Title
CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 10-04) FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 9 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-090 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 10-04/SCH 2010061090) FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 9 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommended Action
Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution.
Body
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 Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map (TM). In accordance with Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Village 9 EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review from January 17, 2014 to March 3, 2014. Written comments were received during the public review period, and responses to the comments are included in the Final Village 9 EIR. This staff report discusses the general content of the Village 9 Final EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and MMRP. The City Council must consider the Village 9 Final EIR before taking any action on the Village 9 SPA Plan and TM.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Second Tier EIR for the Village 9 SPA and TM has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On May 14, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Final EIR for Village 9. No members of the public commented on the Village 9 Final EIR during the public hearing. Planning Commissioners raised questions related to traffic impacts along Olympic Parkway and the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program as it pertains to the timing of the Main Street connection from Heritage Road to La Media Road.
Planning Commission brought forth a motion to approve a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Village 9 EIR with an added recommendation that the City take action to mitigate traffic impacts in advance of the mitigation proposed in the Village 9 Final EIR. This recommendation was a variation of staff’s recommendation. The Planning Commission vote (3-1-2-1) was not sufficient to carry the motion.
In an attempt to seek a favorable majority vote, Planning Commission’s Acting-Chair made a motion to reconsider staff’s original recommendation to approve the Village 9 Final EIR. The subsequent motion was not seconded and therefore failed. Planning Commission’s action effectively results in a recommendation to City Council that City Council not approve the resolution certifying the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 10-04) for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
DISCUSSION
Otay Land Company, LLC has submitted an application requesting approvals for a Village 9 SPA Plan and TM (collectively, the Project). The Village 9 EIR evaluates the environmental effects of the Project. The Project proposes development of a maximum of 3,734 multi-family and 266 single-family residential units; a maximum of 1,500,000 square feet (SF) of non-residential use; 27.5 acres of urban and passive parks; 19.8 acres for elementary school sites; 5.0 acres for community purpose facility uses; 9.6 acres of open space; and 26.1 acres of street right-of-way. In addition, 50 acres is proposed for dedication to the City of Chula Vista for a future university. A 30-foot wide off-site utility corridor is proposed that would extend south from the site. The corridor would include a sewer line that will connect to the existing Salt Creek Sewer Trunk Line, a storm drain to direct drainage to the Otay River, and a utility road on the southern portion of the corridor for utility access. The SPA Plan and proposed development is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP).
CEQA Compliance
The Village 9 Final 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 of CEQA and Section 15367 and Sections 15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Chula Vista is the Lead Agency under whose authority this EIR has been prepared.
Because of the size, complexity of issues and extended buildout period 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/Sub-regional Plan (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 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 Village 9 SPA Plan and TM are analyzed at a second-tier level of review (project level). The Village 9 Final 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.
In 2005, the City completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan (2005 GPU), which included amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP. Although the 2005 GPU included land use designations for the entire City, the City Council did not take action on the proposed land use designations and polices in the “Deferral Area,” which included several village sites, including Village 9. In 2013, a subsequent General Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment (2013 GPA/GDPA) was approved that established land use designations for the Deferral Area, and re-designated land uses in the surrounding area. The 2013 GPA/GDPA land use change area includes Village 8, Village 9, and a portion of the University Park and Innovation District. The 2013 GPA/GDPA included policy revisions to the 2005 GPU/GDPA, revisions to the General Plan Circulation Plan, reconfiguration of village boundaries, and land use designation amendments. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR 09-01) was prepared and certified for the 2013 GPA/GDPA in accordance with CEQA and the City’s Environmental Procedures. The 2013 SEIR (SEIR 09-01) was a supplemental environmental analysis that updated the 2005 GPU EIR (EIR 05-01). As a supplemental environmental document, SEIR 09-01 only included environmental analysis of those issues that were affected by the updated policies and land use designations in the 2013 GPA/GDPA. As such, the Village 9 EIR also incorporates by reference and serves as a second-tier EIR to the 2005 GPU EIR (EIR 05-01) and the 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR (SEIR 09-01).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, this document has been prepared as a “Project EIR” and is “focused primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development” (i.e., the Project). Where environmental impacts have been determined to be potentially significant, the Village 9 Final EIR presents mitigation measures directed at reducing those adverse environmental effects. The mitigation measures proposed for the project will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of the project on the environment to the degree feasible, and have been included in the Village 9 MMRP.
