Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/03/27 (9) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1. Meeting Date: March 27. ]996 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: EIR 95-0]; Consideration of comments on the recirculated portions of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The public hearing on the Draft SPA One EIR held on November 15, 1995 was continued to a future date in order for new information to added to the Draft EIR. That new information has been added and portions of the Draft EIR containing the new information are being recirculated for public comment On February 9, ]996, the recirculated SPA One Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearing House. The 45-day public review period opened on February 9 and closes on March 25, ] 996. City of Chula Vista procedures require the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to receive public comments on the recirculated Draft EIR. The EIR public review period ends with the closing of the Planning Commission public hearing. The Draft EIR evaluated environmental impacts of SPA One, the proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) amendments and the annexation of Planning Areas One and Three of the ] 995 Sphere of Influence (SOl) Update Study and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel of the Otay Ranch. ISSUES: The recirculated portions of the Draft EIR focus on three issues: Landform Alteration! Aesthetics Biological Resources Transportation, Circulation and Access The following revised sections of the Draft EIR have been recirculated for public comment because of new information or to respond to comments received during the original circulation of the September 25 Draft Section 1. 0 Section 2.0 Section 4.2 Section 4.3 Section 4.4 Introduction/Executive Summary Project Description Landform Alteration! Aesthetics Biological Resources Cultural Resources ;q- Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date March 27, 1996 Section 4.7 Section 4. 10 Section 4.13 Agricultural Resources Transportation, Circulation and Access Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Monitoring Program Technical Reports Biological Resource Analysis (Sweetwater Environmental Biologist, Inc.) Transportation Analysis (BRW, Inc.) Phase 2 Resources Management Plan ( Dudek and Associates, Inc.) RECOMMENDA nON: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing on the recirculated portions of the Draft Second-Tier EIR (EIR 95-0]), close the public hearing and public review period on the recirculated EIR and direct staff to prepare the Final EIR including Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Boards/Commissions Recommendations: The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) met on March II, ]996 to review the recirculated portions of the Draft Second-Tier EIR. The RCC voted continue their review of the recirculated Draft EIR until March 25, ] 996. Staff will give an oral report to the Planning Commission on the RCC action ITom their March 25 meeting. DISCUSSION: A. Background The Draft EIR evaluates environmental impacts of SPA One, Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch, seven minor amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and annexation of Planning Areas One and Three of the ]995 Sphere of Influence Update Study and the Mary Patrick Estate to the City. The Draft EIR is a second-tier document that incorporates, by reference, the GDP EIR and Sphere of Influence (SOl) EIR to focus the analysis on impacts that have not been previously analyzed on a site-specific level. The analysis in the Draft EIR is based on the worst case scenario for each topic contained within the report. During the public review of the September 25 Draft ErR, new information became available concerning three of the sections of the Draft EIR biological resources, traffic circulation and landform alteration. The Draft EIR public hearing was continued to a future date in order to prepare revised sections of the EIR incorporating the new pcsreir2.doc March 13, 1996 It Page 3, Item-1- Meeting Date March 27. 1996 information. The revised portions were completed and filed with the State Clearing House on February 9, ]996 which initiated the 45-day review period. The public review period concluded on March 25, 1996. Prior to the distribution of this Report to the Planning Commission, staff had received only one comment letter which is attached. Comments received up to the public hearing will be distributed to the Commission at the hearing. The Commission's responsibility at the March 27 meeting will be to take public testimony commenting on the recirculated portions of the EIR and direct staff to prepare response to those comments. The Commission will then review those responses at the April 4 meeting and, if the Commission determines they are adequate, certify the Draft EIR. As indicated in the November ] 995 Staff Reports, the firm of CottonlBelandl Associates was selected through the competitive bid process to prepare the SPA One EIR On January 30, ] 995, the City, the project applicant and CottonlBeland entered into a three party agreement for the preparation of the EIR. CottonlBeland has continued as the City consultant in the preparation the recirculated portions of the Draft EIR. B. Recirculated EIR Sections The recirculated section of the Draft EIR focus on biological resources, traffic circulation, and landform alteration. Other minor changes have been made in the recirculated portions to respond to comments received during the original circulation of the September 25 Draft . 