 (listed above in Section |>( and in Final E|RGwcUon 581.5) would reduce project-related impacts to fire and emergency medical services. Findings Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CE{]A Guide|inea, changes or alterations are required in. Or incorporated into, the project that will SUbSt8nd8Uy |8SS8n or avoid the significant CUnnU|8tiv8 effect as identified in the E|F| to o level of insignificance. 8pecifiooUy, mitigation nneonunan 5.9.1- 1 through 5.9.1-3 are feasible and shall be required as o condition of approval and made binding On the applicant. |nnp|8nnSnt8tiOn Of this mitigation nnS8SUnS will n8dUDB the project's contribution too significant cumulative impact related tofire and emergency medical services to oless than significant level. Cumulative Impact: Police Services Implementation ofthe SPA Plan and TyW in combination with cumulative development inthe city would naau|t in an increased demand for police services. If growth outpaces the Chula Vista Police Department's ability to expand and Serve new development 8 cumulative impact would OCCUr. Explanation Implementation Ofthe SPA Plan and TW1 in combination with cumulative development iDthe city vvOU|d result in an increased demand for police services. If growth UUtp8CeS the Chula Vista Police Department's ability to expand and serve new development o cumulative impact would occur. Hovvever. Section 19.09 (Growth Management) provides policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements. Section 19.09.040A specifically requires that properly equipped and staffed police units Sh8|| respond to 81 percent of priority one emergency oa||a within seven minutes and maintain an average response time to all priority one emergency oa||a of 5.5 minutes or |gaa. Section 19.09 also requires a PFFP and the demonstration that public services, such as police services, meet the GM(]C quality of |iha threshold standards. A project that is consistent with the city GK8[) quality oflife threshold standards would not result inacumulative impact. Maintaining current response Unnea would require additional police officers. Village 8 West is designed tOincorporate crime prevention through environmental design features, which would reduce demand On police services. However, mitigation is required to ensure the project would meet the GM(]C standards for police pro[n<tinn, including paying its fair share of funding for public services with each building permit. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.9.2-1 through 5.9.2-3 (listed above in Section IX and in Final E|R8ection 5.9.2.5) would reduce project-related impacts tofire and emergency medical services. 92 Findings 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 cumulative effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.2- 1 through 5.9.2-3 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to police services to a less than significant level. Cumulative Impact: Libraries Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM and cumulative development in the city would result in an increased demand for library services. A shortfall of approximately 28,080 square feet currently exists. Explanation Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM and cumulative development in the city would result in an increased demand for library services. Based on the GMO threshold standard of 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 residents, the total library space needed to serve the existing population of the city would be approximately 123,500 square feet. As approximately 95,400 square feet of library space is currently provided, a shortfall of approximately 28,080 square feet currently exists. Therefore, a cumulative impact currently exists. Mitigation is required to ensure that payment of the PFDIF to provide the SPA Plan's fair share contribution to meet the city's threshold standard for library space. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.9.4-1 and 5.9.4-2 (listed above in Section IX and in Final EIR Section 5.9.4.5)would reduce project-related impacts to fire and emergency medical services. Findings 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 cumulative effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures 5.9.4- 1 and 5.9.4-2 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to libraries to a less than significant level. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." 93 The project will implement mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental changes to a less than cumulatively considerable level for all issues except the following, which would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts: aesthetics/landform alteration (degradation of rolling hills), air quality (consistency with existing plans, increased criteria pollutants), cultural resources (cumulative disturbance of archaeological resources and human remains), potential effects of climate change (exacerbate air quality problems), agricultural resources (conversion of agricultural resources), and public utilities (water, wastewater, energy, and cumulative recycled water demand). A brief summary of each environmental topic that would result in a significant and unavoidable impact is provided below. Aesthetics/Landform Alteration The project, in combination with the cumulative projects, would contribute to a cumulative loss of views of natural open space and loss of open, rolling topography. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Air Quality The Village 8 West project alone would result in potentially significant NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during construction. If any cumulative project is constructed during the same time period, emissions of criteria pollutants would combine to further exacerbate the violations. Following construction, the project would result in unavoidably significant emissions of VOCs, NOX, and PM,o during operation. The SPA Plan would exceed regional growth projections and therefore the project would result in a cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact to consistency with adopted air quality plans. Cultural Resources The extent of potential cultural resources is unknown at this time and unknown resources are potentially located in Village 8 West. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect is considerable when considered cumulatively. Global Climate Change The potential to exacerbate air quality problems as a result of ozone precursor emissions remains significant. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance without regulating the habits and purchases of individuals. This impact remains cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Agricultural Resources The incremental loss of farmland as a result of the project in combination with other projects in Otay Ranch would result in a cumulatively significant impact with respect to agricultural resources. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance without restricting the development proposed in the Village 8 West SPA Plan and cumulative projects. This incremental loss remains significant and unavoidable. Public Utilities No mitigation measures are available to guarantee a long-term water supply would be available to serve the project or cumulative development. As such, any increase in water demand would 94 be considered significant. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The project in combination with foreseeable growth may require sewerage treatment that exceeds the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity. As the location and scope of construction for any future expanded or newly developed treatment facilities is unknown, the development of treatment capacity beyond the city's existing and allocated capacity may result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction of new or expanded facilities. Existing recycled water facilities do not have capacity to serve the proposed project and cumulative development. A cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact would occur until recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant is available to meet the projected future recycled water demand. No mitigation measures are available to assure that energy resources will be available to adequately serve the projected increase in population resulting from the project and cumulative development. DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Aesthetics/Landform Alteration Impact: Scenic Vistas, Scenic Resources, and Visual Character or Quality The project would contribute to a loss of views of natural open space and loss of open, rolling topography (Final EIR Section 6.2.2). Explanation of Impact Implementation of Village 8 West would not result in any significant direct impacts on scenic vistas and scenic resources because scenic views would continue to be available throughout the site and the project design guidelines would ensure that grading on Rock Mountain would be sensitive to landform. However, the project, in combination with the cumulative projects, would contribute to a cumulative loss of views of natural open space and loss of open, rolling topography (Final EIR Section 6.2.2). Mitigation Measures No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to a less than significant level. Finding There is no feasible mitigation measure to maintain the undeveloped character of the site to reduce this impact to below significance. Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not reduce this impact compared to the project. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to scenic vistas/resources and visual character or quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a 95 Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Air Quality Impact: Air Quality Violations The project would result in unavoidably significant NO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during construction and unavoidably significant emissions of VOCs, NO, and PM10 during operation. (Final EIR Section 6.2.4). Explanation The project would contribute to a cumulative impact during construction if air pollutant emissions from simultaneous construction activities would combine to exceed the significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. The closest cumulative projects to Village 8 West with the potential to generate cumulative construction emissions are Village 4 and Village 8 East. The Village 8 West project alone would result in potentially significant nitrogen oxides (NOX), PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during construction. If any cumulative project is constructed during the same time period, emissions of criteria pollutants would combine to further exacerbate the violations. Cumulative daily operational air quality emissions are regulated on a regional level by the RAQS. If a project is not consistent with the growth assumptions included in the RAQS, then the project would result in a significant cumulatively considerable contribution to an air quality impact. Village 8 West would exceed the growth projections of the RAQS. Additionally, the project would result in unavoidably significant emissions of VOCs, NO, and PM10 during operation (Final EIR Section 6.2.4). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would also minimize impacts related to conflicts with air quality violations but not to a level below cumulatively significant (listed above in Section IX and in the Final EIR Section 5.4.6). Finding As discussed in Section IX, all applicable measures of the Otay GDP Final Program EIR mitigation measures to reduce vehicular emissions have already been incorporated into the SPA Plan. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available at the project level to reduce vehicular emissions. Additionally, there are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Operation emissions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and PM,o would be significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 5.4.7). Mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would minimize construction emissions, but not to below the significance thresholds. Infrastructure and fuel needed to further reduce construction emissions is not readily available. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. 96 Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Air Quality Plans The project would result in a to a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality plan impact (Final EIR Section 6.2.4). Explanation A project that conflicts with the RAQS growth projections would be inconsistent with the RAQS and SIP and result in cumulative impact. The SPA Plan would exceed regional growth projections and, as discussed under the previous issues, would result in significant and unavoidable emissions of pollutants. Therefore the project would result in a cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact to consistency with adopted air quality plans (Final EIR Section 6.2.4). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would also minimize impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans but not to a level below cumulatively significant (listed above in Air Quality, Impact: Air Quality Violations heading and in the Final EIR Section 5.4.6). Finding As discussed in Section IX, all applicable measures of the Otay GDP Final Program EIR mitigation measures to reduce vehicular emissions have already been incorporated into the SPA Plan. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available at the project level to reduce vehicular emissions. Additionally, there are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Operation emissions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and PM10 would be significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 5.4.7). Mitigation measures 5.4-1, 5.4-2, and 5.4-3 would minimize construction emissions, but not to below the significance thresholds. Infrastructure and fuel needed to further reduce construction emissions is not readily available. Further, the amount of growth accommodated by the project is inconsistent with the RAQS. There is no mitigation available without restricting the development proposed in the SPA Plan and TM. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would also be significant and unavoidable. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 and Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would 97 remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Cultural Resources Impact: Archaeological Resources and Human Remains The project plus cumulative development would incrementally convert more land into developed uses (Final EIR Section 6.2.7). Explanation The continued pressure to develop or redevelop areas would result in incremental impacts to the historical record in the San Diego region. Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to cultural resources, the more land that is converted to developed uses, the greater the potential for impacts to cultural resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect is considerable when considered cumulatively. The 2005 GPU EIR concluded that the loss of historic or prehistoric resources from the past, present, and probable future projects in the Southern California/Northern Baja California, Mexico areas would contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources. The project would not result in a significant impact to known archaeological resources. It is not anticipated that construction would extend beyond the defined APE. However, construction activities associated with the project could result in significant impacts to CA-SDI-12809 if construction activities inadvertently extended beyond the defined APE in the proximity of site. While mitigation has been included that would reduce project-related impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level, the extent of potential cultural resources is unknown at this time and unknown resources are potentially located in Village 8 West. Therefore, implementation of the Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM would result in cumulatively considerable and unavoidable contribution to this cumulative impact, consistent with the findings in the 2005 GPU EIR (Final EIR Section 6.2.7). Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to a less than significant level. Finding No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance without restricting the development proposed for the project and cumulative development to prevent any ground disturbance in areas potentially containing cultural resources. Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not reduce this cumulative impact compared to the project because implementation would include ground disturbing activities for construction. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. 98 Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Global Climate Change Impact: Potential Effects of Global Climate Change The project would result in cumulatively significant and unavoidable emissions of ozone precursors that would potentially exacerbate air quality problems (Final EIR Section 6.2.10). Explanation Global climate change would have the potential to increase the frequency and duration of air quality problems in the San Diego region. The project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to regional and local air quality resulting from vehicular emissions of ozone precursors. Increased temperatures would have the potential to increase the creation of ground- level ozone (smog) in the basin, which could exacerbate to health impacts associated with ozone, such as asthma. There are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to further reduce the potential criteria pollutant emissions of the project. Therefore, emissions of ozone precursors that would potentially exacerbate air quality problems would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 6.2.10). Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce project emissions of ozone precursors without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Finding The applicable mitigation measures from previous EIRs have already been incorporated into the project to reduce vehicular emissions of ozone precursors. However, some measures cannot be implemented at the SPA level, such as providing video-conference facilities in work places or requiring flexible work schedules. There are no feasible mitigation measures currently available to reduce area sources of emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Therefore, emissions of ozone precursors that would potentially exacerbate air quality problems would be significant and unavoidable. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to climate change would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. 