Comments on the Draft EIR
The Village 9 Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from January 17, 2014 through March 3, 2014. Letters of comment were received on the Village 9 Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, District 11)
• Native American Heritage Commission
• County of San Diego - Planning and Development Services
• City of San Diego
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
• Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
• San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
Comments received during the 45-day public review period and the responses to those comments have been included in the Village 9 Final EIR (see Attachment 1).
None of the comments received 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.
Additional Revisions to Draft EIR
Staff observed minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in the Village 9 Draft EIR during the public review period. Corrections and clarifications have been made in the Village 9 Draft EIR, and the Village 9 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 Village 9 Final EIR 10-04
The Village 9 Final EIR identified direct and cumulative significant environmental effects (or “impacts”) that would result from the Project. Some of these significant effects can be reduced to below significance through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other significant effects cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, and are considered significant and unmitigable.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions from the Village 9 Final EIR. Direct (Project) and cumulative impacts (effects from the Project and other probable 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:
1. Significant and Unmitigated
2. Significant and Mitigated to Less Than Significant
3. Less Than Significant
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)).
1) Significant and Unmitigated Impacts
• Aesthetics/Landform Alterations
- The Project would result in significant direct and cumulative impacts to the visual character and quality of the project area in that the development would permanently change the site from undeveloped rolling hills to an urban environment.
• Transportation/Traffic
- The Project would result in a cumulative impact to the Olympic Parkway/I-805 Northbound ramps intersection.
• Air Quality
- The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact because construction activities and project operations would exceed the federal and state standards for criteria pollutants; and,
- The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact because its development yields are not consistent with the growth projections in the current San Diego County Regional Air Quality Standard (RAQS). The current RAQS are based on the City’s 2005 GPU. Thus, the Project would exceed the regional growth projects until the RAQS is updated to reflect the growth projected in the 2013 GPA/GDPA.
• Noise
- Implementation of the project would have the potential to result in short-term exposure to excessive noise levels generated by traffic. However, implementation of the Village 9 SPA Plan and TM would include the construction of new roadways that would reduce long-term traffic and associated traffic-generated noise on the roadways surrounding the project site. Once the build-out roadway system is complete, exposure to excessive noise levels would be less than significant.
• Cultural Resources
- The Project would result in a significant cumulative impact because its development would incrementally increase impacts to the historical record and cultural resources within the San Diego region.
• Global Climate Change
- The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact because its development would exceed the state and federal standards for ozone precursors. Ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxides or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a contributing factor in global warming. Under the context of global climate change, increased temperatures would have the potential to increase the creation of ground-level ozone in the SDAB, which could exacerbate health impacts associated with ozone.
• Agriculture
- The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact to Farmland of Local Importance because its development would permanently change the site from undeveloped agricultural lands to an urban environment.
• Public Utilities
- Water Supply: The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact because long-term water supply availability cannot be guaranteed. Although the Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSAV) for the Village 9 SPA Plan and the water supply and reliability studies from Otay Water District (OWD) identify adequate water supplies for Village 9, there is no guarantee that long-term water supply or infrastructure would be available to serve the project when needed.
- Recycled Water: The Project would result in a cumulatively significant impact to recycled water supply and demand. Infrastructure improvements needed to meet long-term recycled water demand are the responsibility of OWD and outside the jurisdiction of the City. A cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact would occur until OWD has constructed the recycled water infrastructure needed to meet regional projected recycled water demands.
- Wastewater: The 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. The location and nature of any new or expanded treatment facilities, if needed in the future, have not yet been determined. In light of this, it is possible that the construction of any new or expanded treatment facilities, if needed in the future, could result in significant direct and/or cumulative impacts.
- Energy Resources: The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact to energy resources because of the uncertainty regarding long-term energy supply. Although City programs and policies would result in more efficient use of energy within the Project, they do not ensure that increased energy resources will be available when needed.
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. The conclusion for significant and unmitigated impacts related to landform alteration/aesthetics, air quality, noise, water supply, and energy are consistent with the findings contained in the adopted 2005 GPU EIR (EIR 05-01) and/or 2013 GPA/GDPA SEIR (SEIR 09-01).
Role of the City as a Lead Agency Regarding Significant and Unmitigated Impacts
As a Lead Agency, the City must make findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043, 15091, and 15093 for each significant and unmitigated impact. The attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared specifically for the project actions for which the City has authority to approve or carry out (see Attachment 2, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, dated April 10, 2014).
