HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2006-154
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-154
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND TIER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 02-02) FOR THE
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE, AND A PORTION
OF VILLAGE FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AND TENTATIVE MAP; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF
FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, Otay Project L.P., submitted applications requesting approvals for a
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Map (TM), General Plan amendment, and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan amendment, for Village Two, Three and a portion of Village
Four (Project); and .
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 02-02 was issued for public review on March 1, 2006, and was
processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
Draft EIR 02-02 on April 19, 2006 to close the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
the Draft EIR 02-02 on May 10,2006 and certified EIR 02-02 and adopted the Findings of Fact;
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Further, the Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council certify the document
and adopt the Findings of Fact; Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 02-02) was prepared on the
Project SPA and TM; and
WHEREAS, FEIR 02-02 incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that address the
subject property including the Chula Vista General Plan EIR and the Final Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01), the Project SPA Plan; the Project Public Facilities Finance Plan
as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated May 2006 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
Final EIR 02-02 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement
those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding
set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the
project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program Section of EIR-02-02, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula -
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on Draft EIR 02-02 held on April 19, 2006 and May 10, 2006, as well as
the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record
of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the
decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section
21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code S21000
et seq.).
II. FEIR 02-02 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 02-02 consists of the following:
1. Second-Tier EIR for the Project SPA Plan and TM (including technical appendices);
and
2. Comments and Responses
-
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 02-02")
III. ACCOMP ANYING DOCUMENT TO FEIR 02-02
1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 02-02, the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is
on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources
Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 S15000 et
seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the FEIR 02-02 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista City Council.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 3
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF F ACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and everyone of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit
"A," a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifying the
specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable
significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
C. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 02-02 and in the Findings of Fact
for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the
mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and
will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City)
assigned thereby to implement the same.
D. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 02-02 and in the Findings of Fact,
Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in FEIR 02-02, were
not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project
objectives.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in EIR-
02-02. The City Council further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that,
during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other
responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the
mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 4
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
~.
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of
proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code ~21000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds
that the FEIR 02-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A"
to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs.
Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista, and therefore should be certified.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
-;~.)forJ\~~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
-
--
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 23rd day of May 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Castaneda, Chavez, McCann, Rindone, and Padilla
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
d'~J~~J~
Stephen1. Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
J~ ( ;(,uJ,.
Susan Bigelow, lYfMC, City Clerk
IT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2006-154 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of May 2006.
Executed this 23rd day of May 2006.
fi~
L--
Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
~
,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 6
EXHIBIT A
~--
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
VILLAGES TWO, THREE, AND A PORTION OF FOUR
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AND COMPOSITE TENTATIVE MAP
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
~"
May 2006
..-....,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 7
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
II. ACRONYMS 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7
IV. BACKGROUND 10
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 11
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEOA 12
VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS 15
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 15
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 16
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 68
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 75
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 87
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 8
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CiTY COUNCIL
............
RE: Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative
Maps Environmental Impact Report (EIR); SCH #2003091012; EIR #02-02.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the Villages Two, Three, and a
portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan and Composite Tentative Map (TM) project
addresses the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In
addition, the Final EIR evaluates four alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project
Alternative and three reduced development alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and C).
The Final EIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with CEQA Section 21094, and tiers
from the certified Program EIR prepared for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (EIR
#90-01/SCH #89010154). _
These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, S 15000 et seq.).
-.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 9
"CVT' means Chula Vista Transit
"CWA" means Clean Water Act
"dB(A)" means A-weighted decibels
"DEH" means Department of Environmental Health
"DHS" means Department of Health Services.
"DIF" means Development Impact Fee
"DMG" means California Division of Mines and Geology
"DHS" means Department of Health Services
"DOE" means Department of Energy
"du/ac" means dwelling units per acre
"DTSC" means Department of Toxic Substances Control.
"EDUs" means Equivalent Dwelling Units.
"EIR" means environmental impact report.
"EPA" means Environmental Protection Agency.
"ERNS" means Emergency Response Notification System.
"ESL" means English as a Second Language.
"FARs" means floor area ratios.
"Fed/OSHA" means Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
"FEMA" means Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"FESA" means Federal Endangered Species Act.
"FHW A" means Federal Highway Administration.
"FIRM" means Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
"FMMP" means Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
"GED" means General Education Development.
"GDP" means General Development Plan.
"GMOC" means Growth Management Oversight Committee.
"gpd" means gallons per day.
"GPS" means global positioning system.
"GSF" means gross square feet.
"HABS" means Historic American Building Survey.
"HCD" means Housing and Community Development.
"HCM" means Highway Capacity Manual
"HUT" means Habitat Loss and Incidental Take
"HWCL" means Hazardous Waste Control Law
"IA" means Implementing Agreement
"ICLEI" means International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives
"110" means Imperial Irrigation District
"IRP" means Integrated Water Resources Plan, 2003 Update
"IWMA" means California Integrated Waste Management Act
"JEPA" means Joint Exercise of Powers Authority
"JURMP" means Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
"LAC" means Local Assessment Committee
"LCP" means Local Coastal Program
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 10
"LEA" means Local Enforcement Agency
"LEED" means Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
"Lmax" means maximum noise level
"LMV" means low-medium village
"LOMA" means Letter of Map Amendment
"LOMR-F" means Letter of Map Revision-Based on Fill
"LOS" means level of service
"LRT' means Light Rail Transit
"LUST' means Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
"LUSTIS" means Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Information System
"LUT' means Land Use and Transportation Element
"MEP" means maximum extent practicable
"METRO" means Metropolitan Wastewater System
"mgd" means million gallons per day
"MHPA" means Multi-Habitat Planning Area
"MITC" means Multi-Institutional Teaching Center
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program
"MSL" means mean sea level
"MW" means megawatt
"MWD" means Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
"NAAQS" means national ambient air quality standards
"NCCP" means Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
"NDFE" means Non-Disposal Facility Element
"NEIC" means National Earthquake Information Center
"NFA" means No Further Action
"NOP" means Notice of Preparation
"NOx" means nitrogen oxides
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
"NPL" means National Priorities List
"NWR" means National Wildlife Refuge
"OVRP" means Otay Valley Regional Park
"OVT" means Otay Valley Trunk
"OWD" means Otay Water District
"PCC" means Portland cement concrete
"PFDIP' means Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
"PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan
"PLDO" means Park Land Dedication Ordinance
"PM2.s" means 2.5-micron particulate matter
"PM10" mans 1 O-micron particulate matter
"ppm" means parts per million
"QSA" means Quantification Settlement Agreement
"RAP" means Remedial Action Plan
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards
-
-.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 11
"RCC" means Resource Conservation Commission
"RCP" means Regional Comprehensive Plan
"RCRA" means Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
"RHB" means Radiological Health Branch
"RMP" means Resource Management Plan
"ROWs" means right-of-ways
"RTP" means Regional Transportation Plan
"RTIP" means Regional Transportation Improvement Program
"RTV" means Regional Transit Vision
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Boards
"SANTEC/ITE" means San Diego Traffic Engineering Council/Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
"SBPP" means South Bay Power Plant
"SBWRP" means South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
"SCAQMD" means South Coast Air Quality ManagementDistrict
"SDAB" means San Diego Air Basin
"SDCWA" means San Diego County Water Authority
"SDG&E" means San Diego Gas & Electric Company
"SDREO" means San Diego Regional Energy Office
"SDWA" means Safe Drinking Water Act
"SEIR" means Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
"SEL" means sound exposure level
"SFHA" means Special Flood Hazard Area
"SIP" means State Implementation Plan
"SLlC" means Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup
"SMARA" means Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
"SMGB" means State Mining and Geology Board
"SoCaIGas" means Southern California Gas Company
"SOx" means sulfur oxides
"SPA" means Sectional Planning Area
"SPL" means sound pressure level
"SRP" means Subregional Plan
"SRRE" means Source Reduction and Recycling Element
"SUHSD" means Sweetwater Union High School District
"SUSMP" means Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
"SVOCs" means semi-volatile organic compounds
"SWIS" means Solid Waste Information System
"SWP" means State Water Project
"SWPPP" means storm water pollution prevention plan
"SWRCB" means State Water Resources Control Board
"T ACs" means Toxic Air Contaminants
"T AZ' means traffic analysis zones
"TC" means Town Center
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 12
-,
"TCM" means transportation control measures
"TDIP' means Transportation Development Impact Fee
"TOM" means Transportation Demand Management
"THI" means Total Health Hazards Index
"TRIS" means Toxic Release Inventory System
"TSM" means Transportation Systems Management
"URMPs" means Urban Runoff Management Plans
"USACE" means U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
"USGS" means United States Geological Survey
"USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
"UST' means Underground Storage Tank
"VMT' means vehicle miles of travel
"VQCs" means volatile organic compounds
''WCP" means Water Conservation Plan
''WDR" means Waste Discharge Requirements
"WTP" means Water Treatment Plant
''WURMP'' means Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program
-,
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 13
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four SPA Plan project presents a plan of
development for the Otay Ranch Investments, LLC, Otay Project, LP, the Stephen and Mary
Birch Foundation, and the Flat Rock Company ownerships within Villages Two, Three, and a
portion of Four of the Otay Ranch GDP area (SPA Plan). The SPA Plan allows for a total of 986
single-family dwelling units and 1,800 multi-family dwelling units. A minimum of 10 percent of
the total dwelling units within the SPA Plan will provide housing for low and moderate-income
households. Other land uses designated by the SPA Plan include an elementary school, a high
school, public park, community purpose facilities, open space, and roadways. The SPA Plan is
consistent with and implements the Otay Ranch GDP.
The land uses proposed in the SPA Plan include development of 2,786 dwelling units (986
single-family and 1,800 multi-family mixed-use units) on approximately 335.1 acres, three
industrial areas on 87.9 acres within Village Two and a 176.5-acre business park within Village
Three. The remaining 587.8 acres would be developed with non-residential uses, including
community purpose facilities, schools, public parks, commercial uses, open space, two
pedestrian bridges, and circulation rights-of-way. The proposed project includes a Composite
Tentative Map (Composite TM) for the development within Village Two and the park in a portion
of Village Four. The actual development of the other portions of the project will require the
future approval of TMs and grading plans for the allowable uses.
The action to which this EIR applies is approval of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM for
Village Two and the park located within Village Four. The SPA Plan also includes off-site
infrastructure improvements, which are needed to serve the proposed development within the
project site. In approving the proposed project, the City would allow for development of the
project site in accordance with the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP goals and policies.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (City) include
the following:
. General Plan Amendments;
. Otay Ranch GDP Amendments;
. Adoption of the SPA Plan and associated documents of the SPA Plan;
. Phase One and Two RMP Amendments;
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 14
-
. City of Chula Vista MSCP Boundary Adjustment; and
. Tentative Subdivision Map.
In addition, this EIR will be used by other responsible agencies to implement the proposed
project. Actions required by other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EIA.
The City Council will also determine whether the Final EI R is complete and in compliance with
CEOA and the CEOA Guidelines as part of the certification process.
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency and has discretionary approval authority for all the
actions pertaining to the SPA Plan and Composite TM sought by the project applicants: Otay
Ranch Investments, LLC, Otay Project, LP, the Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation, and the
Flat Rock Company. The Final EIR is intended to satisfy CEOA requirements for environmental
review of those actions.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As specified in the Final EIR, the objectives of this project include:
. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce -
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
. Promote synergistic uses between the SPA area and the neighborhoods of adjacent Otay
Ranch Villages to balance activities, services, and facilities.
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan, and
particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the Otay
Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the Otay
Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
. Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Ordinance to ensure that public facilities are
provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and
benefiting from, the improvements.
. Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl.
. Develop, maintain, and enhance a sense of community identity.
. Establish a pedestrian-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce reliance on the
automobile and promote walking, and use of bicycles, buses, and regional transit.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 15
. Promote synergistic uses between the SPA area and the neighborhoods of adjacent Otay
Ranch villages to balance activities, services, and facilities.
. Accentuate the relationship of the land plan with its natural setting and the physical
character of the region, and promote effective management of natural resources by
concentrating development into less sensitive areas, while preserving large contiguous open
space areas with sensitive resources.
. Add to the creation of a unique Otay Ranch image and identify which differentiates Otay
Ranch from other communities.
. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
· Establish a land use and facility plan that assures the viability of the SPA Plan area in
consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 16
IV.
~,
BACKGROUND
Villages Two and Three and a portion of Village Four are a part of the 11 urban villages in the
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, which was adopted by the City and County of San Diego (County) on
October 28, 1993, after an extensive planning and environmental review process. The Otay
Ranch is a master-planned community encompassing approximately 23,000 acres and includes
a broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development. Civic and
community uses-such as libraries, parks, and schools-and about 11,375 acres preserved as
open space are also part of the Otay Ranch community. Each village is based on the "village
concept" that blends multi-family homes and shops with parks, schools, and civic activities in a
core area within each Village. The Village Core would be surrounded by single-family homes in
secondary areas. All are tied together by pedestrian facilities.
Both the City and County adopted the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. In the City, the document is a
General Development Plan under Section 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. In the
County, the document is a Subregional Plan. The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP establishes goals and
objectives for the development of the Otay Ranch. As part of the review and approval process
for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, a Program EIR was prepared and certified by both the City and
the County. The only difference in the two adoptions was the plans for Village Three. The City
planned Village Three for Industrial land uses while 'the County SRP called for a residential
village.
-
In March of 1997, the City annexed 9,100 acres of the Otay Valley Parcel to the City. As part of
the annexation, the City entered into an agreement with the County of San Diego that
established the Otay Landfill Buffer 1,000 feet around the operating part of the Otay Landfill and
changed the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP to the nonresidential Industrial designation.
This designation was applied to portions of Village Two and Two West within the 1,000-foot
buffer. No changes in Village Three were necessary since the village was already planned for
industrial land uses within the city.
Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, SPA Plans are required to be
approved before final development entitlements can be considered. The proposed SPA Plan for
Villages Two and Three and a portion of Village Four will further refine the development
standards, land plans, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP.
The proposed SPA Plan is provided as required by the Otay Ranch GDP and pursuant to Title
19, Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
_.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 17
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 #04-06), including appendices and technical
reports;
· All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
comment period on the Draft EtR;
· All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the proposed 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 proposed project;
· 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 rega.rding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, and including but not limited to the following:
. Chula Vista General Plan;
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 18
· Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
-.
· Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP);
· Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP);
· City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan;
· Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Final EIR (EIR #90-01; SCH No. 89010154); and
· Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk
to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
proposed project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Councilor 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 SPA Plan (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. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v.
County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
-
VI.
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 measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects."
(Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid
~"
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 19
or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to
state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, 921081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[cJhanges 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, 9 15091, subd.
(a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "[sJuch 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, 9 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential finding is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEOA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public
Resources Code section 21061.1 defines ''feasible'' to mean "capable of being accomplished in
a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another
factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]).
