HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/09/15 Item 14
'" .,',~
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\~ CITY OF
._~ (HULA VISTA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009, ItemJ.!:L
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the Final Second Tier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 07-01) for the Otay Ranch
Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative
Map.
RESOLUTION: EIR 07-01 of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and certifYing the Final
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 07-01) for the
Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center Scctional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan and Tentative Map (TM) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act
DEPUTY g:qry MAt,,"AGERlDIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVIC~ ~
CITY MANAGER T-
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO 0
SUMMARY
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
a Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR), CEQA Findings of Fact, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared for the Otay Ranch
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map (TM)
(collectively, Project). Written comments were received during the public review period,
and responses to the comments are included in the Final EIR. This staff report discusses the
content of the Final EIR. The City Council must consider the Final EIR before taking any
action on the EUC SPA Plan and TM.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Second Tier EIR for the EUC SPA and TM has been prepared in accordance
with the Statc CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City
of Chula Vista.
14-1
September 15,2009, Item It./-
Page 2 of 8
RECOMlYlENDATION
That the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 8, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to close the 45-day
public review period for the draft EIR. Attached are the July 8, 2009 Planning
Commission minutes (Attachment 1). One commenter spoke at the hearing, but the
comments did not address the adequacy of the draft EIR. Comments received during the
public hearing, as well as any written comments received during the public review period
have been responded to in the Final EIR (Attachment 2)
On August 26, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. EIR 07-01
recommending the City Council certify that the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact
Report (EIR 07-01) for the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area
Plan and Tentative Map has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making
certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
DISCUSSION
McMillin Otay Ranch LLC has submitted an application requesting approvals for a EUC
SPA Plan and TM. The Second Tier EIR evaluates the environmental effects of the
proposed Project. The SPA Plan and TM propose development of a maximum of 2,983
multi-family dwelling units and approximately 3.5 million square feet of non-residential
uses over a period of 20 years on approximately 207 acres. Also called out in the SPA
plan are community purpose facilities, sites for a fire station, an elementary school and a
library, parks, and a Bus Rapid Transit corridor. The proposed development is consistent
with the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
CEOA Compliance
The Project EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.) and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures.
Pursuant to Section 21067 ofCEQA and Sections 15367 and 15050 through 15053 of the
State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Chula Vista (City) is the Lead
Agency under whose authority this EIR has been prepared.
Because of the size, complexity of issues and extended buildout time frame of the
development of Otay Ranch, both the planning and environmental documentation
associated with Otay Ranch were tiered from the general to the specific. The first tier of
planning and approvals included approval of the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and
associated Program EIR (90-01). EIR 90-01 was prepared and certified jointly by the City
and County of San Diego in 1993. EIR 90-01 was certified with the intent that the
14-2
September 15,2009, Item If
Page 3 of 8
individual SPA planning projects within Otay Ranch would be reviewed as "second-tier"
projects pursuant to Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines. Under such tiering
principles, the proposed EUC SPA and TM are analyzed at a second-tier level of review
(project level). The Project EIR incorporates by reference and serves as a second-tier
EIR to EIR 90-01 as well as its associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
The City of Chula Vista City Council adopted an updated General Plan on December 13,
2005 (Resolution Nos. 2005-424, 2005-425, 2005-426). The City's General Plan outlines
goals, policies and objectives for land use in the City in response to the community's
vision for the City. The General Plan also guides day-to-day City decision making to
ensure that there is continuing progress toward the attainment of General Plan goals.
Portions of the Otay Ranch GDP were updated as part of the General Plan Update
process. Included as part of that update were revisions to the policies and land uses
prescribed for the EUe. As such, the Proj ect EIR also incorporates by reference and
serves as a second-tier EIR to the General Plan Update EIR (EIR 05-01).
Comments on the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period. On July 8, 2009, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing to close the public review period for the
Draft EIR. A representative from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)
commented on the project as a whole, but not the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Attached
are the minutes of the July 8, 2009 Planning Commission hearing (Attachment I).
Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and
individuals:
USFWS/CDFG
Department of Transportation, District II (Caltrans)
Department of Toxic Substances Control
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use
City of San Diego, Engineering and Capital Proj ects Department
City of San Diego, Environmental Services Department
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
Bryan Felber, Chula Vista Resident
Nancy Ash, Chula Vista Resident
Theresa Acerro, Chula Vista Resident
Comments received during the public hearing, as well as the written comments received
during the 45-day public review period and the City responses have been responded to in
the Final EIR (Attachment 2).
14-3
September 15, 2009, Item N
Page 4 of 8
Additional Revisions to Draft EIR
Staff observed minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in the Draft EIR during the
public review period. Corrections and clarifications have been made in the Draft EIR,
and the Final EIR reflects the corrected information. None of the minor corrections and
clarifications resulted in modifications to conclusions regarding significance of impacts
or the addition of significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Findings of the Final EIR 07-01
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects
(or "impacts") that would result from the proposed SPA Plan and TM. Some of these
significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures. Other significant effects cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the
Final EIR. Direct (project level) and cumulative impacts (effects from the Project
and other past, present and possible future projects which when considered
together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130)) are identified and divided into three
categories: significant/cumulatively considerable and unmitigated,
significant/cumulatively considerable and mitigated to less than significant, and
less than significant/not cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts are
cumulatively considerable when the incremental effects of the Project are
significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)).
Sigllificallt alld Ullmitigated Impacts
. Landform Alterations/Aesthetics: Aesthetic impact associated with the
permanent change in the open space character of the project site to a permanent
urban use. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics impacts would be direct and
cumulative.
. Air Quality: Emissions ofVOC, NO" CO, PMIO and PM2.5 exceeding regional
significance threshold standards and non-compliance with the current Regional
Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). Air quality impacts would be direct and
cumulative.
14-4
September 15, 2009, Item fit
Page 5 of 8
. Agriculture: The permanent loss of approximately 207 acres Farmland of Local
Importance, with the loss of approximately 59 acres of adjacent Farmland of
Local Importance under Grading Option 1 (SSA) and approximately 28.5 acres
under Grading Option 2. Impacts on agricultural resources would be direct and
cumulative.
· Wastewater: The proposed project in combination with other foreseeable growth
could require sewage treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment
capacity rights and allocated additional treatment capacity. As the location and
scope of construction for any future expanded or newly developed treatment
facilities is unknown, the development of treatment capacity may result in
potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction of
new or expanded treatment facilities. This wastewater impact would be direct
and a cumulative impact ofthe project.
. Transportation: Significant cumulative impacts on the following three freeway
segments (1) northbound Interstate 805, between Telegraph Canyon Road and
Olympic Parkway (2020 and 2030); (2) southbound Interstate 805, between
Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway (2015, 2020, and 2030): and (3)
southbound Interstate 805, between Olympic Parh."Way and Main Street (2030).
The traffic impacts would be cumulative impacts, but not direct impacts of the
project.
. Noise: The project and related projects represented by the General Plan EIR
could exacerbate noise levels to a magnitude that significantly impacts receivers
where traffic volumes could increase more than 3 dB, particularly at key
intersections. Although project-specific mitigation measures would reduce noise
impacts to less than significant level, as the cumulative noise increase could
exceed the 3.0 dBA, noise impacts are considered cumulatively considerable and
unavoidable. The noise impacts would be cumulative impacts, but not direct
impacts of the project.
. Archaeological Resources: The project and related projects could result in
significant impacts on archaeological resources that may be uncovered during
development. The project has proposed mitigation measures to reduce project-
related impacts on cultural resources to a less than significant level. However,
while any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific
resource, the effect of the project in combination with related projects would be
considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. The impact on
archaeological resources would be cumulative, but not direct.
. Water Supply: The regional water supplier has concluded that water available to
service the proposed proj ect would be adequate; however, impacts associated
14-5
September 15, 2009, Item /1
Page 60f8
with water supply and infrastructure are considered cumulatively considerable,
in accordance with the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR concluded that,
as there is no assurance that water would be available to adequately serve the
projected increase in population, water impacts would be significant and
unmitigated. The impact on water supply would be cumulative, but not direct.
All feasible mitigation measures have been required of the Project with respect to
these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may
substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not
fully avoid the impacts. Therefore, to approve the project, the City must adopt
Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043, 15091 and 15093 (Attachment 3). This
provision allows a Lead Agency to find that the adverse environmental effects
are considered "acceptable" and approve the project that will result in the
occurrence of significant effects when, based upon substantial evidence, the Lead
Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits
of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant
Significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas,
and mitigation measures were required in the EIR to reduce the impacts to less
than significant. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
prepared to ensure that the mitigation measures will be implemented in
accordance with specified monitoring requirements.
o Aesthetics (direct - impact on scenic roadway; light and glare)
o Transportation (direct - impacts on bOlmdary intersections and street
segments; consistency with the Public Facilities Finance Plan)
o Air Quality (direct - exposure to toxic air contaminants from traffic on SR-
125)
o Noise (direct - construction and on-site stationary noise; exterior noise on
sensitive uses)
. Biological Resources (direct and cumulative - impact on resources during
grading)
o Agricultural Resources (direct - concurrent agricultural activity adjacent to
sensitive uses)
. Hydrology and Water Quality (direct and cumulative - quantity and quality of
surface runoff)
o Geology and Soils (direct and cumulative - unstable soils; erosion; seismicity)
. Archaeological Resources (direct - impact on resources during grading)
. Paleontological Resources (direct and cumulative - impact on resources
during grading)
. Schools (direct and cumulative - school facilities provided commensurate with
14-6
1';1
September 15, 2009, Item~
Page 7 of8
growth)
· Fire (direct and cumulative - fire protection provided commensurate with
growth)
. Police (direct and cumulative - police protection provided commensurate with
growth)
. Parks, Recreation and Open Space (direct and cumulative -parkland provided
commensurate with growth)
· Water Supply (direct - provision of water commensurate with growth)
. Sewer Service (direct - provision of sewer service commensurate with
growth)
. Hazards and Risk of Upset (direct and cumulative - fuel storage at the on-site
fire station; construction worker exposure to contaminated soils; airport-
related hazards from tall structures; wildfire hazard; hazardous waste)
. Library Services (direct and cumulative -library services provided
commensurate with growth)
. Global Climate Change (direct and cumulative - "best practices" to reduce
project-related GHG emissions)
Less than Significant Impacts
Less than significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue
areas:
· Land Use (direct and cumulative - consistency with plans and policies; land use
compatibility)
. Solid Waste (direct and cumulative - solid waste services commensurate with
growth)
· Housing and population (direct and cumulative - consistency with projected
housing and population generated by the project)
· Mineral Resources (direct and cumulative - no significant mineral deposits
affected)
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
No Property within 500 feet:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no
property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this
action.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMP ACT
The processing costs for the SPA Plan, Tentative Map and all supporting documents were
funded by a developer deposit account. This account funded city staff and consultants
representing the city who worked on the EVC.
14-7
September 15,2009, ItemK
Page 8 of8
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact associated with the Final EIR 07-01 since carrying out
the MMRP will be funded by a developer deposit account. Please see the Fiscal Impact
Analysis in the SPA Plan documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing - July 8, 2009
2. Final EIR 07-01 (2 bound volumes or CD with Summary previously distributed to
Councilmembers and available in the Office of the City Clerk)
a. Comments and Responses
b. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prepared by: Marni Borg, Environmental Projects Manager, Development Services
Department
14-8
ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
July 8, 2009
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
CALL TO ORDER: 6:05:27 PM
ROLL CALL / MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Members Present: Tripp, Clayton, Moctezuma, Vinson, Spethman,
Thompson, Felber
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 10, 2009
MSC (Thompson/Clayton) (5-0-1-1) to approve minutes of June 10, 2009 as
submitted. Motion carried with Cmr. Thompson abstaining and Cmr. Moctezuma
absent for the vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
CONSENT AGENDA: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Public Hearing:
EIR 07-01; Close of the public review period for the
Draft Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the
Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map.
Verbatim Transcript:
B. Tripp
Project Manager is Marni Borg and my notes on this indicates that the
purpose of this is to open the public hearing and take any comments
from the public and then to close the public hearing. We are here to
take oraL comment only and close the hearing. There will be no
response to comments or questions; staff will put the information in
14-9
Planning Commission
-2-
July 8, 2009
writing and provide a written transcript. With that, Marni, please
proceed. Welcome.
M. Borg
Thank you again, my name is Marni Borg, I'm the Senior Planner for
the Eastern Urban Center commonly known as the EUC Second Tier
Environmental Impact Report. This evening we are here to hold a
public hearing to hear oral comments on the adequacy of the EUC
Draft EIR and to close the forty-five day public comment period. The
public review period for the Draft EIR will terminate at the close of the
public hearing this evening.
Briefly, the proposed EUC Sectional Planning Area SPA Plan Area
comprises approximately 207 acres located east of and adjacent to
SR-125 south of and adjacent to Birch Road, west of and adjacent to
Eastlake Parkway and north of the future extension of Hunte Parkway.
The EUC Draft EIR contemplates the phased development of a
maximum of 2,983 multi-family dwelling units and 3.5 million square
feet of non-residential uses over a period of twenty years. The
proposed development is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan
and Otay Ranch General Development Plan, thus no amendments to
these planning documents are required.
At this time staff is recommending that the Planning Commission open
a Public Hearing to hear oral comments on the adequacy of the Draft
EIR. The comments should be limited to environmental issues related
specifically to the information presented in the Draft EIR. All
comments received these evening, including those made by the
Planning Commission will be considered and addressed in writing as
part of the Final EIR. A future Public Hearing will be scheduled before
the Planning Commission to consider the project along with the Final
EI R. Staff requests that any project-specific questions be held until
such meeting. No motion or vote by the Planning Commission is
necessary this evening; the 45 day public review comment period on
the Draft EIR will end with the closing of the public hearing tonight.
This concludes my presentation.
B. Tripp Thank you Marni. We dci have one speaker slip, Mr. Ahmad Solomon
representing SDG&E. I'd like to open the Public Hearing. Sir, we're
here to receive your comments. Questions will not be addressed, but
to the extent that you have any comments, please proceed. If you
need more than five minutes; I don't have a problem with that.
A. Solomon Thank you; I will not need five minutes; I appreciate it. I just wanted to
attend this meeting state that SDG&E does not oppose the EUC SPA
Plan, however, we would like to continue working with the City as well
as the developer in siting an electric facility that can serve the future
14-10
Planning Commission
-3-
July 8,2009
growth planned in this particular development. We are available for
any questions or concerns in the future; I know there is none tonight.
So, we will absolutely make certain that the project team is available to
address any questions or concerns the Planning Commission or City
staff may have with respect to our particular request. Thank you.
B. Tripp
Are the any more members of the public that would wish to be heard
on this item? Seeing none I will close the public review period. No
motion or vote is required, therefore, this item is concluded. Thank you
Marni; it was very concise and thorough; appreciate that.
End of transcript.
Submitted By:
Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commission
14-11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
EASTER1~ URBAN CENTER
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AND TENTATIVE MAP
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
ATTACHMENT 3
ST ATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
September, 2009
SD?UB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
II. ACRONYMS
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
IV. BACKGROUND
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
VIII. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Ai\!D MITIGATION MEASURES
LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS
TRANSPORTATION
AIR QUALITY
NOISE
CULTURAL RESOURCES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
I
2
10
12
14
16
19
19
25
28
34
39
45
50
59
SDPUBIBMlLLER \38514 l.2
14-13
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
HAZARDS AND RISK OF UPSET
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
NO PROJECTINO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
ADJUSTED LAND USE MIX ALTERNATIVE
ENVIRONMENT ALL Y SUPERIOR AL TERNA TIVE
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
61
64
66
78
80
82
91
94
96.
99
101
103
11
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-14
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area and Tentative Maps Environmental
Impact Report (EIR); SCH #2007041074; EIR 07-01.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the Eastern Urban Center
Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map project addresses the potential environmental
effects associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the Final EIR evaluates three
alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project Alternative (Alternative I), the Reduced
Density Alternative (Alternative 2), and the Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative (Alternative 3).
The Final EIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21094, and tiers from the certified Program EIR prepared for the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (EIR 90-01lSCH #89010154) and the General Plan Update ErR (EIR 05-01;
SCH #2004081066).
These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 9 21000 et seq.), the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, 9 15000 et seq.), and local CEQA guidelines.
SDPUBIBM1LLERI385141.2
14-15
AAQS
ACOE
ADT
AF
AGL
AMR
AMSL
AQIP
APCD
ATCM
BA
BCC
BCH
BMPs
BO
BRT
CAA
CAAQS
CAFE
CalEPA
Cal/OSHA
Caltrans
CARB
CAT
CBC
CCAR
CCR
II.
ACRONYMS
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Army Corps of Engineers
average daily traffic
acre feet
above ground level
American Medical Response
above mean sea level
Air Quality Improvement Plan
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Airborne Toxic Control Measure
Biological Assessment
Bird of Conservation Concern
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane
best management practices
Biological Opinion
Bus Rapid Transit
Clean Air Act
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
corporate average fuel economy
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
California Department of Transportation
California Air Resources Board
California Climate Action Team
California Building Code
California Climate Action Registry
California Code of Regulations
2
SDPUBIBMLLLER1385141.2
14-16
CDFG
CEC
CEQA
cfs
CGS
Cf4
CHHSL
CHRlS
CIP
City
CMP
CNDDB
CNEL
CNG
CNPS
CO
CO2
CPF
CPTED
CRA
CSC
CVESD
CVFD
CVMC
CVP
CVPD
CVPL
CVT
CWA
CWC
California Department ofFish and Game
California Energy Commission
California Environmental Quality Act
cubic feet per second
California Geologic Survey
methane
California Human Health Screening Level
California Historical Resources Information System
Capital Improvements Program
City of Chula Vista
Congestion Management Program
California Natural Diversity Database
community noise equivalent level
compressed natural gas
California Native Plant Society
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
Community Purpose Facilities
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
Colorado River Aqueduct
California Species of Special Concern
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Chula Vista Fire Department
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Central Valley Project
Chula Vista Police Department
Chula Vista Public Library
Chula Vista Transit
Clean Water Act
California Water Code
3
SDPUBIBMULER\385141.2
14-17
dB(A)
DDE
DDT
DMA
DOC
DRB
DRC
DTSC
DWR
EB
EE
EDR
EDUs
EIR
EIS
EPA
ERC
ERNS
ESA
EUC
FAA
FAR
FBC
FCP
FESA
FIA
FIRM
FMMP
GCC
GFS
A-weighted decibels
4,4' -dichlorodi phenyl-dichloroethylene (pesticide)
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (pesticide)
Drainage Management Areas
California Department of Conservation
Design Review Board
Design Review Committee
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Department of Water Resources
eastbound
Environmental Element
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Equivalent Dwelling Units
environmental impact report
environmental impact statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Review Coordinator
Emergency Response Notification System
Environmental Site Assessment
Eastern Urban Center
Federal Aviation Administration
floor area ratio
Form Based Code
Frac-Out Contingency Plan
Federal Endangered Species Act
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
global climate change
gross square feet
4
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-18
GHG
GM
GDP
GME
GMO
GMOC
GPU
gpd
GRP
GWP
H2S
HCM
HCP
HFC
HHW
HMP
HRA
IESNA
IMPs
IRP
LEED
Ldn
Lmax
LMV
LOS
LUST
LUT
MBTA
METRO
mgd
greenhouse gas
Growth Management
General Development Plan
Growth Management Element
Growth Management Ordinance
Growth Management Oversight Commission
General Plan Update
gallons per day
General Reporting Protocol
global warming potential
hydrogen sulfide
2000 Highway Capacity Manual
Habitat Conservation Plan
hydrofluorocarbon
Household Hazardous Waste
Hydromodification Management Plan
health risk assessment
Illumination Engineering Society of North America
Integrated Management Practices
Integrated Water Resources Plan
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
day-night average noise level
maximum noise level
low-medium village
level of service
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Land Use and Transportation Element
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Metropolitan Wastewater System
million gallons per day
5
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-19
MLD
MOE
mph
MSCP
MSL
MTS
MWD
NAAQS
NAHC
NCCP
NEPA
NHPA
NOz
N20
NOP
NOx
NPDES
03
OCP
OEHHA
OHP
OVRP
OWD
Pb
PC
PCSI
PFC
PFDIF
PFFP
PFS
most likely descendent
measurement of effectiveness
miles per hour
Multiple Species Conservation Program
mean sea level
Metropolitan Transit System
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
national ambient air quality standards
Native American Heritage Commission
California Natural Community Conservation Planning
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
nitrogen dioxide
nitrous oxide
Notice of Preparation
nitrogen oxide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ozone
OrganocWorine Pesticide
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Office of Historic Preservation
Otay Valley Regional Park
Otay Water District
lead
Planned Community zone
Poggi Canyon Sewer Improvement
perfluorocarbon
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
Public Facilities Financing Plan
Public Facilities and Services Element
6
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-20
PLDO
PL WTP
PM25
PM 10
ppm
PRC
PRG
PRMP
PZ
QCB
RAP
RAQS
RCP
RCRA
RHB
RMTS
RMP
ROD
RPA
RTP
RTIP
RWCWRF
RWQCB
SAMP
SANDAG
SB
SBWRP
SCAPCD
SCAQMD
SCH
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant
2.5-micron particulate matter
I O-micron particulate matter
parts per million
Public Resources Code
Preliminary Remediation Goal
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Pressure Zone
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Remedial Action Plan
Regional Air Quality Standards
Regional Comprehensive Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Radiological Health Branch
Rock Mountain Trunk Sewer
Resource Management Plan
Record of Decision
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
Regional Transportation Plan
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility
Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Subarea Master Plan
San Diego Association of Governments
Senate Bill
South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
South Coast Air Quality Management District
State Clearinghouse
7
SDPUBIBM[LLER1385 [4[.2
14-21
SCIC
SCSL
SDAB
SDCW A
SDNHM
SCRWQCB
SE
sf
SF6
SFP
SHPO
SIP
SLM
S02
SOx
SPA
SR
SRP
SSA
STLC
SUHSD
SUSMP
SWP
SWPPP
SWRCB
TACs
TDIF
TDM
TM
TSS
South Coastal Information Center
Salt Creek Sewer Lateral
San Diego Air Basin
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Natural History Museum
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region
State Endangered Species
square feet
sulfur hexafl uoride
State Fully Protected
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Implementation Plan
Sound Level Meter
sulfur dioxide
sulfur oxides
Sectional Planning Area
State Route
Subregional Plan
Soils Stockpiling Area
Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
Sweetwater Union High School District
Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation Plan
State Water Project
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
State Water Resources Control Board
Toxic Air Contaminants
Transportation Development Impact Fee
Transportation Demand Management
Tentative Map
Technical Sewer Study
8
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-22
TTLC
TWS
UBC
J-lglm3
ULFT
URMPs
USACE
USEPA
USFWS
UWMP
V/C
VFR
VMT
VOCs
WB
WBIC
WCP
WPP
WRI
WSA
WSA&VR
WQTR
ZA
Total Threshold Limit Concentration
Technical Water Study
Uniform Building Code
micrograms per cubic meter
ultra low-flow toilet
Urban Runoff Management Plans
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Urban Water Management Plan
volume to capacity ratio
Visual Flight Rules
vehicle miles of travel
volatile organic compounds
westbound
Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Controller
Water Conservation Plan
Wetlands Protection Program
World Resources Institute
Water Supply Assessment
Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report
Water Quality Technical Report
Zoning Administrator
9
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-23
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) SPA Plan ("SPA Plan") project presents a development plan
for the McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC ownership within the EVC of the Otay Ranch GDP. The
SPA Plan allows for a total of 2,983 multi-family dwelling units, a maximum of 3.487 million
square feet of non-residential floor area; approximately 16 acres of urban parks; an
approximately 5- to 6-acre elementary school site; an approximately one-acre fire station site;
and approximately 30 acres of street right-of-way. A minimum of 10 percent of the total
dwelling units within the SPA Plan will provide housing for low and moderate-income
households. The SPA Plan is consistent with and implements the Otay Ranch GDP and Chula
Vista General Plan. The proposed project includes a Tentative Map (TM) to create the initial
subdivision of the site and implement street standards and infrastructure requirements. Site-
specific development will require the future design approval for the allowable uses.