1. Biological Resources The new information on two biological issues focus on noise impact to California Gnatcatchers and performance standards related to four grassland birds. The performance standards in the GDP for the Gnatcatcher limit noise exposure to 60 decibels on average over a 24-hour period. This standard was a theoretical number established by the wildlife agencies for noise threshold for song birds. However, there is no empirical evidence to support this level. Biologists are finding Gnatcatchers in the field surviving and multiplying in areas where noise exceeds 60 decibels. Based on these observations, the GDP performance standard is proposed to be modified and analyzed in the recirculated biological section of the Draft EIR. The modification raises the performance standard from 60 to 65 decibels. The wildlife agencies are considering this information at the present time. The other biological issue deals with the performance standard for the grassland birds: the Northern Hairer, Horned Lark, Logger Head Shrik and Burrowing Owl. The GDP generally calls for maintenance of 80% of their habitat. This percentage does not make sense in terms of the proposed MSCP standard for such species. Staff is proposing a more realistic standard, one that is less rigid and applies to the MSCP and Otay Ranch open space preserve. The new performance standard requires that within the open space preserve occupied breeding and forging habitat be preserved to maintain and enhance a viable population. pcsreir2.doc March 13, 1996 ~u Page 4, Item-L Meeting Date March 27. 1996 2. Traffic Circulation The Draft EIR traffic analysis utilized the SANDAG Regional Traffic model that covers the entire South Bay area. An independent check of the model found that the model did not include the southbound to eastbound turning movement at "H" Street. The EIR traffic engineers, BRW, have review this situation with SANDAG and City staff to identity any major impacts associated with the inclusion of this turning movement. The conclusion reached was that the impact was relatively minor and the changes can be accommodated within the proposed mitigation measures perviously identified for the project. 3. Landform Alteration The GDP performance standards require the preservation of 83% of all steep slopes (25 % and greater) on the entire Ranch. SPA One does not nor is it required to preserve 83% of the steep slopes. However, it is important to identity the method to track this preservation effort in order to ensure compliance with the performance standard as the Ranch develops. The recirculated EIR contains a table that identifies a village-by-village breakdown on steep slopes, including those needed to be maintained in order to meet the 83% standard. This table will be used to monitor future developments in the Otay Ranch to ensure compliance. 4. Minor Modifications Other minor modifications were made to the Cultural Resources, Agricultural Resources, Public Services and Utilities and Traffic Circulation sections to respond to comments made on the original September 25 Draft EIR. The Introduction, Executive Summary and Project Description were also modified to reflect all of these changes. A new Mitigation Monitoring Program was needed to reflect the changes proposed in the recirculated sections. C. Analysis Project level and cumulative impacts were identified and divided into three categories: significant and unmitigable, significant but mitigable to a less-than-siginficant level and less than significant. The significant and unmitigated project and cumulative impacts require a Statement of Overriding Consideration in order to approve the project. This statement will reflect the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the GDP Program EIR to ensure consistency in the environmental review process. The impacts by category are: 1. Significant and unmitigable project level environmental impacts Land Use, Planning and Zoning The conversion of existing vacant and agricultural land to urban use is considered a significant unavoidable impact. The GDP ErR identified this impact, as did the Findings pcsreir2.doc March 13, 1996 ~/ Page 5, Item -1- Meeting Date March 27, 1996 and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation measures ensure proper planning and development review. Land use impacts can be minimized if all site-specific development is reviewed for compliance with the SPA One Plan. Impacts remain significant, however. Landform Alterations/Aesthetics The Draft EIR identifies impacts to steep slopes on-site in Villages One and Five. Due to the neo-traditional, pedestrian orientation of the village concept, it is not feasible to avoid all steep slopes on site. The total development of the Otay Ranch will, however, achieve the performance standard identified in the GDP (i.e., preserve at least 83% of steep slopes) impact on a Ranch-wide basis. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to the extent feasible. Scenic corridors have been planned along Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. Landscaping and sensitive grading design guidelines have been included in the project design. The mitigation measures also include a table to track steep slope preservation throughout the development of the Otay Ranch Biological Resources With the implementation of the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management plan, impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of direct impacts to coastal California gnat catcher, cactus wren, and Otay tarplant Direct impacts to these species will remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed annexation will result in a significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources as perviously identified in the Program EIR 90-0]. Cultural Resources As stated in the GDP Program EIR, impacts related to the annexation of the Otay Ranch remain unavoidable at this level of analysis. These impacts may be mitigated to a less than significant level at the SPA level of analysis, as is the in SPA One, but have to remain identified as significant until the mitigation measures are implemented. Agricultural Resources The impacts to agricultural resources as a result of future development within the annexation component of the project will remain significant and unavoidable as previously identified in the Program EIR 90-0]. Transportation, Circulation and Access The Draft EIR traffic studies were based on the direction of the Transportation Technical Subcommittee regarding the assumptions, methodology and scope of analysis. The Technical Subcommittee was made up of representatives rrom the Otay Ranch Project Team, SANDAG, Caltrans, California Transportation Ventures, MTDB, San Diego County, Urban Systems, the project applicant, CottenlBeland and BRW. Four networks were tested in three time frames for the years 2000, 2005 and 20]0. The study was performed to analyze the impacts of SPA One and mitigation measures necessary to maintain acceptable peak hour traffic conditions pcsreir2.doc March 13, 1996 ~~ Page 6, Item --1- Meeting Date March 27. 