The concept of ''feasibility'' also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del
Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,417 ['83 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.AppAth 704, 715 [29
Cal. Rptr.2d 182]).
The CEOA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEOA Guidelines section 15091 is based,
uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEOA Guidelines therefore
equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term
is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 20
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Pub. Resources Code, 921002).
-,
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 Hi/ls 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 CEOA 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 (FEIR). -
In short, CEOA 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
(CEOA Guidelines, 9 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" (CEOA Guidelines, 99 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Resources Code, 921081, 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).
........'"
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 21
VII.
LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
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 adopted concurrently with these
findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program
adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated both through the process of
implementing the Otay Ranch GDP and through the process of constructing and implementing
the proposed project.
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these
findings, also concurrently adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as
prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is
designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible
parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described
in the document entitled Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four SPA 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 monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation
measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
throughout the project approval process. The monitoring program will serve as a dual purpose
of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating
information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 22
program includes monitoring team qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting
system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures.
-
IX.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") resulting from the proposed 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 significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues:
land use; landform alteration/aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and
soils; paleontological resources; agricultural resources; housing and population; water
resources and water quality; traffic, circulation and access; air quality; noise; and utilities and
public services (potable water, recycled water, sewer, integrated waste management, law
enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, schools, library service, and
parks and recreation) and hazards/risk of upset. These significant environmental changes or
impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR in Table 1-2, pages 1-11 through 1-35, and Chapter 5,
Environmental Impact Analysis, pages 5.1-1 through 5.14-360. No significant effects were
identified for mineral resources and gas and electricity services. The proposed project will result
in significant unmitigable impacts to land use, agricultural resources, air quality, landform
alterations/aesthetics, biological resources, and water supply.
-
land Use
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM will result a significant change in
character of the site from undeveloped to urban uses. The overall change in the character and
use of the site from rural agricultural to urban will have a significant cumulative land use impact
as identified in the GDP Program EIR (ErR #90-01).
Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
While the proposed SPA Plan would be in accordance with the adopted Otay Ranch GDP and -
consistent with adjacent and planned development, a significant visual character and landform
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 23
impact would result from implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM.
Development of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM permanently alter the natural landform of
the site, through grading, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the SPA Plan
would have a significant impact resulting from field lighting and general illumination at the high
school stadium and baseball field.
Biological Resources
The proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would have a substantial adverse effect, both
directly and through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, and
special status species in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and by CDFG and
USFWS. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats and other
sensitive natural communities identified in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and
by CDFG and USFWS. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including jurisdictional
waters and vernal pools.
Cultural Resources
One historic archaeological site was identified within the proposed project site. This site has
been tested and determined to be not significant under CEQA; therefore, the project will not
result in direct or cumulatively significant impacts to 'archaeological resources that have been
identified as significant. However, the proposed project could result in significant impacts to
unknown important subsurface archaeological materials that may be encountered during
grading and excavation activities for the project.
Geology and Soils
Potentially significant construction-related direct impacts to geology and soils at the site will
result from the presence of compressible and expansive soils and the potential for settlement
and landslides to occur. Additionally, the current conceptual design would require mass grading
above portions of the tunnel that contains the San Diego waterline. Impacts resulting from the
grading above portions of the waterline would be eliminated if the waterline were relocated.
Paleontological Resources
Grading activities associated with the development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite
TM may directly impact fossils and other paleontological resources potentially buried in the Otay
formation, Sweetwater Formation, and San Diego Formation.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 24
Agricultural Resources
_.
The proposed project will result in the direct loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing
Land to urban uses. The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops
associated with the project will also contribute to the cumulatively significant impact identified in
the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment
of such agricultural resources.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Project implementation will introduce landscaping, impermeable surfaces, and urban activities to
undeveloped land, as well as new pollutant sources, such as automobiles and household
products, which will result in significant long-term, direct and cumulative impacts. Impermeable
surfaces will decrease the amount of infiltration occurring at the project site and will lead to
increased runoff rates and the potential for pollutants to be introduced to water sources.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts to traffic at the
intersections identified in the Draft EIR, Table 5.10-14. In addition, the Draft EIR, Table 5.10-15,
summarizes the significant street segment impacts of the project. The project also will
contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on 1-805. In addition, access-related impacts
would occur if appropriate lane configurations are not provided at the project driveways.
_.
Air Quality
The proposed project will result in temporary and long-term cumulative air quality impacts, as
stated in the Draft EI R, page 5-263. The proposed project is not consistent with the growth
projections of the local regional air quality plan which is considered a significant impact.
Construction and grading activities will result in temporary emissions from equipment exhaust
emissions and short-term fugitive dust impacts. Operation of the project will result in long-term
direct and cumulative emissions from project-related vehicular trips. Once the project area is
built out, the project will contribute to long-term cumulative operational emissions, primarily from
vehicle emissions that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01)
identified significant direct and cumulative impacts on regional air quality from build out of the
Otay Ranch.
Noise
Construction activities would create short-term noise increases near construction areas.
Additionally, traffic-generated noise along Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, La Media Road,
Heritage Road, and several internal streets will cause a significant direct noise impact on
proposed residential uses within the project area. Noise levels from active uses associated with
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 25
the high school stadium and the proposed community park, and from traffic noise from the
industrial uses may exceed noise level standards and impact the adjacent residential uses.
Utilities and Public Services
Potable Water/Recycled Water: The projected water demand could result in significant direct
impacts on water service, if water facilities to serve the project are not constructed prior to
demand. The WSA V Report indicated that the increase in water demand is consistent with the
projected water demand included in the OWD 2000 UWMP and the WRMP. The same finding
can also be made under the OWD 2005 UWMP. The WSAV Report relied on water supply
forecasts based on the projected potable water demands supplied with imported water received
from SOCWA. However, as discussed above, the SDCWA relies in part on the liD water transfer
and other agreements that are being challenged in court. As a result, the assumption that the
liD water transfer and other agreements will be available is questionable due to litigation
uncertainty, and it is possible that the identified water supplies may not be available as
anticipated, despite the urban water management planning conducted by MWD, SDCWA, and
OWO. If the litigation were to invalidate identified and available water supplies, a significant
water supply impact would result.
Recycled Water/Sewer: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the use
of recycled water and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The
increase in use of recycled water has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a
significant impact. However, the impact to recycled water storage and distribution facilities
would be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the development
phasing of the proposed SPA Plan outlines in the project's PFFP.
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would result in an increase in
sewage generation. There is sufficient capacity in the Poggi Canyon and Wolf Canyon/Salt
Creek Interceptors to accommodate the proposed SPA Plan. The Poggi Canyon Interceptor
would adequately serve the Village Four community park on an interim basis.
The southerly portion of Village Two and Village Three cannot be developed until completion of
the Heritage Road sewer line and connection to the Wolf Canyon/Salt Creek Interceptor.
Law Enforcement: The proposed project will result in significant direct impacts to law
enforcement due to the increase in calls for service and the additional travel time required to
answer these calls.
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response
time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed within Village Nine of the Otay Valley
parcel and within Village Thirteen of the Proctor Valley parcel. These stations would help ensure
adequate service within the requirements of the GMOC threshold standards. Impacts to fire and
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 26
emergency medical services would be significant if construction of these facilities does not
coincide with the project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for services.
-
Schools: Project implementation would result in a significant impact to schools unless
construction of facilities coincides with student generation and associated service demands.
Librarv: A significant impact would result from the development of the proposed SPA Plan and
the Composite TM if construction of new library facilities and provision of additional documents
does not coincide with project implementation and associated population growth.
Hazards/Risk of Upset: The project will result in a direct impact to public health and safety due
to soil contamination at the project site.
Parks and Recreation: Project implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM
would generate increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. A significant impact could
result if dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project
implementation and project population growth.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
There is a potential for agriculturally developed portions of Village Three to be impacted by
residual agricultural, including soil augmenting and chemicals. Elevated levels of organochlorine
pesticides were present in the soils at the Village Four site. Soil samples taken form the Village
Four Community Park site exhibited concentrations of toxaphene exceeding one-quarter of the
residential PRGs. Concentrations of OCPs exceeding residential PRGs are generally limited to
the upper two feet of soil. The concentrations of the pesticides in the soils at the Village Four
Community Park Site would be considered a significant risk to public safety.
~,
DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION
Landform Alterationl Aesthetics
Thresholds of Siqnificance:
Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effecton a scenic vista;
Threshold 2: Substantially degrade scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
Threshold 3: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings;
Threshold 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day- or nighttime views in the area.
-,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 27
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR found that implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP would
result in significant unmitigable impacts to landform/visual resources. This EIR tiers from the
Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR; therefore, significant impacts may result if the proposed SPA
Plan would:
Threshold 5: Alter areas of sensitive landforms; and
Threshold 6: Grade steep slopes that may be visible from future development and roadways.
Impact: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day- or nighttime views in the area.
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan would have a direct, significant impact resulting from
field lighting and general illumination at the high school stadium and baseball field (Section 5.2,
pages 5-63 through 5-64).
Explanation:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in long-term direct
potentially significant nighttime view impacts. The proposed project would contribute only a
minor change to night-sky illumination. The proposed SPA Plan includes lighting performance
standards to address the proposed project's contribution to nighttime lighting. Currently, the
proposed project site and vicinity are exposed to nighttime lighting from Villages One, Five, and
parts of Six to the north and northeast of the project site. Village Seven is under construction to
the east, and night lighting would also occur from this village once fully developed.
In addition, the proposed community park in Village Four would include uses that would require
court lighting at night. Sport field and court lighting would be in operation from 6:30 P.M. to 10:30
P.M. seven days a week. During winter months park lighting may be turned on earlier. Park site
security lighting in parking areas, walkways, and on exterior building walls or under eaves would
be in operation from dusk to dawn. Radiating light would be visible from the proposed
residences to the north of the park across Wolf Canyon and to planned or residential
development south of the park within Village Four, which represents a direct, significant impact.
The Otay Ranch High School athletic fields could also result in lighting impacts to on-site
residences. The stadium and baseball field lighting would be visible for short periods of time
during evening activities. Radiating light would be visible from the proposed residences not
directly adjacent to the high school. Lighting associated with the high school represents a
direct, significant impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
5.2-2 Prior to approval of the site-specific master plan for the community park in Village Four,
the applicant(s) shall provide funding through the payment of PAD fees for the
preparation of a lighting plan that shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of
sport field and court lighting on-site. Current sport facility lighting technologies including
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 28
reflector devices that serve to reduce the occurrence of light spill and glare shall be used
where appropriate. The plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building and Director of General Services.
-,
Findiilq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.2 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
Impact: Alter areas of sensitive landforms; or grade steep slopes that may be visible
from future development and roadways.
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would permanently alter the natural landform of the site
through grading, resulting in a direct, significant impact (Section 5.2, pages 5-64 through 5-69).
Explanation:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would require grading of the project area and would
involve the cut and fill of approximately 18,428,000 cubic yards. This grading would
permanently alter the natural landform of the site which would be significant. A portion of Wolf
Canyon would be filled to a height of 400 feet, approximately 90 to 100 feet above the canyon
bottom. A 100-foot-high slope would be created within Wolf Canyon. The ranch-wide steep -
slope preservation standard would be met and, therefore, there would be no significant impact
associated with this policy. However, the filling of Wolf Canyon is considered a significant
landform alteration impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
5.2-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the applicant(s) shall prepare grading and building
plans that conform to the landform grading guidelines contained in the proposed SPA
Plan, the City's Grading Ordinance, Otay Ranch GDP, and General Plan. The plans
shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City
Engineer.
5.2-3 Prior to the approval of the first rough grading permit, or first B-map, the applicant(s)
shall have prepared, submitted to and received approval from the Director of General
Services of a comprehensive Landscape Master Plan (LMP). Landscaping shall occur
with each phase of development in accordance with the LMP. The contents of the LMP
shall conform to the City staff checklist and include the following major components:
. Maintenance Responsibility Plan
. Master Irrigation Plan
-
. Master Planting Plan
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 29
. Brush Management Plan
· Hardscape Concept and Trail Plan
· Utility Coordination Plan
· Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan, and
· Monumentation and Signage Plan
Findinq:
While mitigation measure 5.2-1 and 5.2-3 are feasible and will be completed, they do not
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The only
mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3)
of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of
the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the EIR.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 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 California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Threshold 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Threshold 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;
Threshold 4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 30
Threshold 6: 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: Have a substantial adverse effect on Sensitive Species and Habitats, including
Riparian Habitats.
The proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would have a substantial adverse effect, both
directly and through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, and
special status species in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and by CDFG and
USFWS (Section 5.3, page 5-94 through 5-96).
The project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats and other sensitive
natural communities identified in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and by CDFG
and USFWS (Section 5.3, page 5-96 through 5-97).
Explanation:
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan would result in significant direct impacts to sensitive
plant species. These impacts include the following species that are identified as covered under
the Subarea Plan: Otay tarplant, variegated dudleya and San Diego barrel cactus. In addition,
Otay tarplant and variegated dudleya are identified in the City's Subarea Plan as Narrow
Endemics. Impacts to these three species would be significant. -
Surveys conducted for the proposed project confirmed the presence of coastal California
gnatcatcher, quino checkerspot butterfly, sharp-shinned hawk, rufous-crowned sparrow,
loggerhead shrike, California horned lark, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. In addition,
one raptor nest in the central portion of the Village Two site was observed. Implementation of
the proposed project would result in the direct loss of habitat for all of the sensitive animals
discussed in the Biology section (Section 5.3), of the EIR, including twelve pairs of coastal
California gnatcatchers and one individual Quino checkerspot butterfly. These impacts are
considered significant.
In addition to survey data collected for the proposed SPA Plan, previous biological data is also
available for the site, including data used in preparation of the Otay Ranch GDP and RMP and
accompanying Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR (Program EIR #90-01). Information on species
identified in previous surveys is provided in Section 5.3.1 of Program EIR #90-01, and in
Appendix B-1 of the EIR. Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that are expected to occur based
on previous occurrence data, but were not found in recent surveys, are considered to be
significant due to the loss of potential habitat for these species.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 125]
_.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 31
5.3-1 Prior to recording each final map, the property owner(s) shall either convey land
within the Otay Ranch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each
acre of development area or pay a fee in lieu.
5.3-2 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, for areas with salvageable resources, including Narrow Endemic
Species, Plantago erecta (QCB larval host plant),south coast saltscale and
smooth-stemmed fagonia (including plant materials and soils/seed bank), the
project property owner (s) shall be required to develop and implement a
Resource Salvage Plan. 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. The Resource
Salvage Plan shall include incorporation of relocation efforts for non-covered
species, including south coast saltscale and smooth-stemmed fagonia.