Three off-site components, which involve short-term construction activities, are associated with
the project. These include the Soils Stockpiling Area (SSA), Salt Creek Sewer Lateral (SCSL)
Improvement, and the Poggi Canyon Sewer Improvement (PCSI). The SSA would receive fill
soils from the EVC under Grading Option 1, one of the SPA Plan's two grading options; the
SCSL Improvement involves installation of 173 feet of 15-inch diameter sewer line and two
additional manholes on an existing line; and the PCSI involves the installation of 110 linear feet
of 21-inch diameter sewer pipe. Grading Option 2 balances quantities of earthwork within the
project site and a portion of the remainder.ofthe EVC which would include Streets A, B, C and
M and the future Hunte Parkway right-of-way. The action to which this EIR applies is approval
of the SPA Plan, the TM; and off site SSA, SCSL, and PCSI components. In approving the
proposed project, the City would allow for development of the project in accordance with the
General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP goals and policies.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City")
include the following:
o Certification of a Final EIR and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
o Adoption ofthe SPA Plan and associated documents including, but not limited to:
o SPA Plan,
o Form Based Code (Planned Community District Regulations & Village Design Plan),
10
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-24
o Public Facilities Finance Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis,
o Air Quality Improvement Plan,
o Water Conservation Plan,
o Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan,
o Affordable Housing Program, and
o Urban Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Plan.
· Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map to establish the initial layout of residential and non-
residential lots, public facility and open space lots, and infrastructure requirements for the
EUC.
Potential future discretionary actions may include approval and adoption of a Parks Agreement
and a Development Agreement. If it is determined that either of the Agreements deviates from
the impacts analyzed in this EIR, additional environmental review will be conducted prior to
approval of the Agreement, in accordance with CEQA. In addition, this EIR may be used by
other responsible agencies to implement the proposed project, including the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and California Department ofFish and Game.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As specified in the Final EIR, the objectives of this project include:
o Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan,
particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
o Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Program to ensure that public facilities
are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and
benefiting from, the improvements.
o Foster development patterns which promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl.
. Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the City of Chula Vista and
surrounding neighborhoods ofOtay Ranch.
· Establish unique urban standards for administration, streets, parking, parks, lighting, on-
site signing, setbacks, heights, and other development requirements to achieve an urban
place that sets itself apart from surrounding suburban villages.
11
SDPU8IBMILLER\385141.2
14-25
· Establish a high density, mixed-use regional urban center which also reserves a public
transit right-of-way (ROW or easement), and transit stops for extension of the San Diego
regional public transit system to reduce reliance on the automobile to access uses within
the center and destinations served by the transit system.
. Promote synergistic uses both within the urban center and between uses in adjacent
development areas to balance activities, services and facilities.
. Contribute to the unique Otay Ranch image and identity which differentiates Otay
Ranch from other communities.
· Implement development consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch resource
conservation and management plans.
. Establish a flexible and responsive land use and facility plan which assures project
viability in consideration of existing and future economic cycles.
IV.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located within the Otay Ranch GDP, which applies to that portion of the
Otay Ranch located within the City of Chula Vista. The Otay Ranch is envisioned as master-
planned community encompassing approximately 23,000 acres located both within City of
Chula Vista and unincorporated San Diego County. The first tier of planning included the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)/Subregional Plan (SRP), which was adopted by the
Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993,
after an extensive planning and environmental review process. The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
establishes goals and objectives for a broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and
industrial development. For that portion of the Otay Ranch located within the. City of Chula
Vista, development within Otay Ranch is addressed by GDP under Section 19.48 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. The Otay Ranch GDP was most recently updated on December 5, 2005
concurrently with the City's General Plan Update and associated General Plan Update EIR
(ErR 05-01; GPA 01-03). The EUC is a designated area, located entirely within the Otay Ranch
GDP, an element of the Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed project is fully consistent with
both the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP.
Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, SPA Plans are required to be
approved before final development entitlements can be considered. The proposed SPA Plan for
the EUC contains a Form Based Code ("FBC"), which further refines the development
standards, land plans, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. The
12
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-26
proposed SPA Plan is provided as required by the Otay Ranch GDP and pursuant to Title 19,
Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
13
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-27
v.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following:
· The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with
the project;
. The Draft and Final EIR for the project (EIR 07-01) including appendices and technical
reports;
. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment
period on the Draft EIR;
. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to
the proposed project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee
agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the
City's actions on the proposed project;
. All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and
public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the EIR for the
project;
. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the EIR, up through the close of the public hearing;
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public
mcetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings for this project;
o All [mdings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this project,
and all documents cited or referred to therein; and
o Matters of common knowledge to the City, which the members of the City Council
considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
and including but not limited to the following:
- Chula Vista General Plan;
14
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-28
Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP);
Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP);
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan;
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Final EIR (EIR 0-01; SCH # 89010154); and
Genera! Plan Update EIR (EIR 05-01; SCH #2004081 066).
· Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code
section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Donna Norris, Clerk to
the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth A venue, Chula Vista, California 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
proposed project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Councilor
City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception,
any documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many
of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in
approving the project (see, City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76
Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Ca!. Rptr. 620]. Other documents
influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to
the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the SPA Plan (see Pub. Resources Code,
section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Indus. V. City Council (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d
852,866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995)
33 Ca1.AppAth 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
15
SDPUBIBM!LI .ER \385 I 41.2
14-29
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.... ."
(Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended
to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed
projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or
substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state
that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects. .. ."
The mandate and principles announced III Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which ErRs are required [see, Pub. Resources Code, S 21081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, S 15091, subd. (a)]. For each significant environmental effect identified in
an ErR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one
or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final ErR" [CEQA Guidelines, S 15091,
subd. (a)(1)]. The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such other agency" [CEQA Guidelines, S 15091, subd. (a)(2)]. The third potential finding is
that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final ErR" [CEQA Guidelines, S
15091, subd. (a)(3)]. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA
Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations [see also Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565].
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project [see City of Del
Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417]. '''[F]easibility' under CEQA
encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of
the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Id.; see also,
16
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-30
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses
the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening" Such an understanding of the statutory term is
consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Pub. Res. Code, S 21002).
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less
than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel
Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147
Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not
all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for
purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to
a less than significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR (FEIR).
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency
(CEQA Guidelines, g15091, subd. (a), (b)).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
17
SDPUB\BMILLER\J85141.2
14-31
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effects" [CEQA Guidelines, SS 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Res. Code, S 21081, subd. (b)]. The California Supreme Court has stated that,
"[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d
553, 576).
18
SDPUB\BMlLLER\385141.2
14-32
VII.
MITIGATJONMONlTORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(I), the City, in adopting these
findings, also concurrently adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP") as
prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is
designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible
parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is
described in the document entitled EUC SPA Plan Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The
MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period.
The monitoring program will serve as a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
measures for the proposed project and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team
qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the
success of the mitigation measures.
VIII.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SummarY of Effects
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") resulting from the proposed project. Some of these significant effects can be fully
avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated
or avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in
Section XI below. This Section (VIII) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with
respect to the environmental effects of the project.
The project will result in potentially significant environmental changes with regard to the
following issues: landform alteration/aesthetics; transportation, air quality, noise, archaeological
and paleontological resources; biological resources; agricultural resources, hydrology and water
quality, geology and soils; public services (fire protection, police protection, schools, library
services, and parks and recreation), utilities (water and wastewater), hazards/risk of upset, and
global climate change. These significant environmental changes or impacts are summarized in
the Executive Summary of the Draft ErR, in Table ES-I on pages ES-8 through ES-95; and are
evaluated in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft ErR, on pages 4.1-1
through 4.14-32. No potentially significant effects were identified for land use, mineral
19
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-33
resources, solid waste, and housing and population. The proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts with respect to landform/aesthetics,
air quality, wastewater, and agricultural resources, and cumulative impacts with respect to
traffic, noise, archaeological resources, and water services.
Landform A]teration/ Aesthetics
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would permanently change the undeveloped, open
character of the project site to one of high-density urbanized uses, which is considered to be a
significant and unavoidable impact. In addition, impacts with respect to shade, shadow and
wind access are potentially significant since these impacts cannot be determined until the
specific locations, sizes, and orientation of future buildings are established. The project is also
located adjacent to a small section of Hunte Parkway, a designated scenic roadway.
Development adjacent to the designated roadway has the potential to result in a significant
impact.
Transportation
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact on northbound Interstate 805, between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway
(2020 and 2030), southbound Interstate 805, between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic
Parkway (20]5, 2020, and 2030), and southbound Interstate 805, between Olympic Parkway
and Main Street (2030). No feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce
impacts to these freeway segments to a less than significant level. The project also has the
potential to impact off-site roadway intersections and roadway segments and project boundary
intersections. Impacts on freeway segments, off-site intersections, street segments, and project
boundary intersections, prior to mitigation, are summarized in Tables 4.3-10 through 4.3-24 in
Section 4.3, Transportation, of the Draft EIR.
Air Quality
The EUC SPA Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to: 1)
inconsistency with the SDAPCD's currently approved RAQS (which are based in part on the
City's prior General Plan); 2) exceedance of daily significance thresholds for NOx, CO, VOC,
PMIO and PM2.5 from regional construction and operation-related emissions at milestone years
(2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030); 3) emissions of PMIO, PM2.5, above. threshold standards in the
SDAB, a non-attainment area; and 4) temporary fugitive dust during construction. No feasible
mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The
GDP Program EIR (EIR 90-01) identified significant short-term and cumulative impacts on
regional air quality from build out of the Otay Ranch.
20
SDPUBIBMILLER\385 I 41.2
14-34
Noise
The proposed project would result in potentially significant noise impacts associated with
temporary construction, traffic, and the proposed elementary school, parks, and commercial
uses. Outdoor noise generated by schools and parks, including sports activities, is considered to
have potentially significant impact on adjacent sensitive uses. Noise impacts due to on-site
stationary sources such as roof-top HV AC equipment and the fire station and the fire station
emergency generator would be significant. In addition, an increase of 4.1 and 5.4 dBA CNEL
along the highest traveled roadway segments of Birch Road would exceed the significance
threshold standard of 65 CNEL for residential development and other noise sensitive uses.
Cultural Resources
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources that may be
uncovered during clearing and grading. In addition, the area has a high sensitivity for
paleontological resources. Therefore, on-site grading and off-site site preparation with either
grading option as well as off-site excavation associated with the SCSL Improvement Area have
the potential to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. In addition, on-site
grading and off-site site preparation under either grading option as well as off-site construction
associated with the SCSL Improvement Area have the potential to result in significant impacts
to human remains.
Biological Resources
The proposed project would have a substantial direct and indirect adverse impact on sensitive
bird species protected by the MBT A and California Fish and Game Code. These include
ground nesting raptor species, such as the northern harrier and burrowing owl, occurring within
the EVC SPA Plan and SCSL Improvement Area. The northern harrier, burrowing owl, white-
tailed kite, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would be impacted by the loss of 159.2 acres
of agricultural lands utilized as foraging habitat. The coastal California gnatcatcher would be
temporarily impacted within the SCSL Improvement Area. The project may have significant
indirect effects on the MSCP Preserve associated with construction noise avian breeding
seasons, water quality, introduction of non-native exotic plant species following construction,
and human intrusion. Modifications associated with the SCSL would temporarily impact 0.16
acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub. Careless placement of the temporary high line facility in
the SCSL area could significantly impact sensitive biological resources. In addition, the. .
proposed jack and bore process in the SCSL area has the potential to release of drilling fluid
(frac-out), which would significantly impact wildlife. Changes in surface runoff patterns in
the SSA have the potential to indirectly impact downstream water within the jurisdiction of the
RWQCB/CDFG or ACOE.
21
SDPUBIBMILLER\385\4 \.2
14-35
The EUC SPA Plan would have an indirect, long-term, potentially significant impact related to
biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved
proportionally and concurrently with development.
Agricultural Resources
Impacts associated with the permanent removal of approximately 207 acres of designated
Farmland of Local Importance are considered significant and unavoidable. The implementation
of Grading Option I, which would transport and stockpile soils from the project site to the SSA,
would further affect approximately 59 acres of adjacent Farmland of Local Importance.
Grading Option 2, which would transport and stockpile soils to the remainder of the EUC
including the Hunte Parkway right-of-way (approximately 28.5 acres) would similarly result in
the loss of Farmland of Local Importance in this area. In addition, without implementation of
the proposed Agricultural Plan, noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with
interim agricultural operations on the site could create indirect, short-term, potentially
significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban uses.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Project construction would significantly impact water quality through grading and exposure of
soils to surface water or other erosion forces. During project operation, the introduction of
urban pollutants and impermeable surfaces would significantly impact water quality associated
with surface water runoff. Significant impacts on ground water quality could also occur from
the potential presence of DDT in on-site soils and increased exposure to urban pollutants during
project operation. In addition, the SPA Plan area would be entirely developed, paved, or
landscaped; thereby, substantially replacing permeable surfaces and exposed soils with
impervious surfaces. Therefore, the proposed project would result in significant impacts
associated with increased storm water runoff and off-site erosion of downstream facilities or
flooding.
Geology and Soils
Due to the presence of potential liquefiable soils in the EUC SPA Plan area and SCSL
Improvement Area, seismic-related impacts regarding unstable soils are considered to be
potentially significant. Also, grading activities associated with either of the two grading options
in combination with future irrigation and changes in drainage could result in potentially
significant slope instabilities or landslides within the EUC SPA Plan area. Heavy seepage and
deep saturation resulting in surficial slope failures, soil erosion, and/or loss of topsoil is
considered potentially significant. In addition, loose compressible materials on the project site,
including residuum, colluvium, alluvium and the surface ofthe fill slope in the southeast portion
of the site, could become unstable as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the potential
22
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-36
for land sliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction and/or collapse is considered to be potentially
significant In addition, the predominately clayey sand and sandy clay materials within the on-
site Otay Formation have a moderate to high expansion potential. Development of structures on
these soils could create substantial risks to life or property. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Utilities and Public Services
Fire Services
The implementation of the SPA Plan would increase demand on fire and emergency medical
services as a result of an increase in residential population of approximately 7,696 people and
employment base associated with approximately 3.4 million square feet of non-residential
development. The increase in demand would be significant if a fully operational and
appropriately equipped and staffed fire station is not provided c,ornmensurate with the demand
on fire and emergency medical services. Fire flow requirements for individual projects within
the EVe could be significant depending upon the ultimate building height and structure type.
Police Serviccs
The eVPD currently does not meet GMOe thresholds for responses to Priority II calls. The
proposed SPA Plan would increase demand for police protection services, which could increase
response times if additional police officers are not provided commensurate with demand. This
is considered a significant impact.
School Services
Implementation of the SPA Plan increase demand on local public schools. This would result in
a significant impact on elementary schools unless construction of an elementary school
coincides with student generation and associated service demands. Provision of school facilities
is the responsibility of the school district when additional demand warrants.
Librarv Services
Implementation of the SPA Plan will increase demand on library services. This would result in a
significant impact on libraries if the proposed library wcre not provided commensurate with
demand.
23
SDPUBIBMlLLER\385141.2
14-37
Parks. Recreation. Open Space and Trails
The proposed SPA Plan would increase demand on parks and recreational facilities. A
potentially significant impact could result if dedication of parkland and construction of new
recreation facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project population
growth.
Water Supply
The proposed SPA Plan would increase demand on future potable and recycled water supplies.
The impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of
facilities does not coincide with anticipated growth. OWD has approved a Water Supply
Assessment and Verification report for the project. Although it is not expected that the'increase
in demand for water would have a significant impact on the ability of OWD to provide service
to the proposed project, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water demand and
help ensure water availability. With respect to fire flow requirements, demand is a function of
the size and materials of structures. As no structure locations or specifications are currently
available, tire flow pressure requirements cannot be calculated. Therefore, water demand with
respect to fire flow is potentially significant.
Wastewater
The proposed SPA Plan would increase demand on the off-site sewage conveyance lines and
has the potential exceed the capacity of existing lines and construction and upgrading of lines is
required. Construction of sewer facilities has the potential to result in significant short-term air
emissions, dust; noise; impacts on biological, archaeological, and paleontological resources;
erosion; and ground water contamination. In addition, the proposed project would require
sewage treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated
additional treatment capacity. Therefore, additional capacity would need to be acquired from
METRO or other sources. The means by which additional treatment capacity would be
acquired is unknown and the development of additional capacity may require construction of
new treatment facilities. As the location and scope of construction for any newly developed
treatment facilities is unknown, the development of new or expanded treatment systems may
result in a significant impact, even understanding that such projects would likely be subject to
environmental review.
Hazards and Risk of Upset
Potentially significant impacts could result from the exposure of construction workers and the
public to any OCP-containing soils in Areas A, B, and C of the EVC SPA Plan area. Exposure
24
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-38
may result from any OCP-containing soils that would be released or become airborne during
excavation, be left uncovered on-site, or exported off-site. The presence of organic toxins and
gases at the future school site may exceed CVESD and state standards for public schools; thus
the project would have a potentially significant impact with respect to this threshold. Operation
of the project would involve the routine use of common landscaping, construction, and cleaning
materials that may be hazardous to the environment, if not managed according to state statutes
and manufactures' recommendations. In addition, the proposed fire station would require the
use fuel storage tanks containing hazardous materials. Hazards associated with the poor
visibility of tall structures under constmction or rooftop cranes may contribute to an airport-
related hazard, due to the proximity of Brown Field and aircraft over flight of the EUC under
VFR or circle-to-land procedures. Vacant lands in which weeds and brush have not been
controlled in close proximity to occupied uses may present a potentially significant wildfire
hazard.
Global Climate Change
The project has the potential for increased exposure to one or more of the potential adverse effects
of global wanning identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 particularly
regional and local increases in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from construction and operation
of the project.