1996 The study analyzed a number of street segments and intersections to determine the level of service (LOS) of those facilities at SPA buildout in the year 2010. In addition, an analysis was performed to determine what the project impact was to those locations. The analysis determined whether the project had a significant impact or not by using a project contribution factor of 800 trips per day, 5% of the total buildout volume and whether a reduction in LOS occurred compared to the No Project Alternative. The only significant and unmitigated impacts associated with buildout of the project are on the !Teeway system. The Draft EIR recommends that the project applicant participate in !Teeway deficiency planning by SANDAG and Caltrans to implement !Teeway improvements and fund those improvements on a fair share basis. Air Quality Because the Otay Ranch GDP was not included in the SANDAG Series VII growth forecast, the GDP, including SPA One, exceeds the current Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS). The GDP Findings of Fact (FOF) anticipated this and Overriding Considerations were adopted. RAQS mitigation measures were required as conditions of approval. The significant impact occurs !Tom an increase in emissions. The pedestrian orientation of the village concept will help reduce project emissions, although not to a less-than-significant level. Noise There are no noise impacts on humans associated with the project that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant The GDP Findings of Fact established a 60 dBA Leq level of significance for Gnatcatcher habitat Noise impact on areas containing Gnatcatcher located along Paseo Ranchero and East Orange Avenue cannot be mitigated below the GDP Findings of Fact level even with the change in standard to 65 decibel. Mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts are infeasible and the impact remains significant. 2. Significant and mitigable project level environmental impacts Impacts in the following categories for SPA One can be mitigated to a level below significance with the implementation of mitigation measures. Cumulative impacts remain significant Geology and Soils Paleontological Resources Water Resources and Water Quality Public Services and Utilities Water, Sewer, Schools, Integrated Waste Management HazardslRisk of Upset Mitigation measures are attached to this agenda statement for the Planning Commissions' reVIew. pcsreir2.doc March t3, 1996 ~3 Page 7, Item-L Meeting Date March 27. 1996 3. Less than significant project level environmental impacts Impacts in the following categories were determined to be less than significant: Population and Housing Public Services and Utilities Parks, Law Enforcement, Fire ProtectionlEMS, Animal Control, Civic Services and Library 4. Significant and Unmitigable Cumulative Environmental Impacts The GDP EIR provides a comprehensive examination of build out of the Otay Ranch GDP and other major projects in southern San Diego County. These projects will convert over 30,000 acres from vacant and agricultural uses to urban development with landform alterations from vacant to urban uses Biological, cultural and paleontological resources will be lost and an increase population will be exposed to potential hazards. When considered in conjunction with other development projects in southern San Diego County, the following are considered significant and unrnitigable cumulative environmental impacts: Land Use, Planning and Zoning Landform Alterations/Aesthetics Biological Resources Cultural Resources Agricultural Resources Transportation, Circulation and Access Air Quality Noise Mitigable or Less Than Significant Cumulative Environmental Impacts The following impacts can be mitigated or will have less than significant cumulative environmental impact: Geology and Soils Paleontological Resources Housing and Population Water Resources and Water Quality Public Services and Utilities Hazards/Risk of Upset D. Project Alternatives The nine alternatives analyzed as part of the September 25 Draft EIR did not change as a result of the new information in the recirculated Draft. Nine alternatives, six for the SPA pcsreir2. doc March 13, 1996 eft Page 8, Item --L- Meeting Date March 27. 1996 and three for the annexation, were analyzed in the original Draft EIR. SPA Alternatives A, B-] and B-2 are generally based on the same land use pattern with a centrally located village core containing a future transit station adjacent to commercial uses. The major differences focus on village access and school park locations. Off-site alternatives were examined in the GDP EIR. The alternatives analyzed were: 1. No Project Alternative Under this alternative, SPA One would not be developed and the site would remain in its current condition. While impacts associated with the project would be avoided, the No Project Alternative prevents the project objectives from being achieved, including preventing the City from meetings its future housing and employment needs. 2. SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan Alternative A assumes the development of 5,758 dwelling units. The village core in both villages are centrally located Alternative A represents the location of neighborhood parks as directed by the Policy Committee. Three park sites of 3.1, 6.5 and] 1.1 acres have been identified for Village One. Village Five has four park sites of 2.0, 2.9, 5.0 and 7.0 acres. Two 12-acre school sites are proposed in this alternative adjacent to the centrally located park in both villages. This alternative provides a third access point into the Village One core from East Orange Avenue. This road is intended to align with the access into Village Two to the south. The third access to Village Five under this alternative is to EastLake Parkway. 3. SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan Alternative B was the project applicant's initial revision to City staff comments on the original application. The basic village layout is similar to Alternative A except for the smaller pedestrian parks, only two access points into Village One and a third access to Village Five off Telegraph Canyon Road The large park locations and size remain the same. The school/park site in Village One is oriented differently, and the school site in Village Five is located to the east of the village core 4. SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan The B-2 Alternative is the applicant's current proposal which provides an initial access to Village One off Telegraph Canyon Road. This access is proposed to enable the applicant to phase the village construction without requiring the major infTastructure improvement costs of La Media in the initial phases. Pedestrian parks are proposed and the school/park site in Village One is located south of Palomar Street The Village Five school/park site is located on the northern part of the core. pcsreir2.doc March 13, 1996 /5'" Page 9, Item-L Meeting Date March 27. 1996 5. SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan Because of the project's significant impact on coastal sage scrub habitat, Alternative C relocates Paseo Ranchero to the east to avoid coastal sage scrub habitat in Poggi Canyon. North/south community circulation and the transit alignment through both villages are not achieved in this alternative. 6. Existing General Development Plan Alternative This alternative would not require a General Development Plan amendment to separate the area west of Paseo Ranchero and include it in a subsequent phase of development. Development under this alternative would result in the same type of land uses and densities as proposed in the SPA One Plan but would include the area west of Paseo Ranchero. 7. Annexation Alternatives The Draft EIR found that environmental impacts associated with the three different annexation alternatives were similar. The Draft EIR alternatives section provides a description of the alternatives plus a comparison between the different alternatives and the proposed project. Alternative B-2 has become the applicant's current proposal, and Annexation Alternative A is the area that was selected by the City Council for annexation application to LAFCO. E. Public Comments Since the public review period closes on March 27, 1996, public comments received to that date will be distributed at the Planning Commission meeting. All the comments received on the original September 25 Draft EIR and the recirculated portions, both written and oral, will be responded to in the "Response to Comments" section of the Final EIR to be certified by the City Council. Attachments L Resolutions 2. Comment Letter from Sweetwater High School District pcsreir2.doc March 13, 1996 v1~' RESOLUTION EIR 95-0] RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND- TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-0]) FOR THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to prepare an environmental impact report for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and selected the firm of CottonIBelandl Associates out of nine candidate firms to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On January 30, 1995, the City, CottonlBelandlAssociates and The Baldwin Company entered into a three party contract where the City managed the preparation of the ErR, CottonlBelandl Associates prepared the ErR, and The Baldwin Company reimbursed the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation, and; WHEREAS, the firm of CottonlBelandlAssociates prepared a Draft Second-tier Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 95-01) and a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR on the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Annexation of Planning Areas I, 3 and the Ranch House, General Development Plan Amendments, PC Zone Changes and Prezoning, ("Project") and; WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR and the Recirculated EIR incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-0] and the Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 2], ]995, and; WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 1995 to take public testimony on the adequacy of the information in the DEIR 95-01. This meeting was continued by a motion of the Planning Commission to March 27, ]996 at which time, the Planning Commission directed that the Final Environmental Impact Report be prepared including the responses to the comments received on the DEIR and the Recirculated Draft ErR, Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and; WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of /<1 Planning Commission SPA One EIR Resolution Page 2 obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. FEIR CONTENTS That the FEIR consists of the following: A Final Environmental Impact Report 95-0], and recirculated sections B. Appendices I-IV to the Final Environmental Impact Report C. Technical studies D. Information incorporated in the responses to comments E. Additionally, this FEIR was prepared in concert with two prior Program EIRs: the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP EIR 90-0] and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their attendant documents. II. FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED That the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-0] and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project, the Findings of Fact (Attachment "A" to this Resolution) and the proposed mitigation measures contained therein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment "B" to this Resolution) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment "C" to this Resolution) prior to approving the Project. Copies of said attachments are on file in the Planning Department office. C:\EIR95_0J.DOC ~ Planning Commission SPA One EIR Resolution Page 3 m CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 95-0], the Findings of Fact (Attachment "A" to this Resolution), the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment "B" to this Resolution) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment "C" to this