Sections 15043, 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines state that the adverse environmental effects are considered “acceptable” and a Lead Agency can approve a project that will result in the occurrence of significant effects when, based upon substantial evidence, findings have been made that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR, and benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding the significant environmental effects of the project.
2) 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 MMRP (see Attachment 1) has been prepared to ensure that the mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with specified monitoring requirements.
• Land Use and Planning
- Mitigation Measures 5.1-1, 5.1-2 and 5.6-1 through 5.6-19 would reduce potentially significant impacts to land use compatibility and conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations.
• Aesthetics/Landform Alterations
- Mitigation Measures 5.2-1 through 5.2-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to scenic resources, lighting and glare, shadow and wind, and landform alteration to less than significant. No significant direct effects were identified for scenic vistas and consistency with visual character policies.
• Transportation
- Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-21, and 5.13-2 through 5.13-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to traffic and level of service standards, congestion management, and air traffic patterns to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for road safety, emergency access, and consistency with transportation policies.
• Air Quality
- Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for objectionable odors and consistency with air quality policies.
• Noise
- Mitigation Measures 5.5-1 through 5.5-8 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to excessive noise levels, short-term increase in noise level, and temporary increases in ambient noise levels to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for excessive ground-borne vibration, aircraft noise, and consistency with noise polices.
• Biological Resources
- Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-3, 5.6-1 through 5.6-19, and 5.11-1 through 5.11-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species; riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities; federally protected wetlands; and conflicts with local policies, ordinances, HCP, or NCCP to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources
- Mitigation Measures 5.7-1 through 5.7-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for historical resources and consistency with cultural resource policies.
• Geology and Soils
- Mitigation Measures 5.8-1, 5.8-2 and 5.11-1 through 5.11-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts to exposure to seismic related hazards, soil erosion or topsoil loss, soil stability, and expansive soils to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for consistency with geotechnical policies and waste water disposal systems.
• Public Services
- Mitigation Measures 5.9.1-1 through 5.9.5-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to fire protection service standards, consistency with fire and emergency medical service policies, police service standards, consistency with police service policies, school facilities, schools siting, library service standards, deterioration of parks and recreation facilities, and parks and recreation standards to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for fire and emergency medical facilities, police service facilities, consistency with school policies, library facilities, consistency with library policies, new recreation facilities, and consistency with park policies.
• Hydrology and Water Quality
- Mitigation Measures 5.11-1 through 5.11-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts to water quality standards, erosion or siltation, surface runoff, exceed drainage capacity, and degradation of water quality to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for groundwater supplies and recharge, 100-year flood hazards, consistency with water quality policies, flooding, and inundation.
• Agricultural Resources
- Mitigation Measure 5.12-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to land use zoning conflicts to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for consistency with agricultural resource policies.
• Hazards/Risk of Upset
- Mitigation Measures 5.13-1 through 5.13-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials, hazards to schools, airport hazards, consistency with hazard policies, and historic use of pesticides to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; existing hazardous material sites; emergency response and evacuation plans; and wildland fires.
• Public Utilities
- Mitigation Measures 5.15.1-4 through 5.15.4-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to compliance with city-wide water supply thresholds, adequate wastewater facilities, and new recycled water facilities to less than significant. No significant effects were identified for new water treatment facilities, consistency with water supply policies, consistency with city wastewater engineering standards, consistency with wastewater polices, sufficient landfill capacity, solid waste regulations, consistency with solid waste policies, consistency with recycled water policies, wasteful use of energy, and consistency with energy policies.
3) Less than Significant Impacts
Less than significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas:
• Housing and Population
• Mineral Resources
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is the subject to this action. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Village 9 Project supports the Economic Vitality goal, particularly City Initiative 2.1.3 (Promote and support development of quality master-planned communities).
The Village 9 EIR supports the Village 9 implementation documents (the SPA Plan and TM). Approval of those implementation level documents will assure the development of quality master-planned communities.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The processing costs for the SPA Plan, Tentative Map, Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents were funded by a developer deposit account. This account funded city staff and consultants representing the City concerning Village 9.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
The ongoing costs for implementing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be funded by a developer deposit account. This account will fund City staff and consultants as necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Final EIR 10-04 (4 bound volumes or CD available in the Office of the City Clerk)
a. Comments and Responses
b. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (bound volume or CD available in the Office of the City Clerk)