Detailed Issues Discussion
LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS
Impact:
Future development along an 89-foot portion of the project site along Hunte Parkway could be
potentially inconsistent with the City's Scenic Roadway standards.
Explanation:
General Plan Policy LUT 13.4 requires that development along the 89-foot portion of the EVC
SPA Plan adjacent to Hunte Parkway, a designated scenic roadway, be subject to design review
to ensure that the design would enhance the scenic quality of the route. The proposed project's
Form Based Code indicates a 0-I5-foot setback along the adjoining Hunte Parkway and
indicates building heights averaging 40 feet in this area; however building heights greater than
40 feet would be allowable. In accordance with the requirements of Policy LUT 13.4, and to
address a potentially significant impact on this scenic route, mitigation has been prescribed that
requires the 89-foot portion at the southeast edge of the EUC SPA Plan's District 10 abutting
25
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-39
Hunte Parkway to be designed in a manner that ensures future development will enhance the
scenic quality of the route, including creating a pleasing streetscape through landscaping and
coordinated signage and utilities.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the ftndings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.2,
page 4.2-42):
4.2-1:
Prior to approval of landscape improvement plans that involve the 89-foot portion of
the EVC SPA Plan's District 10 abutting Hunte Parkway, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that future development, slope
grading and landscaping, signage and utilities will enhance the scenic quality of the
route.
Finding;
As identifted in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.2, of the EIR, pursuant to section l509l(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the signiftcant environmental effect as identifted in the ErR to
a level ofinsigniftcance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The EVC SPA Plan would change the undeveloped, open aesthetic character of the project site
to one of high-density urbanized uses, which is considered to be a potentially signiftcant impact.
Explanation:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would permanently change the aesthetic character of
the project site from undeveloped rolling hills and existing and former agricultural ftelds, which
have an open and somewhat natural character, to a permanent urbanized area with high-density
buildings, roadways and other permanent development. This was previously addressed in the
Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and was determined to be signiftcant and not fully mitigated.
This change in the visual character and quality of the site is considered signiftcant. In addition,
the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the conversion of open, rolling hills to developed
condition would be cumulatively signiftcant.
26
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-40
Mitigation Measure:
None.
Finding:
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make mitigation of this impact infeasible. Avoiding this
impact would require not developing the project, which would conflict with the City's General
Plan and the Otay Ranch Development Plan. Further discussion of this point appears in the
discussion of the "no project" alternative, see Section X, below.
Impact:
The project would have a potentially significant impact associated with shade, shadow and wind
access.
Explanation:
Shade, shadow and wind access impacts are based the relationship of future buildings to each
other. As the specific locations, sizes, and orientation of future buildings are not currently
known, this impact is considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (ErR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.2, page 4.2-
42).
4.2-2:
In accordance with Section 04.04.001 of the FBC, prior to design review approval
for any structure eight stories and above, the Applicant shall prepare to the
satisfaction of the Development Services Director, a light, shadow and wind pattern
analysis demonstrating that adjacent shadow-sensitive uses are not shadowed for
more than 3 hours between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. during the winter or for more
than 4 hours between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. during the summer or any approved
City-standard in place at the time the light, shadow and wind pattern analysis is
performed.
27
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-41
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.2, of the ErR, pursuant to section I 509 I (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact:
The project would significantly impact two intersections in the project study area during the
Horizon Year 2010; one intersection during the Horizon Year 2015, one intersection during the
Horizon Year 2020, and six intersections during the Horizon Year 2030.
Explanation:
The project's impacts on intersection service levels are summarized in Section 4.0, Subchapter
4.3, Table 4.3-10 on page 4.3-33, Table 4.3-13 on page 4.3-43, Table 4.3-16 on page 4.3-53,
and Table 4.3-19 on page 4.3-63. As shown in these summaries, the project would impact the
following intersections during Horizon Years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. Traffic impacts are
based on estimated A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic.
Horizon Year 2010 with Project:
o Intersection #7: Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue
o Intersection #8: Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road
Horizon Year 20/5 with Project:
o Intersection #8: Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road
Horizon Year 2020 with Project:
o Intersection #19: Main Street and Heritage Road
Horizon Year 2030 with Project:
o Intersection # 1: Telegraph Canyon Road and Heritage Road
28
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-42
. Intersection #7: Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue
· Intersection #15: Birch Road and La Media Road
· Intersection # 16: Birch Road and Magdalena A venue
· Intersection #19: Main Street/Rock Mountain Road and Heritage Road
· Intersection #21: Rock Mountain Road and Magdalena A venue
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, page
4.3-93).
4.3-1:
4.3-2:
4.3-3:
4.3-4:
4.3-5:
Intersection #7: Prior to implementation of the first phase of the project (with 1st
EDU) at the intersection of Olympic ParkwaylBrandywine Avenue, the Applicant
shall secure or construct the re-striping of the northbound approach to include one
thru lane and one shared thru-right lane and coordinate SB 1-805 Ramps through
Brandywine on Olympic Park.'Way.
Intersection #8: Prior to implementation of the first phase of the project (with 1st
EDU) at the intersection of Olympic Parkway/ Heritage Road, the Applicant shall
secure or construct the addition of a southbound right-turn overlap phase.
Intersection #19: Prior to implementation of the third phase of the project (3,070
proposed project EDU's) at the intersection of Main Street/Heritage Road, the
Applicant shall secure or construct the addition of dual northbound and dual
eastbound right-turn lanes.
Intersection #1: Prior to implementation of the fmal phase of the project (5,270
proposed project EDU's) at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road/Heritage
Road, the Applicant shall secure or construct the addition of an exclusive westbound
right-turn lane and widening of the north leg to provide three thru lanes.
Intersection #15: Prior to implementation of the fmal phase of the project (at 5,270
proposed project EDU's) at the intersection of Birch Road/La Media Road, the
29
SDPUBIBMlLLER\385141.2
14-43
4.3-6:
4.3-7:
4.3-8:
Finding:
Applicant shall secure or construct the conversion of a westbound thru lane into a
shared westbound thruIright -turn lane.
Intersection #16: Prior to implementation of the fmal phase of the project (at 5,270
proposed project EDU's) at the intersection of Birch Road/Magdalena Avenue, the
Applicant shall secure or construct the addition of an exclusive eastbound right-turn
lane.
Intersection #19: Prior to implementation of the final phase of the project (at 5,270
proposed project EDU's) at the intersection of Main StreetlHeritage Road, the
Applicant shall secure or construct the addition of a dual northbound and a dual
eastbound right-turn lanes and the addition of a dual southbound right-turn overlap
phase.
Intersection #21: Prior to implementation of the final phase of the project (at 5,270
proposed project EDU's) at the intersection of Rock Mountain Road/Magdalena
A venue, the Applicant shall secure or construct the addition of a dual southbound
left-turn lane and a dual northbound right-turn lane.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The project would have a potentially significant impact on the segment of Hunte Parkway
between SR-125 and Street A.
Explanation:
Impacts on street segments for Horizon Years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 are summarized in
the EIR, Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, Table 4.3-11 on page 4.3-35, Table 4.3-14 on page 4.3-45,
Table 4.3-17 on page 4.3-55, and Table 4.3-20 on page 4.3-65. As shown in these tables, the
project would not significantly impact street segments in the study area. However, if the SR-
125/0tay River Valley interchange is not constructed, the Hunte Parkway segment between SR-
125 and Street A would operate over capacity under Year 2030 with Project conditions. As
30
SDPUBIBMILLER138514I.2
14-44
intersections in the study area would operate at acceptable levels of service, all other road
segments are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, page 4.3-
93).
4.3-9:
Hunte Parkway (SR-125 to Street A): Prior to 5,270 EDU's and if SR-125 and the
Otay Valley Road interchange is not constructed, the Applicant shall secure or
construct two awdliary lanes on this roadway segment as determined necessary by
the City Engineer.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The project would significantly impact two project boundary intersections.
Explanation:
The impact of the project on boundary intersections is summarized in Section 4.0, Subchapter
4.3, Table 4.3-22 on page 4.3-71. As shown in Table 4.3-22, potentially significant impacts
under the Year 2030 Build-Out with Project scenario would occur at the following project
boundary intersections:
o Hunte Parkway and EastLake Parkway
o Hunte Park'Way and Street A
31
SDPUBIBMlLLER\385141.2
14-45
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, page
4.3-93).
4.3-10:
Prior to completion of the entire project (8,035 proposed project EDU's), at the
Hunte ParkwaylEastLake Parkway intersection, the Applicant shall secure or
construct a right-turn overlap phase for the eastbound, westbound, and northbound
movements.
4.3-11:
Upon connection of Street A to Hunte Parkway, the Applicant shall secure or
construct the Hunte Parkway/ Street A intersection with a fourth eastbound through
lane, a dual northbound left-turn lane, and a southbound right-turn overlap phase.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, of the ErR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The project would have a potentially significant impact with respect to consistency with the
PFFP thresholds.
Explanation:
The project's consistency with the PFFP is dependent on several variables that are out of the
control of the proposed project. Since SR-125 is not within the City's jurisdiction, it is difficult
to control the timing of the Otay Valley Road interchange construction. In addition, several
intersection and roadway segment improvements are expected to be constructed or bonded by
others in each respective scenario. Given that the timing of such improvements are by nature
not under control of the proposed project, the proposed project's consistency with the PFFP
thresholds is considered to be a potentially significant impact.
32
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-46
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, page
4.3-93).
4.3-12:
4.3-13:
4.3-14:
Finding:
The Applicant, in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista, shall monitor the
necessary timing to construct the SR-125 and Rock Mountain Road interchange to
ensure that this improvement is constructed prior to surpassing the PFFP threshold
of 5,270 proposed project EDU's.
The Applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement with the City of Chula
Vista to construct and secure, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal
Code, the required street improvements, including traffic signals, prior to the
approval of the final map that contains the cumulative EDU trigger.
On-site streets and boundary intersections shall be constructed in accordance with
the PFFP. Boundary intersections shall be constructed to their full-proposed build-
out geometry when the connecting on-site links are constructed. All street
improvement plans shall show project boundary intersections to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
While no significant impacts were identified along the BRT route, a mItigation measure is
recommended to ensure that the project applicant provides conduit at all intersections to
facilitate traffic movement.
Explanation:
Traffic control is proposed by the proposed project owner at each intersection within the EUC.
Based on the proposed control, the inbound BRT route would be required to stop at two all-way
33
SDPUBIBMlLLER1385 141.2
14-47
stops and one two-way stop, and would cross one signalized intersection before turning onto
right-of-way adjacent to EastLake Parkway. Also based on the proposed control, the outbound
BRT route would be required to stop at two all-way stops, two two-way stops, and would cross
one signalized intersection after entering the EVC. Therefore, even with a technique such as
traffic signal pre-emption, the inbound BRT would be required to stop at three locations and the
outbound BRT would be required to stop at four locations, in addition to the proposed BRT
stops within the EVC.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, page 4.3-
93).
4.3-15:
The Applicant shall install traffic signal conduits in streets with exclusive BRT
transitways throughout the entire site so that future transit signal priority treatments
can be used and signals can be interconnected.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
AIR QUALITY
Impact:
The EVC SPA Plan would conflict with SDAPCD's currently approved RAQS, which are
based in part on the City's prior General Plan (adopted in 1992 and updated in 2001).
Explanation:
The current RAQS is based on the General Plan that was in effect when the SDAPCD's RAQS
were adopted in 1992 and updated through 2001. It is not consistent with the current GPU that
was adopted in December 2005. Although SANDAG is currently updating the RAQS, the
proposed land uses for the EVC SPA would conflict with the currently approved RAQS. This is
a significant impact.
34
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-48
Mitigation Measures:
None.
Finding:
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce this impact to a less
than significant level. The resolution of this issue is outside of the purview of the City.
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make mitigation of this issue infeasible. Avoiding this
impact would require not developing the project, which would conflict with the City's General
Plan and the Otay Ranch Development Plan. Further discussion of this point appears in the
discussion of the "no project" alternative, Section XI, below.
Impact:
The proposed project's regional construction and operation-related emissions at milestone years
would exceed the daily significance thresholds for NOx, CO, VOC, PMlO and PM2s.
Explanation:
During construction, the project would exceed threshold standards of NOx, CO, VOC, PM10
and PM2.5. Construction emission forecasts, based on conservative assumptions in which the
entire project would be built out over a ten year time period, provide for the maximum intensity
of construction activities (e.g., demolition, site preparation, building construction. Construction
emissions are summarized in EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.4, Table 4.4-6 on page 4.4-20.
During project operation, emissions associated with the operation of on-road vehicles and the
use of electricity and natural gas would exceed the daily significance thresholds for PM10,
PM25, CO, NOx, and VOC. Operational emissions are summarized in ErR Section 4.0,
Subchapter 4.4, Table 4.4-7, on page 4.4-21.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.4, page 4.4-
34).
4.4-1:
Prior to approval of any grading permits, the following requirements shall be placed
on all grading plans, and shall be implemented during grading of each phase of the
project to minimize construction emissions:
35
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-49
· All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable
dust control agents during site grading or demolition activities at least twice
daily;
· Additional watering shall be applied during windy days or until dust emissions
are not visible;
. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered or maintain at least 12
inches of freeboard to reduce windblown dust and spills;
· A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced;
. Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to
reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement;
· On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered;
o Approach routes to the site shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt;
o Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust;
o Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within
the construction site prior to public road entry;
o Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public
roads;
o Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence;
o Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle
travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred;
o Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material
onto public roads;
o Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units;
36
SDPUBIBMILLER\385 141.2
14-50
· All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall have
catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment and injection timing retard
for diesel-powered equipment;
. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to
minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading
and unloading queues should turn their engines off when not in use to reduce
vehicle emissions; and
· Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered
generators shall be used to the extent feasible.
Finding:
Although mitigation measures would reduce emission levels, no feasible mitigation measures
have becn identified that would reduce significant air quality impacts with respect to VOC,
NO", CO, PM10 and PM2.5 threshold standards during the most intense construction period and
project operation impact to a less than significant level. The only mitigation available for these
impacts is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section l5091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative
infeasible. Adoption of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of
the project as identified in Section 3.0 of the EIR. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable
because of specific overriding considerations.
1m pact:
Project emissions would exceed thresholds for PMlO, PM2.5, and, as the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB) is currently classilied as non-attainment for these emissions, emission levels would be
signi ficant.
Explanation:
Thc SDAB is currently classified as nonattainment for ozone, PMlO and PM2.5. As shown in the
EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter, 4.4, Table 4.4-8 on page 4.4-22 and Table 4.4-9 on page 4.4-23,
project emissions are expected to exceed the thresholds for PMlO, PM2.5, CO and the ozone
precursors NOx and VOC. Since the SDAB is in non-attainment for PMlO and ozone, these
emission levels would be significant. The impact of the GDP buildout on segments air
37
SDPUSIBMILLERI385141.2
14-51
emissions was previously addressed in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and was determined
to be significant and not fully mitigated.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
Finding:
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce emISSIOns of PMIO,
PM25, and CO to a less than significant level. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
mitigation of this impact infeasible. Avoiding this impact would require not developing the
project, which would conflict with the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch Development
Plan. Further discussion of this point appears in the discussion of the "no project" alternative,
Section X, Feasibility of Potential Project Alternatives, below.
Impact:
Temporary fugitive dust emISSIOns during mass grading would exceed the significance
threshold. Impacts related to localized mobile-source CO and Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
emissions during construction and operation would be less than significant. However, to ensure
compliance with established T AC thresholds, a mitigation measure is recommended.
Explanation:
Construction dust is comprised primarily of chemically inert particles that are too large to enter
the human respiratory tract when inhaled. Nevertheless, approximately 35 percent of the total
fugitive dust emissions is 10 microns or smaller. Given the shifting nature of the construction
activity, these fugitive dust impacts would only affect a given location for a relatively short
period of time. However, because of the size of the project, this is considered a significant
impact. In addition, T ACs are of particular concern with regard to sensitive receptors. For
example, state law requires school districts to consider the impact of siting a new school close
to existing facilities that emit toxic air contaminants. This same principle is applied in siting
other sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses) close to facilities that emit TAC (e.g., freew~ys,
gasoline stations, etc.). It is also important when siting a new source of toxic air contaminants
near existing sensitive receptors. As the proposed project is introducing sensitive land uses
(e.g., residential) into an area where potential off-site sources of air toxics may impact proposed
sensitive uses, mitigation is provided to address this issue.
38
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-52
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.4, page
4.4-34). In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, listed above, shall be implemented to reduce
dust emissions and other particulates during construction.
4.4-2:
4.4-3:
Finding:
Prior to approval of the building permit for any uses which are regulated for T AC
emissions by the SDAPCD, the Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building that the use complies with established criteria
(such as those established by SDAPCD Rule 1200).
Prior to design review approval for any development that includes sensitive uses
within 500 feet of the centerline of SR-125, such as residential, schools, day care
facilities and parks, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services consistency with any city, State or federal
standard, regarding airborne cancer risks from mobile emissions from the highway,
in place at the tinae. The Applicant may use data from the health risk assessment
conducted for this EIR to determine compliance with a new standard. If inconsistent
with the standards, site-specific design measurcs shall be implemented, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, to reduce the potential impact
to meet the adopted standards.
As idcntified in Section 4.0, Subchaptcr 4.4, of the EIR, pursuant to section l5091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level ofinsigniticance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
NOISE
Impact:
Activities associated with grading and construction would temporarily incrcase noise levels.
Future on- or off-site sensitive receptors within 250 feet of on- site (within the project site) or
off-site (SSA, SCSL Improvement, or PCSI) grading activities or construction could cxperience
short term nuisance noise levels during such activities.
39
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-53
Explanation:
Grading activities would generate is 86 dBA (hourly Leq) at 50 feet distance, as shown in EIR
Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.5, Table 4.5-5 on page 4.5-12. Grading noise levels at residential
uses to the west would be 60 dBA, which would be consistent with the ambient noise levels. At
the Olympian High School, grading activities would generate noise up to 62 dBA (hourly Leq).
In the event that sensitive receptors such as residential development or the proposed
middlelhigh-school in Village Eleven (east of Eastlake Parkway) are completed prior to EUC
site grading, exterior noise levels of up to 76 dBA could be experienced at these locations.
However, the construction noise would reduce to below 75 dBA at a 200-foot distance from the
construction equipment.
The proposed project would be constructed in several phases. Therefore, noise levels generated
during building construction would have the potential to affect occupants of new on-site uses
constructed in the project's early development phases or prior to buildout. Anyon-site location
with an uninterrupted line-of-sight to a construction noise source could periodically be exposed
to temporary noise levels of up to 86 dBA at 50 feet from the construction site. Similar to the
noise analysis for grading, noise sensitive receptors that are located within 200 feet of a
construction site would be potentially exposed to significant noise impacts. However, noise
impacts would be temporary and would cease when construction is finished.
Some periods of excavation and boring at the SCSL Improvement Area may generate high noise
levels locally, since the upstream manhole is located near Village Eleven. However, the SCSL
Improvement Area is located more than 2,000 feet to the south of Village Eleven. Construction
noise in the PCSI Area has the potential to impact sensitive uses. Construction equipment may
include the use of ajackharnmer to break up existing pavement, a backhoe for trenching, trucks,
pavers, and similar machinery. Residential neighborhoods, located at all four corners of the
Olympic ParkwayIBrandywine intersection, would be exposed to noise levels ranging from 78
dBA at 50 feet and 72 dBA at 100 feet (trucks, pavers, backhoes) and 89 dBA at 50 feet and 83
dBA at 100 feet Uackharnmer).
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.6, page 4.6-
20).
4.5-1:
Prior to approval of any grading permit, the following measures shall be placed as
notes on all grading plans, and shall be implemented during grading of each phase of
the project to minimize construction noise impacts:
40
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-54
a) Grading and exterior construction activities within 250 feet of noise sensitive
uses shall be prohibited Monday through Friday from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.,
and from 10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays, in accordance with
the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.1.
b) Noise-generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with
effective noise control devices, i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures.
All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise,
due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.
c) Construction truck routes and equipment shall, to the extent feasible, avoid
residential areas and roadways adjacent to noise sensitive receptors.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.2, of the ErR, pursuant to section l5091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to a
level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The project would generate potentially significant operational noise levels associated with
cumulative traffic; stationary sources within the SPA Plan, such as roof-top HV AC equipment
and the fire station emergency generator; and outdoor use of schools and parks for sports and
other high-noisc-level activities.
Explanation:
The cumulativc traffic noise impacts at project build-out (year 2030) would result In an
incremental increase of more than 3.0 dBA CNEL at the following roadway segments:
o Main Street - between Maxwell Road and Heritage Parkway;
o La Media Road - bctween E. Palomar Streq to Olympic Parkway and between Olympic
Parkway and Birch Road;
o EastLake Parkway - between Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway;
. Heritage Road - between Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway.
