Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/08/12 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 12, 1992 Page 1 1. Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Telegraph Canyon Estates Subdivision. EIR-91-05 (SCH No. 91071033) A BACKGROUND: On July 22, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Telegraph Canyon Estates project. At the Planning Commission hearing, two local residents, Veronica Sissons (private citizen) and Norm Ross (Chula Vista Sports Council) commented on the DEIR. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the DEIR was circulated for a forty-five (45) day public review period. Six (6) outside public agencies, the Department of Fish and Game, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), CALTRANS, Office of Planning and Research, Sweetwater Union High School District, and the Chula Vista Elementary School District submitted written comments on the DEIR. Three (3) City Departments, the Engineering Department, City Attorney's office, and Chula Vista Fire Department submitted written comments, And, two (2) private organizations, the Baldwin Company (project applicant) and Eastlake Development Company commented in writing on the DEIR. The Eastlake Development Company letter was received after the close of the public review period, but was also responded to in the FEIR, as a courtesy, During the public review period, the document was taken to the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) for their comments. The RCC unanimously recommended that the Planning Commission certify the EIR. B. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution certifying that the Final EIR (including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; 2. That the Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the EIR prior to reaching a decision on the project; and 3. That the Planning Commission adopt and recommend to the City Council that they adopt the attached CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, I-I City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 24, 1992 Page 2 C. PROJECf DESCRIPTION: The project is a proposed 350 lot single-family residential subdivision with two private park/recreational areas and community purpose facility sites, Approximately 30 acres of open space will remain on the 112.4 acre site. The project requires an Annexation, amendments to the Eastlake General Development Plan (GDP), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, and Planned Community District (PCD) regulations, as well as a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM), It should be noted that the project includes 5.3 acres of parks/recreational and open space facilities, These facilities include a 0,7 acre private recreation center with changing cabana, pool, and spa in the northeast corner of site; private multi-purpose courts for tennis and basketball in the northeast corner of the site; and a 3,l-acre linear garden along the San Diego County Water Authority easement in the center of the site, The FEIR incorrectly states throughout the text and in the "Response to Comments" Section that 5,0 acres of parks/recreational and open space will be provided, Corrections to the FEIR will be made by replacing Table 4.12-1 on Page 140 with the corrected Table in "Attachment A" to this staff report. An Errata Sheet will be placed in the front of the final master EIR pointing out this correction. D. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT: The Final EIR contains responses to comments received during the public review period, including testimony received at the Planning Commission Public Hearing of July 22, 1992 on the DEIR. The FEIR also contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. This FEIR was made available to those who commented on the DEIR from August 5, 1992 to August 12, 1992, The Response to Comments section is located in the front of the Final EIR. The Final EIR also includes responses to comments raised by the RCC and the Planning Commission. Where appropriate, actual text changes have been made to the DEIR and are incorporated by redline/strike out text. Candidate CEOA Findin&S and Overridin~ Considerations Since there are impacts which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included with the Candidate CEQA /.~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 24, 1992 Page 3 Findings for Planning Commission and City Council's consideration on the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required for Air Quality (cumulative), Biology, and Water Availability (cumulative) impacts. Changes in the Final EIR Based on comments received during the public review period, two minor, technical changes have been made to the EIR regarding biology and water availability impacts, Although wetland resources on site are deemed to be of a low habitat value, it is still uncertain how and where wetland mitigation will be achieved for the project. CEQA does not allow the deferral of mitigation, therefore, biology has been changed from "significant, but mitigable" to "significant and unmitigated". If consensus is reached with the City of Chula Vista, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game regarding biological mitigation, biology impacts could be reduced to below a level os significance through compliance with the City's requirements. Until specific mitigation measures are imposed and adopted, however, a determination of significance must be made, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted for biology impacts. Water availability impacts for the project have been changed from "significant, but mitigable" to "significant and unmitigated" on a cumulative, region-wide basis, since reclaimed water is not currently available to meet the project's water demand. If reclaimed water becomes available in the future, water availability impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance, A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be made for water availability. E. AITACHMENTS: 1. Attachment "A" 2, Final EIR (includes MMRP) 3. Candidate CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (feir.tc) /-3 Attachment A Table 4.1~1 ~ Private Park and Open Space Facilities Park Cross Proposed Faellllles Aeres CbaDllDI Caba.. Prhale ReerealloD Cnler -8.-6- 0.7 Pool Spa LaDdseaplDI 2 TeDDls Courls Prinle Multi-Purpose Courls -M 1.5 Baskelball Hoops aod SlrlplDI . LaodseaplDI - 'BeDC:rlft"" II......... -"Jew hN- -o=!"