Resolution) are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, (pub. Resources Code, 921000 et seq.) the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. title 14, 9] 5000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION That the Planning Commission finds that the FEIR 95-0] reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission and the City of Chula Vista staff. V CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A Adoption of Findings of Fact The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Attachment "A" of this Resolution B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-0] and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2] 081 and CEQA Guidelines Section ]5091 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 same. C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-0] and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "N to this Resolution, the mitigation measure regarding habitat noise mitigation described in the above referenced documents is infeasible. CIEIR95_01.DOC ~ Planning Commission SPA One EIR Resolution Page 4 D. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section XI, for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2]081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 95-0 I, were found not to be feasible. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 210816, Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk The Planning Commission hereby 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 feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. F Statement of Overriding Consideration 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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section ] 5093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", identifYing the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. C:1E1R95_01DOC J'c Planning Commission SPA One EIR Resolution Page 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council certify Final EIR 95-0 I. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this March 27, 1996 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES ABSENT: ATTEST William C. Tuchscher II Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary Attachments: Attachment A: Findings of Fact Attachment B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment C: Statement of Overriding Considerations C:\E1R95_0LOOC JI RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City" ) circulated a request for proposals to prepare an environmental impact report for 1he Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and selected 1he firm of CottonlBelandl Associates out of nine candidate firms to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On January 30, 1995, 1he City, CottonlBelandlAssociates and The Baldwin Company entered into a three party contract where 1he City managed 1he preparation of the EIR, CottonlBelandl Associates prepared 1he EIR and The Baldwin Company reimbursed the City for the full cost of EIR preparation, and; WHEREAS, 1he firm of CottonlBelandl Associates has prepared a Draft Second-tier Environmental hnpact Report (DEIR 95-01) and a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR on 1he Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3 and the Ranch House, General Development Plan Amendments, PC Zone Changes and Prezoning, and; WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR and the Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: 1he Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-0] and 1he Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as 1heir associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs. Program EIR 90-0] was certified by 1he Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, ] 993, and 1he Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by1he Chula Vista City Council on March 2], ] 995, and; WHEREAS, 1he Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 1995 and November ]5, ]995 in 1he Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, to take public testimony on the adequacy of 1he information in 1he DEIR 95-0] before 1he Planning Commission. Said hearings were continued to March 27, 1996, at \\hich time, the Planning Commission directed that 1he Final Environmental hnpact Report be prepared including 1he responses to 1he comments received on 1he DEIR and 1he Recirculated DEIR, 1he Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and; WHEREAS, to 1he extent 1hat these Findings of Fact conclude 1hat proposed mitigation measures outlined in 1he Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or wi1hdrawn, 1he City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and 1he Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement 1hose measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when 1he City adopts 1he resolution approving 1he Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. 01her requirements are referenced in 1he Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently wi1h 1hese Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. s~ Resolution No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Draft EIR and the Recirculated EIR held on November 8, ] 995, November] 5, ] 995 and March 27, ] 996, their public hearing held on this Project on November] 5, ] 995, March 27, ] 996 and Apri!l 0, 1996 and 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 2] ]67.