Relocation efforts may include seed collection or transplantation to a suitable
receptor site and will be based on the most reliable methods of successful
relocation. The program shall also contain a recommendation for method of
salvage and relocation/ application based on feasibility of implementation and
likelihood of success. The program shall include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated
completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. The program shall be
subject to review and approval of the City's Director of Planning and Building.
5.3-3 Pursuant to the requirements of the RMP, mitigation beyond the conveyance
requirements for impacts to maritime succulent scrub shall consist of on-site
restoration at 1:1 ratio. If final design plans indicate that impacts will be avoided,
this measure will not be applicable. Prior to issuance of land development
permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, that impact maritime
succulent scrub resources, the developer(s) shall prepare and implement a
restoration plan to restore 3.4 acres of maritime succulent scrub (1.5 acres from
impacts within the Otay Ranch Company ownership and 1.9 acres within the Flat
Rock Land Company ownership), pursuant to the Ot?y Ranch RMP restoration
requirements. The maritime succulent scrub restoration plan shall be approved
by the City's Director of Planning and Building, and shall include an
implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated
completion time, and any relevant contingency measures.
5.3-4 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, in portions of the SPA Plan area that are adjacent to the
Preserve, the property owner shall install fencing in accordance with CVMC
17.35.030.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 32
Prominently colored, well-installed fencing 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 and permanent
fencing shall be shown on grading plans. Prior to release of grading bonds, a
qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized
under the approved land development permit and associated plans.
-
5.3-5 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be developed, approved, and implemented during construction to
control storm water runoff, such that erosion, sedimentation, pollution, etc. are
minimized. The following measures contained in the Edge Plans shall be
implemented to avoid the release of toxic substances associated with urban
runoff:
. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other appropriate measures.
. Where deemed necessary, storm drains shall be equipped with silt and oil
traps to remove oils, debris and other pollutants. Storm drain inlets shall
be labeled "No Dumping-Drains to Ocean." Storm drains shall be -,
regularly maintained to ensure their effectiveness.
. The parking lots shall be designed to allow storm water runoff to be
directed to vegetative filter strips and/or oil-water separators to control
sediment, oil, and other contaminants.
. Permanent energy dissipaters shall be included for drainage outlets.
. The SPA Plan area drainage basins shall be designed to provide effective
water quality control measures. Design and operational features of the
drainage basins shall include design features to provide maximum
detention time for settling of fine particles; maximize the distance between
basin inlets and outlets to reduce velocities; and establish maintenance
schedules for periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation
and debris.
5.3-6 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, the following notes shall be included on the plans to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator:
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 33
(1) A qualified biologist shall be on-site to monitor all vegetation clearing and
periodically thereafter to ensure implementation of appropriate resource
protection measures.
(2) Dewatering shall be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of
the RWQCB. A permit to discharge water from dewatering activities will be
required. This will minimize erosion, siltation, and pollution within sensitive
communities.
(3) During construction, material stockpiles shall be placed such that they
cause minimal interference with on-site drainage patterns. This will protect
sensitive vegetation from being inundated with sediment-laden runoff.
(4) Material stockpiles shall be covered when not in use. This will prevent fly-
off that could damage nearby sensitive vegetation communities.
(5) Graded area shall be periodically watered to minimize dust affecting
adjacent vegetation.
5.3-7 Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve shall be directed away
from the Preserve, wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. 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. In compliance with the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan, all lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the
Preserve. Prior to issuance of improvement plans, a lighting plan and
photometric analysis shall be submitted to the City's Environmental review
Coordinator for review and approval. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location
of the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low-
pressure sodium lighting shall be used if feasible and shall be subject to the
approval of the City's Environmel}tal Review Coordinator and City Engineer. No
night-time construction lighting shall occur within the Preserve Edge.
5.3-8 Noise impacts adjacent to the Preserve lands shall be minimized. Berms or walls
shall be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may
introduce noises that could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization of the
Preserve. Construction activities shall include noise reduction measures or be
conducted outside the breeding season of sensitive bird species. Based on
current information, these conditions would be limited to areas within 500 feet of
Wolf Canyon. When clearing, grading or grubbing activities occur during the
breeding season for coastal California gnatcatcher (February 15 to August 15,
annually) or raptors (January 15 to July 31, annually), nesting bird surveys shall
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 34
be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify active nest locations.
Construction activities shall be restricted such that noise levels related to those
activities are below 60 average sound level (leq) at the location of the active nest
site.
~
5.3-9 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, the property owner shall submit evidence showing that the
following features of the Preserve Edge Plan have been incorporated into
grading and landscaping plans:
(1) No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas
immediately adjacent to the Preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to
the Preserve shall be planted with native species per the Edge Plan that
reflect the adjacent native habitat.
(2) All fuel modification shall be incorporated into development plans and
shall not include any areas within the Preserve.
5.3-10
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the property owner shall submit wall and
fence plans depicting appropriate barriers to prevent unauthorized access into
the Preserve. The wall and fence plans shall illustrate the locations and cross
sections of proposed walls and fences along the Preserve boundary, subject to
the approval the City's Director of Planning and Building.
-
Findino:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.3 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a){1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
Impact: Effects on Federal and State Protected Wetlands
The project would have a direct, significant adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including jurisdictional waters and vernal pools
(Section 5.3, pages 5-97 and 5-98).
Explanation:
Impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed SPA
Plan, consisting of 0.5 acre of ephemeral and intermittent unvegetated stream channels, in
addition to the 0.2 acre of alluvial scrub, mentioned above. Impacts to ephemeral and
intermittent unvegetated waters and alluvial scrub are considered significant.
In Village Two, two vernal pools on the M2 mesa will be impacted by the proposed project, and
one vernal pool within the K17 complex in Village Three will be impacted. Impacts to these
-,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 35
three vernal pools are considered significant under CEQA. The total surface area of the three
pools is 203 square feet.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to all of the vernal pool resources within Otay Ranch
was considered in the development of the GDP. Because of the lack of resources and relative
quality of the M2 and K17 pool complexes, these pool complexes were not included in the
conservation planning. Instead, it was determined that enhancement and restoration of the J23,
J24 or J25 pools on Otay Mesa would provide the best overall strategy for conservation of
vernal pool resources within Otay Ranch.
The M2 and K17 pool complexes lack sensitive resources and were not identified for
preservation in the RMP Mitigation for impacts to these pool complexes is identified in Section
5.3.5 of the EIR. The proposed mitigation option consisting of restoration within the J23, J24 or
J25 pools on Otay Mesa would be consistent with mitigation identified in the RMP. In addition,
optional mitigation is provided in consideration of proposed changes in conservation strategies
for vernal pool complexes within Village 13.
Indirect, adverse edge effects to jurisdictional waters and vernal pools include potential runoff,
sedimentation, erosion, exotics introduction, and habitat type conversion in the short and long
term, particularly within the Wolf Canyon drainage. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters are
considered significant.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 128].
5.3-11
The City requires that impacts to wetlands be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. When avoidance is not feasible, the property owner(s) shall be required
to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible and mitigate for loss of
wetland habitat, including wetland habitat creation of at a 1:1 ratio for
unvegetated waters of the U.S. and 3:1 for impacts to alluvial scrub. To mitigate
direct impacts to jurisdictional waters, the following conditions would be required
prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits for any area impacting jurisdictional waters:
A total of 1.1 acres of wetlands shall be created. Prior to issuance of land
development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits that
impacts jurisdictional waters, the developer(s) shall prepare a Wetlands
Mitigation Plan to the satisfaction of the wetland resource agencies and the City's
Director of Planning and Building. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated
completion time, and any relevant contingency measures.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 36
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits for areas that impact jurisdictional waters, the property owner
shall provide evidence that all required regulatory permits, such as those
required under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 1600 of the
California Fish and Game Code, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act.
-
5.3-12 One of the following options shall be implemented by the property owner(s) prior
to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits for areas impacting vernal pools:
(1) Option #1: The property owner(s) shall restore 406 square feet of vernal pools within
the J23, 24, or 25 pools (eastern Otay Mesa) or within the Village 13 (resort) planning
area. The restoration would involve reconfiguration and reconstruction of the mima
mounds and basins, removal of weedy vegetation, revegetation of the mounds with
upland sage scrub species and inoculation of the pools with vernal pool species. The
property owner shall prepare a Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan to the satisfaction of the
resource agencies (if applicable/jurisdictional) and the City's Director of Planning and
Building. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to an implementation plan,
maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant
contingency measures.
-
(2) Option #2: The project property owner(s) shall purchase vernal pool mitigation bank
credits within an approved mitigation bank. Evidence of the purchase and appropriate
monitoring and maintenance requirements shall be provided to the Director of Planning.
and Building.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.3 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EI R to a
level of insignificance.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Including resources
that are eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of
Historic Places; and resources that are locally designated as historically significant; or the City
of Chula Vista finds the resource historically significant based on substantial evidence.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 37
Criteria for determining a resource is "historically significant" typically includes:
(1) resources that are associated with an event or person of recognized significance;
(2) resources that can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; (3) resources that
have a special or particular quality such as the oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving
example of its kind; and (4) resources that are least 100 years old and possess substantial
stratigraphic integrity; and/or involve important research questions that historical research has
shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.
Threshold 2: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Impact: Historic or Archaeological Re~ources
One prehistoric site (CA-SDI-12,291 B) and one historic site (11 ,384H) would be impacted by the
proposed project (Section 5.4, pages 5-136 through 5-5-139).
Explanation:
There were 16 prehistoric sites identified within the SPA Plan area. As a result of the testing of
these sites, only one site, CA-SOI-12,291 B, was determined to be a significant historic resource.
Impacts to CA-SOI-12,291 b would be considered significant. The remaining 15 sites were
determined not to be significant historic resources, however, grading and excavation activities
associated with the proposed project could result in direct, significant archaeological impacts to
unknown subsurface deposits. There was one historic site identified within the SPA Plan area.
The historic site, located on the Village Two project area, consists of the remains of the Otay
Ranch Farm Complex. Appendix I, of the February 2004(a) report for cultural resources at the
Otay Ranch Village Two SPA, concluded that no historically significant remaining components
were visible during site testing. However, the proposed project could result in significant
archaeological impacts because the site may contain masked subsurface deposits that may be
encountered during grading and excavation activities for the proposed project.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.4, pages 140].
Preservation is the preferred means of avoiding impacts to archaeological site SOI-12,291 B.
This approach would involve redesign of the project to avoid impacts to Site SO-12,291 B. The
following measures outline a procedure for ensuring that adverse impacts are avoided for the
proposed SPA Plan.
Preservation is the preferred means of avoiding impacts to archaeological site SOI-12,291b.
This approach would involve redesign of the project to avoid impacts to Site SO-12,291 b. In the
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 38
event that preservation on-site is infeasible, the following measures outline a procedure for
ensuring that adverse impacts are avoided for the proposed SPA Plan.
-.
5.4-1 In the event that in place preservation is infeasible, the following data recovery program
will mitigate adverse impacts to SOI-12,291 b. These tasks need to be completed prior to
the issuance of grading permits for the portion of Village Three on which the site is
located.
a) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Registered Professional Archaeologist
(RPA) shall prepare a research design for the data recovery of Site SOI-12,291b to
the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. This research design shall
identify specific research questions to be addressed through the data recovery
process, the data collection and analyses needed to address those questions, and
the means and location of curation of recovered materials. This research design
shall be prepared prior to the initiation of the field investigation to the satisfaction of
the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista.
b) Based on the approved research design, an excavation program shall be
implemented that will result in a reliable sample of the site. It is anticipated that
between two and four percent of the surface area of the mapped resource would be
excavated, and that excavation would be completed by hand excavated one-by-one
meter units, unless the questions developed for the research design require a
modified sampling strategy. All materials should be passed through a one-eighth-
inch mesh screen, with all recovered materials catalogued and analyzed. If datable
materials, faunal or floral remains, pollen, or other cultural significant materials are
found, appropriate special analysis shall be completed.
.-
c) A detailed report of findings shall be completed and the results made available to the
public and scientific community. Curation of recovered materials shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City
of Chula Vista. Curation of collections from the project will be curated in a facility
approved in advance by the City.
5.4-2 A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on-site during initial grading of CA-SOI-
11,384H. If historic archaeological material is encountered during grading, all grading in
the vicinity as determined and defined by the archaeologist shall stop and its importance
shall be evaluated, and suitable mitigation measures shall be developed and
implemented, if necessary. Cultural material collected shall be permanently curated at
an appropriate repository. Curation of collections from the project will be curated in a
facility approved in advance by the City.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.4 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 39
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EI R to a level of
insignificance.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 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,
· Strong seismic ground shaking,
· Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or
. Landslides;
Threshold 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
Threshold 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;
Threshold 4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property; and
Threshold 5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
disposal of wastewater.
Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on expansive
soil; or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal of
wastewater.
The presence of compressible and expansive soils and the potential for settlement and
landslides to occur at the project site is considered a potentially significant direct impact. The
current project design would require mass grading above portions of the tunnel that contains the
San Diego waterline, which would be a direct, significant impact (Section 5.5, pages 5-152 and
5-153).
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 40
Explanation: -
Significant impacts to geology and soils could result from project development on compressible
and expansive soils. Expansive soils, which include alluvium, colluvium, and claystone occur
throughout the project site. Expansive soils may adversely impact structural slabs and
foundations and roadways due to their swelling characteristics. The adverse effects of slope
creep, landslides or lateral fill extension may also occur with expansive soil fills and cuts.
Additionally, the current conceptual design would require mass grading above portions of the
tunnel that contains the San Diego waterline, including excavation of formulational soils and the
placement of fill soils. A potentially significant impact could result from the grading above
portions of the existing City of San Diego waterline. Implementation of project-specific design
mitigation measures, as described below, would reduce or avoid significant impacts. Impacts
resulting from the grading above portions of the waterline would be eliminated if the waterline
were relocated.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.5, pages 5-155
through 5-156).
5.5-1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall verify that the
applicable recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigations for Villages
Two and Three prepared by Geocon (August 18, 2003 and September 3, 2003,
respectively) and the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Parcel A portion of
Village Three, prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., (October 24,2003) have been
incorporated into the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Recommendations include, but are not limited to:
-
a) During construction liquefiable soils within the colluvium/alluvium shall be
removed and replaced with compacted fill.
b) During construction highly expa~sive soils shall be kept below finish grade.
Where excavations expose highly expansive materials at finish grade, these
materials shall be excavated a minimum of four feet below finish grade. Where
excavations expose very highly expansive material at finish grade, these
materials shall be excavated a minimum of five feet below finish grade. The
excavations shall be replaced with a compacted fill soil that has a low to
moderate expansion potential.
c)
During construction, the developer shall remove loose, compressible soils and
replace as compacted fill in areas that will be subjected to new fill or structural
loads.