- -S1l11l1"SmitlIiP'- -1.1I1rd"1n1l1T1t- - Unear Garden - 'FraU-- -~Spa~e1eonndortPro~~~ 3,1 ** LaodseaplDI Telelrapb CaDyoD SeeDle Corridor - 20:"'20.8 * LaDdseaplDI Selback TOTAL ACRES -25.926.1 o ExeludlDI 9.4-aere rreeway easemeDI. ** Parks/Recreational and Open Space areas total 5.3 acres. /- if TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES CEQA CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR # 91-05 (SCH # 91071033) IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SECTIONS 15091 AND 15093 OF TITLE 14 OF TIlE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE /- .s I. INTRODUCTION It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista that a project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is feasible to avoid or substantially lessen the impact to a level below significant. Only when there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to mitigate an impact, can a project with significant impacts be approved. Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant environmental impact, one of the following findings must be made: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the FEIR have been required or incorporated into the project, or 2. Such changes or alternatives 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, or 3. Specific economic, social or other infeasible the mitigation measures or identified in the FEIR. considerations make project alternatives [Public Resources Code Section 21081J A draft environmental impact report, dated April 1992 (the "Draft EIR") , was prepared for the Project and circulated for 45 days for public comments. A public hearing was held on July 22, 1992. A final environmental impact report, dated July, 1992 (the "Final EIR" or "FEIR"), was prepared based on comments received on the Draft EIR, including those received after the close of the pUblic comment period, The Final EIR consists of two parts: the EIR (with technical revisions), and the comment letters and responses to comments ("Response to Comments"). Although not required by CEQA, the Final EIR was also made available to commentors for 7 days (August 5, 1992 to August 12, 1992) for review, although this did not reopen the public review period. The following Findings are made by the Decisionmaker(s) relative to the conclusions of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR #91- 05) for the proposed Telegraph Canyon Estates project (the "Project") located in the City of Chula Vista. 1 I~ Iz. II. PROJECf DESCRIPTION The 112. 4-acre Telegraph Canyon Estates project site is in the Eastern Territories Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista. It is north of Telegraph Canyon Road (Otay Lakes Road), immediately west of the proposed future extension of state Route 125 (S .R. 125). The site is not presently a part of the city of Chula Vista, but it is within the "Special Study" area of the City's General Plan, meaning that it will require action by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to be included into the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence and annexed into the City, The project is proposing to develop a maximum 350 single-family dwelling units (du's), two private park areas, and two community purpose facility sites on approximately 82 acres of the l12.4-acre site, yielding a net density of 4.3 du/ac. Approximately 30.2 acres of the property will be in open space. The Telegraph Canyon Estates project area was originally included as a part of the Otay Ranch area and has been included in previous studies conducted for that larger project. Because the project area is physically separated from the rest of the Otay Ranch property by Telegraph Canyon Road, and because the site is adjacent to the Eastlake Community, it is now being proposed as a development separate from Otay Ranch. If approved, it will be developed in a manner similar to and compatible with the Eastlake Planned Community and will be processed as an amendment to the Eastlake General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area Plan, and Planned Community District Regulations. III. DISCRETIONARY ACfIONS The discretionary actions for the proposed proj ect involve the following permits/approvals and the Decisionmaker(s) who will take such actions: · an Annexation (Decisionmakers: LAFCO, the Chula Vista Planning Commission, and the Chula Vista City Council) . a Chula Vista Sphere of (Decisionmakers: LAFCO, the Commission, and the Chula Vista Influence Chula Vista city Council) Amendment Planning · a General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment (Decisionmakers: the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the Chula Vista city Council) 2 /-7 · a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Amendment (Decisionmakers: the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the Chula Vista City Council) · a Tentative SUbdivision Map (TM) (Decisionmakers: the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the Chula Vista City Council) These Findings are made by the Decisionmaker(s) pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code, and Section 15091 and 15093 of the California Administrative Code, title 14. IV. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the findings hereinafter set forth, the administrative record of the Decisionmaker (s) shall include the Draft Environmental Report ("Draft EIR") , and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") and its appendices; Response to Comments on the Final EIR; all reports prepared by staff and their consultants, all documents submitted by members of the public and interested agencies in connection with the EIRs and the Project generally; and any documents embodying the Decisionmaker(s) or other action on the Project, including staff reports and resolutions and the minutes of public hearings on the Project. V. TERMINOLOGY Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 14) requires that, 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 allowable conclusions. The first is the "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. II The second potential finding is that II [s] uch changes or alterations are wi thin the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have not been adopted by such other agency. II The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR." 3 1- 8 VI. LEGAL EFFECf OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that mitigation measures outlined in the EIR avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects, are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the Decisionmaker(s) hereby binds itself to require implementation of those mitigation measures on the Project applicant and any assigns or successors in interest. These findings constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Decisionmaker(s) adopts a resolution approving the Project, VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Decisionmaker(s), in adopting these findings, also adopts a mi tigation monitoring and reporting program designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the Project applicant, and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. That program is contained in the Final EIR at pp. 211-223. VIII. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND SIGNIFICANT EFFECfS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The EIR sets forth environmental effects of the Project that would be potentially significant or significant in the absence of mitigation measures. These effects (or "impacts") are set forth below, along with any mitigation measures adopted that will avoid those potentially significant or significant effects. Also set forth are certain significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mi tigation measures proposed in the Draft and Final EIRS. In adopting these findings, the Decisionmaker(s) also adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the economic, social and other benefits of the Project that will render that significant effect acceptable. That statement of overriding Considerations is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Public testimony, written correspondence, and comments on the FEIR indicate that there are differences of opinion as to the conclusions in the FEIR and that the Project could result in cumulatively significant and unmitigable impacts on air quality, cumulatively significant and unmitigated impacts on water availability, and significant and unmitigated impacts on biological resources. The following presents the Decisionmaker(s) findings on the impact of the Project. 4 (- r IX. FINDINGS A. Public Resources i&ili; Section 2108Ha) The EIR sets forth environmental effects of the Project that would be potentially significant or significant in the absence of mitigation measures. These effects (or "impacts") are set forth below, along with any mitigation measures adopted that will avoid those potentially significant or significant effects. Also set forth are certain significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided even with adoption of all feasible mitigation measures proposed with the Draft and Final EIRs. 1. Geology/Soils Impact. Development of the site could expose the project to geologic hazards associated with compressive and expansive soils found on-site, and to hazards from regional seismic activity. Findinq. Potentially significant geological impacts can be avoided by adhering to the remedial grading measures set forth in the geotechnical report prepared for the project, and by monitoring during project grading. All grading and drainage plans will be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Division prior to issuance of a grading permit. A Testing and Observation Report will be prepared and submitted to the City's Engineering Division to verify that all requirements have been met. Paleontological Sensitivity Impact. on-site Project strata, impacts The Oligocene Otay and Sweetwater Formations which occur have a high potential for containing significant fossils. grading may expose or destroy subsurface fossil-bearing providing new and important paleontological data. Adverse to paleontological resources could occur. Findinq. A paleontological monitor will be on-site at all times during original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments mapped within the Sweetwater and Otay Formations. Project construction will be temporarily halted, if necessary, to allow recovery of fossil resources. 2. Hydrology/Water Quality/Groundwater Impact, Short-term erosion impacts could occur during project grading and construction. Existing erosion problems associated 5 I-It::> with past agricultural uses will be eliminated after site development, but the amount of runoff will increase with added hardscape. The project could potentially degrade water quality in Telegraph Canyon Creek from urban pollutants. Findinq. Mitigation will require implementation of an erosion control plan during construction, construction of the storm drain plan proposed in the SPA, and adherence to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge. All plans shall be designed and constructed to meet City Engineering Standards, 3. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Impact. The project will require a balanced cut and fill of 830,000 cubic yards. The grading plan has been developed to follow the dominant site landforms, and the project is proposed to be constructed in a terraced fashion. The maximum manufactured slopes will be 50 feet in height and the deepest cut will be 45 feet on the eastern knoll. Findinq. Because the project area is adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, which is designated a Scenic Highway by the City of Chula Vista, the SPA has been developed to conform with the Telegraph Canyon Scenic Highway Criteria. The project will provide setbacks from the canyon floor; preserve and enhance the natural stream corridor and trail system; ensure that the project's architectural design, height and siting of structures, and landscaping and signs are considered in the development; and provide landscaping to beautify the adjacent portion of the scenic route inside the proj ect area. The proj ect I s design concept is based on design elements of the Eastlake Design Manual Guidelines, in order to assure compatibility with the adjacent Eastlake communities. 4. Air Quality Impact. The project will create short term impacts from dust and emissions during project construction. It will incrementally add to cumulative impacts to the San Diego Air Basin by adding pollutants from increased traffic and household emissions. Findinq. Mitigation for short term effects will require implementation of dust control measures during project grading, and compliance with the requirements of the APCD and ARB. Long-term impacts will be reduced by adherence to the Air Quality Implementation Plan prepared for the SPA. However, because the San Diego region is a non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter, cumulative air quality impacts will remain significant and unmitigable.Specific economic, social, or other considerations 6 /-// make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives. The remaining unavoidable significant cumulative impacts are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the attached statement of Overriding Considerations. 5. Biological Resources Impact. The majority of the project site is characterized by disturbed and weedy vegetation associated with past agricultural uses. The project will eliminate this vegetation, along with 0.9 acres of wetland habitat. Findina. Although the wetland habitat is fragmented and of low quality, its loss is still considered a significant impact. Its loss could be mitigated by the applicant's dedication of 0.9 acres of wetland habitat off-site (Otay Ranch), to be preserved in conjunction with adjacent wetland habitat. Until specific off-site mitigation for biology is imposed and adopted, the impact to the freshwater marsh would be considered significant and unmitigated. 