41
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-55
Although the project's traffic, alone, would not exceed the 3.0 dBA significance threshold and
therefore is not considered to be a significant impact, Any new development within the Otay
Ranch along these roadways would require noise mitigation measures for noise sensitive uses to
meet the City's noise standard, the cumulative noise increase would exceed the project's 3.0
dBA significance threshold and would be considered significant. Off-site and on-site traffic
noise levels are summarized in EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.5, Table 4.5-6, on page 4.5-19, and
Table 4.5-7, on page 4.5-20.
The emergency generator associated with the proposed fire station may produce an approximate
noise level or 85 dB at 80 feet without noise attenuation. The generator would be operated
during power outages and for monthly testing. Monthly testing is normally conducted on
Saturdays. Noise standards for adjacent office, retail and multiple dwelling residential areas are
set forth in Table III of Chapter 19.68 of the Municipal Code. The EUC office, retail and mixed
use areas uses planned adjacent to the proposed fire station could be significantly impacted by
the emergency generator noise. Noise from schools and parks would be generated by a variety
of sources including voices, public address systems, parking lot use, and most notably sports
activities. If located adjacent to residential uses, noise levels from schools and parks may
exceed the exterior noise standards presented in the City's Municipal Code for adjacent
residential uses.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.5, page
4.5-25).
4.5-2 (a):
Prior to approval of design review permits for residential uses on lots directly
adjacent to a proposed park site or the future EUC elementary school site, a detailed
acoustical analysis report shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to
ensure that interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be at or below 45 CNEL.
Building plans will be available during design review and will permit the accurate
calculation of building acoustical evaluation including wall structures sound
transmission loss for habitable rooms. For these lots, it may be necessary for the
windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the
interior standard of 45 CNEL. Consequently the design for these units may need to
include mechanical ventilation or air conditioning systems to provide a habitable
interior environment with the windows closed based on the results of the detailed
interior acoustical analysis.
42
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-56
4.5-2(b ):
4.5-2 (c):
4.5-3:
4.5-4:
4.5-5:
As part of the review process for fmal EVC park designs, park site plans shall be
reviewed by the City to recommend that hard-court areas (basketball, tennis, etc.)
and active play fields are located as far as feasible from existing or proposed
residential uses with outdoor patios or gathering areas. The goal and performance
standard for this measure is to avoid outdoor noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL for
residential uses that include outdoor patios or common gathering areas that are
located adjacent to park sites. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City prior to final approval of applicable park site plans.
The City shall consult with the Chula Vista Elementary School District prior to or
during the environmental review process for the proposed elementary school to
recommend that the school site is planned such that hard-court areas and active play
fields are located as far as feasible from existing or proposed residential uses with
outdoor patios or gathering areas. The goal and performance standard for this
measure is to avoid outdoor noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL for residential uses
with outdoor patios or common gathering areas that are located adjacent to a school
site.
Prior to approval of design review permits for commercial and public buildings, the
following shall be implemented:
a) Air conditioning, cooling and ventilating equipment and any other noise-
generating equipment shall be screened, shielded and/or sound buffered from
surrounding streets and land uses. An acoustical analysis shall be performed by a
qualified acoustical consultant to verify the specific details of this mitigation
measure including; geometrical dimensions and construction materials.
b) Loading docks and trash collection areas shall properly be screened or enclosed
and shall not be oriented toward adjacent sensitive uses.
Concurrent with the first submittal of construction plans for the fire station, a noise
study shall be prepared to ensure that appropriate noise attenuation measures are
implemented capable of reducing the exterior generator noise at the property lines
consistent with Table III of Chapter 19.68 of the Municipal Code.
Prior to approval of design review permits for sensitive uses, such as residential use,
libraries, daycare facilities, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, planned for areas
forecasted to exceed an exterior noise level of 65 CNEL (based on Table 4.5-7 ofthe
EIR), the following shall occur:
43
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-57
a) An acoustical analysis shall be performed for residential structures to ensure that
interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be at or below 45 CNEL. Outdoor
use areas such as terraces and balconies shall not be encouraged for residential
structures that front major roadways, such as SR-125, Birch Road, EastLake
Parkway, and Hunte Parkway. For these residential use areas, it may be necessary
for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet
the interior design standard of 45 CNEL. Consequently the design for these units
may need to include mechanical ventilation or air conditioning systems to provide a
habitable interior enviromnent with the windows closed based on the results of the
interior acoustical analysis.
b) To reduce exterior noise levels to 65 CNEL or lower at outdoor sensitive uses (i.e.,
residential courtyards, parks, and passive recreation areas), a combination of sound
barrier walls, earthen berms, and landscaping shall be designed and implemented by
a qualified acoustical consultant. Alternatively, outdoor uses shall be located behind
buildings (not facing traffic corridors) in a manner that shields outdoor sensitive uses
from roadway noise and reduces the exterior noise level to 65 CNEL or below.
4.5-6:
AtWetic fields if placed in development areas where noise from traffic exceeds or is
forecasted to exceed 70 dBA CNEL (based on Table 4.5-7 of the EIR), shall
incorporate the following:
a) Sound barrier walls or earthen berms of sufficient height and length shall be
designed by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce exterior noise levels to 70
CNEL or lower; or
b) Passive recreation areas, such as picnic tables, shall be located away from the
roadway as far as possible.
4.5-7:
The applicant may, at any time during implementation of the proposed project,
submit a revised noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that takes
into consideration site grading based on final grading plans and locations of
intervening structures to establish new noise contours on the site. The noise study
shall be approved by the City, and may be used to implement the noise mitigation
measures of this section.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.5, of the ErR, pursuant to section l5091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
44
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-58
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact:
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources that may be
uncovered during clearing and grading.
Explanation:
Records search and survey results for the area indicate that the surface archaeological sensitivity
in this area is low. Both previous and current finds have been limited to isolated artifacts,
which taken together suggests that past use of this area consisted of transient uses rather than
extended occupations. However, due to the density of the vegetation cover in these areas,
additional isolates may be present on the surface but could not be identified during the survey.
In addition, as there has not been any archaeological testing in this area or vicinity, the potential
for intact cultural deposits is unknown. Therefore, impacts with respect to archaeological
resources are potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.6, page
4.6-20).
4.6-1:
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, the applicant shall provide written confirmation and incorporate
into grading plans, to the satisfaction of tbe Environmental Review Coordinator, that
a principal investigator (PI) as listed by the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR 61) has
been retained in an oversight capacity to ensure that an archaeological monitor(s)
will be present during all cutting of previously undisturbed soil. If these cutting
activities occur in more than one location, multiple monitors shall be provided to
monitor those areas, as determined necessary by the PI.
4.6-2:
During the initial grading of previously undisturbed soils within the EUC SPA Plan
area, limits of grading or site preparation for either Grading Options 1 or 2, and
SCSL Improvement Area, prehistoric and historic resources may be encountered. In
45
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-59
the event that the monitor identifies a potentially significant site, the archaeological
monitor shall secure the discovery site from further impacts by delineating the site
with staking and flagging, and by diverting grading equipment away from the
archaeological site. Following notification to the City, the archaeological monitor
shall conduct investigations as necessary to determine if the discovery is significant
under the criteria listed in CEQA and the environmental guidelines of the City. If
the discovery is determined to be not significant, grading operations may resume and
the archaeological monitor shall summarize the fmdings in a letter report to the City
following the completion of mass grading activities. The letter report shall describe
the results of the on-site archeological monitoring, each archaeological site observed,
the scope of testing conducted, results of laboratory analysis (if applicable), and
conclusions. The letter report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator prior to release of grading bonds. Any artifacts
recovered during the evaluation shall be curated at a curation facility approved by
the City.
For those prehistoriclhistoric resources that are determined to be significant,
alternate means of achieving mitigation shall be pursued. In general, these forms of
mitigation include: I) site avoidance by preservation of the site in a natural state in
open space or in open space easements, 2) site avoidance by preservation through
capping the site and placing landscaping on top of the fill, 3) data recovery through
implementation of an excavation and analysis program, or 4) a combination of one
or more of the above measures. Procedures for implementing the alternative forms
of mitigation described herein are further detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted as part of the Otay Ranch General Development
Program EIR, EIR 90-01.
For those sites that are found to be significant resources and for which avoidance
and preservation is not feasible or appropriate, the Applicant shall prepare a Data
Recovery Plan. The plan will, at a minimum, include the following: I) a statement of
why data recovery is appropriate as a mitigating measure, 2) a research plan that
explicitly provides the research questions that can reasonably be expected to be
addressed by excavation and analysis of the site, 3) a statement of the types and
kinds of data that can reasonably be expected to exist at the site and how these data
will be used to answer important research questions, 4) a step-by-step discussion of
field and laboratory methods to be employed, and 5) provisions for curation and
storage of the artifacts, notes, and photographs will be stated. In cases involving
historic resources; however, archival research and historical documentation shall be
used to augment field-testing programs.
46
SDPUBIBMILLER\38514I.2
14-60
Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has been fully
evaluated and mitigated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. All significant artifacts collected during the implementation of the
Data Recovery Plan shall be curated at a facility approved by the City.
(Note: No mitigation measure 4.6-3 is provided in the EIR as the mitigation measures were
inadvertently misnumbered.)
4.6-4:
Following the completion of mass grading operations, the Applicant shall prepare a
plan that addresses the temporary onsite presentation and interpretation of the results
of the archaeological studies for the proposed project. This could be accomplished
through exhibition within a future community center, civic building and/or multi-
purpose building. This exhibition will only be for temporary display of those
materials being actively used for interpretation and display, and that permanent
curation of artifacts and data will be at a regional repository that meets the standards
of the State Historical Resource Commission's Guidelines for the CuratiOll of
Archaeological Collections, dated May 7, 1993. All significant artifacts collected
during the implementation of the Data Recovery Plan shall be permanently curated
at a facility approved by the City.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.6, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources that may
be disturbed during grading, excavation and other site preparation.
Explanation:
The San Diego Formation underlying the SPA Plan and off-site SSA, SeSL, and peSI areas has
been assessed as having high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Therefore, excavations
associated with any construction activities have a strong likelihood of encountering
paleontological resources should the required excavations impact previously undisturbed
47
SDPUIlIBMILLER\385141.2
14-61
materials. No impact to paleontological resources is anticipated in the PCSI Area due to the
fact that the site has been previously disturbed by construction of the Poggi Canyon sewer.
Mitigation Measures:
4.6-6:
4.6-7:
4.6-8:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the EUC SPA Plan Area, limits of
grading for either Grading Options I or 2, and the SCSL Improvement Area, the
Applicant shall confirm to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained
to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is
defmed as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques). A pre-grade meeting shall
be held among the paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments of higWy sensitive geologic formations (i.e., San
Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater formations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work
under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall be onsite on at
least a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed
sediments of moderately sensitive geologic formations (i.e., unnamed river terrace
deposits and the Mission Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
a) The monitor shall be onsite on at least a quarter-time basis during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic
formations (i.e., Lindavista Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics
[metasedimentary portion only] to inspect cuts for contained fossils. He or she
shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits with
an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvium).
b) In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately
sensitive formations, the Applicant shall increase the per-day field monitoring
time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring, at the
discretion of the Plarming Department, shall be reduced. A paleontological
monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity
(i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion).
When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of
time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete whale skeleton) may
48
SDPUBIBMIl.LER\385141.2
14-62
require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt
grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the
potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it
may be necessary in certain instances and at the discretion of the paleontological
monitor to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
4.6-9:
Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall
be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the
San Diego Natural History Museum. A [mal summary report shall be completed.
This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed,
fossils collected, and significance ofrecovered fossils.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.6, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to human remains that may be disturbed
during grading, excavation and other site preparation.
Explanation:
Results of the cultural resources record search and survey did not identify any human remains
or records of human remains in the project parcels. Archaeological sensitivity of the project
site, SSA, and PCSI Area appear to be low, which suggests that the potential for unexpected
discovery of human remains is also low. However, the potential to uncover human remains
exists during any construction activities that disturb the ground, such as excavation. The PCSI
Area has been previously disturbed with the construction of the Poggi Canyon Sewer, and
construction of thc proposed improvement is not likely to encounter human remains during
excavation.
49
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-63
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Subchapter 4.6, page 4.6-20).
4.6-5:
Finding:
If human remains are discovered during grading or site preparation activities within
the EVC SPA Plan area, limits of grading for either Grading Options I or 2 and the
SCSL Improvement Area, the archaeological monitor shall secure the discovery site
from any further disturbance. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires
that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made
the necessary [mdings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to
PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notifY the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identifY the person(s) thought to be the
Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD will
assist the City in determining what course of action shall be taken to deal with the
remains. Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has
been fully evaluated and mitigated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. The Archaeological Monitor shall summarize the findings in a letter
report to the City following the completion of mass grading activities.
As identified in Section 4.0,5.0, Subchapter 2.2, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of
the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project
that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR to a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact:
Construction activities in the SPA Plan and SCSL areas, and loss of agricultural lands for
foraging, would have a potentially significant impact on sensitive bird species, the San Diego
black-tailed jackrabbit, avian breeding, and on 0.16 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub
(temporary impact) in the SCSL area.
50
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-64
Explanation:
The proposed project would have a substantial direct and indirect adverse impact on sensitive
bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. These include
ground nesting raptor species, such as the northern harrier and burrowing owl, occurring ""ithin
the EVC SPA Plan and SCSL Improvement Area. The northern harrier, burrowing owl, white-
tailed kite, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would be impacted by the loss of 159.2 acres
of agricultural lands utilized as foraging habitat. The coastal California gnatcatcher would be
temporarily impacted within the SCSL Improvement Area. The project may have significant
indirect effects on the MSCP Preserve associated with construction noise avian breeding
seasons, water quality, introduction of non-native exotic plant species following construction,
and human intrusion. Modifications associated with the SCSL would temporarily impact 0.16
acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, page
4.7-38).
4.7-1:
4.7-2:
Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing and grubbing
or grading permits for the Eve project site and the SSA, the applicant shall retain a
City-approved biologist to conduct focused surveys for the northern harrier to
determine the presence or absence of this species within 900 feet of the construction
area, if construction will occur during the breeding season (January 15 through] uly
31) (excluding areas west of SR-125). The pre-construction survey must be
conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of
which must be submitted to the City for review and approval. If active nests are
detected by the City-approved biologist, a biological monitor should be on-site
during construction to minimize construction impacts and ensure that no nests are
removed or disturbed until all young have fledged.
Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing and grubbing
or grading permits) for the EVC project site and the SSA, the applicant shall retain a
City-approved biologist to conduct focused pre-construction surveys for burrowing
owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the
commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows
are detected, the City-approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation
mitigation plan subject to the review and approval by the Wildlife agencics and City
51
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-65
4.7-4:
4.7-5:
including of any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from
construction-related activities.
For any work proposed to be initiated between February 15 and August 15, prior to
issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading,
and construction permits associated with improvements to the off-site SCSL, a pre-
construction survey for the coastal California gnatcatcher must be performed in
order to reaffirm the presence and extent of occupied habitat. The pre-construction
survey area for the coastal California gnatcatcher shall encompass all habitat within
the project work zone as well as a 300-foot buffer extending from the study area as
delineated on Figure 5 of the HELIX biological technical report.
The pre-construction survey must be performed to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) by a qualified biologist familiar with the
City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The results of the pre-construction survey must be
submitted in a report to the ERe for review and approval prior to the issuance of any
land development permits and prior to initiating any construction activities. If the
coastal California gnatcatcher is detected, a rninimum 300-foot buffer delineated by
orange biological fencing shall be established around the detected species to ensure
that no work shall occur within the occupied habitat from February 15 through
August 15 and on-site noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated, as
appropriate. The ERC shall have the discretion to modifY the buffer width
depending on site-specific conditions. If the results of the pre-construction survey
determine that the survey area is unoccupied, the work may commence at the
discretion of the ERC following the review and approval of the pre-construction
report.
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading
and construction permits for the off-site SCSL project, the applicant shall provide a
revegetation plan for 0.16 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub to the satisfaction of the
City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC). The revegetation plan must be
prepared by a qualified City-approved biologist familiar with the City's MSCP
Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan;
appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and
qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program;
estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The applicant shall also be
required to implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of
the ERe.
52
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-66
4.7-6:
4.7-7:
4.7-8:
Finding:
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading and/or construction permits for the off-site SCSL, the applicant shall install
fencing in accordance with CVMC 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well-installed
fencing and signage shall be in place wherever the limits of grading are adjacent to
sensitive vegetation communities or other biological resources, as identified by the
qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction
activities. All temporary fencing shall be sho'WTI on grading plans for the off-site
SCSL. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist
shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved
land development permit and associated plans.
A biological monitor shall attend all pre-construction meetings and be present during
the removal of any vegetation associated with the modifications to the off-site
SCSL. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or
grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for the SCSL project, the applicant
shall provided written confmnation that a City-approved biological monitor has been
retained and shall be on-site during clearing, grubbing, and/or grading activities to
ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic
monitoring of the impact area including but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles,
storage areas, and fencing. The biological monitor shall also be on-site during the
placcment and removal of the proposed High Line to ensure that removal or
damaging of native vegetation does not occur. The biological monitor shall be
authorized to halt all associated project activities that may be in violation of the
City's MSCP Subarea Plan.
Prior to issuance of land development permits, and prior to construction activities
occurring in areas containing sensitive biological resources within the off-site SCSL,
all workers shall be educated by a City-approved biologist to recognize and avoid
those areas which have been marked as sensitive biological resources.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, of the E1R, pursuant to section l5091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant envirorunental effect as identified in the E1R to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
53
SDPUBIBMILLER1385 14 1.2
14-67
Impact:
Careless placement of the temporary high line facility in the off-site SCSL area could
significantly impact sensitive biological resources. In addition, the proposed jack and bore
process in the off-site SCSL area has the potential to cause "frac-out," a potentially significant
impact.
Explanation:
Placement of the temporary high line will not require any clearing, grubbing, or grading that
would require the removal of existing vegetation, and is not anticipated to result in significant
direct or indirect impacts to biological resources because it will be located within existing
disturbed areas or areas to be impacted by the proposed project. However, a small segment of
the temporary high-line however will traverse undisturbed, native vegetation. Sensitive
biological resources could be significantly impacted as a result of careless placement of the
temporary facility. Indirect impacts could also occur as the proposed jack and bore process at
the SCSL Improvement Area has the potential to cause a "frac-out". A frac-out may
potentially occur if drilling slurry (silica clays) ruptures the surface of the area above which
the horizontal drilling is occurring, thus resulting in the potential for the drilling slurry to
escape to the surface. Impacts resulting from a frac-out are potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Subchapter 4.7, page 4.7-38).
4.7-12:
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading
and construction permits for the off-site SCSL, the Applicant shall provide the City
with written confirmation to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator that the resource agencies have been notified of the SCSL grading. The
Applicant shall also be responsible for obtaining all applicable regulatory permits,
such as those required under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section
1600 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and Porter Cologne
Water Quality Act. In addition, prior to issuance of any grading permits associated
with the off-site SCSL, the Applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan
(FCP) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City's ERe.
The FCP shall establish operational procedures and responsibilities for the
prevention, containment, notification, and clean-up of the inadvertent release of
drilling fluid (frac-out) that could potentially occur with the proposed directional
54
SDPUBIBMILLER138514 1.2
14-68
drilling under Salt Creek. Issues addressed in the plan shall include but not be
limited to:
o Spoil stock-pile management;
o Hazardous materials storage and spill cleanup;
o Site-specific erosion and sediment control;
o Procedures for timely detection of frac-outs; and
o Any other BMPs to ensure protection of sensitive biological resources in the
adjacent Preserve areas and minimize water quality impacts as described in the
SWPPP.
If a frac-out event were to occur during the boring and jacking process, work should
cease immediately, and measures should be taken to contain the frac-out slurry in as
small an area as possible. The biological monitor shall contact the City and
appropriate resource agencies within 24 hours of the frac-out and provide an initial
assessment of impacts to native vegetation. Mitigation for the impacts will be
coordinated in conjunction with the City and resource agencies.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, 5.0, Subchapter 4.7, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of
the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project
that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the
ElR to a level ofinsignitlcance by implementation of the mitigation measurers) listed above.
Impact:
Potentially significant indirect impacts to wetlands may occur to federally-protected wetlands
downstream of the SSA due to changes in surface runoff. Modifications associated with the
SCSL also have the potential to result in indirect impacts to wetland waters in the event of a
frac-out.
55
SDPURIBMlLLER1385141.2
14-69
Explanation:
Indirect impacts may occur to wetland habitat jurisdictional wetland feature (waters under the
jurisdiction of the RWQCB/CDFG or ACOE) downstream of the SSA due to changes in
hydrology caused by the proposed project. These indirect impacts to the downstream
jurisdictional feature are considered potentially significant. In addition, modifications
associated with the SCSL, including the use of jack and bore drilling have the potential to result
in indirect impacts to jurisdiction wetland waters in the event of a frac-out.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Subchapter 4.7, page 4.7-38).