-,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 41
d) During grading the developer shall construct earthen buttresses on unstable
slopes with drains installed, as warranted, at the rear of the buttresses to control
groundwater.
e) Grading of building pads shall be designed so that foundations bear entirely on a
relatively uniform depth of compacted fill. This may be accomplished by
overexcavating the cut portion of the building pad.
5.5-2 If the existing City of San Diego waterline is not relocated, the following mitigation
measure shall be required to reduce impacts associated with grading above portions of
the existing waterline:
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall consult with a pipeline
specialist to evaluate the structural integrity of the existing City of San Diego waterline
pipe and tunnel and the effect of the fill loads. A deformation analysis shall be
performed once final grades have been determined.
5.5-3 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall verify that the design of
any structures would comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.5 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance:
The proposed project could have a significant effect on paleontological resources, if it would:
Threshold 1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
Impact: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
The proposed grading of the Otay Formation sandstone, the San Diego Formation, and the
Sweetwater Formation would move material with high sensitivity for paleontological resources,
which is considered a direct, significant impact (Section 5.6, page 5-160)
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 42
Explanation: -
The project site is underlain by the Otay Formation, San Diego Formation, and Sweetwater
Formation, which are characterized by an upper portion with high paleontological resource
sensitivity and a lower portion with moderate resource sensitivity. The occurrence of fossils
within the covered bedrock cannot be evaluated prior to exposure. Areas of the Otay Formation
with accumulations of colluvial and alluvial deposits in the drainage course bottoms, the San
Diego Formation, the Sweetwater Formation, and Terrace Deposits may be exposed during
grading and construction activities. The proposed grading of the Otay Formation sandstone, the
San Diego Formation, and the Sweetwater Formation would move material with high sensitivity
for paleontological resources. Exposure of these formations would likely result in the unearthing
of fossil remains, which could damage the fossils if they were not recovered and salvaged.
Destruction of the paleontological resources from these formations would be a direct, long-term,
potentially significant impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.6, page 160]:
5.6-1 Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall incorporate into grading
plans to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista's Engineer and Environmental Review
Coordinator, the following:
-.
a) Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant(s) shall confirm to the City
of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the
following mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrade meetings
to consult with grading and excavation contractors. (A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.)
b) A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (Le.,
Otay, Sweetwater, and San Diego Formations) to inspect cuts for contained
fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall be on-site on at least a half-time basis during
the original cuts in deposits with a moderate resource sensitivity (Le., Terrace
Deposits). (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.)
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown sensitive formations, it may
be necessary to increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils
are not discovered, the monitoring may be reduced.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 43
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time,
the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily
direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor), a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be set up.
d) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and
maps, shall be deposited (with the applicant(s) permission) in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections. A final summary report shall be
completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall
include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected,
and significance of recovered fossils.
Findino:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.6 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified "in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
AGRICULTURE
Impact:
The proposed project will result in the direct loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing
Land to urban uses. The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops
associated with the project will also contribute to the cumulatively significant impact identified in
the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment
of such agric~ltural resources.
Explanation:
Development of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in a significant impact to
agricultural resources, due to the loss of 858.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and the
conversion of 321.72 acres of Grazing Land to urban uses. The loss of this acreage would result
in a significant unavoidable impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land. This was previously addressed in the Otay
Ranch GDP Program EIR and was determined to be significant and not fully mitigated. At that
time, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this impact. Furthermore, noise,
odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural operations would create
indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban
uses.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 44
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.7, page 166]:
-
The following 'mitigation measure has been identified for the SPA Plan and the Composite TM to
reduce the potentially significant, short-term impacts caused by adjacency of ongoing
agricultural uses and urban uses:
5.7-1 The Agricultural Plan included in the SPA Plan shall be implemented as development
proceeds in the proposed SPA Plan area. The following measures shall be implemented
by the developer(s) to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista's Director of Planning
and Building:
a) A 200-foot buffer between developed property and ongoing agriculture
operations shall be maintained. The use of pesticides shall comply with federal,
state, and local regulations;
b) Vegetation shall be used to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet)
from agriculture activities where pesticides are to be applied;
c) Notification shall be given to adjacent property owners of potential pesticide
application through newspaper advertisements; and
_.
d) Fencing shall be installed, where necessary, to ensure the safety of the SPA
Plan area residents.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.7, of the EIR, 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 some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EI R.
However, despite the above mitigation, the incremental and cumulative loss of agricultural lands
is considered a significant unmitigable impact, and no other feasible mitigation measures are
available to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. This impact is discussed
below in Section X, Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures.
WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY
Thresholds of Significance
Threshold 1: Substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation or substantially increases the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provides substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise
substantially degrades water quality;
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 45
Threshold 2: Violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including
City of Chula Vista Engineering Standards for storm water flows and volumes;
Threshold 3: Substantially depletes groundwater or interferes substantially with groundwater
recharge;
Threshold 4: Alters an existing 1 OO-year floodplain or places structures within a 1 OO-year flood
hazard area which would impede o~ redirect flood flows; and
Threshold 5: Exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, and/or exposes people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow.
Impact:
Project implementation will introduce landscaping, impermeable surfaces, and urban activities to
undeveloped land, as well as new pollutant sources, such as automobiles and household
products, which will result in significant long-term, direct and cumulative impacts. Impermeable
surfaces will decrease the amount of infiltration occurring at the project site and will lead to
increased runoff rates and the potential for pollutants to be introduced to water sources
(Section 5.9, page 5-179 through 5-181).
Explanation:
The proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would convert an existing undeveloped site to an
urban landscape with multiple land uses. In doing so, impermeable surfaces would be
introduced to the project site, as well as new pollutant sources, such as automobiles and
household products. Impermeable surfaces would decrease the amount of infiltration occurring
at the project site and would lead to runoff rates and the potential for pollutants to be introduced
to water sources. Therefore, the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM has the potential to
contribute to significant water quality impacts. Drainage at the site would be altered to direct
stormwater runoff into the municipal storm drain system.
Mitioation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.9, page 5-183]:
5.9-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall include but not be limited to:
a) Peak runoff at each inlet, outlet, interceptor, concentration, or confluence point,
both predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions; and
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 46
b)
The integration of the proposed system with the existing and proposed
downstream drainage facilities to effectively control flows within the entire
system.
~
c) Maps showing existing and postdevelopment conditions for existing topography
and proposed grading plans incorporating a drainage system design with main
lines and detention/desilting facilities pursuant to Section 3-202.1 of the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual; and on-site detention/desilting facilities shall be
incorporated in the design for the various phases of construction and
postconstruction.
5.9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant(s) shall submit a SWPPP
including assignment of maintenance responsibilities for review and approval by the City
Engineer and the Director of Public Works. The SWPPP shall be consistent and fully
comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and all requirements set forth in
the General Construction Permit, the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance (Storm Water Management Manual Ordinance), the City of
Chula Vista Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) and the City of
Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management
Standards Requirements Manual (Storm Water Management Manual). BMPs identified
in the SWPPP shall include but shall not be limited to the following:
~"
a) Temporary erosion control measures designed in accordance with the Chula
Vista Grading Ordinance shall be employed for disturbed areas and shown on
the grading plans.
b) No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place
during the winter and spring months.
5.9-3 Prior to the issuance of all subsequent permits and approvals associated with the project
including but not limited to improvement plan approvals, construction permits, site plan
approvals, design review approvals, conditional use permits, grading permits, the
applicant of such permits, and/or approvals shall comply with the Clean Water Act, the
Municipal permit, the General Construction Permit, and the Storm Water Management
Ordinance and submit a SWPPP prior to the issuance of such permits and/or approvals
in compliance with the City's Storm Water Management Manual and the SUSMP.
Findino:
As identified Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.9, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 47
TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Thresholds of Significance:
The criteria utilized to determine if a traffic impact at an intersection, street segment, or freeway
is considered significant is based on City of Chula Vista standards. Both project specific and
cumulative project impacts can be significant impacts. Additionally, the criteria differs depending
on whether the timing of impacts are near-term or long-term. These criteria are outlined below.
Near Term (Study Horizon Year 0 to 4)
Intersections
A direct project impact to an intersection would occur if both of the following criteria are met:
1. Intersections
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria area met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met.
2. Street Lines/Segments
If the ADT methodology indicates LOS C or better, the impact is not significant. If the ADT
methodology indicates LOS D, E, or F, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
criteria should be used, which includes the following:
Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
· Level of service is LOS D for more than 2-hours or LOS ElF
. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume
. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment
. Cumulative Impact if only No.1 is met
3. Freeways
Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 48
-
. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment.
. Cumulative impact if only No.1 is met.
1. Intersections
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria area met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only NO.1 is met.
2. Street Lines/Segments
Use the planning analysis using the volume-to-capacity ratio methodology only. The GMOC
analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon.
-
. Project specific impact if all three of the following criteria are met:
. Level of service is LOS 0 for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF
. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume
. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment
Cumulative Impact if only NO.1 is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS 0 or LOS E
segment all operate at LOS 0 or better, the segment impact is not considered significant since
intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street
segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of
intersection LOS.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above occurs at study
horizon year 10 or later, and is off-site and not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered
cumulative. Study year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13
years in the future. In this case of a traffic study being performed in the period of 2000 to 2002,
because the typical model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (Le., 2005, 2010, 2015,
and 2020) study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year 2010 and
would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than seven years in the future, study
horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future.
........."
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 49
In the event a direct identified project-specific impact in paragraph a. above occurs at study
horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is off-site and not adjacent to this project, but the
property immediately adjacent to the identified project-specific impact is also proposed to be
developed in approximately the same time frame, an additional analysis may be required to
determine whether or not the identified project specific impact would still occur if the
development of the adjacent property does not take place. If the additional analysis concludes
that the identified project-specific impact is no longer a direct impact, then the impact shall be
considered cumulative.
3. Freeways
Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
· Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
· Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment.
· Cumulative impact if only No. 1 is met.
Impact:
As shown on Tables 5.10-14 of the EIR (page 5-235), one intersection is projected to result in a
significant direct impact at buildout of the proposed SPA Plan. As shown on Table 5.10-15 of
the EIR (page 5-236), three street segments are projected to result in a cumulative traffic impact
at buildout of the proposed SPA Plan. Additionally, implementation of the SPA Plan will result in
significant cumulative impacts to six segments of 1-805. These impacts are discussed in Section
5.10, pages 5-198 through 5-234, of the EI R.
Explanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the significance of
impacts under each analysis timeframe was determined. The intersection at Rock Mountain
Road and La Media Road is projected to result in a significant impact at buildout of the
proposed SPA Plan, as shown on Table 5.10-14. Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan will
result in significant, cumulative street segment impacts at the following three segments:
· Rock Mountain Road
· Main Street to La Media Road
· La Media Road to SR-125
· SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 50
Significant cumulative impacts are calculated on 1-805 since LOS F is calculated for six
segments along this freeway, and the proposed project adds traffic to this freeway. In addition,
access-related impacts would occur if appropriate lane configurations are not provided at the
project driveways.
-
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 5-234].
Mitigation of cumulative impacts to freeways are not feasible due to the fact that they are
beyond the control of the City of Chula Vista. The mitigation of cumulative impacts to freeways
is discussed in Section X below.
5.1 0-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant( s) shall pay the applicable
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as amended to design, construct, and
secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal
heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries
at the Rock Mountain Road/La Media Road intersection. The design of the signal shall
be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Turn lane storage lengths shall be provided
as indicated in Table 5.10-16.
5.10-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay the applicable
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TO IF) , as amended, towards widening Rock
Mountain Road from La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway to six lanes or toward an
intersection improvement along Rock Mountain Road to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer by year 2015.
-
5.10-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay the applicable
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as amended, toward widening Rock
Mountain Road from Main Street to SR-125 to six lanes and SR-125 to Eastlake
Parkway to eight lanes or towards an intersection improvement along Rock Mountain
Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer by year 2030.
Project Access
5.10-5 Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, with intersection lane geometry per Figure 5.10-11.
Prior to the approval of the final map triggering the construction of the intersection
improvements, including installation of a traffic signal, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground
improvements, standards and luminaries at the intersections listed below. The design of
the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and conform to City standards.
The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as listed in Table 5.1 0-16.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 51
. Heritage Road/Olympic Parkway
. Heritage Road/Main Street
. Heritage Road/Street "0"
. Heritage Road/Street "P'
. Heritage Road/Street "J" North
. Heritage Road/Street "J" South
. La Media Road/Birch Road
. La Media Road/Santa Luna
. Olympic Parkway/Street "0"
PFFP
5.10-6
Prior to the approval of the final map containing the EOU threshold triggering the
construction of street improvements, as defined by the PFFP, the applicant shall
enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements to
the street segments listed below. Phasing of improvements shall be consistent with
the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Heritaqe Road
Olympic Parkway to Street "0"
Street "0" to Street "P'
Street "P' to Street "J" North
Street "J" North to Street "J" South
Street" J" South to Main Street
Heritage Road south of Main Street
Main Street
From Heritage Road to existing improvements
East of Heritage Road to project SPA boundary
Street "0"
Heritage Road to Street E
Street E to State Street
State Street to Santa Venetia
Olympic Parkway to Heritage Road
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 52
Street "E"
Street "0" to Street "B"
Street "B" to La Media Road
~,
La Media Road
Santa Venetia to Birch Avenue
South of Birch Road to community park entrance (or Santa Luna)
5.10-7 No units within the project area shall be constructed which would result in the total
number of units within the Eastern Territories exceeding 8,990 units, prior to the
construction of SR-125 between SR-54 and the International Border. The City may issue
additional building permits if the City Council determines that each of the following
conditions have been met: (1) SR-125 is constructed and open between SR-54 and
Olympic Parkway; and (2) traffic studies, prepared to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the City Council, demonstrates that the opening of SR-125 to Olympic
Parkway provides additional capacity to mitigate the project's cumulative significant
impacts to a level below significance without exceeding Growth Management Oversight
Committee traffic threshold standards. Additionally, the City may issue building permits if
the City Council has approved an alternative method to implement the City's Growth
Management Ordinance, as amended from time to time.
-.
Findinq:
As identified Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.10, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
AI R QUALITY
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Threshold 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation;
Threshold 3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Threshold 4: The City uses the following SCAOMD thresholds to assess the significance of air
quality impacts (SCAOMD 1993) (Table 5.11-5):
........