6, Transportation Impact. The project will generate a maximum of 3500 average daily trips (ADT). The level of service (LOS) will be lowered from C to D on Telegraph Canyon Road between Otay Lakes Road and Eastlake Parkway, from B to C between Crest Drive and paseo Del Rey, and from A to B between Paseo del Rey and Paseo Ladera, but intersections will operate at acceptable levels and no significant direct impacts will occur. Findina, The applicant will pay its fair-share of area improvements to reduce cumulative impacts. These may include roadway widening, restriping, or installation of other signals; this will be determined by the City Engineering Department during its annual review of cumulative impacts of all projects in the Eastern Chula vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP), While the project will not require a traffic signal on Telegraph Canyon Road, the applicant is proposing to fund and provide a signal. 7. Noise Impact, Construction of the project will expose existing residents to short-term noise impacts. The project will not increase ambient noise levels significantly, but portions of the property will be subject to long-term adverse noise impacts from traffic on S.R. 125. 7 /-/2.. Findinq. Mi tigation will require construction of a noise wall along the eastern portion of the site, and possibly the use of noise-reducing construction materials and techniques. All noise walls will be constructed in conformance with the design guidelines set forth in the SPA, which follow the Eastlake I Design Guidelines. All noise mitigation measures shall be made conditions of the final map. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Chula vista's Noise Abatement Division shall review final grading plans to determine whether additional noise materials are required for second stories of homes which may be impacted by future noise from S.R. 125. 8. Land Use/General Plan/Zoning Impact. The project area will require annexation to the City of Chula Vista, which will require approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The proposed density is consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the site and conforms with guidelines set forth in the Eastlake Planned Community District Regulations, General Development Plan, and Sectional Planning Area Plan. No significant land use impacts have been identified. Findinq. The project includes a loS-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, which meets the net acreage requirement of the city. The required 10 percent affordable housing requirement will be met by dedication of a parcel off-site for this purpose, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of these measures. 9. Parks/Recreation/Open Space Impact. The project will increase park/recreation use demand by bringing approximately 1,134 new residents into the City. Under the provisional standards for parks set forth by the City of Chula Vista, the Telegraph Canyon proj ect is required to set aside a total of 3.4 acres as dedicated park land. Findinq. The SPA proposes to dedicate 30.2 acres (27%) of the total 112.4 project acreage to parks, recreational areas, and open space. These will include private neighborhood parks and mini- parks. A portion of the central natural swale and the entire drainage channel adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road will be preserved as open space, as will the eastern property boundary abutting the proposed S.R. 125 freeway. These open space easements will constitute approximately 20 acres. A San Diego County Water Authority easement, in the center of the site, will be developed as a linear garden totalling 3.1 acres. A public trail is also proposed to connect the project to the Eastlake Community and to the proposed community recreation center. Private 8 1,1';' parks/recreational and open space areas totalling 5.3 acres are proposed. These consist of a of a recreational center with a changing cabana, pool and spa, a private multi-purpose court area, and the linear garden mentioned above. To provide additional mitigation for impacts to park facilities, the applicant shall pay in-lieu park fees in conformance with Section 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. This will be done prior to or as a condition of the Final Map. 10. Public Services and Utilities Impact. The project will introduce 102 new elementary school students and 105 secondary students into the area, Because the Chula Vista School District elementary schools and the Sweetwater Union High School District secondary schools are operating above permanent capacities, the addition of these students will create significant adverse impacts. Findina. The applicant is currently negotiating with the Chula Vista Elementary School District to form a CFD for Salt Creek Ranch and the Telegraph Canyon Estates project (CFD 7). The project will annex into the CFD prior to the Final Map. The applicant has also met with the Sweetwater Unified High School District to begin negotiations to form a new Community Facilities District (CFD 7). The project will be required to annex into CFD 7 prior to the Final Map. Annexations into this new CFD will fully mitigate impacts to the districts. Impact. Implementation of the project will increase demand on water. Based on the Central Area Water Master Plan Update average of 600 gallons per day per dwelling unit, the proposed 350-unit project will result in an estimated daily residential water use rate of 210,000 gallons. The SPA projects an average potable water demand of 190,432 gallons per day, and an average reclaimed water demand of 92,463 gallons per day, for a total daily water demand projection of 282,895 gallons. Findina. While increased water consumption is a major regional issue, the project is capable of providing water to residents. The Central Area Water Master Plan has specified an infrastructure that will allow a sufficient amount of water to serve the project, and barring general regional unavailability, water can be supplied to the project. The project will meet water Threshold/Standards. However, on a project specific basis, water impacts shall remain significant but mitigable pending the requirement to obtain a will- serve letter from the OWD once building permits are issued. In response to regional water shortage, the Telegraph Canyon Estates project proposes additional conservation measures for individual households, including use of ultra-low flow indoor 9 /-/~ fixtures and appliances (low-flush toilets, showers and faucets), pressure reducing valves. It is estimated that approximately 92,463 gallons of potable water per day could be saved if reclaimed water is used to irrigate common areas (parks and open space) within the project. While reclaimed water is not currently available for use within the proposed project, the project is providing a system to use reclaimed water irrigation when it becomes available. As this project's contribution, the applicant shall either install the line across project frontage or pay a proportional share of the line, as determined by the Otay Water District, The size of the line will be determined by the city of Chula Vista and the OWD, based on the demand for reclaimed water in the project's vicinity. Since reclaimed water is not currently available for the project to offset water demand, water availability impacts are deemed significant and unmitigable on a cumulative regionwide basis. If reclaimed water service becomes available in the future, this cumulative water availability impact will be mitigated. 