4.7-9:
4.7-10:
4.7-11:
Finding:
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading and/or construction permits for the EUC project site (including the off-site
SSA) or SCSL, the applicant shall provide written confirmation that Mitigation
Measure 4.9.2 (Hydrology and Drainage), requiring a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit (NPDES) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading and/or construction permits for the off-site SSA, the Applicant shall install
temporary orange biological fencing along the limits of grading in areas adjacent to
sensitive biological resources to avoid impacts on such resources. All fencing,
including temporary fencing, shall be shown on the project grading plans. Prior to
and during construction, the City's Mitigation Monitor shall verifY that biological
fencing is properly installed and maintained.
To protect the jurisdictional feature downstream of the off-site SSA, a City-qualified
biologist shall attend a pre-construction meeting prior to initiating grading on the
off-site SSA. The biologist shall be on-site to monitor all vegetation clearing and
periodically thereafter to ensure implementation of appropriate.
As identified in Section4.0, Subchapter 4.7, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
56
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-70
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
1m pact:
Impacts on the California gnatcatcher could result if construction activities occur within
occupied habitat during the breeding season for this species (February IS and August IS). The
project would impact nesting bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and
Game Code occurring within the SPA Plan area, SCSL Improvement Area, and SSA.
Explanation:
The removal of vegetation associatcd with the EUC SPA Plan, SCSL Improvement Area, SSA
during the breeding season is considered potentially significant with respect to nesting raptors
and migratory birds protected by the MBT A and California Fish and Game Code. All migratory
bird species that are native to the U.S. or its territories are protected under the federal MBT A.
In addition, the USFWS places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests.
Raptors and active raptor nests are protected by the California Fish and Game Code Section
3503, which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take,
possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird" unless authorized by the CDFG. Nesting
activity typically occurs between January IS through August 31.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (ElR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, page 4.7-
38).
4.7-13:
To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds, removal of habitat
that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance (within the EUC
project site, SCSL, or SSA) should occur outside of the breeding season for these
species (January IS to August 31). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of
disturbance (within the EUC project site, SCSL, or SSA) must occur during the
breeding season, the applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a
pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the
proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted
within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of which must
be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any construction
activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed
appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be
57
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-71
implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report
or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and
implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City's Mitigation Monitor shall
verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in
place prior to and/or during construction.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Impact:
The proposed project would have an indirect, long-term, potentially significant impact related to
biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved
proportionally and concurrently with development.
Explanation:
The RMP has establishes performance standards for achieving an 11 ,375-acre Otay Ranch open
space Preserve. Compliance relies on progressive acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the
designated Otay Ranch Preserve areas with each development approval. The proposed project
would have an indirect, long-term, potentially significant impact related to biological resources
management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and
concurrently with development. Future final maps will be required to convey open space in
accordance with the RMP at a rate of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area. The EUC
SPA Plan's estimated conveyance obligation would be approximately 211.14, acres, as shown
in EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, Table 4.7-2 on page 4.7-31, based on the current tentative
maps.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, page 4.7-
38).
58
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-72
4.7-3:
Prior to recordation of each [mal map, the applicant shall convey land wi thin the
Otay Ranch RMP Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development
area, as defined in the RMP.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.7, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
AGRICUL TURAL RESOURCES
Impact:
The permanent removal of approximately 207 acres of designated Farmland of Local
Importance in the EUC is considered significant and unavoidable. Grading Option 1 would
further affect approximately 59 acres of adjacent Farmland of Local Importance and Grading
Option 2 would further affect approximately 28.5 acres Farmland of Local Importance. In
addition, noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with interim agricultural
operations within the EUe could create indirect, short-term, potentially sig'nificant impacts
between the agricultural uses and urban uses.
Explanation:
Impacts associated with the permanent removal of approximately 207 acres of designated
Farmland of Local Importance are considered potentially significant. The implementation of
Grading Option 1, which would transport and stockpile soils from the project site to the SSA,
would further affect approximately 59 acres of adjacent Farmland of Local Importance
(remainder of the EUC and a portion of Village Nine). Grading Option 2, which would
transport and stockpile soils to the remainder of the EUC including the Hunte Parkway right-of-
way (approximately 28.5 acres) would similarly result in the loss of Farmland of Local
Importance in this area. This was previously addressed in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR
and was determined to be significant and not tully mitigated. At that time, a statement of
overriding considerations was adopted for this impact. In addition, without implementation of
the proposed Agricultural Plan, noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with
interim agricultural operations on the site could create indirect, short-term, potentially
significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban uses. No impacts regarding the
Williamson Act contract lands, or conflicts with existing zoning for an agricultural use would
occur in the EUe SPA Plan area, the SSA, or the SeSL Improvement Area and PCSI area. The
59
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-73
construction of the SCSL Improvement and PCSI would have no impact with respect to
agricultural activities.
Mitigation Measure:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.8, page 4.8-
10).
4.8-1:
The Agricultural Plan included in the EVC SPA Plan shall be implemented as
development proceeds in the proposed EVC SPA Plan area. The following
measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista's
Development Services Director:
. Prior to approval of each building permit, the Applicant shall ensure that a 200-
foot fenced buffer shall be maintained between development and ongoing
agricultural operations on the property;
o In those areas where pesticides are to be applied, the farmland owner shall utilize
vegetation to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet) from
. agriculture activities.
o If permitted interim agricultural uses require the use of pesticides, the
farmland owner shall notify adj acent developed property owners of potential
pesticide application a minimum of 10 days prior to application through
advertisements in newspapers of general circulation. Limits shall be
established as to the time of day and type of pesticide applications that may be
used. The use of pesticides shall comply with federal, state, and local
regulations.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.8, of the EIR, pursuant to section 1509l(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
would substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects with respect to
interfacing urban and agricultural uses. However, despite the above mitigation, the incremental
and cumulative loss of agricultural lands is considered a significant unmitigable impact, and no
other feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance. Accordingly, pmsuant to Section l509l(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are
no other feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As
60
SDPUBIBMllLER1385141.2
14-74
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact:
_Project construction would generate a potentially significantly impact water quality impact
associated with exposure of soils to erosion forces. Significant impacts on ground water quality
could also occur from the potential presence of DDT in on-site soils. Project operation would
potentially impact water quality as a result of urban pollutants and impermeable surfaces.
Greater impermeability associated with the developed site could increase the rate of surface
water runoff and result in potentially significant off-site flooding or erosion.
Explanation:
The development of the SPA Plan site would alter the quantity and composition of surface
runoff through grading of site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, building
development, introduction of urban pollutants, and irrigation for landscaped areas which are
considered potentially significant impacts to water quality. During construction, erosion can
occur as a result of, and can be accelerated by, site preparation activities. Vegetation removal
throughout the project site could reduce soil cohesion, as well as the buffer provided by
vegetation from wind, water, and surface disturbance, which could render the exposed soils
more susceptible to erosive forces. Additionally, excavation or grading for future development
may also result in erosion during construction activities, as bare soils would be exposed and
could be eroded by wind or water. Project operation would increase the amount of surface
water runoff due to the introduction of impermeable surfaces and would increase urban
pollutants in surface water runoff. In addition, the project site would be entirely developed,
paved, or landscaped, which would increase storm water runoff to the extent that substantial off-
site erosion to downstream facilities or flooding could occur. In addition, the potential presence
of DDT in on-site soils is potentially significant with respect to surface water quality.
Development of the site could also result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount ofwuter
surface runoff, resulting in flooding on- or off-site.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.9, page
4.9-37).
61
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-75
4.9-1:
4.9-2:
4.9-3:
4.9-4:
4.9-5:
Prior to issuance of each grading permit for the EUC SPA Plan, the SSA, the Salt
Creek Sewer Lateral Improvement, and the Poggi Canyon Sewer Improvement Area
or any land development permit, including clearing and grading, the Project
Applicant(s) shall submit a Notice of Intent (N0l) and obtain coverage under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Construction
Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The permit
requires development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the Director of
Public Works. The SWPPP shall be incorporated into the grading and drainage
plans and shall provide for implementation of construction and post-construction
Best Management Practices (BMPs) on site to reduce the amount of sediments and
pollutants in construction and post-construction surface runoff before it is discharged
into off-site storm water facilities. The BMPs shall include measures to mitigate
potentially significant indirect impacts to the jurisdictional feature approximately
300 feet downstream of the off-site Soils Stockpiling Area. The grading plans shall
note the condition requiring a SWPPP and Monitoring Plans.
Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study
shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista's standards and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
Permanent treatment controls BMPs shall be included as part of the proposed project
in accordance with Section 2c of the City ofChula Vista SUSMP, the City ofChula
Vista Development Storm Water Manual, 2008, and the final Water Quality
Technical Report for McMillin Eastern Urban Center (WQTR) to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
As development plans for individual parcels are prepared, parcel owners shall
choose from the on-site storm water management measures included in the menu in
Appendix I of the final Water Quality Technical Report for McMillin Eastern Urban
Center (WQTR) and submit a supplemental report to the WQTR to verify sizing to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If an option other than what is shown on the
menu is chosen by the parcel owner, a project-specific WQTR shall be prepared for
each parcel, referencing the final WQTR for information relevant to regional design
concepts (e.g., downstream conditions of concern) to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Upon development, each land use shall be divided into Drainage Management Areas
(DMA). This will include not only streets within the parcel, but also buildings,
parking lots or structures, and other areas. As each DMA would generally drain to
an 1'v1P, the specific design of these features, including their proximity to structures
62
SDPUBIBM1LLER\38514! .2
14-76
4.9-6:
4.9-7:
4.9-8:
4.9-9:
4.9-10:
and how runoff would be collected and discharged from them, shall be subject to
approval by the Geotechnical Engineer for the proposed project. This shall be
evaluated on a lot by lot basis after rough grading is completed and prior to
constructing any improvements or structures. All development within the proposed
project shall be subject to the City of Chula Vista's SUSMP at the time of grading
permit issuance.
Should Grading Option 2 be implemented, the interim condition above ground
detention basin in the southern drainage shall be reassessed and approved by the
City Engineer when the pads within the triangular wedge are developed in order to
detain for the ultimate condition.
In the preparation of all site plans, the Applicant(s) shall implement Low Impact
Development Best Management Practices (LID BMPs), unless underground
treatment and detention facilities such as sand filters, underground storage and
infiltration facilities, etc., are proposed. The Applicant(s) shall monitor and mitigate
any erosion in downstream locations that may occur as a result of on-site
development.
The Applicant(s) shall comply with the City of Chula Vista Development Storm
Water Manual Limitation of Grading requirements, which limit disturbed soil area to
100 acres, unless expansion of a disturbed area is specifically approved by the
Director of Public Works. With any phasing resulting from this limitation, if
required, the Applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control BMPs in areas
that may not be completed, before grading of additional area begins.
As a result of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007-0001, and phasing
of the EUC SPA Plan development, the Applicant(s) shall comply with the City's
Interim Hydromodification Criteria or Hydrograph Modification Management Plan,
as applicable, addressed regionally at the EUC SPA Plan level concurrent with
Grading and Improvement Plans for major streets.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit resulting in an increase in permanent
impermeable area, each Applicant wanting to develop within the EUC SPA Plan is
required to develop and implement post-construction SUSMP and BMPs in
accordance with the most recent regulations at the time of Grading or Building
Permit issuance. In particular, Applicants are required to comply with the
requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007-0001, and the
City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual dated January 2008, or any
re-issuances thereof. Specifically, Applicants shall incorporate in the proposed
project design structural on-site design features to address Site Design and
63
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-77
Treatment Control (BMPs) as well as LID and HMP requirements. Any of said
requirements may be waived if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, that regional facilities exist to address such requirements.
Finding;
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.9, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact:
The project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to unstable soils,
including residuum, colluvium, alluvium, and areas of potential liquefiable soils that may cause
land sliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction and/or collapse surficial slope failures. Grading
could lead to potentially significant soil erosion, and/or loss of topsoil. In addition, on-site soils
have potentially significant moderate to high expansion potential.
Explanation:
With the presence of potential liquefiable soils in the EUC SPA Plan area and SCSL
Improvement Area, seismic-related impacts regarding unstable soils are considered to be
potentially significant. Also, grading activities associated with either of the two grading options
in combination with future irrigation and changes in drainage could result in potentially
significant slope instabilities or landslides within the EUC SPA Plan area. Heavy seepage and
deep saturation resulting in surficial slope failures, soil erosion, and/or loss of topsoil is
considered potentially significant. In addition, loose compressible materials on the project site,
including residuum, colluvium, alluvium and the surface of the fill slope in the southeast portion
of the site, could become unstable as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the potential
for land sliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction and/or collapse is considered to be potentially
significant In addition, the predominately clayey sand and sandy clay materials within the on-
site Otay Formation have a moderate to high expansion potential. Development of structures on
these soils could create substantial risks to life or property. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
64
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-78
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.10, page
4.10-20).
4.10-1:
4.10-2:
4.10-3:
Finding:
Prior to the issuance of each grading permit within the EVC SPA Plan area, the
Applicant shall verify that the applicable recommendations in the Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated, dated March I, 2007, and the
Updated Seismic Design Parameters report prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated,
dated December 15, 2008 for the Eastern Urban Center have been incorporated into
the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer of the City of Chula Vista
Prior to the approval of grading permits for placement of soils within the off-site
SSA, the Applicant shall ensure that the applicable recommendations in the
Geotechnical Recommendation for Proposed Import Soils Second Revision, Otay
Ranch Parcel "C", dated July 10, 2007, and the Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation Parcel "C" Portion of Otay Ranch, dated August 30, 2006, both
prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., have been incorporated into the grading
plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
Prior to issuance of the grading permit for the SCSL Improvement, the City shall
ensure that the applicable recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation for the
Proposed Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor Project, Leighton & Associates,
dated October 2000, have been incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer of the City ofChula Vista.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.10, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
65
SDPUBIBMll.LER\385141.2
14-79
UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Services
Impact:
The project would increase demand on fire and emergency medical services. The increase in
demand would be significant if a fully operational and appropriately equipped and staffed fire
station is not provided commensurate with the demand on fire and emergency medical services.
Fire flow requirements for individual projects within the EVC could be significant depending
upon the ultimate building height and structure type.
Explanation:
The project would generate a residential population of 7,696 people and the employment base
associated with 3.4 million square feet of non-residential development, which would increase
demand on fire and emergency medical services. New fire facilities are partially funded by the
Applicant's PFDIF. Demand is also assessed through the City's adopted Threshold Standards,
which are reviewed annually by the GMOC to determine compliance with the City's growth
management thresholds. If an appropriately equipped and staffed fire station is not provided
commensurate with growth, the project would have a significant impact with respect to fire and
emergency medical service would be significant. Regarding fire flow impacts, approval of a
SAMP prior to approval of the first final map and further evaluation of fire flow requirements
for each project in accordance with the adopted Fire Code and approved SAMP will ensure
adequate that appropriate infrastructure is developed to serve the project's water needs,
including fire flow for individual buildings. However, since fire flow is based on ultimate
building height and structure types, which are currently unknown, fire flow requirements are
also unknown and, therefore, potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.1, page
4.11-11).
4.11.1-1:
Prior to the approval of each building permit, the Applicant shall pay Public
Facilities Development Improvement Fees (PFDIF) in accordance with the fees in
effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the PFFP.
66
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-80
4.11.1-2:
4.11.1-3:
4.11.1-4:
4.11.1-5:
Finding:
In order to determine the SPA Plan's increased demand on fire services and potential
to exceed GMOC standards, the City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor the
Chula Vista Fire Department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and
report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis.
Prior the approval of each building permit and to the satisfaction of the City of Chula
Vista Fire Marshall, the proposed project shall meet the provisions of the City's
adopted California Fire Code. In meeting said provisions, the project shall also meet
the minimum fire flow requirements based upon construction type and square
footage.
The applicant shall deliver a site for a future fire station in accordance with the
triggers/phasing prescribed in the PFFP.
Subject to approval of the City Council, in lieu of paying the required impact fee, the
Applicant may satisfY that requirement through a written agreement by which the
Applicant agrees to either pay the fee or build the facility in question, pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Police Services
Impact:
The CVPD currently does not meet GMOC thresholds for responses to Priority II calls. The
proposed SPA Plan would increase demand for police protection services, which could increase
response times if additional police officers are not provided commensurate with demand. This
is considered a significant impact.
Explanation:
The project would generate a residential population of 7,696 people and the employment base
associated with 3.4 million square feet of non-residential development, which would increase
67
SPPUBIBMILLER138514I.2
14-81
demand on fire and emergency medical services. The Applicant's PFDIF addresses the
project's proportional impact on capital facilities, such as structures and equipment, associated
with the police protection. In addition, the City Council has adopted Threshold Standards
establishing "quality-of-life" indicators which the GMOC assesses annually for compliance.
Should the GMOC determine that the growth management threshold standard is not being
satisfied because of the impacts of growth, the City Council shall consider adopting specific
mitigation measures to bring the condition into conformance, prior to issuing further building
permits. However, if adequate police services are not provided commensurate with the
project's demand, the project would have a significant impact with respect to police services.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11 page
4.11.22).
4.11.2-1
4.11.2-2
4.11.2-3
Finding:
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the
Applicant(s) shall pay Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) in
accordance with the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and
phasing approved in the PFFP, unless stated otherwise in a separate development
agreement.
The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor the CVPD responses to
emergency calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis.
Prior to approval of each design review permit, site plans shall be reviewed by the
CVPD to ensure the incorporation of CPTED features and other recommendations
of the CVPD, including, but not limited to, controlled access points to parking lots
and buildings; maximizing the visibility along building fronts, sidewalks, paesos,
and public parks; and providing adequate street, parking lot, and parking structure
visibility and lighting.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
68
SDPUBIBMILLER\3S5141.2
14-82
School Services
Impact:
Project implementation would result in a significant impact to elementary schools unless
construction of an elementary school coincides with student generation and associated service
demands. Provision of school facilities is the responsibility of the school district when
additional demand warrants.
Explanation:
The SPA Plan would generate approximately 624 elementary school students, 188 middle
school students and 283 high school students. According to the SUHSD, middle and high
schools serving the project site (EastLake Middle School and Olympian High School,
respectively) currently have capacity to accept the estimated middle and high school students
generated by the project. To provide for future elementary school demand in the EUC SPA
Plan, an elementary school site of approximately six acres is provided for within the EUC SPA
Plan. In addition, the Applicant will be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to
California Government Code, Section 65996(b) or enter into a mitigation agreement with the
school district. While the linallocation of the proposed elementary school site is not currently
known, the CVESD has expressed that its preferred location is within District 9 (central
southern neighborhood district) of the project, a designation which is reflected in the EUC SPA
Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchaptcr 4.11, page
4.11.32).
4.11.3-1
Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Applicant(s) shall provide the City
with evidence or certification by the CVESD that any fee charge, dedication, or
other requirement levied by the school district has been complied with or that the
district has determined the fee, charge, dedication or other requirements does not
apply to the construction.
4.11.3-2
Prior to approval of a final map for private devclopment on Lots 26 or 27 of the
Tentative Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence from the CVESD that the site
has not been determined by the district to be needed for use as a school site.
69
SDPUBIBMILLER1385 I 41.2
14-83
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11, of the EIR, pursuant to section l509l(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Librarv Services
Impact:
Implementation of the SPA Plan will increase demand on library services. This would result in
a significant impact on libraries if the proposed library were not provided commensurate with
demand.
Explanation:
The project would increase demand on library services. The CVPL currently provides
approximately 102,000 square feet of library space to serve citywide population of
approximately 229,613. Based on the GMOC Threshold Standard of 500 square feet of library
space per 1,000 population, the total library space needed to serve the existing population of the
City would be approximately 114,807 square feet, indicating an existing shortfall of
approximately 12,807 square feet. The project, which incorporates a 30,000-square-foot future
library in the Civic Core, would generate a demand for an additional 3,848 SF of library space
(500 SF/! ,000 population). As this floor area would exceed project-level and city-wide
demand, the proposed library in the EUC would provide sufficient library space in accordance
with existing GMOC standards. However, if a new library and adequate library services are not
provided commensurate with growth, the project could have a significant impact with respect to
library services.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (ErR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11, page
4.11-39).
4.11.4-1
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the
Applicant shall pay required Public Facility Development Impact Fees in accordance
with the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved
in the PFFP.
70
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-84
4.11.4-2
The Applicant shall deliver a site for the public library in accordance with the PFFP.
4.11.4-3
Subject to approval of the City Council, in lieu of paying the required impact fee, the
Applicant may satisfY that requirement through a written agreement by which the
Applicant agrees to either pay the fee or build the facility in question, pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
Finding;
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.1, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation ofthe mitigation measurers) listed above.
Parks, Recreation. Onen Snaee and Trails
Impact:
The proposed SPA Plan would increase demand on parks and recreational facilities. A
potentially significant impact could result if dedication of parkland and development of new
recreation facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project population
growth.