99 Agricultural Resources Impact: Direct Conversion of Agricultural Resources and Land Use Zoning Conflicts The project would result in the loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land, which would have a significant impact with respect to agricultural resources. (Final EIR Section 6.2.12). Explanation The SPA Plan is within the development scope of the General Plan. Prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance do not occur within the General Plan area; however, Village 8 West is identified as containing Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land. The GDP EIR (EIR 90-01) identified the incremental and cumulative loss of agricultural lands in the Otay Ranch as a significant impact. As the project would result in the loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land it would have a significant impact with respect to agricultural resources. The incremental loss of farmland as a result of the project in combination with other projects in Otay Ranch would result in a cumulatively significant impact with respect to agricultural resources, consistent with the GDP PEIR (EIR 90-01) (Final EIR Section 6.2.12). Mitigation Measures No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to a less than significant level. Finding Agricultural uses would continue to be allowed in Village 8 West in the interim until buildout of the SPA. However, no mitigation measures are available to reduce long-term impacts to below a level of significance without restricting the development proposed in the SPA Plan and TM to allow interim agricultural uses to continue in perpetuity. Therefore, this impact would remain cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to agricultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. 100 Public Utilities Impact: Water Supply The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase water use, resulting in an increase in water demand for which the future supply cannot be assured (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Explanation According to the GPA/GDPA SEIR, the cumulative area, including Village 8 West, would result in an increase in water demand of 1.7 million gallons per day. As discussed in Section 5.9, Public Utilities in the Final EIR, the project-specific water analysis for Village 8 West determined that the project would result in an increase in water demand of 786,575 million gallons per day. A WSAV was prepared based on the most recent water supply information available during assessment preparation (Final EIR, Appendix K1). The report determined that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single-dry and multiple-dry water years to meet the projected demand of the project and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the OWD. However, long-term water supply cannot be guaranteed; therefore, any increase in water demand would be considered significant. Although the proposed project and the cumulative projects would comply with applicable regulations to reduce water demand, an increase in water demand would occur as a result in development. Cumulative impacts related to water supply would be significant and unavoidable (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are available to guarantee a long-term water supply would be available to serve the project. Finding The proposed project has obtained a WSAV and the cumulative projects would also be required to obtain WSAVs in compliance with SB 610 and SB 221. Additionally, the proposed project and the cumulative projects would be required to comply with the Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance, which calls for greater water conservation efforts and more efficient use of water in landscaping. The requirements of this ordinance would be implemented into the design of the proposed project. The proposed project would promote water conservation through the use of low water use plumbing fixtures and the use of recycled water for the irrigation of parks, open space slopes, schools, parkway landscaping, and the common areas of multi-family residential and commercial sites. OWD also requires the implementation of 14 water conservation BMPs. The proposed project and cumulative projects would implement the BMPs for water conservation, including requiring installation of dual flush toilets, development of a water conversation plan, and use of recycled water. However, long-term water supply cannot be guaranteed; therefore, any increase in water demand would be considered significant and no mitigation is available. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would 101 reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to long-term water use would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Wastewater The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase wastewater use, resulting in an exceedance of wastewater capacity (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Explanation According to the GPA/GDPA SEIR, the cumulative area, including Village 8 West, would result in an increase in sewer demand of 2.3 million gallons per day. The project-specific sewer analysis for Village 8 West determined that the proposed project would result in an increase in wastewater demand of 549,700 gallons per day. As discussed in Section 5.15, Public Utilities in the Final EIR, the City would need to acquire an additional 11.68 million gallons per day of capacity above current capacity rights to serve the buildout of Village 8 West and cumulative development in the city. The project's wastewater generation volume combined with other planned projects would require sewage treatment capacity beyond the City's existing capacity rights and allocated additional treatment capacity (Final EIR Section 6.2.12). Mitigation Measures No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. Finding The means by which additional treatment capacity would be acquired is unknown and the development of additional capacity may require the expansion of existing or construction of new treatment facilities. Existing policies require major developments to prepare a PFFP that articulates needed facilities and identifies funding mechanisms as well as provides the authority to withhold discretionary approvals and other measures. Implementation of these policies would therefore avoid significant cumulative impacts associated with a shortfall of treatment capacity. Mitigation measures are also provided to ensure that adequate wastewater facilities are provided concurrently with demand. Building permits for any project in the city will be issued only if the City Engineer at that time has determined that adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed development. However, the location and scope of construction for any future expanded or newly developed treatment facilities is unknown and the development of additional treatment capacity may result in potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts associated with construction of new or expanded treatment facilities even understanding that such projects would likely be subject to environmental review. Because no specific treatment facilities have been proposed, no mitigation measures can be developed. 102 There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to wastewater would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Recycled Water The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase recycled water use, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to recycled water (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Explanation Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM and cumulative development in the city would result in an increased demand for recycled water. The proposed project would result in a demand for recycled water of approximately 137,270 gallons per day. Based on the cumulative factor of 4.0, the cumulative project area would result in a demand for approximately 549,080 gallons per day of recycled water. Historically, the only source of recycled water for the OWD has been the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility. This facility currently has a rated capacity of 1.3 mgd with a maximum production of approximately 1.1 million gallons per day. Typically, summer demands exceed the 1.1 million gallons per day plant capacity and, as such, a potentially significant cumulative impact exists. However, as discussed in Section 5.15, Public Utilities in the Final EIR, the South Bay Water Treatment Plant has an ultimate rated capacity of 15 mgd and the OWD obtained capacity rights to 6 million gallons per day of recycled water. This additional source of recycled water will allow OWD to meet existing and future recycled water demands. OWD has master planned and begun constructing a series of pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission lines to integrate this source of water into the existing recycled water system, including service to the project site. However, a cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact would occur until recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant is available to meet the projected future recycled water demand (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. Finding Obtaining additional recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant to meet the projected future recycled water demand is the responsibility of OWD and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agency; however, at this time, the impact would remain significant and unmitigable. 103 There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to recycled water would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Energy The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase energy use, resulting in an increase in energy demand for which the future supply cannot be assured (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Explanation Implementation of the SPA Plan and TM and cumulative development in the city would result in an increased energy demand of approximately 44.8 million kilowatt per hour and natural gas demand by 149.2 million cubic feet. A significant cumulative impact to energy resources would occur if implementation of the SPA Plan and TM and the cumulative projects result in a demand for energy that exceeds the city's available supply and causes a need for new and expanded facilities. Although City programs and policies would result in more efficient use of energy, they do not ensure that increased resources will be available when needed. SDG&E has indicated that without an increased import capacity, future energy needs could not be assured. Therefore, there is no assurance of a long-term supply of energy in the future and any increase in energy consumption associated with cumulative development would be significant (Final EIR Section 6.2.15). Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. Finding Implementation of Village 8 West would result in an increased consumption of electricity and natural gas. The SPA Plan and TM and other cumulative projects are required to meet the mandatory energy standards of the Chula Vista Energy Code, current CCR Title 24, Part 6 California Energy Code, and Part 11 California Green Building Standards. Additionally, the project includes a non-renewable energy conservation plan addressing preservation of energy resources. Compliance with these policies and the energy conservation plan would ensure that average energy consumed by future occupants of Village 8 West would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. However, while individual cumulative projects may be able to reduce their energy consumption through energy conservation measures, there remains no assurance 104 that an adequate energy supply will be available to serve the cumulative increase in energy demand. Any increase in energy demand would be significant; therefore, no mitigation is available. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. While implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative #1 or Reduced Project Alternative #2 would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. This impact would be avoided with implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to energy would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the significant unavoidable environmental effects of Village 8 West. 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 projects 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 decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project 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 "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126). 105 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 "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 EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: "Changes or 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)). "Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(2)). "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)). 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, environmental, social, and technological factors" (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]). 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 decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet objectives. The decision makers believe that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental impact. 106 The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but six 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: ■ Aesthetics/Landform Alteration (direct impacts to visual character or quality; and cumulative impacts to scenic vistas and resources, visual character or quality) ■ Air Quality (direct and cumulative impacts to air quality violations, air quality plans) ■ Cultural Resources (cumulative impacts to unknown archaeological resources and human remains) ■ Global Climate Change (direct and cumulative potential effects of global climate change) ■ Agricultural Resources (direct and cumulative impacts to conversion of agricultural resources) ■ Public Utilities (direct and cumulative demand for water, wastewater capacity, and energy, and cumulative demand for recycled water) To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings will focus 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 will also assess whether each alternative is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the project. The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce potential impacts associated with the project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the project. The SPA Plan defines, in more detail, the development parameters for Village 8 West, including the intensity and location of development, the character and form of each neighborhood, design criteria, primary transportation patterns, open space and recreational amenities, and infrastructure and services necessary to support the community. According to the GDP, Village 8 West is to provide single-family and multi-family residential units, a Town Center containing commercial uses, parks, a community purpose facility site, schools, affordable housing and a transit stop. Specific objectives include those previously listed in Section III. The City evaluated three alternatives to the project, which are discussed below: No Project (No Build) Alternative, Reduced Project Alternative #1, and Reduced Project Alternative #2. Table 10-5 in the EIR provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(B) states that the No Project (No Build) alternative is "a circumstance under which a project does not proceed" and may be considered the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state. 107 The No Project (No Build) Alternative assumes that no SPA Plan would be implemented for Village 8 West and that the project area would remain unchanged. Accordingly, the site characteristics of this alternative would be equivalent to the existing conditions for each category analyzed in the EIR. Impacts Aesthetics/Landform Alteration The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid all aesthetic/landform alteration impacts compared to the project. Under this alternative, views of the project and the character of the site would remain unchanged. The project's direct and cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and landform alteration would be avoided. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with General Plan and GDP policies related to aesthetics and landform alteration. Air Quality The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid the project's significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts related to air quality violations and air quality plans because no construction or operational emissions would result from this alternative. Impacts related to sensitive receptors would also be avoided because no new potential toxic air contaminant sources or sensitive receptors would be developed in Village 8 West. Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to consistency with General Plan and GDP air quality policies. Cultural Resources Potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts related to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources would be avoided under the No Project (No Build) Alternative because no earth-disturbing construction activities would occur. Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would be consistent with General Plan and GDP policies related to cultural resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Since there are no historical resources located on the Village 8 West site, potential impacts to these resources would not change with this alternative (no impact). Global Climate Change The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any impact related to GHG emissions and compliance with AB 32 because no construction or operation emissions of GHGs would occur under this alternative. Additionally, the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to exacerbation of air quality problems as a result of climate change would be avoided under this alternative because the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any emissions of ozone precursors that would contribute to exacerbation of air quality problems as a result of climate change. Agricultural Resources The direct and cumulative significant and unavoidable impact related to conversion of agricultural resources would not occur under this alternative because no development would be implemented on the site, and no potential agricultural land would be converted to non- agricultural use. Potentially significant impacts related to land use conflicts would be avoided 108 because no development would occur on site. Similar to the project, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any conflict with agricultural policies. Public Utilities The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any impacts related to water, wastewater treatment, solid waste, recycled water, and energy compared to the project because no development would occur. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in any increased demand for these services. The potentially significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts related to long-term guarantee of water supply and energy, capacity of wastewater treatment facilities, and recycled water supply would be avoided under this alternative. Findings This alternative would avoid all of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics/landform alteration, air quality, cultural resources, global climate change, agricultural resources, and public utilities. However, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would increase the project's significant impacts associated with conflicts with land use plans because it would not implement development consistent with the General Plan and GDP. It would include impacts related to traffic and level of service standards, congestion management, emergency access, and consistency with transportation policies because the portion of the planned regional network in Village 8 West would not be implemented. This alternative would increase impacts related to parks and recreation standard, consistency with park policies, and consistency with housing and population polices because planned parks and housing opportunities to serve future residents would not be developed. All other environmental impacts would be lessened by this alternative. Additionally, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not attain any of the 13 objectives of the project because no SPA Plan or TM would be adopted and no development would occur. Therefore, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not accomplish any of the following: ■ Create a recognizable place, develop design standards; ■ Encourage an orderly growth pattern; ■ Design neighborhoods with compact and multi-dimensional land use patterns; ■ Create a town center; ■ Establish a pedestrian-oriented village; ■ Encourage community development in mixed use and compact pedestrian oriented forms; ■ Retain and recruit a skilled and motivated workforce to ensure economic stability into the future by providing attainable housing opportunities; ■ Foster a compact form facilitated by form-based planning; ■ Promote transitions with and between SPAs; ■ Implement the goals of the General Plan and GDP; or ■ Establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. 109 The No Project (No Build) 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; to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure and to encourage employment opportunities within the City. The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area reasonably close to future job-growth areas within the City, as well as the construction of affordable housing consistent with the City's goals. It also fails to implement the previously approved Otay Ranch GDP. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE #1 As shown in Table 10-1 in the EIR, Reduced Project Alternative #1 (the 1,167 dwelling unit plan) would include the development of 1,167 residential units, compared to 2,050 units under the proposed Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM. This alternative was derived from the intention to provide a more suburban approach to development in the SPA Plan area. This alternative reduces residential development by almost 50 percent, and promotes a more horizontal mixed- use pattern in place of the more vertical mixed-use town center plan. In addition, it significantly reduces residential density in the town center and the maximum density in the other transects to approximately half of the proposed project. The greatest reduction in development would occur in the Town Center, which would be reduced to 151 units, compared to 899 under the proposed SPA Plan, to encourage horizontal mixed-use rather than vertical. Under the Reduced Project Alternative #1, no residential units would be developed in Planning Areas B, C, H-1, or L. These areas include mixed-use development under the proposed project. Multi-family residential units would still be developed in Planning Areas F and J, at reduced densities compared to the project. Commercial development in the Town Center would also be reduced to 170,000 square feet, compared to 300,000 square feet under the proposed project. Additionally, the Neighborhood Park proposed for the project would be eliminated under this alternative. The park area (Planning Area T) would be designated for single-family residential development to further reduce density in the Neighborhood General Zone. Figure 10-1 of the EIR summarizes the Reduced Project Alternative #1 site utilization plan. Impacts Aesthetics/Landform Alteration Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in similar less than significant direct impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic roadways, and steep slopes. This alternative would accommodate structures with heights up to 60 feet tall, similar to the proposed project, and would result in similar grading. Potentially significant impacts related to alteration of Rock Mountain and shading within the Town Center would still occur under this alternative. Although densities would be reduced, similar land uses would be developed across the Village 8 West SPA. Similar to the project, implementation of the design guidelines in the SPA Plan would reduce direct impacts to a less than significant level. However, significant direct and cumulatively considerable impacts related to scenic resources and visual character would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative, similar to the project because loss of open rolling hills would still occur. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in a less than 110 significant impact related to consistency with General Plan and GDP policies related to aesthetics and landform alteration. Air Quality The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in reduced impacts related to air quality violations compared to the project because fewer construction and operational emissions would result from this alternative. Similar to the project, direct and cumulative construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative due to the amount of grading required. Operational emissions would be reduced because vehicle trips and area sources would be reduced compared to the project. Significant VOC emissions would be reduced by approximately 34 percent compared to the proposed project. Significant NOX emission would be required by approximately 7 percent. Significant PM,o impacts would be reduced by approximately 15 percent compared to the proposed project. However, as shown in Table 10-2 in the EIR, VOC, NOX, and PM10 emissions would still exceed the significance thresholds. Direct and cumulative Impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Impacts related to sensitive receptors would be comparable to the project because similar land uses would be allowed under this alternative, including gas stations. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would not exceed the RAQS growth assumption for Village 8 West (1,556 residential units). However, this alternative would still result in new significant and unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions, and would thus still be inconsistent with the RAQS and SIP. Direct and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Less than significant impacts related to odor and consistency with General Plan and GDP air quality policies would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #1. Cultural Resources Impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant under the Reduced Project Alternative #1, similar to the project, because no historical resources are located in Village 8 West. Potentially significant impacts related to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources would be the same as the proposed project because this alternative would have the same development footprint as the project and would require ground disturbing activities. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would require ground-disturbing construction activities and impacts to unknown historic and archaeological resources, human remains and paleontological resources would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable due to the potential for discovery of these resources in Village 8 West. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would be consistent with General Plan and GDP policies related to cultural resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Global Climate Change The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and compliance with AB 32, similar to the proposed project. Total construction and operational emissions of GHGs would be reduced under this alternative. Commercial and 111 residential land uses would be reduced by approximately 40 percent compared to the proposed project; therefore, it is assumed that GHG emissions from implementation of the proposed project would also be reduced approximately 40 percent. The significant and unavoidable impact related to exacerbation of air quality problems as a result of climate change would be reduced under this alternative because operational emissions of ozone precursors would be reduced, as discussed under Air Quality. However, direct and cumulative impacts related to the potential effects of climate change would still be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Agricultural Resources A significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to conversion of agricultural resources would occur under this alternative, similar to the project, because this alternative would have the same development footprint as the project would result in the conversion of land to non-agricultural use. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would potentially result in land use conflicts that would be mitigated with an agricultural plan that would be implemented to prevent land use conflicts. This alternative would not result in any conflict with agricultural policies and impacts would be less than significant. Public Utilities The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in reduced demand for water, wastewater treatment, solid waste, recycled water, and energy compared to the project because less development would occur. However, the mitigation measures identified for the project to ensure provision of public utilities concurrent with development would also be required under this alternative. Similar to the project, future water supply, wastewater treatment, and energy availability cannot be guaranteed; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative although demand would be reduced. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, recycled water impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant is available to meet the projected future recycled water demand. Findings This alternative would attain nine of the 13 objectives of the project and would partially attain the remaining four objectives. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would meet Objective 1 because it would create a recognizable place. It would meet Objectives 2 and 3 because it would develop design standards and encourage an orderly growth pattern. This alternative would meet Objectives 4 and 6 because it would design neighborhoods with compact and multi-dimensional land use patterns and establish a pedestrian-oriented village. It would meet Objective 9 because it would retain and recruit a skilled and motivated workforce to ensure economic stability into the future by providing attainable housing opportunities. This alternative would foster a compact form facilitated by form-based planning and promote transitions with and between SPA plan areas; therefore, it would meet Objectives 8 and 10. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would meet Objective 13 because it would establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would result in a less dense development compared to the project. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would create a town center, but under this alternative the Town Center would include only limited residential and commercial uses. The 112 Town Center would not be appropriately scaled in comparison to town centers in neighboring villages, or to serve the daily needs of residents in Village 8 West as well as surrounding development. This alternative would only partially encourage community development in mixed use and compact pedestrian oriented forms because mixed-use development would be limited to Planning Areas F and J. The remaining town center area would not include mixed-use residential development. This alternative would partially implement the goals of the General Plan and GDP because it would provide similar land uses, but not to the extent planned for in the GDP and General Plan. The Reduced Project Alternative #1 would provide a range of housing types and styles; however, choices would be limited compared to the proposed project. Additionally, the number of mixed-used residential units that would have the potential to provide affordable housing would be reduced by approximately 60 percent. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative #1 would only partially meet Objectives 5, 7, 11, and 12. Additionally, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics (cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), archaeological resources and human remains (cumulative), potential effects of climate change (direct and cumulative), agricultural resources (direct and cumulative), water supply (direct and cumulative), wastewater treatment capacity (cumulative), recycled water (cumulative), and energy (direct and cumulative). Reduced Project Alternative #1 would only partially attain four of the project objectives, including objectives to provide development consistent with existing and proposed planned development. This alternative would not fully implement the land uses planned for Village 8 West in the GDP and General Plan and would eliminate opportunities for affordable housing. Implementation of this alternative would have an adverse effect on the City's ability to implement the City's adopted General Plan and accommodate projected future growth, including provision of affordable housing. Additionally, this alternative would not substantially lessen any of the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative does not qualify as environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE #2 As shown in Table 10-1 in the EIR, Reduced Project Alternative #2 (the 672 dwelling unit plan) would include the development of 672 residential units, compared to 2,050 units under the proposed project. This alternative is a low-density alternative based on the minimum densities accommodated by the proposed land uses, shown in Figure 3-3. The lower density alternative is intended to provide more open space and eliminate mixed-use development. The greatest reduction in development would occur in the Town Center. Under this alternative, no mixed-use development is proposed and no residential development would occur in the Town Center. Residential densities would also be reduced in the Neighborhood Edge, Neighborhood General, and Neighborhood Central Zones. Commercial development in the Town Center would also be reduced to 104,000 square feet, compared to 300,000 square feet under the project. Additionally, the Neighborhood Park proposed for the project would be eliminated under this alternative. The park area (Planning Area T) would be designated for single-family residential development to further reduce density in the Neighborhood General Zone. The development footprint would be reduced under this alternative. Portions of Planning Areas N, P, and V of the proposed project would be replaced with an open space designation. This 113 alternative would include 40.4 acres of open space, compared to 23.5 acres under the project. This additional open space area would provide additional transition from developed areas to the MSCP Preserve, but would not be incorporated into the Preserve. Figure 10-2 in the EIR summarizes the Reduced Project Alternative #2 site utilization plan. Impacts Aesthetics/Landform Alteration Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in similar less than significant direct impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic roadways. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would accommodate structures with heights up to 60 feet tall. Potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to lighting and glare would also occur under this alternative. This alternative would reduce the grading footprint by approximately 17 acres compared to the proposed project and impacts to steep slopes by approximately four acres; however, this alternative would still result in some grading on Rock Mountain and would substantially change the visual character of Village 8 West and existing views of the project site. Implementation of a Landscape Master Plan would reduce impacts to Rock Mountain to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with General Plan and GDP policies related to aesthetics and landform alteration. This alternative would require the same grading in the northern portion of the project area, less grading in the southern portion of the project area and, although densities would be reduced, similar land uses would be developed. Similar to the project, implementation of the design guidelines in the SPA Plan would reduce visual character impacts; however, this alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact to visual character and quality, and cumulative and unavoidable impact to scenic views and vistas, because a loss of rolling hills would occur. Air Quality Compared to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in reduced impacts related to air quality violations because a smaller volume of construction and operational emissions would result from this alternative. This alternative would result in similar construction activities as the project, but would require approximately 17 fewer acres of grading, paving, and building construction compared to the project (a 7 percent reduction). Therefore, construction emissions would be reduced. However, similar to the project, maximum daily construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative due to the amount of grading required, and the potential for simultaneous construction activities. Operational emissions would also be reduced compared to the proposed project because vehicle trips and area sources would be reduced compared to the project. As shown in Table 10-3 in the EIR, NO, and PM10 emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level under this alternative. VOC emissions would be reduced by approximately 57 percent; however, direct and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for this pollutant, similar to the project. 114 Impacts related to odors would be the same under this alternative because no new receptors would be located in the vicinity of Otay Landfill as the project. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not exceed the RAQS growth assumption for Village 8 West (1,556 residential units); however, this alternative would still result in new significant and unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions and would remain inconsistent with the RAQS and SIP. Similar to the project, direct and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Less than significant impacts related to odors and General Plan and GDP air quality policies would be similar to the project under the Reduced Project Alternative #2. Similar to the proposed project, potential impacts to sensitive receptors related to gas stations would be less than significant with the mitigation required for the project. Cultural Resources Similar to the project, impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant under the Reduced Project Alternative #2 because no historical resources are located in Village 8 West. Potentially significant impacts related to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources would be reduced under this alternative because the alternative development footprint would be reduced compared to the project. However, impacts to unknown resources would still have the potential to occur as a result of ground-disturbing construction activities. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts related to unknown archaeological resources and human remains would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would be consistent with General Plan and GDP policies related to cultural resources, and impact would be less than significant. Global Climate Change The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would further minimize the less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and compliance with AB 32 identified for the proposed project because construction and operational emissions of GHGs would be reduced under this alternative. Commercial and residential land uses would be reduced by approximately 65 percent compared to the proposed project; therefore, it is assumed that GHG emissions from implementation of the proposed project would also be reduced approximately 65 percent. Additionally, the significant and unavoidable impact related to exacerbation of air quality problems as a result of climate change would be reduced under this alternative because operational emissions of ozone precursors would be reduced. However, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would still have the potential to exacerbate air quality problems because it would result in significant and unavoidable emissions of VOCs, which is an ozone precursor. Direct and cumulative impacts related to effects of climate change would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Agricultural Resources A significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to conversion of agricultural resources would occur under this alternative, similar to the project. This alternative would have a smaller development footprint compared to the project; however, the undeveloped area would be designated open space and would not be available for agricultural use. This alternative would result in the same conversion of land to non-agricultural use compared to the project. Potentially significant impacts related to land use conflicts would also occur under this alternative unless an agriculture plan is implemented. Similar to the project, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not result in any conflict with agricultural policies. 115 Public Utilities The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would result in less demand for water, wastewater treatment, solid waste, recycled water, and energy compared to the project because less development would occur and less population growth would be generated. However, the mitigation measures identified for the project to ensure provision of public utilities concurrent with development would also be required under this alternative. Similar to the project, future water supply, wastewater treatment, and energy availability cannot be guaranteed; therefore, impacts related to water supply, wastewater and energy would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative although demand would be reduced. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, recycled water impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until recycled water from the South Bay Water Treatment Plant is available to meet the projected future recycled water demand. Findings This alternative would attain seven of the 13 objectives of the project, would partially attain four objectives, and would not attain 2 objectives. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would create a recognizable place and would therefore meet Objective 1. This alternative would meet Objectives 2 and 3 because it would develop design standards and encourage an orderly growth pattern. It would meet Objective 6 because it would establish a pedestrian-oriented village. This alternative would meet Objectives 8 and 10 because it would foster a compact form facilitated by form-based planning and promote transitions with and between SPA plan areas. This alternative would establish a plan that is fiscally responsible and viable with consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions and would therefore meet Objective 13. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would protect and enhance the natural environment, but would not design compact neighborhoods with a mix of land uses. This alternative would partially implement the goals of the General Plan and GDP because it would provide similar land uses, but not to the extent planned for in the GDP and General Plan. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide a range of housing types and styles; however, choices would be limited compared to the proposed project. Additionally, no mixed-used residential units, which have the potential to provide affordable housing, would be developed under this alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative #2 would only partially meet Objectives 4, 9, 11, and 12. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not meet Objective #5 because the Town Center would not include any residential use, and less commercial uses. The Town Center would not be appropriately scaled in comparison to town centers in neighboring villages, or to serve the daily needs of residents in Village 8 West as well as surrounding development. This alternative would not meet Objective #7 because no mixed-use development is proposed. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 results in a less dense development compared to the project. However, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics (cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), archaeological resources and human remains (cumulative), potential effects of climate change (direct and cumulative), agricultural resources (direct and cumulative), water supply (direct and cumulative), wastewater treatment capacity (cumulative), recycled water (cumulative), and energy (direct and cumulative). 116 Reduced Project Alternative #2 would not meet two project objectives and would only partially attain four of the project objectives, including objectives to provide development consistent with existing and proposed planned development. This alternative would not fully implement the land uses planned for Village 8 West in the GDP and General Plan and would eliminate opportunities for affordable housing. Implementation of this alternative would have an adverse effect on the City's ability to implement the City's adopted General Plan and accommodate projected future growth, including provision of affordable housing. Additionally, this alternative would not substantially lessen any of the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative does not qualify as environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the project. If any No Project alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Alternative #2 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce traffic (direct and cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), noise (direct and cumulative), biological resources (direct), public services (direct), water quality (direct), and public utilities (direct and cumulative) impacts. Mitigation measures 5.3-7 through 5.3-16 and 5.3-18 through 5.3-20 identified for potential traffic impacts would not be required under this alternative and mitigation measure 5.5-3 would not be required for excessive noise impacts to residences in Planning Areas B, C, F, G, H1, H2, J, and L because no residences are proposed in these areas. However, as with the Reduced Project Alternative #1, this alternative would not avoid any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics (cumulative), air quality (direct and cumulative), noise (short-term direct), archaeological resources and human remains (cumulative), potential effects of climate change (direct and cumulative), agricultural resources (direct and cumulative), water supply (direct and cumulative), wastewater treatment capacity (cumulative), recycled water (cumulative), and energy (direct and cumulative). This alternative would reduce significant VOC emissions by approximately 57 percent and energy use by approximately 65 percent. The findings as to the infeasibility of the Reduced Project Alternative #2 are provided above. XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact: ■ Aesthetics/Landform Alteration (direct impacts to visual character or quality; and cumulative impacts to scenic vistas and resources, visual character or quality) ■ Air Quality (direct and cumulative impacts to air quality violations, air quality plans) ■ Cultural Resources (cumulative impacts to unknown archaeological resources and human remains) 117 ■ Global Climate Change (direct and cumulative potential effects of global climate change) ■ Agricultural Resources (direct and cumulative impacts to conversion of agricultural resources, and cumulative impact to land use zoning conflicts) ■ Public Utilities (direct and cumulative demand for water, wastewater, energy, and energy, cumulative impacts to recycled water) The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts. Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project. As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 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. Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed (See, Wildlife Alive v. 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 project would have the following substantial benefits. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV. The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities, determines and finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations. 