11. Public Health Impact. The data available at the present time are not sufficient to warrant a determination of health and safety hazards to future residents from proximity to the existing SDG&E transmission lines. Findinq. While the determination of a significant impact cannot be concluded at this time, the project applicant shall comply with any future EMF policy adopted by the City of Chula Vista prior to consideration of the Final Map. This measure would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. B. Public Resources~ Section 21081(b) The Decisionmaker(s) having reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR for the project, and the information in the Administrative Record, finds that there are no further changes or alterations to the project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by such other agency. 10 /-1..5 C. Public Resources.Qlik Section 21081(c): The Infeasibility ~ Miti~ation Measures and Project Alternatives Other Than the Proposed Tele~raph Canyon Estates. The Decisionmaker(s) approval of the Project as proposed will cause significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be fully mitigated to biological resources, cumulative air quality, and cumulative water availability. The mitigation measures outlined in Section A of these Findings will reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. However, until the mitigation parcel is recorded, the biological impacts shall remain significant, The unmitigable effects to cumulative air quality and regional water availability cannot be fully mitigated on a project specific basis, at this time. The Decisionmaker(s) has also considered whether any of the project alternatives outlined in the EIR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid this effect while satisfying the objectives of the Telegraph Canyon Estates Project, (See Citizens for Qualitv Growth ~ city of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal. App.3d 433, 433-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also Pub. Resources Code, section 21002.) As will be explained below, the Decisionmaker(s) concludes that none of the proposed alternatives could feasibly both meet the Project's objectives and substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant effects of the Project, and thus has decided to approve the Project as proposed with all feasible mitigation measures outlined above. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(c), the Decisionmaker(s) find and conclude that the following independent economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives or other possible mitigation measures as identified in the EIR. The Decisionmaker(s) further find that each independent consideration, standing alone, would be sufficient to make infeasible the following project alternatives. 1. No Proiect Alternative/No Development Alternative and Alternative.slli; Analysis This alternative consists of no annexation, GDP, SPA, or TSM for the project. The site will remain under County jurisdiction, and will remain under limited control under the S-87 (Special Study Area) land use designation until studies were completed to enable reclassification of the property. At this point, it would be speculative to determine what type of development will be allowed, but it is anticipated that it will be required to provide either a transitional land use from adjacent undeveloped land to more densely developed land (such as that present at Eastlake Shores); or be developed consistent with other types of residential uses on adjacent parcels within the City of Chula Vista. It is probable 11 /-It, that an overall development plan, such as a specific plan, will be required by the County, to avoid piecemeal development on a lot-by- lot basis. If the property were developed under the existing land use designation and zoning, the 2.5-acre minimum lot size would allow a gross maximum of 44 single-family dwelling units on the l12-acre parcel. This number will likely be lower, in reality, given the constraints on developable land (easements for SDG & E and the SDCWA, wetland area, and setbacks for scenic highways and S.R. 125). All grading will be subject to the County's Resource Protection Ordinance. Impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, traffic, air quality and hydrology will probably be reduced. Impacts to geology/soils, noise, and public health will be similar to the proposed project's impacts under this alternative. Impacts regarding social factors, community tax structure, and demands on public services will likely be greater. Given the site's proximity to the City of Chula Vista, these impacts will directly affect the City (schools, parks, sewers, water supply, emergency services, etc.) and Threshold/Standards Policy would probably be exceeded. This alternative would not be consistent with the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Due to these social considerations, this alternative is considered infeasible. No Development. Under this alternative, the project area will remain vacant and land use will remain unchanged. No impacts to geology, hydrology, landform alteration, air quality, biological resources, traffic, noise, public facilities, parks, or public health will occur. Like the no project alternative, this alternative would not be consistent with the City of Chula Vista's or County of San Diego's land use designations for residential development, and it would result in loss of tax revenue for the city. It is also considered to be infeasible due to these social factors; additionally, it would not achieve the basic objectives of the proposed project. 