Explanation:
The proposed project (2,983 multi-family units) would be required to dedicate land, provide in-
lieu fees, or provide park development improvements equivalent to 23.36 acres of parkland
pursuant to the requirements of the CVMC. The proposed project would provide 15.63 acres of
parkland, consisting of the Civic Park, a Town Square Park with its 40-foot wide connection to
Street K, four urban scale neighborhood parks, office plazas, and dedicated jogging/walking
promenade. The difference between 15.63 and 23.36 acres (7.73 acres) would be provided
through the payment of in lieu fees. A portion of the in lieu fees would be reinvested into the
previously mentioned 15.63 acres of parkland, an amount representing 5.88 acres of developed
parkland (representing 25 percent of overall park obligation). Another portion ofthe in lieu fees
would go toward the delivery of recreational facilities at an off-site location, an amount
representing 1.85 acres of developed parkland. Although the project would meet its obligation
for parks and recreational space, if facilities and in lieu fees are not provided commensurate
with growth, the project could have a significant impact with respect to parks.
71
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-85
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11, page
4.11-60).
4.11.5-1
4.11.5-2
4.11.5.3
Finding:
Prior to approval of the final map(s), or for projects not requiring a final map prior to
building pennit approval, for residential projects, the Applicant(s) shall dedicate
parkland and pay in lieu fees for the area covered by the fmal map(s). The delivery
of said parkland and payment of in lieu fees shall be in accordance with the fees and
phasing approved in the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the SPA Plan and an
EUC Park Agreement, subject to approval of the Directors of Recreation and
Development Services.
Prior to issuance of each building pennit for any residential dwelling units, the
Applicant(s) shall pay recreation facility development impact fees (part of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee) in accordance with the fees in effect at the time
of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the PFFP for the SPA Plan,
subject to approval of the Directors of Recreation and Development Services.
The Applicant may, subject to City Council approval, enter into a written agreement
with the City identifYing the Applicant's parkland acreage dedication, park
development improvements, and in lieu fee obligations and the timing and method
of satisfYing those obligations. If the Applicant and the City enter into such an
agreement, the Applicant may satisfY its parkland dedication, improvement and in
lieu fee obligations pursuant to the terms of that agreement.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed above.
Water Services
Impact:
The impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of
facilities does not coincide with anticipated growth. As fue flow requirements are a function of
72
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-86
the size and materials of structures, and no structure locations or specifications are available at
this time, fire flow pressure requirements are not currently known at this time and could be
significant.
Explanation:
OWD's storage facilities in the EUC's service area (980 PZ) currently include two 5-milIion
gallon storage tanks. OWD's currently proposed an additional 13 million-gallon tank within the
980 PZ. Additional storage is located in the OWD's 624 PZ via pumping operations. The new
980-2 pump station was recently completed and is in operation to supply the 980 PZ directly
from the 624 PZOWD. In addition, OWD continues to construct recycled water storage,
pumpIng, transmission, and distribution facilities to meet projectcd recycled water market
demands.
The OWD has approved a Water Supply Assessment and Verification report for the proposed
project. The proposed project's estimated average daily total potable water demand (908,381
gpd) would not exceed the OWD's projections for the EUC SPA of approximately 911,689 gpd
at project buildout, or the water demand forecasts of the OWD's 2005 UWMP. Thus, the
proposed project would not have a significant impact with respect to water supply because
sufficient water supplies are available from existing entitlements and resources. However,
although the proposed project would not significantly impact the ability of OWD to provide
service, mitigation measures are provided to ensure water availability. Furthermore, if
construction of on-site water conveyance and storage facilities does not coincide with the
project's anticipated growth, the project would have a significant impact with respect to these
facilities.
Fire flow requirements are a function of the size and materials of structures. As part of the
building pennit process, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department will evaluate fire flow
requirements. The Applicant is required to prepare a final SAMP prior to approval of the first fmal
map. The SAMP will be reviewed by the City of Chula Vista and approved by OWD. Among other
topics, the SAMP will identifY existing on-and off-site pipeline locations, size and capacity and the
City of Chula Vista's fire flow requirements (flow rate, duration, hydrant spacing, etc). Since no
structure locations or specifications are available at this time, fire flow pressure requirements
are not currently known and, therefore, could be significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4. 11, page
4.11-91 ).
73
SDPUBlBMILLER\385141.2
14-87
4.]1.6-]
4.] 1.6-2
4.]1.6-3
Finding:
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the permit applicant shal] deliver to the
City service availability letters from the appropriate water district.
Prior to approval of the first fmal map, the applicant shall provide a Sub-Area
Master Plan (SAMP) to the Otay Water District. Water facilities improvements shal]
be fmanced or installed on-site and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing
in the approved PFFP and SAMP. The SAMP shall include, but shall not be limited
to:
. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity;
. The proposed points of connection and system;
o The estimated water demands and/or sewer flow calculations;
. Governing fire department's flow requirements (flow rate, duration, hydrant
spacing, etc);
o Agency Master Plan;
o Agency's planning criteria (see Sections 4.] through 4.3 of the Water Agencies
Standards);
o Water quality maintenance; and
o Size of the system and number of lots to be served.
Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall obtain OWD's approval of
the Sub Area Master Plan (SAMP) for both potable and recycled water. Anyon-site
and off-site facilities identified in the SAMP required to serve a final mapped area
shall be secured or constructed by the applicant prior to the approval of the fmal
map.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.], of the EIR, pursuant to section ]5091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation ofthe mitigation measure(s) listed above.
74
SDPUBIBMILLER\3 85141.2
14-88
Wastewater Services
Impact:
The proposed project together with other foreseeable growth in the City, would require sewage
treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated
additional treatment capacity, which would require additional capacity from METRO or other
sources to support treatment needs through the year 2030. As the means by which additional
treatment capacity would be acquired is unknown and the development of additional capacity
may require construction of new treatment facilities, the development of new or expanded
treatment facilities may result in a potentially significant environmental impact, even
understanding that such projects would likely be subject to environmental review. With respect
to the ultimate capacity of off-site sewage conveyance lines, mitigation measures are
recommended to ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of any line in
the existing wastewater conveyance system by more than 75 percent of pipe capacity for pipes
greater than l2-inch in diameter or 50 percent for pipes l2-inch or less in diameter.
Explanation:
Together with other foreseeable growth in the City, the proposed project would require sewage
treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated
additional treatment capacity to support treatment needs through the year 2030. Therefore,
additional capacity would need to be acquired from METRO or other sources. The means by
which additional treatment capacity would be acquired is unknown and the development of
additional capacity may involve the purchase of capacity from another agency, or require
construction of new treatment facilities. As the location and scope of construction for any
newly developed treatment facilities is unknown, the development of new or expanded
treatment facilities may result in a potentially significant environmental impact, even
understanding that such projects would likely be subject to environmental review.
The construction of new sewer facilities within the project site and off-site improvement areas
has the potential to result in significant short-term impacts including dust; noise; impacts on
biological, archaeological, and paleontological resources; erosion; and ground water
contamination. These impacts are addressed in the respective Air Quality; Noise; Cultural
Resources; Biological Resources; and Hydrology and Water Quality subchapters of the EIR.
The project would not exceed ultimate conveyance capacity in any line in the existing
wastewater conveyance system by more than 75 percent of pipe capacity for pipes greater than
12-inch in diameter or 50 percent for pipes 12-inch or less in diameter. Mitigation measures are
recommended to ensure compliance.
75
SDPUBIBMlLLER\385141.2
14-89
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (ErR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4. I I, page
4.11-110).
4.11.7-1
Prior to design review approval and in accordance with the Intensity Transfer
provisions in the EVC SPA Plan, the Applicant(s) shall provide a wastewater
technical report with each proposed project requesting an intensity transfer. The
technical report shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that
adequate wastewater infrastructure will be available to support the transfer. The
transfer of residential density shall be limited by the ability of sewerage facilities to
accommodate flows (as shown in Figure 4.11-7, Allowable EDU's in the On-site
Sewer System).
4.11.7-2
Prior to issuance of the first building permit related to any uses within the portion of
the EVC served by the Poggi Canyon System, and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, the developer shall:
o Bond for the improvement of the constrained reach at Brandywine Avenue
(Reach P270) with the first final map for the project;
o Monitor sewer flows within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and submit quarterly reports to the City upon the issuance of
the first building permit for the EVC;
o Obtain the approval for the improvement pian and any necessary environmental
permits for Reach P270 prior to the first final "B" map, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer;
o Commence construction of Reach P270 upon reaching a dID of 0.75, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer;
o Complete construction of Reach P270 the sooner of one year after occupancy of
the first unit scwering to the Poggi Canyon System, or a dID of 0.85, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer;
· Not seek building permits within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin if any segment
of the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer achieves a dID of 0.85, or the City Engineer
76
SDPU8\BMILLERI385141.2
14-90
has determined, at his sole discretion, that there is not enough San Diego
METRO treatment capacity for the proposed project; and
· Upon the completion of the Rock Mountain Trunk Sewer, divert those Village
Seven flows from the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin that were ultimately designed
to flow to Salt Creek Sewer Basin so that additional capacity is provided for the
EUC's permanent flows.
4. 11.7-3
Prior to issuance of the first building permit related to any uses within the portion of
the EUC served by the Village Eleven sewer lateral to the Salt Creek Sewer
Interceptor, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the developer shall:
· Bond for the improvement of the constrained reach along the Village Eleven
lateral into the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor with the first final map for the
proposed project;
o Monitor sewer flows within the constrained reach along the Village Eleven
lateral into the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and submit quarterly reports to the City upon the issuance of the first
building permit for the proposed project that sewers to the Salt Creek System;
o Obtain the approval for the improvement plan and any necessary environmental
permits for the constrained reach along the Village Eleven lateral into the Salt
Creek Sewer Interceptor prior to the first final "B" map covering any parcel that
sewers to the Salt Creek System, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer;
o Commence construction of the constrained reach along the Village Eleven lateral
into the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor upon reaching a dID of 0.75, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer;
o Complete construction of the constrained reach along the Village Eleven lateral
into the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor the sooner of one year after occupancy of
the first unit sewering to the Salt Creek System, or a dID of 0.85, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer;
o Not seek building permits within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin if any portion of
the constrained reach along the Village Eleven lateral into the Salt Creek Sewer
Interceptor achieves a dID of 0.85, or the City Engineer has determined, at his
77
SDPUBIBMILLER\J85141.2
14-91
sole discretion, that there is not enough San Diego METRO treatment capacity
for the proposed project; and
· Upon the completion of the Rock Mountain Trunk Sewer, divert those
temporary flows from the constrained reach along the Village Eleven lateral to
the sewer within Bob Pletcher Way.
4.11.7-4
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Applicant shall pay the DIF at the rate
in effect at the time of building permit issuance and corresponding to the sewer basin
that the building will permanently sewer to, unless stated otherwise in a
development agreement that has been approved by the City Council.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.11, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen environmental effect as identified in the EIR. However, the proposed
project could require sewage treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity
rights and allocated additional treatment capacity. As additional capacity may need to be
acquired from METRO or other sources to support treatment needs through the Year 2030 and
could include the acquisition of available METRO treatment capacity from another participating
agency, and as the location and scope of construction for any future expanded or newly
developed treatment facilities is unknown, the development of new or expanded treatment
facilities may result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts.
HAZARDS AND RISK OF UPSET
Impact:
The proposed fire station would require the use fuel storage tanks containing hazardous materials.
In addition, potentially significant impacts could result from the exposure of construction workers
and the public to any OCP-containing soils in Areas A, B, and C of the EVC SPA Plan area.
Exposure may result from any OCP-containing soils that would be released or become airborne
during excavation, be left uncovered on-site, or exported off-site. The presence of organic toxins
and gases at the future school site may exceed CVESD and state standards for public schools; thus
the project would have a potentially significant impact with respect to this threshold. Hazards
associated with the poor visibility of tall structures under construction or rooftop cranes may
contribute to an airport-related hazard, due to the proximity of Brown Field and aircraft over flight
of the EVC under VFR or circle-to-Iand procedures. Also, as buildings, rooftop cranes and other
temporary construction equipment in the EVC may exceed 170 feet in height, these structures
78
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-92
would be approximately 270 feet higher than the Brown Field runway elevation. This may present
an aircraft safety hazard. Vacant lands in which weeds and brush have not been controlled in close
proximity to occupied uses may present a potentially significant wildfire hazard. Operation of the
project would involve the routine use of common landscaping, construction, and cleaning materials
that may be hazardous to the environment, if not managed according to state statutes and
manufactures' recommendations.
Explanation:
While the site is not listed as a hazardous site on any regulatory database, the proposed project
could result in a direct impact to public health and safety due to soil contamination at the project
site. The proposed fire station would require the use fuel storage tanks containing hazardous
materials. Hazards associated with the poor visibility of tall structures under construction or
rooftop cranes may contribute to an airport-related hazard, due to the proximity of Brown Field.
In addition, vacant lands in which weeds and brush have not been controlled in close proximity
to occupied uses may present a potentially significant wildfire hazard.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through the findings (EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.2, page
4.12-21).
4.12-1
4.12-2
Prior to approval of grading permits, the following note shall be placed on the
grading plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: "Grading with Areas A, B, and
C, as shown in Figure 2 of the Organic Pesticide Assessment and Soil Reuse Plan
(prepared by Geocon dated June 5, 2007, revised October 4, 2007), shall be
managed in accordance with the remediation measures included in the Organic
Pesticide Assessment and Soil Reuse Plan (prepared by Geocon dated June 5,2007,
revised October 4, 2007) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." The grading plans
shall demonstrate compliance with the 2007 Geocon report.
In accordance with the City's waste management ordinances and Stormwater
Manual, the applicant shall implement Best Management Practices in Areas A, B,
and C, during the excavation and placement of soil from the upper two feet of
existing grade, so that dust, erosion, excessive pooling, and stormwater runoff do not
pose a problem at the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
79
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-93
4.12-3
4.12-4
4.12-5
4.12-6
Finding:
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the developer shall post information
regarding Pacific Waste Services' Households Hazardous Waste Collection Facility
within each residential unit.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the FAA shall be notified of each high-rise
building, structure or construction equipment that would be 800 feet or more above
MSL (275 feet above Brown Field ground level). FAA recommendations regarding
marking and/or lighting shall be incorporated into unfinished high rise buildings,
rooftop cranes, finished high rise buildings, and any other tall structures.
Brush and weed control within open space and undeveloped areas of the EUC not
used for agricultural purposed shall be implemented as applicable in accordance
with the City's Urban Wildland Interface Code.
Concurrent with the first submittal of construction plans for the fITe station, the fire
station design shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services and Fire Marshal that the above-ground fuel tanks comply with applicable
local, State and Federal fuel storage and containment regulations.
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.12, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measurers) listed above.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Impact:
The project has the potential for increased exposure to one or more of the potential adverse
effects of global warming identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
particularly as related to regional and local air quality resulting from construction and operation
of the proj eel.
Explanation:
As the proposed project would have significant impacts related to regional and local air quality
resulting from construction and operation of the project, the project would potentially increase
exposure to one or more of the potential adverse effects of global warming identified in the
80
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-94
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. By incorporating LEED features and
implementing the AQIP and WCP, the proposed project would result in GHG emission rates 31
percent lower than "business as usual". The project would represent a minor increment, 0.037
percent of 2004 State-wide total emissions. Because these features and measures would
meaningfully reduce project GHG emissions and are consistent with the State's CAT strategies,
the project would not conflict with or obstruct the State's goals regarding global climate change
and impacts in this regard. In addition, the proposed project would incorporate construction
"best practices," that would reduce GHG emissions. These "best practices" represent an
improvement above conventional construction practices, and thus are an improvement above
"business as usual". Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
See mitigation measures provided in EIR Section 4.0, Subchapters 4.3, Transportation; 4.4, Air
Quality; 4.9, Hydrology and Drainage; and 4.11.6, Water, of also serve to reduce GHG
emissions or otherwise address global climate change concerns.
Finding:
As identified in Section 4.0, Subchapters 4.3, 4.4, 4.9, and 4.11 of the EIR, pursuant to section
15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated
into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as
identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance by implementation of the mitigation measure(s)
listed above.
81
SDPUBIBMILLER\3S5141.2
14-95
IX.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects" [Pub. Resources Code Section 21083 subd. (b)(2)]. Under CEQA Guidelines S
15130(b), cumulative impacts can be measured against either a list of past, present and probable
tuture projects or a summary of projections from the City's adopted general plan. The adopted
General Plan Update EIR (ErR 05-01) provides a comprehensive examination of the cumulative
impacts associated with buildout of the entire Otay Ranch in conjunction with other related
projects. Since the proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, the
cumulative impact analysis in the EUC EIR relies on and incorporates by reference the
cumulative analysis in the City of Chula Vista General Plan EIR. In addition, to be sure all
possible impacts were identified, the EIR supplemented that approach with certain known
projects in the region, namely the Village Two, Three, and Portion of Four SPA Plan and Chula
Vista Bayfront Master Plan. Potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with
development of the project in conjunction with these surrounding development projects.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have
been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative
impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This reflects the inability of the
Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions (i.e., City of San
Diego, City of National City, and Caltrans) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to
cumulative impacts. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the following
irreversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer
to pages in the EIR.
Impact: Landform AIterationNisual Quality
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would contribute to a cumulative change in the visual
character of the region from open space to permanent urban development.
Explanation:
The impact on the aesthetic character of the region, which is related to the conversion of open,
rolling hills to a developed condition would be cumulatively significant, when combined with
other open space that would be affected by related projects in the surrounding area. The
General Plan Update EIR concluded that the conversion of open, rolling hills to developed
condition would be cumulatively significant.
82
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-96
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation has been identified for the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact, and
therefore, the SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to a change in the
visual character of the project area that cannot be fully mitigated.
Finding:
The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project Alternative. However, this
alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project as discussed in the
EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Impact: Transportation
The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on segments of
I-80S.
Explanation:
The impact of the project on freeway segments for Horizon Y~ars 2010,2015,2020, and 2030
is summarized in EIR Section 4.0, Subchapter 4.3, Table 4.3-12 on page 4.3-38, Table 4.3-15
on page 4.3-48, Table 4-3-18 on page 4.3-57, and Table 4.3-2 I on page 4.3-68. The General
Plan Update EIR concludes that, even though mitigation measures exist to reduce traffic-related
impacts, the incremental cumulative impacts would remain significant and unmitigable.
As shown in these tables the project would have a potentially significant cumulative impact on
the following segments of the I-80S freeway:
Horizon Year 2015 with Project:
. Southbound Interstate 805 - Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway
Year 2020 with Project.
. Northbound Interstate 805 - Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Park-way
. Southbound Interstate 805 - Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway
83
SDPUB\BMILLERI385141.2
14-97
Year 2030 Build-Out with Project:
· Northbound Interstate 805 - Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway
· Southbound Interstate 805 - Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway
· Southbound Interstate 805 - Olympic Parkway to Main Street
Mitigation Measures:
Although implementation of previously described traffic mItIgation measures would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level along several freeway segments, no specific
improvements have been identified to mitigate the proposed project's cumulative impacts along
the freeway segments listed below. Thus, impacts to these freeway segments would remain
significant and unavoidable.
. Northbound Interstate 805 from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway (2020
and 2030 - Cumulative)
o Southbound Interstate 805 from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Park'Way (2015,
2020, and 2030 Cumulative)
. Southbound Interstate 805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street (2030 - Cumulative)
Finding:
While implementation of the measures described above, in addition to adherence to applicable
laws and regulations, would reduce significant cumulative impacts to some freeway segments
below a level of significance, improvement to I-80S is the responsibility of SANDAG and
outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
Impact: Air Quality
The proposed project would result in temporary and long-term air quality impacts associated
with construction and operation of the proposed project. The analysis of cumulative air quality
impacts contained in EIR Section 5.0 found that cumulative impacts related to construction and
long-term mobile emissions would be cumulatively significant. In addition, the project would
84
SDPUBIBMlLLER\385141.2
14-98
result in a cumulative air quality impact associated with inconsistency with SANDAG's RAQs.
The General Plan Update EIR also concludes that a significant cumulative impact would result
from inconsistency between the proposed General Plan and the RAQS. The only measure to
reduce this inconsistency to a less than significant level would be an update of the RAQS,
which is the responsibility of SANDAG and the San Diego APCD and is outside the jurisdiction
of the City.
Explanation:
During construction of the proposed project and under a worst-case scenario assuming full
buildout of the project in ten years, emissions of CO, NOx, VOC, PMIO and PM2.5 would
exceed the City of Chula Vista's significance threshold. With mitigation, emissions would
continue to exceed regional significance thresholds and the proposed project would contribute
substantially to cumulative air quality impacts. In addition, operational impacts, primarily
associated with vehicle travel, would be above the City of Chula Vista's significance thresholds
for CO, NOx, VOC, PMIO and PM25 during project operation. As a result, operational
emissions would contribute to cumulatively significant impacts. The GDP Program EIR (EIR
90-01) also determined that operational impacts would be cumulativcly significant.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant
levels.