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQ A") (Pub. Resources Code ~21000 et seq.).. II. FEIR CONTENTS That the FEIR consists of the following: A Final Environmental Impact Report 95-0], including the recirculated sections B. Appendices I-IV to the Final Environmental Impact Report c. Technical studies D. Information incorporated in the responses to comments E. Additionally, this FEIR was prepared in concert with two prior Program ErRs: the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP EIR 90-01 and the Sphere of1nfluence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their attendant documents. ill. FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-01 and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project, the Findings of Fact, Attachment U A" to this Resolution known as document number ----> and the proposed mitigation measures contained therein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Attachment "B" to this Resolution known as document number ----> and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment "c" to this Resolution known as document number ~ prior to approving the Project Copies of said attachments are on file in the office of the City Clerk C:\EIR95_01.DOC /:'/7 --.:--:> Resolution No. Page 3 IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA Thai the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs., title ] 4, ~ 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures oftbe City of Chula Vista. V INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL Thai the City Council finds that the FEIR 95-0] reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. VI CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Attachment uA" of this Resolution known as document number ---> a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-0] and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as document number ---> 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 2108] and CEQA Guidelines Section 1509] thai the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible. C Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment uN to this Resolution known as document number ---> a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the mitigation measure regarding habitat noise mitigation described in the above referenced documents is infeasible. D. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section XI, for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as document number ---> a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds C:\EIR95 _0 LDOC Jcj Resolution No. Page 4 pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2]08] and CEQA Guidelines Section 1509] that altematives to the project, \\irich were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 95-0] were found not to be feasible. E Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 2]081.6, City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "B" of this Resolution known as document number ~ a copy of \\irich is on file in the office of the City Clerk The City Council hereby 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 feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. F. Statement of Overriding Consideration 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 ] 5093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", known as document number ~ a copy of \\irich 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. 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 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 2] ]67.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub Resources Code ~21000 et seq.). C:\Effi95_01.DOC ~s- Resolution No. Page 5 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this April 30, ] 996, by the following vote: YEs: NOES ABSENT: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA) 1, Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk of the City ofChula Vista, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No _ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a City Council meeting held on the 30th day of April, 1996. Executed this 30th day of April, 1996. Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk Attachments : Attachment A: Findings of Fact Attachment B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment C: Statement of Overriding Considerations C:\EIR95_0J .DOC $4- Sweetwater Union High School District Administration Center 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 69]-5553 '11.;2~. - 8":;::;'5 ' .. . ;~..., Division of Planning and Facilities March 6, 1996 Mr. Gerald Jamriska, A.1.c.P. Special Projects Manager Dtay Ranch Project Dffice City of Chula Vista 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Jamriska: Re: Dtay Ranch SPA I Plan and Annexation Recirculated Draft Second-Tier EIR dated February 1996 The Sweetwater Union High School District is in receipt of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dtay Ranch SPA I Plan and wishes to voice the following concerns. The Draft EIR, SPA I Plan, and Public Facilities Financing Plan adequately address school impacts caused by the plan as well as Salt Creek and the area west of Paseo Ranchero. What the recirculated EIR does not address is the cumulative impact to the district. Although originally identified in the GDP Programmatic EIR, the cumulative impact needs to be discussed as part of the SPA I proposal. The city recently distributed the Series 8 Growth Forecast for specific projects in the eastern territories. It is estimated that the district can anticipate an average of 1,100 units annually. Grading of a school site might need to commence when the number of students from all development in the eastern territories reaches 300. Given that Easdake High School is only at 65 percent capacity, this timeframe may very well coincide with when Dtay Ranch SPA I generates approximately 300 students. The language of mitigation measures 2 and 3 identified on page 4.13-23 should be reworded to allow for this flexibility. 37 Mr. Gerald Jamriska Page Two The following language is suggested: Item No.2 The SPA I applicant shall identify and initiate grading on a high school site at the time that SPA I has generated 300 high school students. This schedule is subiect to modification by the district. Item No. 3 The SPA I high school site shall be sufficiently prepared to enable the district to acquire the land when approximately 500 high school students are generated from SPA I. This schedule is subject to modification by the district. Please note that the underlined sentences indicate the new language, the remaining words are identical to the language in the environmental impact report. This revision to these conditions will make it possible for the district and the city to monitor the school threshold compliance of development in the eastern territories. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 691-5553. SI~~.. Thomas Silva Director of Planning TSlml c: Lowell Billings, Chula Vista Elementary School District 36