2. Alternative Design A This alternative will be a reduced project developed at a low- medium residential density (R-1-7), A total of 280 single-family homes would be constructed on approximately 70 acres resulting in a density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. Open space would increase to 31.6 acres and would encompass a larger portion of the central swale on-site. The Community Purpose Facility would remain the same as in the proposed project. No circulation plan has been designed for this alternative, but access points would be the same as those in the proposed project, 12 /-;7 and the overall street and cul-de-sac system would be similar. If this alternative is adopted, the following impacts are expected to occur. Geoloav/Soils. Impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Constraints from these factors would not expected to be more or less difficult under this alternative or the proposed project. Hvdroloav/Water Oualitv/Groundwater. In terms of project drainage effects on water quality, the discharge into the Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements; as such, neither the proposed project nor this alternative (or any alternative) can have a discharge that significantly degrades (as defined by the EPA in the NPDES requirements) the water quality in the receiving channel. Fewer houses would probably translate to fewer vehicles using and parking on the streets, resulting in less material to be carried off during rainstorms. While this could allow easier attainment of the NPDES requirements, the reduction in material is not likely of sufficient magnitude to affect the way the system would be designed to meet NPDES requirements. This alternative may result in less runoff, as there would likely be less hardscape and more permeable surface (yards, open space). Even with the same design the reduction would not be proportional to the drop in units, as the road system could not be reduced proportionally. Calculations on storm drainage capacity in Telegraph Canyon Creek channel showed that the proposed project's input is less than significant, and that the channel would still be well under capacity. This alternative may result in less runoff; but the amount of runoff was not found to have a significant impact with the proposed project. with the inclusion of much of the central swale in open space there would likely be somewhat more input of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides into the drainage than under the proposed project, as there would likely be private yards adjacent to the swale. Private use of these chemicals is difficult if not impossible to control. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics. Landform alteration would be similar under the proposed project and this alternative. The overall landform would be retained, and the street system must be created, regardless of the 60-unit difference. Aesthetics is a subjective environmental issue. People who object to the placement of a 350-unit residential project on this site would likely object to the placement of a 280-unit project. Conversely, even with having to maintain the street system, a reduction in units may allow the designers to create a more aesthetically. pleasing project. Given that a street system is necessary, it is likely that the proposed project and a design 13 /-/8 under this alternative would be considered aesthetically similar by most passers-by. Within the project, the retention of the marsh area would likely have mixed reactions from the residents. Small areas of marsh do not have the wildlife that people find attractive. The marsh would quickly become a solid band of cattails if left alone. This is not considered aesthetically pleasing by most people. The odors of the decomposing vegetation in the summer and the presence of mosquito and biting flies would be objectionable to residents living near the marsh. From an aesthetics perspective, the landscaping of the proposed project and the elimination of the biting insects would likely be considered preferable by the majority of residents. Air Oualitv. From a project perspective, the reduction in units associated with this alternative would result in lesser air quality impacts, as fewer vehicles would be present, and fewer fireplaces and furnaces would be used. From a regional perspective, impacts depend on whether it is assumed that the 60-unit difference disappears, or if it is fulfilled elsewhere. The main source of air pollution in the county is from vehicles. If the 60 units will be supplied elsewhere, and if that compositely creates more travel for the inhabitants to work and shop, then greater air quality effects will occur than with the proposed project. If the 60-unit difference disappears, or if the "displaced" inhabitants select housing that will result in less travel, then lesser air quality effects will occur than with the proposed project. However, this alternative would still result in cumulatively significant unmitigable impacts. Bioloaical Resources. As noted in the Biological Resources technical report, and in the EIR section, the marsh area is not of high value. Potentially adverse impacts associated with preservation of the wetland within the development are discussed above under aesthetics. While preservation on-site of resources is usually the preferable choice, given the size and isolated nature of the marsh area to be retained, preservation of higher quality habitat off-site, as in the proposed project, would result in greater ecological value. Cultural Resources. There is no impact on cultural resources with either the proposed project or this alternative. TransDortation. The number of proj ected ADTs for the proposed project is 3500; with this alternative that number would be reduced to 2800, Less traffic would be considered a beneficial impact, although cumulative impacts would still occur and mitigation measures similar to those required for the proposed project would be needed. Noise. The noise generator for this project is largely the future State Route 125 and Telegraph Canyon Road. These noise sources are 14 I-I r independent of the project density. Under this alternative more redesign may be possible as a part of the noise mitigation, but features such as noise walls would probably still be required. Land Use/General Plan/Zonina. Both the proposed project and alternative are in general compliance with these issues. issue of affordable housing and community purpose facilities be met with the proposed project and this alternative. this The will Communi tv social Factors. Neither the proposed project nor this alternative would have impacts to community social factors. Communi tv Tax structure. This alternative would generate lesser fees, as it results in lesser density. Fewer units would be built, resul ting in lower property tax assessments. Fees paid to schools, parks, the water district, and other public facilities would be reduced. Parks/Recreation/ODen SDace. More open space would be created with this alternative than with the proposed project. The tennis courts, pool, and jacuzzi facilities associated with the proposed project are eliminated in this alternative. The decreased number of units would result in fewer funds for public park land and no private recreational facilities would be provided, Public Services and utilities. Lesser demands would be placed on public services and utilities with this alternative. The number of students projected would reduced from 105 to 84, but the project would still be required to annex into a CFD to fully mitigate impacts. PUblic Health. The lesser density of this alternative may allow designers to incorporate greater distance from the transmission lines. At this time it is not possible to determine significance of the lines to public health. As discussed above, incorporation of a part of the marsh into the project allows a source of mosquitoes and biting flies, and provides a potential for disease. This alternative could introduce significant health concerns. Thus, while this alternative would reduce some impacts, mitigation measures similar to those required for the proposed project would still be needed, This alternative would not create significant impacts to biological resources, but could create impacts to aesthetics and public health by preserving the marsh on-site. Cumulative impacts to air quality would remain unmitigated under this alternative. Therefore, as this alternative does not substantially avoid or lessen the adverse effects of the proposed action, it is not considered to be environmentally preferable and therefore is infeasible. 