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 53
TABLE 5.11-5
SCAQMD THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Reactive Organic
Compounds
Oxides of Nitrogen
Oxides of Sulfur
PM10
Project Construction
Pounds/Day Tons/Quarter
550 24.75
75 2.5
Project Operation
Pounds/Day
550
55
100
150
150
2.5
6.75
6.75
55
150
150
Threshold 5: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
Threshold 6: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM is not consistent with the growth
projections of the local regional air quality plan, which represents a direct, significant impact
(Section 5.11, page !?-256).
Explanation:
While the project conforms to may of the measures included in the RAQS "Criteria to Guide the
Development of Transportation Control Measures," the proposed SPA Plan project is not
consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan; which is a significant
impact. Because the significant air impact stems from an inconsistency between the proposed
SPA Plan and the growth projections upon which the RAQS were based, the only measure that
can lessen this effect is the review and revision of the RAOS to reflect the general plan with the
proposed project. This effort is the responsibility of SANDAG and San Diego APCD and is
outside the jurisdiction of the City. Revisions to SANDAG's RTP are anticipated in 2007.
Mitiqation Measures:
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAOS to reflect the General
Plan with the proposed project. This effort is the responsibility of SANDAG and outside the role
of the City of Chula Vista.
Findinq:
Implementation of this mitigation requires the revision of the RAQS. This is the responsibility of
SANDAG and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(2) of
the State CEQA Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can
and should be adopted by such other agency.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 54
Impact: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or -
projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment.
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM will introduce new sources of air
emissions to the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is a non-attainment area. In addition,
development of the project will result in a short-term. direct air quality impact from dust
generated during construction activities, fumes, and equipment exhaust. Since the region is not
in compliance with the PM1Q standard and because the average daily emission is anticipated to
increase with implementation of the SPA Plan, impacts are significant. PM1Q emissions result
from construction of projects and from daily operations in the City. The mitigation measures
detailed below will reduce PM10 from construction activities. Until the region is in compliance
with the PM10 and Ozone standards, impacts from operations remain significant.
Explanation:
As shown in Table 5.11-7 and Table 5.11-8 of the EIR, the proposed SPA Plan will result in a
cumulatively significant long-term contribution to regional PM10 and ozone levels as a result of
projected emissions of ROG, an ozone precursor. In addition, the proposed SPA Plan will also
result in a short-term significant fugitive dust impact as a result of emissions stemming from
construction.
Mobile and stationary emissions emitted to the SDAB as a result of implementing the proposed .-
SPA Plan is expected to exceed the SCAQMD and 'the SDAPCD incremental thresholds for
PM10, carbon monoxide, and the ozone precursors NOx and RaGs, as shown in Table 5.11-8
the EIR. As such, significant air quality impacts are anticipated due to mobile sources as a result
of implementation of the project.
For area source emissions alone, only ROG is anticipated to exceed the applicable thresholds.
However, as shown in Table 5.11-8, the total emissions resulting from vehicular traffic and on-
site area sources are projected to exceed applicable thresholds for PM10 and ozone precursors.
Consequently, occupancy of the proposed project is expected to result in significant air quality
impacts.
Because the region is not in compliance with the state PM10 standard, the operational impacts of
the development of the land uses associated with the SPA Plan represent a significant
cumulative air impact. The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding through these findings. Until the region is in
compliance with the PM10 and Ozone standards, impacts from operations remain significant.
As the SDAB is in attainment for carbon monoxide, the projected maximum quarterly emission
levels for that pollutant will not cause the region to exceed any applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standards.
~
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 55
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.11, page 5-263).
5.11-1 Prior to the approval of building permits for each phase of the project, the applicant(s)
shall demonstrate that air quality control and energy conservation measures outlined in
the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Air Quality Improvement Plan pertaining to the
design, construction, and operational phases of the project have been implemented.
5.11-2 Prior to the approval of any grading permit, the following measures shall be placed as
notes on all grading plans, and shall be implemented during grading of each phase of
the project to minimize construction emissions:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units;
. Use low pollutant-emitting equipment construction equipment as practical;
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical;
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment;
. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment;
. Water the construction areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust;
. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust;
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust;
. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, as
feasible;
. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the
construction site prior to public road entry;
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads;
. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence;
. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel
on unpaved surfaces has occurred;
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 56
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads;
...........
. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during
hauling; and
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
Findinq:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the EIR. While mitigation measure 5.11-1 and 5.11-2 are feasible and will be completed, they
do not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City to
reduce mobile source emissions to below a level of significance, those operation-related
impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
NOISE
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Chula Vista General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies;
-
Threshold 2: Expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels;
Threshold 3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project;
Threshold 4: Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
Threshold 5: For a project 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,
expose people residing \or working in the project area to excessive noise; or
Threshold 6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Impact: Expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Chula Vista General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 57
of other agencies or Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
Construction activities would create short-term noise increases near construction areas.
Additionally, traffic-generated noise along Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, La Media Road,
Heritage Road, and several internal streets will cause a significant direct noise impact on
proposed residential uses within the project area. Noise levels from active uses associated with
the high school stadium and the proposed community park, and from traffic noise from the
industrial uses may exceed noise level standards and impact the adjacent residential uses
(Section 5.12, pages 5-269 through 5-281).
Explanation:
Potential sources of noise related to the proposed project include construction noise, traffic
generated noise, noise from activities at the high school, noise from the community park, and
noise from industrial uses.
Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, would create short-term noise increases
near construction areas. However, compliance with the existing City's Municipal Code would
reduce this impact to below a level of significance.
Noise within the proposed SPA Plan area would be affected by traffic on Olympic Parkway,
Birch Road, La Media Road, Heritage Road, and several internal streets. The traffic on area
streets could generate noise levels greater than the City's residential exterior standard of 65
CNEL at adjacent ground-level sensitive receptors, which could cause a significant impact
without mitigation.
Proposed residential units to the south of the high school stadium would be affected by activities
at the stadium. Exterior noise levels at receivers 2 through 8 in Village 2 are projected to exceed
65 CNEL. This could cause a significant impact without mitigation.
Active uses in the community park are not expected to exceed noise ordinance standards for
Village Two to the north. However, noise levels may exceed standards for the residential zone
to the south of the park. This could cause a significant impact without mitigation.
Traffic noise levels are not projected to exceed 75 CNEL in industrial use areas. Noise levels
produced on the industrial properties have the potential to affect adjacent residential uses and
adjacent wildlife. Depending on the specifics of the industrial uses, this may be a significant
impact.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EI R, Subchapter 5.12, page 5-281
through 5-284).
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 58
5.12-1 Noise barriers shall be constructed as shown on Figure 5.12-4 of the EI R with the
following provisions:
-
. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for those lots within the noise contour
of 65 CNEL or greater, the applicant(s) shall construct the noise barriers as
shown on Figure 5.12-4. Required barrier heights may be achieved through the
construction of walls, berms, or wall/berm combinations. With the construction of
barriers ranging from three to six feet along the edge of pad or top of slope as
shown in Figure 5.12-4, noise levels at all ground-floor residential usable areas
and the community park site would be at or below 65 CNEL. As indicated in
Figure 5.12-4, the noise barrier adjacent to the community park may begin just
north of the anticipated driveway at the southeast of the park.
A site design for the multi-family residential area is not available at this time.
Mitigation of any exterior use areas could also be achieved through the site
design by placing the exterior use areas on the sides of the building opposite the
major project roadways (Olympic Parkway, Heritage Road and La Media Road).
This would ensure that these areas are adequately shielded from roadway noise.
.
Prior to issuance of the rough grading permit noise barriers shall be shown on
wall and fence plans to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Planning
and the Environmental Review Coordinator.
-
5.12-2 Prior to approval of building permits for single-family areas where second floor exterior
noise levels exceed 65 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed ensuring that
interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be at or below 45 CNEL. Building plans
will be available during design review and will permit the accurate calculation of
transmission loss for habitable rooms. (lots 1 through 4, 6, 7 and 9 through 17 in R-6;
lots 103, 104, 114, 115, and 129 in R5; lots 11, 12 [or 25-C if this lot will have a building]
and 34 in R-25; and lots 3, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 20 in R-4.) 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 CNEL. Consequently, the design for these
units may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable
interior environment with the windows closed based on the results of the interior
acoustical analysis.
5.12-3 As stated in Title 24 of the State Building Code, prior to approval of design review
permits for multi-family areas where first and/or second floor exterior noise levels exceed
60 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed ensuring that interior noise levels
due to exterior sources will be below 45 CNEL. Building plans will be available during
design review and will permit the accurate calculation of transmission loss for habitable
rooms. (Portions of Neighborhoods R-14, MU-3, R-30, R-13, and R-12.) For these
areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that
_.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 59
interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 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 results of
the interior acoustical analysis.
Football Stadium Noise
5.12-4 Prior to the issuance of any building permit for Lots 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 53
through 57 (see Figure 5.12-3), the applicant(s) shall construct four-foot-high barriers
along the northern property line of the affected lots as shown on Figure 5.12-5.
Community Park Noise
5.12-5 Prior to approval of a precise grading plan, an acoustical analysis shall be performed
ensuring that noise levels do not exceed noise ordinance standards.
Industrial Noise
5.12-6 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an industrial use on lots adjacent to
residential uses, or adjacent to the Wolf Canyon wildlife area a noise analysis shall be
completed demonstrating that the proposed use will not exceed the noise limits set by
the City's Noise Control Ordinance.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.12, Noise, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1)
of the CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project
that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
POTABLE WATER
Thresholds of Significance:
According to Appendix G of the CEOA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact on potable water if it would:
Threshold 1: Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Threshold 2: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements needed.
Threshold 3: As part of its General Plan, the City has adopted a Growth Management
Ordinance (Chapter 19.09) that imposes water threshold standards and requires
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 60
all major development projects to prepare a WCP. A copy of the SPA Plan WCP
is available for public review at the City of Chula Vista, Planning and Building
Department, 430 F Street, Chula Vista, California, and incorporated by reference
in this EIR. These threshold standards are established to ensure that adequate
storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with
planned growth.
-
Therefore, impacts to potable water would be significant if the proposed project would exceed
City threshold standards which seek to ensure that adequate supplies of quality water,
appropriate for intended use, are available. The standards require the following actions:
. The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the
appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level.
. The applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a SPA Plan
application.
. The project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior to
the development of each Otay Ranch SPA.
Impact: .
The proposed SPA Plan would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and
place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. If the II 0 water transfer and
other agreements are invalidated, a direct, significant water supply impact would result (Section
5.13, pages 5-301 through 5-309).
..........
Explanation:
The WSAV Report prepared by Dexter Engineering for the proposed SPA Plan indicated that
the increase in water demand is consistent wit~ the projected water demand included in the
OWD 2000 UWMP and the WRMP. The same finding can also be made under the OWD 2005
UWMP. The WSAV Report relied on water supply forecasts based on the projected potable
water demands supplied with imported water received from SDCW A. However, the SDCW A
relies in part on the 110 water transfer and other agreements that are being challenged in court.
As a result, the assumption that the 110 water transfer and other agreements will be available is
questionable due to litigation uncertainty, and it is possible that the identified water supplies may
not be available as anticipated, despite the urban water management planning conducted by
MWD, SDCW A, and OWD. If the litigation were to invalidate identified and available water
supplies, a direct, significant water supply impact would result.
Mitioation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 5-310]:
~"
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 61
5.13.1-1
Prior to the approval of the first final map, a final Subarea Master Plan (SAMP)
shall be required for the project. The SAMP shall include the following:
. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity
. The proposed points of connection and system
. The estimated water demands and/or sewer flow calculated
. Governing fire department's fire flow requirements (flow rate, duration,
hydrant spacing, etc)
. Agency's Master Plan
. Agency's planning criteria (see Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the Water
Agencies' Standards)
. Water quality maintenance
. Size of system and number of lots to be served
Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on-site and off-site in accordance
with the SAMP.
5.13.1-2
Prior to the approval of the first final map, the applicant(s) shall secure and agree
with the Otay Water District to construct all potable water facilities (on-site and
off-site) required to serve the project. These water facilities improvements shall
be financed or installed on-site and off-site in accordance with the fees and
phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plans for the SPA Plan.
Findinq:
While mitigation measure 5.13-1 and 5.13-2 are feasible and will be completed, they do not
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The water
supply impact remains significant because the issue of availability of water that was relied on to
determine that there will be a sufficient supply is currently being litigated. Until the resolution of
those actions, the anticipated water supply is not assured. The resolution of this issue is
outside of the purview of the City. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation
measures within the control of the City to reduce mobile water supply impacts to below a level of
significance, those impacts remain significant and unmitigated. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. As described in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that
these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 62
RECYCLED WATER
-
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects; or
Threshold 2: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements.
Threshold 3: As part of its General Plan, the City has adopted a Growth Management
Ordinance (Chapter 19.09) that imposes water threshold standards and requires
all major development projects to prepare a WCP. A copy of the SPA Plan WCP
is available for public review at the City of Chula Vista, Planning and Building
Department, 430 F Street, Chula Vista, California, and incorporated by reference
in this EIR. These threshold standards are established to ensure that adequate
storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with
planned growth.
Therefore, impacts to recycled water would be significant if the proposed project would exceed
City threshold standards that seek to ensure that adequate supplies of quality water, appropriate
for intended use, are available. The standards require the following actions:
.............
. The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the
appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level.
. The applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a SPA Plan
application.
. The project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior to
the development of each Otay Ranch SPA.
Impact:
The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the use of recycled water and
place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The increase in use of
recycled water has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a significant impact (Section
5.13, page 5-313). However, the impact to recycled water storage and distribution facilities
would be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the development
phasing of the proposed SPA Plan outlines in the project's PFFP.
Explanation:
OWD has master planned a series of pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission lines to
integrate recycled water from the South Bay Reclamation Plant into the existing and future
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 63
recycled water system. Construction of these facilities is estimated to begin in the fall of 2006.
The recycled water system will continue to be supplemented with potable water until the
additional source of recycled water supply from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is
available. Therefore, impacts to recycled water storage and distribution facilities would be
significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated growth.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13.2, page 5-317]
5.13.2-1
Prior to the approval of the first final map, a final Subarea Master Plan shall be
required for the project. The SAMP shall include the following:
. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity
. The proposed points of connection and system
. The estimated water demands and/or sewer flow calculated
. Governing fire department's fire flow requirements (flow rate, duration,
hydrant spacing, etc)
. Agency's Master Plan
. Agency's planning criteria (see Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the Water
Agencies' Standards)
. Water quality maintenance
. Size of system and number of lots to be served
Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on-site and off-site in accordance
with the SAMP.