118 The Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan would be used as a tool to guide and direct new development, economic development, streetscape and traffic improvements, parking, pedestrian amenities, and mixed land uses in the specific plan area. A total of 2,050 new dwelling units and 300,000 additional square feet (SF) of retail and office development is proposed for the area. PROJECT BENEFITS Through implementation of the project, the following benefits would be provided to the specific plan area, and the City as a whole: 1) Implementation of City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP a) The project would implement the land uses planned by the City for Village 8 West in the General Plan and GDP. Implementation of the Village 8 West SPA Plan and TM would aid the City in meeting the goals and objectives for citywide growth, including important connections in the projected future roadway network. Specifically, the project as proposed would fully implement Land Use and Transportation Policies 81, 82 and 83, as described below: i) Objective LUT 81: Develop a higher intensity, mixed use, transit-oriented town center positioned on the intersection of Main Street and La Media Road, surrounded by lower intensity residential use and a large community park that preserves Main Street as an important landform and visual resource. The project would provide a town center with pedestrian-oriented arterials and mass transit service at the intersection of Main Street and La Media Road. The Town Center would be pedestrian oriented and include an off-street Village Pathway, as well as proposed transit stops. Store fronts would be pedestrian oriented to support commercial use by promoting visibility, and signage would also be provided for vehicles. Main Street would provide a connection to the adjacent Village 8 East town center, including a bicycle land and sidewalks. The highest density development in Village 8 West would be located in the Town Center, including mixed-use commercial and high-density residential. Development would transition to low-density single-family residences on private streets in the southern area of the site, farthest from the Town Center. ii) Objective LUT 82: Ensure a cohesive relationship between the town center and adjoining land uses within Village 8. The Village 8 West Town Center and multi-family residential land uses would be similar to the residential and mixed-use development planned for Village 8 East adjacent to Village 8 West. Main Street, Street B, and Otay Valley Road would provide connections to Village 8 East and the surrounding regional circulation network. These roadways also provide bike lanes, sidewalks and off-street pathways and trails to encourage alternative forms of travel between villages. 119 The natural landform character would be maintained in the preserve area at the southern edge of Village 8 West. Along the edge of development adjacent to the Preserve, manufactured slopes would define the edge of development and transition into the surrounding open space. Slopes adjacent to the MSCP area would be subject to the requirements of the Preserve Edge Plan and would be planted with non-invasive, native plants. Section 6.3 of SPA Plan, Grading Concept, requires the creation of efficient man-made landforms that visually respond to natural terrain characteristics by including slope gradients that vary along the length of the slope and slopes that undulate horizontally (curvilinear). Development in the Town Center would be oriented toward Main Street to minimize "back of building" appearances. The SPA Plan is design guidelines and requirements to ensure high quality development, including consideration for all building elevations visible to the public. iii) Objective LUT 83: Develop a pedestrian-oriented and transit friendly community east and south of the town center in Village 8, including a range of housing types, community facilities and a mixed-use village core. The SPA Plan proposes a pedestrian-oriented Town Center and development that transitions to lower density single-family development to the south of the Town Center, adjacent to the MSCP Preserve. Transit stops are proposed in the Town Center and pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided on all circulation network roadways. The SPA Plan includes design guidelines and regulations to ensure cohesive development across the project area. An elementary school and neighborhood park are proposed in Village 8 West, which are central to residential development and accessible by all modes of transportation from throughout the project area. 2) Transit Oriented Development a) Multi-Dimensional Land Use Patterns. Design neighborhoods with compact and multi- dimensional land use patterns that ensure a mix of uses and joint optimization of transportation modes to minimize the impact of cars, promote walking and bicycling, and provide access to employment, education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services. b) Smart-Growth Community. The project would create a place where residents can live, work, shop, and play. The project would allow residents in the SPA to shop and work in their community by providing attractive amenities close to home. c) Efficient Public Transit and Increased Ridership. Establish a pedestrian and transit- oriented village with an intense, vibrant Town Center to reduce reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and regional transit. The village concept also promotes more efficient public transit and increased ridership by providing strong activity centers in each village and making transit close and convenient for most residents. 120 d) Higher Residential Densities. Higher residential densities at the core are intended to support commercial uses by activating the village core during all hours of the day and promote more walkable communities by providing facilities and services within a quarter mile of most homes. 3) Economic Benefits a) Employment Opportunities. The Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan would help grow the local economy in several ways. It will create new employment opportunities in the City with the provision of new proposed retail, office, and commercial uses that would create a variety of employment opportunities. The construction of development under the Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan would generate substantial revenue to the local economy and provide a significant number of construction-related jobs over a 20+ year construction period. Those that would benefit from employment from development under the Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan would range from students and adults filling part-time and full-time positions, skilled tradesmen filling certain commercial positions, and professionals filling commercial and office positions. Persons that live in the surrounding residential portion of the specific plan area could be prime candidates for employment opportunities created by the development of the project area. b) New Property and Sales Tax Revenue. Development of vacant parcels will result in an increase of property tax revenues over the 20+ year build-out period. In addition, it is anticipated that the area could generate an additional 300,000 square feet of commercial retail and office space which would generate significant sales tax dollars. 4) Aesthetic Benefits a) Zoning and Development Code. The specific land uses and development regulations proposed in the Otay Ranch Village 8 West SPA Plan would ensure orderly, high quality development of the area. The general development regulations that would create cohesive and enhanced visual quality in the area include the following: i) Development Concept ii) Zone Standards iii) Building Configurations iv) Frontage Types v) Performance Standards vi) Sign Regulations vii) Shared Parking viii) Design Guidelines Typical design guidelines include requirements for strong architectural design standards, streetscape amenities, building orientation, vehicle access and avoidance of features that would create pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. Landscape requirements are also included to soften the appearance of building facades and hard surfaces, and provide shade for residents and visitors. 121 5) Recreational Benefits a) Recreational Development. The project proposes a total of 27.9 acres of parks, of which 27.1 acres are eligible for credit to meet city and GDP parkland requirements: i) 17.4 acres of land would be added to the Otay Ranch Community Park, a planned regional recreational resource. ii) 7.5 acre neighborhood park would be located in the southern portion of the project. iii) A three-acre town square in the Town Center would be located in the north portion of the project. iv) 39.1 acres of open space and provisions for an off-site trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional would be located in the western and southern portions of the project. 6) Housing Benefits a) Regional Need for Housing. The project will help meet a projected long term regional need for housing through the provision of future additional housing. San Diego Association of Governments housing capacity studies indicate a shortage of housing will occur in the region within the next 20 years. Over the 20+year anticipated build out, the project could increase the housing stock in the City by up to 2,050 dwelling units, including approximately 200 affordable units. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for housing. The City finds that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record of benefits to transit orientated development, employment, economic effects, aesthetics, recreational/public space, and housing which would directly result from approval and implementation of the project. The City finds that the need for these benefits specifically overrides the impacts of the project on aesthetics/landform alteration; air quality; cultural resources; global climate change; agricultural resources; and public utilities. Thus, the adverse effects of the project are considered acceptable. 122