Finding:
Under a worst-case scenario, project-related construction activItIes and operation (traffic)
emissions will exceed the identified significance thresholds for CO, NOx, VOC, PMIO and
PM2.5. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this to a less than significant level, because
it is a regional issue. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Impact: Noise
The proposed project and related projects will result in a cumulative significant noise impact
from mobile sources at key roadway segments.
85
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-99
Explanation:
The project and related projects could exacerbate noise levels to a magnitude that significantly
impacts receivers where traffic volumes are projected to result in noise level increases of more
than 3 dB, particularly at key intersections. As mitigation to reduce high noise levels at existing
receiver sites is not available, noise impacts are cumulatively considerable, significant, and not
mitigated. Project-related traffic is estimated to increase mobile noise from 0.4 to 2.4 dBA and
would be below the 3.0 dBA significance threshold. Nonetheless, the cumulative noise increase
resulting from the proposed project in combination with related projects is expected to exceed
the 3.0 dBA significance threshold on key roadway segments and is considered cumulatively
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-7 would reduce the project's contribution to cumulative
noise impacts, however cumulative noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding:
Since noise generated by regional traffic is not under the control or influence of the City, no
feasible mitigation is available to reduce noise levels along key roadway segments to a less than
significant level. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Impact: Archaeological Resources
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would potentially contribute to a cumulative impact on
archaeological resources.
Explanation:
The continued pressure to develop or redevelop areas would result in incremental impacts to the
historical record in the San Diego region. Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to cultural
resources, the more that land is converted to developed uses, the greater the potential for
impacts to historical and archaeological resources. While any individual project may avoid or
mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect on regional archaeological and
historical resources is considerable when considered cumulatively.
86
SDPUBIBMILLER\385 14 1.2
14-100
Mitigation Measures:
Project mitigation measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-5, above, would reduce the project's impacts to a
less than significant level. However, these mitigation measures do not address impacts
associated with related or other regional projects over which the project and the City have no
influence.
Finding:
Since the project and the City have no influence over all other related projects or regional
projects, no mitigation measures are available to reduce this cumulative impact to below a level
of significance. The potential cumulative impact on archaeological resources remains
significant and unmitigated. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final E1R.
Impact: Agricultural Resources
The loss of land suitable for the production of crops would result in a significant cumulative
impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of Farmland of Local
Importance.
Explanation:
Development of the SPA Plan would result in a significant impact on agricultural resources, due
to the loss of 858.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and the conversion of 321.72 acres
of Grazing Land to urban uses within the region. The loss of this acreage would result in a
significant unavoidable impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land. In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve
the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate the impact below a level of significant, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was adopted. This impact is identical to that assessed in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR
(EIR 90-01). The SPA Plan would not result in any new significant adverse impacts to
agricultural resources, or an intensification of such impacts, that were not analyzed in the GDP
Program EIR.
Finding:
The incremental and cumulative loss of agricultural lands, which was considered a significant
impact in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, remains significant, and no mitigation measures
87
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-101
are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. This incremental loss
remains significant and unmitigated. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Impact: Water Services
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would potentially contribute to a cumulative impact
with respect to water supply.
Explanation:
The General Plan EIR states that buildout would have a significant adverse impact with respect
to water supply that would require corresponding improvements to treatment and distribution
facilities. According to the General Plan ErR, the inability of the City to state conclusively that
sufficient water supplies would be available to individual projects and the higher demand
projected under the adopted General Plan compared to water forecasts based on SANDAG
population growth forecasts would be potentially significant. The General Plan EIR concluded
that it cannot be assured that water would be available to adequately serve the projected
increase in population and, therefore, concluded that water impacts would be significant and
unmitigated. Although the regional water supplier has concluded that water available to service
the proposed project would be adequate, impacts associated with water supply and
infrastructure are considered cumulatively significant, in accordance with the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures:
Project mitigation measures 4.11.6.1 through 4.11.6-3 would reduce the project's impacts to a
less than significant level. However, these mitigation measures do not address impacts
associated with related or other regional projects over which the project and the City have no
infJ uence.
Finding:
Since the project and the City have no influence over all other related projects or regional
projects, no additional mitigation measures beyond those provided for the project are available
to reduce this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. The potential cumulative
impact on water supply remains significant and unmitigated. Therefore, pursuant to section
15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR.
88
SPPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-102
Impact: Wastewater Services
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would potentially contribute to a cumulative impact
with respect to wastewater services.
Explanation:
The General Plan EIR states that projected future flows at buildout of the General Plan would
exceed the City's current capacity and that additional population will place additional demand
on sewer services. Therefore the wastewater generated by the project combined with other
planned projects would require sewage treatment capacity beyond the City's existing capacity
rights and allocated additional treatment capacity. However, the General Plan EIR concludes
that implementation of General Plan policies GM 1.1, 1.5, 1.9 and 1.11 avoid impacts
associated with completion of infrastructure. In addition to General Plan policies, CVMC
sections 18.16 and 19.09.050 requiring the provision of adequate facilities for all discretionary
permits would ensure impacts on wastewater facilities are less than significant. (Chula Vista
General Plan, pages 529-530). Although the General Plan EIR concludes that wastewater
services would be available to service the proposed project and that impacts would not be
cumulatively significant, mitigation measures are provided to ensure that the project does not
exceed the capacity of any line in the existing wastewater conveyance system by more than 75
percent of pipe capacity for pipes greater than 12 inches in diameter or 50 percent for pipes 12
inches or less in diameter. Additionally, existing policies require major developments to
prepare a PFFP that articulates needed facilities and identifies funding mechanisms and includes
provisions to withhold discretionary approvals and other measures. Thus, with monitoring of
treatment capacity prior to the approval of building permits, impacts associated with a shortfall
of wastewater capacity would not be cumulatively significant. However, the potential exists for
the proposed project and related projects to require sewage treatment beyond the City's existing
wastewater treatment capacity rights and allocated additional treatment capacity. The City may
need to acquire additional capacity from METRO or other sources. The means by which
additional treatment capacity would be acquired is unknown and may require construction of
new or expanded treatment facilities. As the location and scope of construction for any new
developed treatment facilities are unknown, the development of treatment facilities may result
in a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures:
Project mitigation measures 4.11. 7.1 through 4.11.7-4 would ensure that the project's impacts
associated with wastewater conveyance systems remain less than significant. However, these
mitigation measures do not address impacts associated with related or other regional projects
over which the project and the City have no influence.
89
SDPVBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-103
Finding:
As the location and scope of construction for any future expanded or newly developed treatment
facilities is unknown, the development of treatment capacity may result in potentially
significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts associated with construction of new or
expanded treatment facilities. However, since the project and the City have no influence over
all future expanded or newly developed treatment facilities, no additional mitigation measures
beyond those provided for the project are available to reduce this cumulative impact to below a
level of significance. Therefore, pursuant to section IS091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final ElR.
90
SDPUBIBMILLER138514I.2
14-104
X.
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES
Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City
must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decision makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these
circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires that the EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's
significant effects. The EIR must also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In
accordance with this requirement, the EUC ErR analyzed three alternatives to the project: (i) No
ProjectlNo Development Alternative; (ii) Reduced Density Alternative; and (iii) Adjusted Land
Use Mix Alternative. These alternatives were selected in response to the project's objectives
and in an effort to address the project's anticipated impacts.
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible"
pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies
to the findings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors" (Pub. Res. Code, section 21061.1). The CEQA Guidelines provide a
broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines
section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or
mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or
technological factor" (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52
CaI.3d 553, 565 [276 CaI.Rptr.41 0]).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project [City of Del Mar
v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaI.App.3d 410, 417]. '" [F]easibi1ity' under CEQA
encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of
the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" [Id.; see also Sequoyah
Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 CaI.App.4th 704, 715].
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant
91
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-105
environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In
rejecting certain alternatives, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project
objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet objectives. The decision
makers believe that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least
environmental impact.
The detailed discussion in Section VIII and Section IX demonstrates that all but four significant
direct environmental effects of the project related to landform/aesthetics, air quality,
wastewater, and agriculture and eight cumulative environmental effects related to
landform/aesthetics, air quality, wastewater, agriculture, traffic, noise, archaeological resources,
and water have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing
policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the following:
. Landform Alterations! Aesthetics: Aesthetic impact associated with the permanent change in
the open space character of the project site to a permanent urban use. Landform
Alteration/Aesthetics impacts would be direct and cumulative.
. Air Quality: Emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PMlO and PM2.5 exceeding regional significance
threshold standards and non-compliance with SCAPCD's current RAQS. Air quality
impacts would be direct and cumulative.
o Agriculture: The permanent loss of 207 acres Farmland of Local Importance, with a loss of
approximately 59 acres of adjacent Farmland of Local Importance under Grading Option 1
(SSA) and approximately 28.5 acres under Grading Option 2. Impacts on Agricultural
Resources would be direct and cumulative.
. Wastewater: - The proposed project in combination with other foreseeable growth could
require sewage treatment beyond the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity rights
and allocated additional treatment capacity. As the location and scope of construction for
any future expanded or newly developed treatment facilities is unknown, the development
of treatment capacity may result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with construction of new or expanded treatment facilities. The wastewater
impact would be direct and cumulative.
o Transportation: Significant cumulative impacts on the following three freeway segments (I)
northbound Interstate 805, between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway (2020
and 2030); (2) southbound Interstate 805, between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic
Parkway (2015, 2020, and 2030): and (3) southbound Interstate 805, between Olympic
Parkway and Main Street (2030). Traffic impacts would be cumulative, but not direct.
92
SDPUBIBMILLER\385141.2
14-106
· Noise: The project and related projects represented by the General Plan EIR could
exacerbate noise levels to a magnitude that significantly impacts receivers where traffic
volumes could increase more than 3 dB, particularly at key intersections. Although project-
specific mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts to less than significant level, as the
cumulative noise increase could exceed the 3.0 dBA, noise impacts are considered
cumulatively significant and unavoidable. The impact would cumulative, but not direct.
. Archaeological Resources: The project and related projects could result in significant
impacts on archaeological resources that may be uncovered during development. The
project has proposed mitigation measures to reduce project-related impacts on cultural
resources to a less than significant level. However, while any individual project may avoid
or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect of the project in combination with
related projects would be considered significant and unavoidable, when considered
cumulatively. The impact on archaeological resources would be cumulative, but not direct.
· Water S uppl y: The regional water supplier has concluded that water available to service the
proposed project would be adequate; however, impacts associated with water supply and
infrastructure are considered cumulatively significant, in accordance with the General Plan
ElR. The General Plan EIR concluded that, as there is no assurance that water would be
available to adequately serve the projected increase in population, water impacts would be
significant and unmitigated. The impact on water supply would be cumulative, but not
direct.
The City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives
identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts
listed above (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County
Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426]). Table 8-3 in the EIR (EIR, Chapter 8.0, pages 8-34
through 8-38) provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following
discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally
superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts.
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, finds pursuant
to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3) that:
(i) the EIR considers a reasonable range of alternatives; and (ii) specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the project alternatives identified in
the EIR, as well as other alternatives which would reduce the impacts to below a level of
significance. This is described below as part of the evaluation of cach alternative.
93
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-107
NO PROJECTINO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6, subdivision(e), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the "No
Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services."
The No Project Alternative (Alternative I) assumes that no SPA Plan would be developed
within the EUC, and the existing land uses within the project site would remain unchanged.
Accordingly, this alternative would be equivalent to the conditions discussed under existing
conditions for each category analyzed in this Draft EIR. The project site would remain in
agricultural use or remain fallow. Since no development would occur, environmental impacts
associated with construction and development would be avoided. The No Project Alternative
would avoid the proposed EUC SPA Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with
the permanent change in visual character of the project site from open space to dense urban
development; construction and operation air emissions;' cumulative traffic impacts on three
segments of the I-80S freeway; and permanent loss of Farmland of Local Importance. However
this alternative would not meet the General Plan and GDP objectives that call for the Eastern
Urban Center to function as the high-density, mixed use downtown and regional heart of the
Otay Ranch Subarea and East Planning Area and to serve as a source of employment land in the
Otay Ranch. In addition, the No Project would not provide a link in the City's Greenway Trail;
it would not remediate existing stockpiled soils that have the potential to impact downstream
habitat; it would not remediate soils containing OPCs associated with the former use of
pesticides in the project site; it would not dedicate permanent open space in the Otay Ranch
Preserve in conformance with the Otay Ranch RMP; and it would not provide affordable
housing, as would the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of
the project objectives and would be inconsistent with the General Plan and GDP. As school,
fire, and library sites would not be provided, this alternative would result in a significant impact
on these more regional-serving public services. This alternative would also not generate any
fiscal revenues to the City nor would it generate any of the employment opportunities that the
proposed project does.
Although the No ProjectINo Development alternative is considered environmentally preferable
to the proposed project because it would eliminate many direct and cumulative impacts, it
would not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the proposed project and is,
therefore, not feasible. Additionally, this alternative would result in land use conflicts because
it would not implement the City's General Plan or Otay Ranch GDP for the EUC.
94
SDPUB\BMILLER\385141.2
14-108
Findings:
The No ProjectINo Development alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives
as listed in Section 3.4, Statement of Project Objectives, of this ErR, and in Section III of these
Findings of Fact.
The No ProjectINo Development alternative would not be consistent with regional transit
planning efforts as it would not provide the link in the regional transit route currently
contemplated to bisect the EVC and would remove a significant ridership generator for both
regional and local transit services.
The No ProjectINo Development alternative would not provide a link in the City's Greenway
Trail; therefore, conflicting with the City's Greenbelt Master Plan.
The No ProjectlNo Development alternative would not covey open space in accordance with the
Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan at a rate of 1.188 acres for each acre of development
for the progressive acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the designated Otay Ranch
Preserve.
The No ProjectINo Dcvelopment alternative would not remediate existing stockpiled soils that
have the potential to impact downstream habitat.
The No ProjectlNo Development alternative would not remediate soils containing OPCs
associated with the forrner use of pesticides in the project site.
The No ProjectINo Dcvelopment alternative would not provide affordable housing, thus
conflicting with the housing goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be
provided for all income groups.
Retention of the project site in its eXlstmg state as primarily agricultural fields would be
inconsistent v~'ith the approved General Plan and existing Otay Ranch GDP land use
designations [or the site. Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not
implement the goals of the General Plan and GDP to create a regional-serving mixed-use urban
focal element for the Otay Ranch in the EVC, and would thus require re-evaluation of the
existing GP and GDP.
The project proposcs to provide regional-serving public facilities designated in the Otay Ranch
GDP, including a fire station and library. It will also provide upgraded, off-site sewer
infrastructure improvements (the SCSL and peSr). None of these facilities would bc provided
with the No Project Alternative.
95
SDPUBIBM!LLER\385!4 !.2
14-109
Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve any of the
objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily
preserve land which is currently undeveloped agricultural land on the project site, it would
amount to a failure to plan the site for eventual development, despite the EVC designation
contemplated in the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP.
The No Project/No Development Alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan
the project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of
public services and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the
City's circulation; and to create land use patterns sufficient to pay for all required services and
infrastructure. The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future
projected population in an area reasonable close to future job-growth areas within the City, as
well as the construction of affordable housing consistent with the City's goals.
The No Project Alternative would result in the loss of over 9,000 jobs which would be
generated from this project as identified in the PFFP fiscal study. This loss of employment
would remove a significant portion of the employment land inventory identified in Otay Ranch
in the General Plan and would be inconsistent with the goals expressed in the GDP to create a
regional serving focal point for the Otay Ranch.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make the No Project! No Development alternative
infeasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
Cal.App.41h at 715).
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Density Alternative (Alternative 2) would reduce overall development by 25
percent, resulting in a total 2,237 residential units and 2.62 million square feet of non-residential
floor area. This alternative assumes that the library and fire station would be respectively
reduced commensurate with reduced demand. The Greenway Trail would be developed as
under the proposed EVC SPA Plan. In addition, an approximately 6-acre school site would be
provided as under the proposed project. However, parkland and in lieu fees would be
proportionately reduced by 25 percent for a total of 11.72 acres of parkland and in lieu fees
equivalent to 5.8 acres, for a total equivalent to 17.5 acres. With reduced density, Alternative 2
also assumes that the EVC would have an overall, lower building profile and less urban
character than anticipated under the Otay Ranch GDP.
96
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-110
Impact
The Reduced Density Alternative would not be consistent with the land use mix of
approximately 3.5 million square feet of non-commercial floor area and 2,983 multi-family
units and resulting urban character as set forth in the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP.
As such, in contrast to the proposed project, this alternative would be inconsistent with these
planning documents and would require a General Plan Amendment and GDP Amendment.
Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a significant impact with respect to
adopted land use plans. As this alternative would result in a lower density development than
proposed under the GDP, it also may not provide the level of regional services anticipated by
the applicable land use plans.
With respect to visual character, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a lower
profile development that would not fulfill to the same degree the objectives of the Otay Ranch
GDP, which envision a high intensity environment and high activity associated with an urban
character street front of mixed uses.
The reduction in non-residential development would reduce job creation by 25% resulting in a
loss of approximately 2,400 employment opportunities, and commensurately reducing revenues
coming into the City to support City-wide services.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the same change in the aesthetic character of
the area from open space to urban development as under the proposed project. Therefore, this
alternative would not avoid the project's significant and unmitigated impact with respect to the
loss of open space and change in character from open space to development.
The Reduced Density Alternative would incrementally reduce traffic by approximately 25
percent. However, cumulative impacts on the (I) northbound Interstate 805 from Telegraph
Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, (2) southbound Interstate 805 from Telegraph Canyon Road
to Olympic Parkway, and (3) southbound Interstate 805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
would remain significant.
The Reduced Density Alternative would provide a link for the regional transit service as
contemplated in regional plans, but the reduced level of development would result in a potential
reduction in the ridership which would be generated by the EVC for both regional and local
transit services and thus would not support regional and local transit planning efforts to the
same extent as the proposed project.
The Reduccd Density Alternative would require the same mass grading as the project and result
in similar significant and unmitigated construction emissions as the proposed project. The
97
SDPUBIBMlLLER\385141.2
1 4-111
Reduced Density Alternative would reduce operational emlSSlOns associated with traffic by
approximately 25 per cent. However, this reduction would not reduce emission levels to below
threshold standards and would remain significant and unmitigated.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the same construction noise levels as the
proposed project. Noise impacts associated with outdoor recreational activities would be the
same as under the proposed project; however, vehicle traffic noise would be reduced by 25
percent. As with the proposed project, impacts on construction and operation noise levels
would be less than significant.
The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same impacts as the proposed project with
respect to cultural resources, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and hazardous
materials. As with the proposed project, impacts on these resources would be less than
significant. The Reduced Density Alternative would also impact the same amount of Farmland
of Local Importance as under the proposed project, and would not avoid the project's significant
impact with respect to agricultural resources.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in approximately 25 percent less demand on fire,
police, schools, libraries, parks, water, wastewater, and solid waste services than the proposed
project. As with the proposed project, impacts on these services would be less than significant,
although cumulative water demand would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
The Reduced Development Alternative A would reduce the amount of housing that was,
otherwise anticipated within the EUC, by approximately 25 percent relative to the proposed
project. The reduction in available housing within the project area would reduce the ability of
the City to meet the SANDAG-projected demand and is considered a potentially significant
impact with respect to housing.
Findings:
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts on fire, police, schools, libraries, parks,
water, and solid waste services. However, this alternative would not reduce any of the project's
significant, unmitigated impacts associated with landform alteration, cumulative freeway traffic,
air emissions, wastewater, and loss of Farmland of Local Importance to a less than significant
level. In addition, as this alternative would not fully implement the vision for the EUC as
expressed in the Otay Ranch GDP or General Plan, it would generate additional significant
impacts with respect to compliance with adopted land use plans. It would also not meet the
GDP and General Plan housing goals, or address SANDAG's projected housing demand and, as
such, result in a potentially significant impact with respect to housing and population. It would
also result in the creation of less employment opportunities and lower fiscal revenues and would
generate fewer riders to support regional and local transit services. Therefore, pursuant to
98
SDPUBIBMILLER\J85141.2
14-112
section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
ADJUSTED LAND USE MIX AL TERNA TIVE
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative (Alternative 3) would change the project's mix ofland
uses, including a 62.5 percent increase in residential units and a 53.5 percent decrease in total
non-residential floor area. This alternative would provide 1,620,000 square feet of non-
residential uses, including 100,000 square feet of school uses, and 4,850 residential units.
Another change from the EUC SPA Plan would be a 40 percent reduction in hotel rooms. The
Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would also provide 20.37 acres of parkland and seven
parks, compared to the proposed project, which would provide 15.63 acres of parkland and six
parks. High Rise Commercial/Office floor area and civic/public facilities would be the same as
under the proposed project, and the reduction in non-residential floor area would be primarily
made with respect to regional and local retail uses. The detail of this project is provided in EIR
Section 8.0, Figure 8-1 on page 8-23. This alternative is also compared to the proposed project
in Section 8.0, Table 8-1 on page 8-22.