5.13.2-2
Recycled water facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-
site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the
Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four SPA Plan.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, 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.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 64
SEWER
-,
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: 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 provider's existing commitments;
Threshold 2: Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects; and
Threshold 3: As part of its General Plan, the City has adopted a Growth Management
Ordinance (Chapter 19.09) that imposes wastewater threshold standards that
require the following:
Sewage Flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards as set forth in the
Subdivision Manual adopted by City Council Resolution Number 11175 on February 12, 1983,
as may be amended from time to time. A copy of the Subdivision Manual is available for public
review at the City of Chula Vista, Planning and Building Department, 430 F Street, Chula Vista,
California.
-
The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12- to 18-
month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's
purchases/capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and
continuing growth, or the City Engineering Department staff shall gather the necessary data.
Impact:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would result in an increase in
sewage generation (Section 5.13, pages 5-325 through 5-327). Based on this increase,
development of the proposed SPA Plan will require the construction of gravity sewer line to
handle increased flow. In addition, Village Three will be served by constructing a gravity sewer
line in Heritage Road and connecting to the Wolf Canyon/Salt Creek Interceptor. The
development of Village Three cannot occur until the construction of this gravity sewer line is
completed.
Explanation:
The proposed SPA Plan would require the construction of new wastewater conveyance
facilities. Construction of these conveyance facilities would occur in conformance with the
phasing plan in the proposed project's PFFP. Until the sewer line in Heritage Road is
constructed, development within Village Two will be limited so as not to exceed the excess
capacity in the Poggi Canyon Interceptor sewer. Similarly, development of Village Three cannot
proceed until the Heritage Road connection to the Salt Creek Interceptor is complete.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 65
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EJR, Subchapter 5.13.3, page 5-327]
5.13.3-1
5.13.3-2
5.13.3-3
Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on-site and off-site in
accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Financing
Plan.
Prior to the recordation of the first Final Map or grading permit that creates any
parcel located within the Wolf Canyon/Salt Creek Sewer Basin, the City Engineer
shall be satisfied that the connections to the gravity sewer system from the
southern portion of Village Two have been designed and secured to convey flow
to Heritage Road and southerly to the Salt Creek Interceptor.
In order to ensure the timely construction of the Heritage Road regional facility,
prior to the first final map that creates any parcel located within the Wolf
Canyon/Salt Creek Sewer Basin, the necessary right-of-way for constructing full
street improvements within the SPA Plan boundary shall be granted to the City.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, 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.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: 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 police protection services.
Threshold 2: Additionally, according to the City's Threshold Standards Policy, the project
would have a significant impact on police services if it:
· Exceeds the City's threshold standards to respond to Priority One emergency calls
throughout the city (within seven minutes in 81 percent of the cases and an average
response time to all Priority One calls of 5.5 minutes or less).
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 66
.
Exceeds the City's threshold standards to respond to Priority Two urgent calls
throughout the city (within seven minutes in 57 percent of cases and an average
response time to all Priority Two calls of 7.5 minutes or less).
-
Impact:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in a direct,
significant impact to law enforcement because of the predicted increase in calls for service and
the additional travel time required to respond to these calls (Section 5.13, page 5-333).
Explanation:
The Police Department is currently meeting the threshold standards for Priority One calls, but
not meeting the threshold standards for Priority Two calls. Development of the proposed project
would result in an incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of the
project, officers would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service.
Increased travel time lengthens response time.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13.5, page 5-
334].
-
5.13.5-1
Prior to the approval of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDI F). The proposed Public Facilities
Financing Plan describes public facilities fees for police services based on
equivalent dwelling units by development phase. The applicant(s) shall pay the
public facilities fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
5.13.5-2
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 Committee on an annual basis.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, 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 EI R to a level of
insignificance.
FIRE PROTECTION
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: 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
-.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 67
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the fire protection and
emergency services.
Threshold 2: Additionally, the City's Threshold Standards Policy states that the proposed
project would have a significant impact on fire protection services if it would:
. Reduce the ability to respond tQ calls throughout the City within the City's
threshold standard to respond to calls within seven minutes in 80 percent of the
cases.
Impact:
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response
time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed within Village Nine of the Otay Valley
parcel and within Village Thirteen of the Proctor Valley parcel to help ensure GMOC threshold
standards are met. Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan will result in direct, significant
impacts if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the increase in demand (Section
5.13, pages 5-335 through 5-336).
Explanation:
The Chula Vista Fire Department currently exceeds the threshold standards established for
response time. Increased response time is attributable, in part, to increased travel time, which
results from responding to freeway incidents; the lower density, hilly terrain; and the more
circuitous non-grid nature of many streets in new residential developments in eastern Chula
Vista, which includes the SPA Plan area. According to the Fire Station Master Plan, a nine-
station network at General Plan buildout is needed to maintain compliance with the threshold
standard. These stations would help ensure adequate service within the requirements of the
GMOC threshold standards. Impacts to fire and emergency medical services would be
significant if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated
population growth and increased demand for services.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.13, page 5-336]
5.13.6-1
Prior to the approval of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) at the rate in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
5.13.6-2
The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor Chula Vista Fire Department
responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the
Growth Management Oversight Committee on an annual basis.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 68
Findinq: -
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, 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 EI R to a level of
insignificance.
SCHOOLS
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: 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.
Threshold 2: According to the Otay Ranch GDP, impacts would be significant if the proposed
SPA Plan project locates schools:
. In areas where disturbing factors such as traffic hazards, airports, or other incompatible
land uses are present;
. In areas where they are not integrated into the system of alternative transportation
corridors, such as bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit;
. Where private elementary and secondary schools are not spaced far enough from public
schools and each other to prevent an overconcentration of school impacts;
. Without at least 10 usable acres for an elementary school;
. Without a central location to residential development;
. Adjacent to a street or road which cannot safely accommodate bike, foot, and vehicular
traffic;
. In areas not adjacent to parks, thereby discouraging joint field and recreation facility
uses;
-"
. At an unsafe distance (as required by law) from contaminants or toxins in the soil or
groundwater from landfills, fuel tanks, agricultural areas, power lines, utility easements,
and so on; or
· Inside of floodplains; on unstable soils; or near fault lines.
Impact:
Project implementation would result in a direct, significant impact to schools unless construction
of facilities coincide with student generation and associated service demands (Section 5.13,
pages 5-338 through 340).
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 69
Explanation:
The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,515 students between
elementary, middle school, and high school grades as shown on Table 5.13-18 of the EIR.
Proposed development and the projected increase in the number of elementary, middle school,
and high school students would have a significant impact on the existing schools since they are
already near capacity. According to the adopted Otay Ranch GDP School Facility
Implementation Plan, schools are planned to be constructed at the time that 50 percent of the
projected students reside in the community. Potentially direct, significant impacts to school
services would result if construction of new facilities does not coincide with need.
Mitiqation Measures:
Provision of school facilities is the responsibility of the school district when additional demand
warrants. Government Code 65995(b) provides that the statutory fees are the exclusive means
of considering as well as mitigating for school impacts. It does not just limit the mitigation that
may be required, but also limits the scope of review and the findings to be adopted for school
impacts. Once the statutory fee is imposed, the impact would be mitigated because of the
provision that statutory fees constitute full and complete mitigation. Therefore, implementation of
the mitigation measures set forth below would reduce the impact to schools to below a level of
significance for the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM. The following mitigation
measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the
applicant through these findings [EIR Subchapter 5.13.7, page 5-341].
5.13.7-1
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay all required
school mitigation fees or enter into an agreement to help finance the needed
facilities and services for the Chula Vista Elementary School District to the
satisfaction of the School District.
5.13.7-2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay all required
school mitigation fees or enter into an agreement to help finance the needed
facilities and services for the Sweetwater Union High School District to the
satisfaction of the School District.
FindinQ:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
liBRARY SERVICE
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1 : Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 70
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 library services.
Threshold 2: Additionally, the City's Threshold Standards Policy states that the proposed
project would have a significant impact on library services if it would fail to meet
the City's threshold standard of 500 gross square feet of library space,
adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 population.
-"
Impact:
There is currently a shortfall of approximately 6,500 square feet of library space in the city. The
projected increase in population associated with the proposed SPA Plan would result additional
demands on library services. Direct, significant impacts to library services would result if
construction of new library facilities does not coincide with need (Section 5.13, pages 5-342
through 5-343).
Explanation:
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan project and Composite TM would generate a greater
population and would, therefore, require additional library facilities. An estimated population
increase of 8,458 people corresponds to an increased library demand of 4,250 square feet. A
potentially significant impact would result from the development of the proposed SPA Plan and
the Composite TM if construction of new library facilities and provision of additional documents
does not coincide with project implementation and associated population growth.
-,
Mitioation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13.8, page 5-343].
5.13.8-1 Prior to approval of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay Public Facilities
Development Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Applicants shall
pay required Public Facility Development Impact fees at the rate in effect at the time
of permit issuance.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
PARKS AND RECREATION
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 71
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment;
Threshold 2: Increases 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;
Threshold 3: The City's Threshold Standards Policy states that the proposed project would
have a significant impact on parks and recreation services if it fails to meet the City's threshold
standard of dedicating three acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000
residents.
Impact:
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM would generate increased
demand for parks and recreation facilities. A direct, significant impact could result if dedication
of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and
project population growth (Section 5.13, pages 5-345 and 5-346).
Explanation:
The proposed SPA Plan area is required to provide 25.4 acres of community/neighborhood
parkland. The proposed SPA Plan meets these requirements by providing a centrally located
7.1-acre Neighborhood Park, a 6.9-acre Neighborhood Park in the eastern area of the village, a
1.4-acre Town Square in the Village Core, and 44.2 (net) acres of Community Park in a portion
of Village Four for a total of 59.6 acres. However, if construction of new facilities does not
coincide with the increase in demand as a result of implementation of the proposed SPA Plan,
impacts would be significant.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.13.9, page 5-346].
5.13.9-1 Prior to the approval of the first final map, the applicant(s) shall dedicate
neighborhood and community parkland. Prior to approval of the final map, or for
projects not requiring a final map, prior to building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay
park development fees; and prior to building permit the applicant(s) shall pay
recreation development impact fees in accordance with the fees and phasing
approved in the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the SPA Plan.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.13, Subchapter 5.13.9, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of
the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 72
that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR
to a level of insignificance.
~,.
HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a
significant hazard to the public or the environment would be created;
Threshold 2: Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
Threshold 3: Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
Threshold 4: Emits hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
Threshold 5: 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;
-
Threshold 6: Is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
Threshold 7: Impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
Threshold 8: Exposes people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas.
Impacts related to hazards were identified in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR. Because the
EIR is a second tier of the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, the impacts identified in the Program
EIR will also serve as the thresholds for determining impacts related to public health and safety
for the propose SPA Plan.
Threshold 9: Increase in urbanization would 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. Mitigation involves adherence to -
federal, state, and local laws and regulation regarding hazardous materials, and
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 73
emergency evacuation routes. Impacts would be reduced to levels below
significance.
Threshold 10: Historic use of pesticides which would result in soil contamination and health
effects. Mitigation involves conducting soil testing in appropriate areas. Impacts
would be reduced to levels below significance.
Impact: Historic use of pesticides which would result in soil contamination and health
effects.
The project will result in a direct impact to public health and safety due to soil contamination at
the project site (Section 5.14, pages 5-357 through 5-359).
Explanation:
The extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil beneath the former UST on Village Two have been
adequately assessed and excavated. Soil samples collected from the bottom and sidewalls of
the excavation do not exhibit TPHgrrPHd concentrations at or above the laboratory detection
limits and are not considered a risk to public safety or the environment. The Phase I ESA
conducted for Village Three concluded that there is a potential for agriculturally developed
portions of the subject property to be impacted by residual agricultural, including soil
augmenting and chemicals. Elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides were present in the
soils at the Village Four site. Fifteen composite soil samples taken from the Village Four
Community Park Site exhibited concentrations of toxaphene exceeding one-quarter of the
residential PRGs. Concentrations of OCPs exceeding residential PRGs are generally limited to
the upper two feet of soil. The concentrations of the pesticides in the soils at the Village Four
Community Park Site would be considered a significant risk to public safety and mitigation
would be required.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.14, page 5-360].
In addition to implementation of BMPs for the protection of water quality (see Chapter 5.9,
Water Resources and Water Quality), the following mitigation measures are required to reduce
significant impacts associated with the potential exposure to hazardous materials.
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM could potentially result in public
health and safety impacts related to soil contamination at the project site and would require the
following mitigation:
5.14-1 If soil is to be exported from the site during proposed grading and other construction
activities, it should be characterized prior to proposed off-site use or disposal and
handled in accordance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. In addition,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 74
contractors performing proposed grading and construction activities should employ
adequate dust control measures to minimize exposure to soil and dust at the site.
-
5.14-2 If soil exhibiting hydrocarbon staining and/or odors are encountered at the site during
grading and/or construction, the soil should be evaluated by a qualified professional
(such as a professional engineer, registered geologist, or registered environmental
assessor experienced in hazardous waste evaluations) and handled in accordance
with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.10, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
x.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
-,
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"
(Pub. Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (b)). Several development proposals have been
submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula in proximity of
the project site. These "current or probable future" development proposals can affect many of
the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the SPA Plan.
Potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of the project in
conjunction with these surrounding development projects.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have
been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative
impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This reflects the inability of the
Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions (Le., City of San
Diego, City of National City, and Caltrans) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to
cumulative impacts. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the following
irreversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to
pages in the EI R.
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) provided a comprehensive examination of the
cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the entire Otay Ranch in conjunction with other
related projects. The proposed SPA Plan project would not substantially change the conclusions
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 75
of the cumulative impact analysis from the Otay Ranch GDP EIR, since the proposed SPA Plan
project is consistent with the adopted GDP for Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four.
Impact: Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Implementation of the SPA Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the remaining portions of Otay
Ranch, and other nearby projects, will contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of
undeveloped land to urban uses. The overall loss of agricultural land and change in the
character and use of the site from rural agricultural to urban would have a significant cumulative
land use impact (EIR, Subchapter 5.0, page 5.4), as identified in the GDP Program EIR (EIR
#90-01 ).
Explanation:
There are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance.
In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that
there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significant, and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The City Council determined that the
cumulative land use impacts were acceptable because of the specific overriding considerations.
Mitiqation Measures:
The City Council found in adopting the findings to approve the Otay Ranch GDP that there are
no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact of the conversion of land to urban uses to
below a level of significance. Therefore, the SPA Plan, as a project that implements the GDP,
would contribute to this cumulatively significant unmitigable impact.
Findinq:
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to
section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR..
Impact: Landform AlterationNisual Quality
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would contribute to a change in the visual quality of the
region. In addition, the project would contribute to the cumulative nighttime impacts identified in
the Otay Ranch GDP EIR.