15 /'.2 C) 3. Alternative Design B This alternative would be identical to the proposed project, except the proposed street system would be public rather than private. All impacts associated with this project would be the same as with the proposed project, except those related to Community Tax structure. As currently proposed, the project contains approximately 2.5 miles of private local streets. As such, the City of Chula Vista would not incur any maintenance costs. Such costs would be borne by the property owners through a homeowners association. If the streets were dedicated to the City of Chula vista as public streets, however, the city would be required to maintain them within its regular street maintenance program in its Operations and Maintenance Budget. Redesignation of the private streets to public would allow through- traffic to gain access through the project site. However, volumes of traffic are not projected to change significantly, and additional traffic impacts are not expected to occur under this alternative. The proposed project would have a net positive fiscal balance for the City of Chula Vista, with assessed fees and taxes exceeding costs, with the City assuming the streets and the ensuing maintenance, that fiscal balance would remain positive, although it would be reduced. Under the proposed project (private streets) the net positive fiscal balance in year fifteen would be projected at $827,043. Under this alternative (public streets), the projected net positive fiscal balance would be $454,718. This is a reduction of $372,325. This alternative would result in the same impacts as the proposed project, with the exception of community tax structure. The City's fiscal balance, while still positive, would be reduced under this alternative. The significant, unmitigated impacts with respect to biological resources and cumulative air quality and water supply would remain. While this alternative cannot be deemed infeasible it would not substantially lessen or avoid the adverse effects created by the proposed project and is not considered to be environmentally preferable. 4. Off-Site Alternatives The State Supreme Court has recently ruled that EIRs must include an analysis of alternative sites for proposed projects, even though the sites may not be owned by the applicant [Citizens of Goleta Valley v, Board of Supervisors ("Goleta I") (2d Dist. 1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 553 [276 Cal. Rptr, 410]). Three alternative sites 16 /, 2/ ~ were analyzed in the EIR. These are considered infeasible because the potential environmental effects were found to be greater than those expected on the proposed project area. A .Q!i!y Ranch Alternative ~ This site consists of approximately 500 acres within the otay Ranch property and is located southwest of the Telegraph Canyon Estates site. Like the Telegraph Canyon Estates property, this site is within the unincorporated area of San Diego County. This site encompasses a portion of Poggi Canyon. The site is within the County of San Diego's otay Subregional Plan and is subject to land use and zoning regulations defined in that document. The General Plan's land use classification for the property is Residential (low-medium density, 3-6 du per acre), and the site is zoned A-70, Limited Agriculture, allowing 1 du per 4 or 8 acres). The proposed otay Ranch plan would provide low-to-medium density (3-6 du/acre) residential development on this parcel. If the otay Ranch alternative site is chosen, impacts to geology/soils, hydrology/water quality/groundwater, air quality, cultural resources, traffic, public services, and public health are expected to be similar to those which would occur with implementation of the project as proposed. Fewer impacts related to landform alteration and noise are expected. However, impacts to biological resources could potentially increase, and the effect on community tax structure would be greater. Particularly in terms of biological resources, this alternative is not considered to be environmentally preferable. B. .Q!i!y Mesa Alternative ~ This site also consists of approximately 500 acres of vacant land. It is within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego, and is about 0.5 miles east of 1-805, north of otay Mesa Road. The site is presently vacant and is surrounded by vacant land. It is within the City of San Diego's otay Mesa Community Planning area and is designated for mixed land uses (very low to low-medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, parks, and schools). The property includes portions of the proposed California Terrace and Hidden Trails projects. Brown Field is approximately one mile east of the site. If the otay Mesa alternative site is chosen, impacts to traffic, community social factors and tax structure, and public services are expected to be similar to those which would occur with 17 /- 2~ implementation of the project as proposed. Fewer impacts would occur with respect to parks, recreation, and open space. However, it is anticipated that impacts would be greater to geology/soils, hydrology/water quality/groundwater, landform alteration and aesthetics, biological and cultural resources, land use/general plan elements, and public health. C. Eastlake Vistas.IDld Woods This 50D-acre site is composed of two parcels north and south of Otay Lakes Road and west of the Lower otay Reservoir. It is in the City of Chula Vista's Eastern Territories and is the easternmost property within the Eastlake Planned Community. The property is proposed to be developed as the Eastlake Vistas and Woods residential neighborhoods. The site is currently vacant, with development existing to the east and approved to the west. The future extension of S.R. 125 is just over one mile west of the site. Salt Creek, an important biological and aesthetic resource, is located on-site. If the Eastlake Vistas and Woods alternative site is chosen, impacts are expected to be approximately the same as on the proposed project site for landform alteration/aesthetics, air quality, traffic, land use, community social factors and tax structure, utilities, and public health, Impacts related to noise and parks/recreation/open space would likely be reduced. However, there is the potential for increased impacts to geology/soils, hydrology, and biological and cultural resources. 