Impact
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would not be consistent with the mix of residential and
non-residential uses set forth under the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP that envision
a high-density, mixed-use center and would require GP and GDP Amendments. In addition, as
this alternative would exceed the number of residential unit set forth in the GDP by 62.5
percent, it would have a significant land use impact with respect to the Otay Ranch GDP and the
General Plan. In addition, this alternative would reduce non-residential uses by 56 percent and
hotel uses by 40 percent, which would not result in the integration of commercial and residential
uses to support a 24-hour environment to the same extent as the proposed project. Nor would
this alternative meet GDP policies (0 provide for neighborhood, regional, and specialty
shopping; or provide employment opportunities to the same extent as the proposed project.
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would result in the same change in the aesthetic
character of the area from open space to urban development as under the proposed project.
Therefore, this alternative would not avoid the project's significant and unmitigated impact with
respect to the loss of open space.
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would generate 52,097 fewer daily trips (without trip
or transit credits) than the proposed project (124,148 trips - 72,051 trips = 52,097 trips). This
represents an approximately 42 percent reduction. With trip and transit credits, the Adjusted
Land Use Mix Alternative would generate 25,426 fewer daily trips than the proposed project
(80,369 trips - 54,943 trips = 25,246 trips). This represents an approximately 31.6 percent
99
SDPUBIBMILLERI385141.2
14-113
reduction However, cumulative impacts on the (1) northbound Interstate 805 from Telegraph
Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, (2) southbound Interstate 805 from Telegraph Canyon Road
to Olympic Parkway, and (3) southbound Interstate 805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
would remain significant.
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would require the same mass grading as the project
and result in similar significant and unmitigated construction emissions as the proposed project.
However, the Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would reduce emissions associated with
traffic by approximately 42 per cent. However, this reduction would not reduce emission levels
to below threshold standards and would remain significant and unmitigated.
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would result in the same construction noise levels as
the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with outdoor recreational activities and schools
would be the same as under the proposed project; however, vehicle traffic noise would be
reduced by approximately 42 percent (without trip or transit credit) or 31.6 percent (with trip
and transit credit). As with the proposed project, impacts on construction and operation noise
levels would be less than significant. However, it is expected that combined with related
projects, cumulative noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable, as under the proposed
project.
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would have the same impacts as the project with
respect to cultural resources, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and hazardous
materials. As with the proposed project, impacts on these resources would be less than
significant. The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would also impact the same amount of
Farmland of Local Importance as under the proposed project, and would not avoid the project's
significant impact with respect to agricultural resources.
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would result in an approximately 62.5 percent increase
in population compared to the proposed project and would, respectively, increase impacts on
fire, police, schools, libraries, parks, water, wastewater, and solid waste services compared to
the proposed project. This alternative would provide 20.37 acres of parkland, with a shortfall of
17.53 acres. The shortfall between the provided parkland acreage and required parkland
acreage would be reduced to less than significant through in lieu fees equivalent to 17.53 acres.
Although both the proposed project and Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level, Alternative 3 would have an incrementally greater impact on park services due
to the relative increase in population. Similarly, this alternative would generate 692 more
students including 398 more elementary, 117 middle and 177 high school students. The number
of elementary school children would exceed the capacity of the planned six-acre elementary
school resulting in a significant impact on schools as compared to the proposed project.
100
SDPUBIBMILLER1385141.2
14-114
The Adjusted Land Use Mix Alternative would increase the amount of housing that is
anticipated within the EUC, by approximately 62.5 percent relative to the proposed project.
The increase in housing would greatly exceed the GDP and General Plan's housing projection
and would, therefore, have a significant impact with respect to housing and population.
Findings:
The Adjusted Land Use Mix would reduce impacts with respect to ADT and peak hour traffic
by approximately 42 percent. However, this alternative would not reduce any of the project's
significant, unmitigated impacts associated with aesthetic character, cumulative freeway traffic,
air emissions, and loss of Farmland of Local Importance to a less than significant level. In
addition, as this alternative would not implement the Otay Ranch GDP or General Plan, as
envisioned, it would generate additional significant impacts with respect to compliance with
adopted land use plans. This alternative would exceed the GDP and General Plan projected
population for the EUC by approximately 62.5 percent, thus creating a potentially significant
impact with respect to the City's and SANDAG's growth projections. This growth would
exceed the Otay Ranch GDP's multi-family housing designation and anticipated population
growth by 62.5 percent. Projected population would also exceed the Chula Vista General Plan
growth projections, which include the GDP's projections. In addition, the Adjusted Land Use
Mix Alternative would have an incrementally greater impact than the project with respect to
public services, since it would increase overall demand. For instance, the increase in the
number of elementary school children would exceed the capacity of the EUC's planned six-acre
elementary school site. It would also result in reduced fiscal revenues to the City and would
reduce the number of employment opportunities in the EUC commensurate with the reduction
in non-residential development. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
alternative infeasible.
ENVIRONMENTALL Y SUPERIOR AL TER.~A TIVE
CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the
alternatives considered, including the proposed project. If the No Project/No Development
alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the ErR also shall identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the EIR indicates, through a
comparison of potential impacts from cach of the proposed alternatives and the proposed
project, that the No ProjectlNo Development alternative, if left in its current state, could be
considered environmentally superior because no new uses would be introduced to the area and
the project site would not result in environmental impacts. However, the No Project/No
Development alternative would not implement the City's General Plan, thc Otay Ranch GDP, or
101
SDPUBIBMILLER138514I.2
14-115
the RMP, which are primary project objectives. The No ProjectINo Development alternative
would not accomplish any of the objectives of the project.
While it would not avoid any of the significant and unmitigated impacts to landform alteration,
transportation, wastewater, air quality, agriculture, and cumulative impacts, associated with the
proposed project and would have increased land use and housing and population impacts, the
Reduced Density Alternative could be considered the environmentally superior project because
it would incrementally reduce impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, utilities and
services, and water quality while implementing some, but not all, of the project objectives. The
project objectives are enumerated in the Section 3.4 of the EIR.
102
SDPUBIBMILLER\38514 L2
14-116
XI.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Public Resources Code S21081(b) prohibits approval of a project with significant, unmitigable
adverse impacts resulting from infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives unlcss the agency
finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. The project could have significant,
unmitigable, adverse impacts, as described above. However, the City Council, having
considered all of the evidence before it, finds that the following specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the aforesaid significant,
unmitigable effects on the environment. The City Council expressly finds that each (i.e., any
one of) the following benefits, with or without the others, would be sufficient to reach this
conclusion:
Communitv Planning and Development
1. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan always proposed that the EUC bc the heart
or center of activity for the Otay Ranch. The EUC will be a mixed-use, pedestrian-
oriented urban center that will serve as the residential, economic, and social focal point
for Chula Vista's Eastern Planning Area. Approval of the EUC SPA Plan will provide
the economic and civic center of the Otay ranch that has been planned since 1993.
2. The projcct will include a series of interconnected districts that will expand the City's
employment base, provide civic and cultural venues and facilities, introduce new
shopping, hospitality and entertainment venues, and establish a variety of urban housing
types, including both higher-end and affordable housing, all implemented within a
sustainable community framework. EUC will be a place where residents and visitors
alike can come together to live, work and play in a high-quality urban environment.
3. The projcct will create an urban employment center that will establish a strong, well-
located employment sub-market and add new local jobs. Studies by both the City and the
applicant estimate that the completed project will generate nearly ten thousand jobs,
approximately two-thirds of which will be higher-quality office employment
opportunities.
Public Facilities Planning
1. The developer of the project has agreed to provide infrastructure benefiting the gencral
public over and above the need generated solely by this project, including a fire station,
library, off-site sewer improvements to Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek sewer facilities that
103
SPPUBIBMILLER1385 14 1.2
14-117
will serve other developments, and, through additional impact fee payments, overall
infrastructure for the City's Eastern Planning Area.
Fiscal Benefit
I. The project will result in a long-term increase in tax revenues, over and above the cost of
providing services to occupants of the project. Once completed, the EUC is expected to
provide significant new long-term revenues from a diversified tax base and its new
population will support and enhance the viability of other existing and planned tax
generators.
2. Residential development is anticipated to include special financing districts that will
provide enhanced funding for maintenance that might otherwise be paid for by City's
general fund; for example, some portion of park maintenance is anticipated to be funded
through a community facilities district.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
1. The project provides an important link for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that will
connect the Otay Ranch to Downtown San Diego and the International Border. The city,
the developer, and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) have
coordinated to locate the BRT line to maximize usage within the EUC and future
university users.
2. The project will enhance the City's image and reputation as a leader in sustainable
community building. The Eastern Urban Center demonstrates a strong commitment to
sustainability including an emphasis on mixed use, an extensive street grid system which
promotes walkability and a centrally located bus rapid transit system corridor. The
project also features a high level of detailing in the public realm, along with civic
amenities, including a library, fire station, and a site reserved for an elementary school.
For these reasons the City Council finds there are economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's unavoidable
significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable effects are considered
acceptable.
104
SDPUB\BMILLER\385 ]41.2
14-118
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT;
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (ErR 07-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH
EASTERt"\J URBAN CENTER SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP (TM) PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, McMillin Otay Ranch LLC submitted applications requesting approvals for
a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map (TM) for the Eastern Urban Center
(EUC) ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, a Draft Second Tier EIR 07-01 was issued for public review on July 22,
2009, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
Draft EIR 07 -01 on July 8, 2009 to close the public review period; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the comments received on the Draft EIR and
requirements of CEQA, a Final Second Tier EIR (Final EIR 07-01) was prepared for the Project
SPA and TM; and
WHEREAS, Final EIR 07-01 incorporates all comments and recommendations received
on the Draft ElR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the
draft EIR, and the City's responses to all "significant environmental points" raised by public and
agency comments submitted during the review and consultation process, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132; and
WHEREAS, additional corrections to the Final ErR 07-01 did not result in modifications
to conclusions regarding significance of impacts or the addition of significant new information
that would require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
the Draft EIR 07-01 on August 26, 2009 and recommended the City Council make certain
Findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopt a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and certify the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 07-
01) for the Otay Ranch EUC SPA Plan and TM pursuant to CEQA; and
1
14-119
WHEREAS, FEIR 07-01 incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that address the
subject property including the Chula Vista General Plan EIR (EIR 05-01) and the Final Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR (EIR 90-01); the Project SPA Plan including the Planned
Community District RegulationslDesign Plan, Project Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable
Housing Program, Sustainability Element and Parks Master Plan, as well as their associated
Findings of Fact and a MMRP; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated September 2009 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in Final EIR 07-01 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn,
the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to
implement those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute
a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution
approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the MMRP Section of
EIR 07-01, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the
MMRP that are adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through
the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on Draft EIR 07-01 held on July 8,2009 and August 26,2009, as well as
the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, shall be incorporated into the record of
proceedings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. These documents,
along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents
specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e), shall comprise the
entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code S2l000 et seq. CCEQA"). The record of proceedings shall
be maintained by the City Clerk at City Hall.
II. FEIR 07-01 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 07-01 consists of the following:
1. Second-Tier EIR for the Project SPA Plan and TM (including Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and technical appendices); and
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 07-01")
2
14-120
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT TO FEIR 07-01
1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. PRESENTATION TO THE DECISIONMAKING BODY
That the City Council does hereby certify that FEIR 07-01 was presented to the City
Council as the decisionmaking body of the lead agency and that the City Council has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the final ErR prior to approving the
Project.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORt"lIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby certify that FEIR 07-01, the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit '"A" to this Resolution, a copy which is
on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources
Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 915000 et
seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
VI. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council does hereby certify that the FEIR 07-0 I reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City of Chula Vista as lead agency for the Project.
VII. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRA]\t[ 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 everyone of the findings contained in
Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
On the basis of the findings set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and as
more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 07-0 I, the City Council hereby finds
pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified
in FEIR 07-01, and that such changes and alterations have eliminated or
substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as
shown in the findings set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. Furthermore,
3
14-121
the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effect on the environment, consisting
of those mitigation measures set forth in Final EIR 07-01 and in Exhibit "A" to
this Resolution, are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or
other measures, including but not limited to conditions of approval of the Project
Tentative Map, and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project
proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
C. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitIgation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. However, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15092, the City hereby finds and determines that any
remaining significant effects on the environment which have been found to be
unavoidable as shown in the findings set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution
are acceptable due to certain overriding concerns. Therefore, the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby approves, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit
"A" to this Resolution identifying the specific economic, social and other
considerations that outweigh and render the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
D. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 07-01 and in Section VLA of
Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that
alternatives to the project, which were identified in FEIR 07-01, were not found to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project objectives.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, the City Council hereby adopts the program for reporting on or
monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a
condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental
effects, consisting of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth
in ErR 07-01. The City Council further [mds that the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the
permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the
project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the
Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
4
14-122
VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on the
basis of the Findings as set forth above certifies FEIR 07-01, and adopts the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (all of
which are available and on file in the Office of the City Clerk), in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091.
Submitted by
Approved as to form by
.... (/J .
*~)'l/I7,)
'" ,. /fLJL&J/
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP .. '-..1j'\B~~iesD' 11 i,.,/
Deputy CIty Manager/Development ServIces Dlrector.i1' CIty Attorney
Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5
14-123
.:T::k:tv\ :t\;; 14--
~~k"'\o;! S""f:>.
"I.l'-A \t/S~
-"~-
~
~
"/LLAG!;
August 19,2009
THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE
ASSOCIATION
Chula Vista Mayor and City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
353 Third A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 422-1982 Phone
(619) 422-1452 Facsimile
Honorable Mayor and Council:
w\\'\\'. thirda\'enue\'illtH~e .com
Please be advised that on August 5 the Board of Directors of the
Third A venue Village Association (T A V A) voted unanimously
to endorse the McMillin Company's proposed Eastern Urban
Center Land Use Plan. The Board's overall sentiment was that
the EUC land use plan was "state of the art" in terms of its
mixtures of uses and densities, economic and environmental
sustainability, and attention to "place making". All ofChula
Vista benefits from high quality development and the EUC
proposes exactly that.
2009 Board of Directors
Glen Googins - President
Greg Mattson - Past President
Adam Sparks - Vice President
Greg Smyth - Secretary
Michael Green Treasurer
In light of the above, we encourage you to approve McMillin's
proposed EUC plan. For our part, we will continue to work with
McMillin and the City to create linkages between the east side
and the west so that both areas can enjoy and benefit from the
strengths and attractions of each.
Eric Crockett
Thank you for your consideration.
Carl Harry
Betsy Keller
Sherry Mestler
Lisa Moctezuma
Very truly yours,
Tom Money
Ian Trotter
G . Googins,
T A V A Board of Directors, President
\
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Steve Eastis
EVENTS & MARKETiNG MANAGER
Vanessa Barron
CC Jim Sandoval
City Manager
Gary Halbert
Director of Department Services
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Heather Marshall
Todd Galarneau
Vice President
The Corky McMillin Companies
National Energy Center
for Su.,tainable Communities
at Sail Diego Stale University
5500 Campanile Drive
Sull Diego CA 92182 5102
Tel: 619 476.5323
Fax: 773 . 334 5450
~Veb: www.necsc.us
SAN DIEGO STATE
UNIVERSITY
Center for Energy Studies
College (' J SCIences
San Diego State University
5500 Camp<mile Drive
Sun Diego CA 92182.5102
Tel: 619 . 594 1354
Fax: 61Y.5Y4 0897
Web: oip.sds.edu
AJ;t,\{O\,o.\ ""t:>.
:I:\e\'-'. ~ \ t
July 27,2009
City Council
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to communicate our Center's great respect for the Corky
McMillin Companies and the sincere commitment they've made to
energy-efficient community plmming and development in California.
As you may be aware, the McMillin Companies were very active and
supportive participants in the U.S. Department of Energy- and California
Energy Commission-funded research initiative, known nationally as the
"ChI/fa Vista Research Project". The research entailed modeling the
proposed land use, building, and infrastructure elements of the Eastern
Urban Center project and a comparison of their efficiencies to those
expected from a conventional development project to accommodate the
same population and uses. The comparisons suggested that the proposed
development would perform signiticantly better than a conventionally
developed project and if built, would become a leading model of energy-
el1icient community development in the State.
We were quite fortunate to have had such a cooperative and sophisticated
development company as a partner on this research initiative. Should you.
have any questions about our experience with the McMillin Companies on
this research initiative, or wish to learn more our work, please contact me
at 773-899-0801 .
Sincerely,
~
Douglas R. Newman
Director, NECSC
Cc: Nick Lee, Corky McMillin Companies
lIlE CAUl URKIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD. CHANNEL ISLANDS. CHICO. OOMlNGUEZ HILLS. EAST B....' FRES0.0' FULLERTON HU~IIlOL T LONG BEACH. LOS ANGLES. .\!ARIT1~IE
,\CADE.\IY ~IONTEI,EY B.\Y NlW.THI~I[lGE !'O\IONA SACj{A~IENTO' SAN HERNMWINO. SAN OIH':O. SAN FRANCISCO, SAN !l)5E. S,\N LUIS()HI~ro. 5,\N .\IAI{C()S. 50:-.l0~IA :=;TA.\lI~LAUS
m
f11~~II0l1ill Of!l~e. S~1t l ill,e
35 C.:rHUII' r~(l: I'Jay
SaltLakeClly,ufB.1115
nl)l":"';:;~ll
tJ~ 00l..IBG.]G5:l
IWl\v!l!lIlcom
FlluaIOppnr;IlIll,y[mplo'r'er
A,-*h~a)<R\ ~~
:::He1J. -tl< \ 4-
General Growth Properties. Inc.
August 20, 2009
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 9]910
RE: McMillin Companies Eastern Urban Center
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
The General Growth Properties company is writing to express its support for
the MeMillin Companies Eastern Urban'Center project. As the owners of the
Otay Ranch Town Center, we have worked with the McMillin Companies for
several years and found them to be both capable and of high integrity. We
have also followed the progress of the EUC project with interest over the .last
several years, and have met with the McMillin Companies and attended'
presentations given on the project and believe this project IS not only
consistent with the City's plans as we understand them, but also is consistent
with what our expectations were for our neighbors to the south.
We believe that a project of this scale and quality of design will be a positive
addition to the City and the Otay Ranch in particular. While the project should
certainly be considered on its individual merits, it is also important to consider
the positive effect that such a project could have on surrounding properties. A
project of this size and design has the potential to act as a proverbial "rising
tide" for other existing and planned developments in the Olay Ranch.
Although we believe that it will be many years before this area will be able to
support all of the additional development, we believe the EUC project will
have a positive effect on both the Otay Ranch Town Center and the larger
Otay Ranch and is a key piece of the overall land use puzzle for the City. The
EUC played an important role in our decision to build the Otay Ranch Town
Center. We would encourage the (Commission I City Council) to endorse the
McMillin Companies EUC project and allow this innovative project to move
forward.
K1'05 L 19son
VP Development
General Growth Properties, Inc.
kc(&,:\\Q~\~~..
~N.~ \4-' .
CSANDJI~/
401 8 Street, Suite 800
San Diego, C4 92101-4231
(619) 699-1900
Fax (619) 699-1905
MVW.sandag.org
MEMBER AGENCIES
Citieso!
Carlswd
(hula Vista
Coronado
DelMar
fl Cajon
Encinitas
Escondida
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National City
Oceanside
Ibway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Vista
and
County of San Diego
ADVISORY MEMBERS
Imperial Coomy
California Department
of Tramponarion
Metropolitan
Transit System
North County
Trans/tOistrier
United Stares
Department of Defense
San Diec.Jo
Unified Port District
San Diego County
Water Authority
Southern California
Tribal Chairmen 's Association
Mexico
,
'.
September 14, 2009
1280504
Mr. Todd Galarneau
The Corky McMillin Companies
PO Box B5104
San Diego, CA 92186-5104
Dear Mr. Galarneau:
SUBJECT:
Eastern Urban Center SPA Plan
5ANDAG is pleased to provide comment on McMillin's SPA Plan for the Eastern
Urban Center. Over the last five years, McMillin's staff has worked closely with
both SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista on planning and designing a transit
guide way through the EUC that will support the future South Bay BRT and
provide a step toward implementing our larger regional transit vision.
5ANDAG and McMillin staff has worked cooperatively on finding good transit
solutions to serve this important future regional center. The Eastern Urban
Center is designated as a major Urban Center in our Smart Growth Concept
map that is part of 5ANDAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such it will
require a high level of transit/land use integration to appropriately serve the
densities that are being proposed. We feel confident that the work done to
date will allow for good transit access and a station site that serves the
majority of the community.
5ANDAG looks forward to continuing involvement in this project as we head
toward implementation.
27] td-
BOB A. LEITER, FAICP
Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
BLE/jwil/vpe