Explanation:
The visual quality would be affected by the change in character from a rural to an urban setting
and overall landform alteration. Impacts to the nighttime visual setting would also occur from
the cumulative addition of lights as Otay Ranch and surrounding proposed projects are
implemented.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 76
Mitioation Measures:
Cumulative visual impacts related to the change in visual character for the Otay Ranch and
other major projects in the region would remain significant. No mitigation has been identified for
the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact, and therefore, the Village Two, Three, and
Portion of Four SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to a change in
the visual character of the project area that cannot be fully mitigated.
--
Findino:
The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project Alternative. However, this
alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project as discussed in
Section 3.3 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative
infeasible. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Impact: Biological Resources
Development of the SPA Plan will contribute to a cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat. The
loss of raptor foraging habitat also was identified as a significant impact in the GDP Program
EIR (EIR #90-01).
-.
Explanation:
The GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) identified the loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant
cumulative impact. The SPA Plan will result in impacts to non-native grasslands and
agricultural lands used by foraging raptors. Therefore, the SPA Plan and Composite TM, as a
project that implements the GDP, will contribute to this significant cumulative impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
The City Council found in adopting the findings to approve the Otay Ranch GDP that there are
no mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of the loss of foraging habitat to below a
level of significance. Adoption of the No Project Alternative is the only means to lessen the
impact to raptor foraging habitat. However, adoption of the No Project alternative would not
achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in the EIR. The SPA Plan, as a project
that implements the GDP, would contribute to this cumulatively significant unmitigable impact.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. As described in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that
these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Findinq:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Development of the
proposed SPA Plan would contribute to the cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat identified
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 77
in the approved GDP Program EIR #90-01. Adoption of the No Project Alternative is the only
means to lessen the impact to raptor foraging habitat. However, adoption of the No Project
alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in the EIR. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Cultural Resources
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative loss of
cultural resources.
Explanation:
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR made a Finding of Overriding Considerations, whereby the
benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweigh the significant cumulative impacts to cultural
resources. No new cumulative impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the original GDP
Program EIR (#90-01) would occur from implementation of the project. However, because of
the continuing depletion of the archaeological record through general development, cumulative
impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitiaation Measure:
No mitigation has been identified for the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact. Therefore,
the SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources that
cannot be fully mitigated.
Findina:
The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Adoption of the No
Project Alternative does not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project discussed in
the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Agricultural Resources
The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops would result in a
significant cumulative impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
limited agricultural resources. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with
agricultural operations would create indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between
the agricultural uses and urban uses.
Explanation:
Development of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in a significant impact to
agricultural resources, due to the loss of 858.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and the
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 78
conversion of 321.72 acres of Grazing Land to urban uses. The loss of this acreage would result
in a significant unavoidable impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land. In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve
the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate the impact below a level of significant, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was adopted. This impact is identical to that assessed in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR
(EIR #90-01). The SPA Plan would not result in any new significant adverse impacts to
agricultural resources, or an intensification of such impacts, that were not analyzed in GDP
Program EIR.
-
Furthermore, noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural
operations would create indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between the
agricultural uses and urban uses.
Mitiqation Measures:
No mitigation has been identified for the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact. Therefore,
the SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources that
cannot be fully mitigated.
Findinq:
The incremental and cumulative loss of agricultural lands, which was considered a significant _
impact in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, remains significant, and no mitigation measures
are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. This incremental loss
remains significant and unmitigated. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable
because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access
The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on segments of 1-
805 [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, pages 5-228].
Explanation:
The analysis contained in Section 5.10 found that cumulative impacts on 1-805 would remain
significant and unavoidable. LOS F was calculated on 1-805 for individual scenarios and the
project adds traffic to this freeway. All required improvements to 1-805 are the responsibility of
Caltrans and SANDAG.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through these findings (ErR, Subchapter 5.10, page 5-234
through 5-242).
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 79
5.10-4 For the following freeway segments, additional lanes would be required to maintain
acceptable LOS. The City of Chula Vista recommends continued freeway planning
efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation
strategies for the regional freeway system.
· Northbound 1-805 from Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street
· Southbound 1-805 from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road
· Southbound 1-805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
· Northbound 1-805 from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road
· Southbound 1-805 from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway
· Southbound 1-805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
Findinq:
While implementation of the measures described above in addition to adherence with applicable
laws and regulations would reduce significant cumulative impacts to freeway segments below a
level of significance, improvement to 1-805 is the responsibility of SANDAG and outside the
jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(2) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be
adopted by such other agency. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
Impact: Air Quality
The proposed project will result in temporary and long-term air quality impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. Once the proposed project is built out, the
major source of air pollution wi/I be from project-related traffic. The analysis of air quality
impacts contained in Section 5.11 included an analysis of cumulative impacts to air quality and
found that the cumulative impacts related to long-term mobile emissions would be significant.
Explanation:
The region is currently classified as attainment for all criterion pollutants except Ozone. As of
April 15, the region was classified as non-attainment for Ozone as a result of the application of
the eight-hour Ozone standard. Ozone is not emitted directly, but is a result of atmospheric
activity on precursors. Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (reactive organic gases) are known
as the chief "precursors" of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to
produce ozone.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 80
Because of the nature of the formation of ozone, it is a regional issue, rather than a localized
one. The construction of the proposed project represents a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the emission of ozone precursors, and a significant and unavoidable cumulative
air quality impact. This impact is identical to the significant and unmitigable impact to air quality
that was identified and assessed in the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01), and overridden in the
City's Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the adopted Otay Ranch GDP.
..-....."
Mitiqation Measures:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively sig"nificant impact to less than significant
levels.
FindinQ:
Project-related traffic emiSSions will exceed the identified significance thresholds for ozone
precursors. There is no feasible mitigation available for this cumulative impact because it is a
regional issue. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EtA. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Public Services and Utilities
WATER
The proposed project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water
consumption, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply.
-
Explanation:
Cumulative impacts to water supply associated with ongoing development, including the
proposed SPA Plan, are anticipated on a regional scale. The WSA&V report prepared by OWD
for the proposed project relied on water supply forecasts based on the projected potable water
demands supplied entirely with imported water received from the SDCW A. However, the
SDCWA relies in part on a water transfer with the Imperial Irrigation District and the agreement
that provides for the water transfer is being challenged in court. In light of these cases, the
assumption that the 110 water transfer water will be available is questionable. Since the 110
water transfer is being challenged, it is possible that the water from 110 will not be available as
anticipated. In the absence of this water a significant water supply impact would result.
Mitiqation Measure:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant
levels.
Findinq:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or -
other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 81
the EIR. The water supply impact remains significant because the issue of availability of water
that was relied on to determine that there will be a sufficient supply is currently being litigated.
Until the resolution of those actions, the anticipated water supply is not assured. The resolution
of this issue is outside of the purview of the City. Because there are no applicable or feasible
mitigation measures within the control of the City to reduce water supply impacts to below a
level of significance, those impacts remain significant and unmitigated. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
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 environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decision makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these
circumstances, CEOA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the
significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption
of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe
than those of the 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" (CEOA Guidelines, section 15126).
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 82
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible"
pursuant to CEOA. CEOA 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 CEOA Guidelines
provide a broader definition of ''feasibility'' that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEOA
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.RptrA1 0]).
~,
Accordingly, ''feasibility'' is a term of art under CEOA 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 CEOA with regard to
the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project
for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
"Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEOA -
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" (CEOA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (a)(3)).
"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" (CEOA 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.AppAth 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
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 83
alternatives, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and
weighed the ability of the various alternative to meet objectives. The decision makers believe
that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental
impact.
The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but seven significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through
the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal
mitigation measures recommended in the EIA. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the
following:
. Land Use (cumulative - conversion of the site from undeveloped to intensive urban
uses) ;
· Landform Alterations/Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - change in visual character of
the site);
. Biological Resources (cumulative -loss of raptor foraging habitat)
. Cultural Resources (cumulative - depletion of the archaeological record)
. Agricultural Resources (cumulative - loss of agricultural lands);
. Air Quality (cumulative - operation-related emissions)
. Public Services and Utilities: Water Supply (cumulative - absence of sufficient water
supply to serve the project)
The GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) also identified significant and not mitigated impacts for
land use, agricultural resources, air quality, landform alterations/aesthetics, and biological
resources. The SPA Plan project would contribute to the significant, unmitigated impacts
identified above and by the GDP Program EIA. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
previously adopted by City Council for the GDP Program EIR, from which the SPA Plan EIR
tiers.
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives
identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts
listed above (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County
Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426]). Table 10-9 in the EIR (EIR, Chapter 10, pages 10-30
through 10-36) provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 84
discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally
superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts.
-,
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular
alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings
will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits
of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts - even though such 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.
Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement
development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in
Section III. The City evaluated four alternatives to the proposed project, which are discussed
below (No Project/No Development Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative A, Reduced
Development Alternative 8, and Reduced Development Alternative C).
No Project/No Development Alternative
Section 15126, subdivision(e), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the "No
Projecf' alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not -,
approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services."
Under the "No Project/No Development" alternative, the SPA Plan project site would remain as
it is today, and no development would occur. The project site would remain as undeveloped,
agricultural land with residential development to the north and planned future urban
development to the west, east and south.
The proposed SPA Plan project is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP. The No Project/No
Development alternative would not aI/ow for the development of the SPA Plan as identified in
the Otay Ranch GDP. With respect to the unmitigated impacts discussed in Section 5.0 of the
EIR, the No Project/No Development alternative would not result in direct impacts to landform
alteration, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, paleontological
resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, utilities and public services, and hazards/risk of
upset. Cumulative impacts to landform and aesthetics, biological resources, agricultural
resources, transportation and access, and public utilities. However, impacts to land use would
occur because the project would not implement the City's General Plan, MSCP Subarea Plan or
the Otay Ranch GDP, and would not provide housing opportunities within the City, With the No
Project/No Development alternative, the site would not be permanently removed from future
development, since applicable plans for the site identify its development.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 85
Although the No ProjecVNo Development alternative is considered environmentally preferable to
the proposed project because it would eliminate many direct and cumulative impacts, it would
not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the proposed project and is therefore not
feasible. Additionally, this alternative would result in land use conflicts because it would not
allow for implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP for Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four.
Findinas:
The No ProjecVNo Development alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives
as listed in Section 3.3, Project Objectives, of the EIR, and in Section III of these Findings of
Fact.
The No ProjecVNo Development alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the
housing goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income
groups.
Retention of the project site in its existing state as primarily agricultural fields would be
inconsistent with the approved General Plan and existing Otay Ranch GDP land use
designations for the site. In addition, key subregional traffic routes established in the Circulation
Element would not be implemented.
Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals of the General
Plan and would require re-evaluation of the existing GDP. The project proposes to provide
regional-serving public facilities designated in the community plan, including Circulation Element
roads, parks, open space, water and sewer facilities, and other infrastructure. These facilities
would be needed to support surrounding developments whether the project is implemented or
not. The No ProjecVNo Development alternative would require that these facilities be provided
without the benefit of the dedications and financial participation from private development, which
may delay or preclude facilities from being provided. The reduction in dwelling units would result
in a loss of anticipated contributions into the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) from the
dwelling units/structures that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building
permits. The loss of units under the No ProjecVNo Development alternative would result in a
shortfall of contributions into the PFFP and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the
remaining public facilities currently identified in the PFFP for construction in this area.
The City and County would receive lower long-term revenues in the form of property and sales
tax resulting from the non-development of the proposed residential areas.
Implementation of the No ProjecVNo Development Alternative would not achieve any of the
objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily
preserve land which is currently not developed, agricultural land and other natural features on
the project site, it would amount to a failure to plan the site for eventual development, despite
the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan GDP.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 86
The No Project/No Development Alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the -
project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public
services and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the City's
circulation; and to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure.
The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected
population in an area reasonable close to future job-growth areas within the City, as well as the
construction of affordable housing consistent with the City's goals.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project/No Development Alternative
is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Ca\.App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
Cal.AppAth at 715).
Reduced Development Alternative A
The Reduced Development Alternative A designates the proposed SPA Plan area for low~
medium residential at three to six dwelling units per acre, distributed around a Village Core,
which includes higher density single- and multi-family residential use, an elementary school site,
a community park site, a mixed-use site, two neighborhood park sites, and research and limited
industrial uses. The detail of this land use is provided in Table 10-2 and the layout is provided in
Figure 1 0-1 of the EI R.
Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative A would reduce the available housing within the SPA
Plan area by approximately 37 percent relative to the proposed project. The reduction in
available housing within the project area would reduce the ability of the City to meet the
SANDAG-projected need for an additional 20,823 dwelling units by 2010. The lack of housing
concurrent with need as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan
would result in a potentially significant impact.
-"
As a result of the development the Reduced Development Alternative A of the Village Three
portion of the project, significant impacts to CA-SDI-12,291b, as identified in Section 5.4 of the
EIR, would be avoided. Therefore, as a result of completion of the Reduced Development
Alternative A, no significant impact will result to ~ultural resources.
The direct impacts to sensitive biological resources under the Reduced Development Alternative
A would be greater than the proposed project's. The current development footprint pursuant to
the adopted Subarea Plan permits an impact to 0.98 acre of Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic
species, containing 25,000 tarplants. Under the proposed project, the project Boundary
Adjustment conserves the estimated 25,000 Otay tarplants that would be otherwise impacted
without the Boundary Adjustment.
The development under this alternative would result in higher predestination flows to the Poggi
Canyon basin from the Village Two Northwest subbasin. An additional detention basin would be
required for peak flow from the Village Two West area. The development of Reduced
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 87
Development Alternative A would control the rate of on-site, post-development peak storm water
runoff discharges. The Reduced Development Alternative A proposes significant grading
modifications as compared to the proposed project. A portion of Wolf Canyon which is located
in the MSCP preserve would not be filled in from development of this alternative. As such, there
would be a measurable reduction in the volume or quality of the runoff from the site.
The traffic analysis conducted for this project indicated that the cumulative traffic effects of the
Reduced Development Alternative A would not impact any intersections in the study area. It
would, however, adversely affect eight roadway segments in the vicinity of the project.
In addition, under the Reduced Development Alternative A, the eight segments of 1-805 are
calculated to deteriorate to LOS E or LOS F (The remaining segments are calculated to operate
at LOS D or better.), as discussed in Section 10.2, page 10-8 of the EIR.
Air quality impacts associated with vehicular trips would be reduced under the Reduced
Development Alternative A. Short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would
be slightly reduced because the area and extent of grading would be reduced because
development under this alternative would not extend into a part of Wolf Canyon. There could be
a slight decrease in overall long-term air quality impacts associated with power generation and
the operation of on-site commercial facilities due to the reduced population. Overall, the
reduction in air quality impacts would be minor and the cumulative impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
As with the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative A would increase the
number of elementary, middle, and high school students beyond the existing demand and would
have a significant impact on the existing schools. It does, however, have fewer students than is
represented by the proposed project.
Implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative A would result in increased demand
on existing library services, including a need for approximately 2,624 square feet of library
facilities based on the expected project population of people of 5,249. It does, however, result in
a reduction in the demand for library facilities.
Findinqs:
The Reduced Development Alternative A would reduce impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, schools, libraries. However, significant impacts have been identified for land use,
housing and population, traffic and air quality. While the alternative would implement some of
the project objectives of the proposed project, the following objectives would not be met with this
alternative:
. Establ,ish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 88
-
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan,
and particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the
Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the
Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
The Reduced Development Alternative A results in a much less intense development than is the
proposed project. The proposed project includes a total of 2786 residential units while this
alternative 1791 units. As stated on Page 10-4 of the draft EIR, this alternative was designed
with medium and medium-high density residential areas, rather than the more intense
development of the proposed project. It also does not place as much residential use in the
Village core area. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and
promotion of a walkable community. In addition, the Reduced Development Alternative A does
not place fill in the finger canyon that extends north of the mouth of Wolf Canyon. This area is
currently being considered to be removed from the Preserve as part of the proposed Boundary
Adjustment. By not filling this area it would not result in the net benefit to conservation of
Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-7 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to
section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
-,
Reduced Alternative 8
The Reduced Development Alternative B designates Village Two as a ''transit village" served by
the future extension of the Bus Rapid Transit, which integrates SANDAG's adopted Transit First!
Strategy into the Otay Ranch and locates a station within Village Two. The station location in
Village Two would serve as a vital stop for travel to other Otay Ranch and regional destinations.
The detail of this alternative is provided in Table 10-4 and illustrated in Figure 10-2, of the EIR.
Impact
Development under the Reduced Development Alternative B would reduce the amount of
housing available within the SPA Plan area by approximately 10 percent fewer units relative to
the proposed project. This would reduce the ability of the City of Chula Vista to meet the
projected need for an additional 20,823 dwelling units by 2010. The lack of housing concurrent
with needs as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan would result in
a potentially significant impact.
As with Reduced Development Alternative A, the direct impacts to sensitive biological resources
under the Reduced Development Alternative B would be greater than the proposed project's.
The current development footprint pursuant to the adopted Subarea Plan permits an impact to
0.98 acre of Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic species, containing 25,000 tarplants. Under the
proposed project, the project Boundary Adjustment conserves the estimated 25,000 Otay
tarplants that would be otherwise impacted without the Boundary Adjustment.
~,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 89
As a result of the development the Reduced Development Alternative B of the Village Three
portion of the project, significant impacts to CA-SDI-12,291 b, as identified in Section 5.4 of the
EIR, would be avoided. Therefore, as for Reduced Development Alternative A, no significant
impact will result to cultural resources as a result of implementing this alternative.
As with the proposed project, Reduced Development Alternative B would increase the number
of elementary, middle, and high school students beyond the existing demand and would have a
significant impact on the existing schools. It does, however, have fewer students than is
represented by the proposed project.
Implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative B would result in increased demand
on existing library services, including a need for approximately 3,810 square feet of library
facilities based on the expected project population of people of 7,620. It does, however, result
in a reduction in the demand for library facilities.
FindinQs:
The Reduced Development Alternative B would reduce impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, schools, libraries. However, significant impacts have been identified for land use,
housing and population, traffic and air quality. While the alternative would implement some of
the project objectives of the proposed project, the following objectives would not be met with this
alternative:
. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan,
and particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the
Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the
Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
The Reduced Development Alternative A results -in a much less intense development than is the
proposed project. The proposed project includes a total of 2786 residential units while this
alternative 1791 units. As stated on Page 10-4 of the draft EIR, this alternative was designed
with medium and medium-high density residential areas, rather than the more intense
development of the proposed project. It also does not place as much residential use in the
Village core area. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and
promotion of a walkable community. In addition, the Reduced Development Alternative A does
not place fill in the finger canyon that extends north of the mouth of Wolf Canyon. This area is
currently being considered to be removed from the Preserve as part of the proposed Boundary
Adjustment. By not filling this area it would not result in the net benefit to conservation of
Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-7 of the EtA. Therefore, pursuant to
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 90
section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
-
The Reduced Development Alternative B includes 1,801 multi-family units, no mixed-use units
and 709 single-family units. The proposed project includes 1,740 multi-family units, 60 mixed-
use residential units and 986 single-family units.
The Reduced Development Alternative B result~ in a less intense development than is the
proposed project. This alternative was designed with less multi family residential use in the
Village Core area. As indicated on page 10-12 of the EI R, while this alternative It therefore limits
the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In
addition, the Reduced Development Alternative B does not place fill in the finger canyon that
extends north of the mouth of Wolf Canyon. This area is currently being considered to be
removed from the Preserve as part of the proposed Boundary Adjustment. By not filling this
area it would not result in the net benefit to conservation of Covered Species and habitats as
described on page 10-12 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
alternative infeasible.
Reduced Alternative C
The land- uses for the Reduced Development Alternative C include approximately 2,393
residential units, of which 1,130 units are single-family and 1,263 units are multi-family and
approximately 255.1 acres of industrial development (including 70.8 within the landfill buffer),
and the remaining acres would be developed with non-residential uses. The Industrial uses
proposed within the landfill buffer are consistent with the adopted G DP. Figure 10-3 shows the
land use plan for the Reduced Development Alternative C. Table 10-6 presents a tabulation of
the proposed uses for the SPA Plan for this Alternative. There would be no development within
Wolf Canyon under this alternative.
-,
Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative C would reduce the amount of housing available within
the SPA Plan area by approximately 18.4 percent. This would reduce the ability of the City of
Chula Vista to meet the projected need for an additional 20,823 dwelling units by 2010. The
Reduced Development Alternative C would not be in conformance with those policies as
outlined in SANDAG's Growth Management Plan. The lack of housing concurrent with needs
as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan would result in a
potentially significant impact.
As with Reduced Development Alternatives A and S, the direct impacts to sensitive biological
resources under the Reduced Development Alternative C would be greater than the proposed
project's. The current development footprint pursuant to the adopted Subarea Plan permits an
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 91
impact to 0.98 acre of Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic species, containing 25,000 tarplants.
Under the proposed project, the project Boundary Adjustment conserves the estimated 25,000
Otay tarplants that would be otherwise impacted without the Boundary Adjustment.
As a result of the development the Reduced Development Alternative B of the Village Three
portion of the project, significant impacts to CA-SDI-12,291 b, as identified in Section 5.4 of the
EIR, would be avoided. Therefore, as for Reduced Development Alternative A, no significant
impact will result to cultural resources as a result of implementing this alternative.
As with the proposed project, Reduced Development Alternative C would increase the number
of elementary, middle, and high school students beyond the existing demand and would have a
significant impact on the existing schools. It does, however, have fewer students than is
represented by the proposed project.
Implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative C would result in increased demand
on existing library services, including a need for approximately 3,590 square feet of library
facilities based on the expected project population of people of 7,179. It does, however, result
in a reduction in the demand for library facilities.
FindinQs:
The Reduced Development Alternative C would reduce impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, schools, libraries. However, significant impacts have been identified for land use,
housing and population, traffic and air quality. While the alternative would implement some of
the project objectives of the proposed project, the following objectives would not be met with this
alternative:
· Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
· Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan,
and particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the
Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the
Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
· Establish a land use and facility plan that assures the viability of the SPA Plan area in
consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions.
. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
The proposed project includes 1,740 multi-family units, 60 mixed-use residential units and 986
single-family units. The Reduced Development Alternative C includes 1,130 multi-family units,
no mixed-use units and 1263 single-family units. This alternative results in a less intense
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 92
development than is the proposed project. This alternative was designed with less multi family
residential use in the Village Core area. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on
the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In addition, the Reduced Development
Alternative C does not place fill in the finger canyon that extends north of the mouth of Wolf
Canyon. This area is currently being considered to be removed from the Preserve as part of the
proposed Boundary Adjustment. By not filling this area it would not result in the net benefit to
conservation of Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-24 of the EI R.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
...........
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the
alternatives considered, including the proposed project. If the No Project/No Development
alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the EIR also shall identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the EIR indicates, through a
comparison of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternative and the proposed project,
that the No Project/No Development alternative, if left in its current state, could be considered
environmentally superior because no new uses would be introduced to the area and the project
site would not result in environmental impacts. However, the No Project/No Development
alternative would not implement the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or the RMP,
which are primary project objectives. The No Project/No Development alternative would not
accomplish any of the objectives of the project.
-,
The Reduced Project Alternative A could be considered the environmentally superior project
because it would reduce impacts associated with land use, visual quality/landform alteration,
cultural resources, traffic, air quality, noise, utilities and services, and water quality while
implementing some of the project objectives. The project objectives are enumerated in Section
3.3 of the EI R.
~
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 93
XII.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED
VILLAGES TWO. THREE, AND A PORTION OF FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAPS EIR
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact:
. Land Use
. Landform Alterations/Aesthetics
. Biological Resources
. Agricultural Resources
. Transportation
. Air Quality
. Water supply
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project
objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the proposed project.
As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 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.
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 94
CEOA 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. (CEOA Guidelines
Section 15093.)
-
The City finds that the proposed project would have the following substantial, social,
environmental and economic benefits. Anyone 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.
Environmental Protection and Preservation
The SPA Plan will adjust the boundary of the MSCP Subarea Preserve to include a large portion
of Wolf Canyon. As identified on Page 10-7 of the EIR, there is net benefit to conservation of
Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-7 of the EIR.
--
The SPA Plan will convey 1.188 acres of land to the open space preserve for each acre of
development area, or pay a fee in lieu. The RMP has established performance standards for
achieving an 11 ,375-acre Otay Ranch open space preserve. Compliance relies on progressive
acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the designated Otay Ranch Preserve areas with each
development approval.
The preserve includes an open space system that incorporates public education programs, links
community to natural areas, and preserves and restores sensitive habitats, special landforms,
and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system of paths and trails will connect the urban villages
and their parks, forming a passive and active recreation network throughout the area. The RMP
adopted by the Chula Vista City Council has the following functions.
· Serves as a plan-wide multi-species/habitat and cultural resources management
program;
· Provides the funding, phasing, and ownership mechanisms necessary to effectively
protect and manage on-site resources over the long term;
· Plans for coordinated, controlled public use and enjoyment of the Management Preserve
established as part of the RMP consistent with protection of sensitive resources;
· Provides certainty that the open space will be preserved in perpetuity by requiring
irrevocable dedications of open space acreage; and
..........,
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 95
. Preserves/protects cultural resources.
The RMP provides for management, resource enhancement and restoration, research,
education, and interpretive activities to ensure that resource values in areas to be preserved are
maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. The RMP also addresses cultural, paleontological,
recreational, and agricultural resource protection needs in addition to sensitive habitats. Finally,
the RMP provides an opportunity to establish large blocks of interconnected natural open space.
By linking the Otay Ranch Preserve system to large and adjacent publicly owned open space
lands with resource values similar to those found on the Otay Ranch property, the RMP
contributes to the creation of an overall regional open space system, providing more than
35,000 acres of interconnected open space in Otay Ranch and the immediate vicinity. The
RMP identifies the preservation of sensitive habitats that contain approximately 100 species of
sensitive plants and animals.
Community Planning and Development
The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this
pollution is attributable to motor vehicles. The proposed SPA Plan and the Village concept of
the Otay Ranch GDP are designed to minimize automobile trip length and thereby reduce
pollutant contributions to regional air quality that would otherwise result if jobs and housing were
provided for in a typical suburban development pattern.
Otay Ranch's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide housing proximate
to this employment center. A mixed-use development, the GDP will promote linkage of trips,
reduce trip length, and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking,
walking and use of transit. The project is part of the GDP that creates a multi-modal
transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single-passenger vehicle trips.
Jt is designed to encourage walking, biking, use of transit and reduced reliance on automobiles,
the GDP clusters high-density, high-intensity development in villages near transit and light rail
terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are close by and linked by
pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The GDP and the SPA Plan project provide the opportunity to comprehensively plan
development that meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure, and environmental
preservation. These benefits area made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay
Ranch GDP includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that area
typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process
undertaken for the GDP involved long-range inter-jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum
achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County.
The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the GDP and the SPA Plan
include the following:
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 96
· Comprehensive consideration of the GDP cumulative effects;
,,,.."Ih
· Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air
quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure, and public services planning; and
· Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities.
The GDP includes a provision for designating land for regional public facilities. These facilities
area provided by the County and are currently housed in County-owned facilities, where
available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation of land for
regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide better opportunities
for users of these facilities than is currently available with new development.
The SPA Plan will develop a mix of uses that will result in an urban village once the entire
Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four area is developed. The project is consistent with and
implements the vision for Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four, as set forth in the Otay
Ranch GDP.
Housing Needs
The GDP and SPA Plan/Composite TM will help meet a projected long-term regional need for
housing by providing a wide variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of
housing compared to other uses (e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the
cost of other uses in the Otay Ranch area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The
GDP and the SPA Plan will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply
of suitable land for residential development.
-,
The SPA Plan increases the housing stock in the City by approximately 2,786 dwelling units.
This proposed level of development is included in the adopted planning for the City. The project
represents a future housing supply for the region. Phasing will occur in response to market
conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for housing.
SANDAG has forecasted a need for an additional approximately 20,823 additional dwelling units
within the City of Chula Vista. The project will enact the SANDAG policies by providing a
pedestrian and trail system, preserving open space, offering new homes, increasing the tax
base for the City, and providing right-of-way for the regional transit system.
The SPA Plan provides five percent low-income and five percent moderate-income housing.
The proposed 10 percent affordable housing is consistent with the objectives of the City's
Housing Element and the Otay Ranch GDP requirements.
-
Resolution No. 2006-154
Page 97
Fiscal Benefit
The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the GDP and included in the Otay Ranch Service
Revenue Plan concluded that, at buildout, the GDP will have a net positive impact on both the
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout
there will be short-term periods in which the costs to service Otay Ranch exceed revenues, the
GDP includes a reserve fund program, which protects the City and County by correcting any
operating deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal
shortfall. Financing of the reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the
responsibility of the applicants.
The project will provide for significant community-wide public facilities. As the plan is
implemented, it will be responsible for constructing public facilities and infrastructure to serve
the project and incidentally the subregion. These facilities include:
· Improvements to regional backbone circulation system;
· Water and sewer facilities;
· An elementary school and a high school site to serve Villages Two, Three, and a portion
of Four and the subregion; and
· A public park and greenbelt and community trails.
The project would also generate new temporary construction-related jobs that would enhance
the economic base of the region.
For these reasons, on balance, the City Council finds there are environmental, economic, social,
and other considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the
project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable
effects are considered acceptable.