18 /~2...3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: Backwound The state CEQA Guidelines provide: "(a) CEQA requires the Decisionmaker(s) to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable'. (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section l509l(a) (2) or (a) (3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) The Decisionmaker(s) in approving the various permits that are the subject of the FEIR, having considered the information contained in the FEIR and supporting technical reports, GDP, and SPA; and having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record, makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings. The Decisionmaker(s) further find and conclude that the public benefits of the project outweigh the identified significant unmitigated impacts with regard to biological resources, cumulative air quality, and regional water availability. The Decisionmaker(s) find the following factors support approval of the project despite the significant and unmitigated effects of the proposed project, and make the following statement of overriding Considerations: ~. The project wi~~ fu~fi~~ a demonstrated need for housing in the Chula vista Sphere of Influence area, According to SANDAG's Series 7 Growth Forecast, the population within the City of Chula Vista Sphere will grow to 186,900 by 2010. This represents a 31% increase over the 1986 sphere population of 129,200. The SANDAG forecast further projects that the number of occupied units will increase to 70,800 occupied units in 2010, up 35% over the 1986 total of 46,100 units. The regional population is forecast to climb to 3,154,500 by 2010. While the population 19 /~2 i growth rate within the city of Chula Vista's current city limits is 22% below the regional rate, the growth rate in the sphere area is projected at 174% higher than the regional rate. The proposed lot and home sizes will be provided for varied single- family market opportunities within the community. The 10% affordable housing requirement will be provided by dedication of a parcel off-site for this purpose, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of these or other comparable measures. 2. The project is in conformance with the Eastlake Policy Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. The Telegraph Canyon Estates General Development Plan (GDP) will implement the Eastlake Policy Plan Goals to · enable the City to adopt measures providing for the development of the surrounding areas · establish conditions which will allow land uses to exist in harmony with the community · and allow a diversity of uses, relationships, buildings, and open space in a planned concept while insuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and other provisions of the General Plan. The project will be compatible with adjacent land uses and has been designed to create harmony between land uses. Overall landforms will be preserved and the project will adhere to the General Plan's Scenic Highway Criteria. 3, The Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) prepared for the project will provide a mechanism for funding needed facili ties within the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP is the first to be prepared under the requirements of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance No. 2448. The PFFP quantifies how the Telegraph Canyon Estates project relates to all other projects which are at some stage in the city's overall development process. It ensures that the development of the project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the city's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and that the development of the project will not adversely impact the Quality of Life Standards. Under the PFFP, the applicant will pay development impact fees for public facilities (police, fire and emergency medical services; schools and libraries; parks and recreation; and water, sewer and 20 /- "2..5 drainage) and a transportation development fee pursuant to the most recently adopted program by the City Council. 4. The recreational facilities and funding provided by the project are needed in the city of Chula Vista. The project, as proposed, would provide private recreational facilities for residents. In addition, the applicant will pay in- lieu park fees which will be used to fund needed park and recreation facilities in other areas of the City of Chula Vista. 5. Approval of the project will expedite formation of new Community Facilities Districts (CFD) for city schools. The Telegraph Canyon Estates project was formerly a part of the Otay Ranch project, and thus it had been assumed that this parcel would annex into the new CFD that will be formed for Otay Ranch if that project is approved in the future. As Telegraph Canyon Estates is now being processed separately, the applicant has negotiated with both the Chula vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to form a new CFD prior to Otay Ranch, CFD 7 will annex the proposed project with the Salt Creek Ranch project (already approved and built) to provide funds for needed school facilities. 6, with the provision of an offsite easement dedication for 0.9 acres of existing wetlands to be preserved and incorporated into a larger wetland habitat area, biological impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance. The project applicant proposes to coordinate the location and dedication of an offsite conservation easement for 0.9 acres. If this offiste mitigation occurs, the removal of onsite wetlands will be mitigated. The exact location of the offsite conservation easement will be determined and dedication will occur prior to the removal of the onsite wetlands. 7, The provision of reclaimed water service to the si te will mitigate the impact regional to water availability. The project proposes to construct an onsite dual-water system to provide for the use of both potable and reclaimed water. The production of reclaimed water is controlled by the Otay Water District (OWD). Distribution of reclaimed water is controlled by the construction of reclaimed water pipelines. Currently, reclaimed water pipelines do not reach the proj ect site. The OWD' s Master Plan .for reclaimed water facilities designates that reclaimed water pipelines will be provided in Otay Lakes Road, from 21 /- 2.lP Lane Avenue to the project site. When these pipelines are constructed, the project will be served by reclaimed water by the OWD. The provision of service of reclaimed water will mitigate the impact on water availability to below a level of significance. For these reasons, on balance, the City finds that there are planning, social, and economic considerations resulting from this project that serve to override and outweigh the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. 22 /~ ~?