Title
CONSIDERATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES THREE, A PORTION OF FOUR, EIGHT EAST, AND TEN
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-232 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-13-01; SCH NO. 2013071077) FOR THE OTAY RANCH UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE MAPS 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), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared for the Otay Ranch University Villages Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans, General Plan Amendment (GPA), General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) and Tentative Maps (TMs). In accordance with Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft University Villages EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review. Written comments were received during the public review period, and responses to the comments are included in the Final University Villages EIR. This staff report discusses the general content of the University Villages Final EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and MMRP. The City Council must consider the University Villages Final EIR before taking any action on the University Villages SPA Plans, GPA, GDPA and TMs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final EIR for the University Villages Project has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its meeting of November 19, 2014, the Planning Commission considered Resolution No. EIR-13-01 and unanimously recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR No.-13-01.
DISCUSSION
SSBT LCRE V, LLC submitted an application requesting approvals for the University Villages SPA Plans, GPA, GDPA and TMs, which encompass Village Three North and a portion of Village Four, Village Eight East and Village Ten (collectively, the "Project"). The University Villages EIR evaluates the environmental effects of the Project. The Project proposes development of a maximum of 6,897 residential units and associated village land uses on approximately 751 acres and approximately 624 acres of Open Space Preserve for a total project area of approximately 1,375 acres. Land uses by village are shown in Table 1. The Project includes three SPA plans, a GPA, GDPA and TMs, which includes: (a) an Otay Ranch Village Three North and a Portion of Village Four SPA Plan and TM (b) Otay Ranch Village Eight East SPA Plan and TM, and (c) Otay Ranch Village Ten SPA Plan and TM.
Implementation of the proposed Project also requires Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan Boundary Adjustments (MSCPBAs), and Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Boundary Adjustments (RMPBAs). The Project also proposes amendments to three approved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans: Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a Portion of Village Four SPA Plan, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on June 4, 2006; Otay Ranch Village Seven SPA Plan, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 4, 2004; and the Otay Ranch Village Nine SPA Plan, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on June 3, 2014.
CEQA Compliance
The University Villages Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 15000 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 the EIR has been prepared.
Because of the size, complexity of issues and extended buildout period of the development of the Otay Ranch, both the planning and environmental documentation associated with Otay Ranch have been tiered from the general to the specific, in accordance with CEQA Statute Section 21093 and CEQA Guidelines Section15152. The first tier of planning and approvals included approval of the Final Otay Ranch GDP/Sub-regional Plan (SRP) and certification of the associated Program EIR (SCH No. 89010154; EIR-90-01) in 1993. EIR-90-01 was prepared and certified jointly by the City and County of San Diego with the intent that as specific villages and planning areas are proposed for development, second-tier documentation including more precise or project-level planning and environmental documentation would be prepared. Under such tiering principles, the University Villages SPA Plans, GPA, GDPA and TMs are analyzed at a second-tier level of review (project level) in the University Villages Final EIR, which incorporates by reference EIR-90-01 as well as its associated Findings of Fact and MMRP. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, as a "Project EIR," the University Villages Final EIR is "focused primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development" (i.e., the Project).
The University Villages Final EIR also incorporates, by reference, other prior EIRs that address the subject property including the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR (SCH No. 94101046), 2005 Chula Vista General Plan Update/Otay Ranch GDPA Program EIR (EIR-05-01; SCH No. 2004081066), 2006 Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a Portion of Village Four SPA Plan Second Tier EIR (EIR-02-02; SCH No. 2003091012), and the 2013 City of Chula Vista GPA/Otay Ranch GDPA Supplemental EIR (SEIR-09-01; SCH No. 2004081066) as well as their associated Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs, SPA Plans and TMs.
Table 1 University Village Proposed Land Uses |
Land Use |
Gross Acres |
Commercial Square Footage |
Residential Dwelling Units |
Populationa |
Village Three North/Portion of Village Four |
Single-Family Residential |
115.2 |
|
1,002 |
3,247 |
Multi-Family Residential |
10.8 |
|
515 |
1,667 |
Mixed-Use |
8.2 |
20,000 |
80 |
259 |
Industrial |
28.6 |
|
|
|
Office |
5.2 |
|
|
|
Parks |
25.7 |
|
|
|
School |
8.3 |
|
|
|
Community-Purpose Facilities |
4.2 |
|
|
|
Private Open Space |
2.4 |
|
|
|
Open Space |
35.4 |
|
|
|
Preserve |
158.1b |
|
|
|
Circulation |
33.9 |
|
|
|
Subtotal |
43620,0001,5975,174 |
|
|
|
Village Eight East |
Single-Family Residential |
117.1 |
|
943 |
3,055 |
Multi-Family Residential |
46.2 |
|
2,177 |
7,053 |
Mixed Use |
9.5 |
20,000 |
440 |
1,426 |
Parks c |
58.8 |
|
|
|
School |
10.8 |
|
|
|
Community-Purpose Facilities |
4.2 |
|
|
|
Open Space d |
33.8 |
|
|
|
Preserve |
253.6 |
|
|
|
Circulation |
29.6 |
|
|
|
Other (Future Development Areas) |
8.1 |
|
|
|
Other (SR-125 ROW, Lot 4) |
3.6 |
|
|
|
Subtotal |
575.3 |
20,0003,560 |
11,534 |
|
Village Ten |
Single-Family Residential |
74.8 |
|
695 |
2,252 |
Multi-Family Residential |
21.5 |
|
1,045 |
3,386 |
Parks |
7.6 |
|
|
|
School |
9.2 |
|
|
|
Community-Purpose Facilities |
4.3 |
|
|
|
Open Space (OS-2) |
16.5 |
|
|
|
Private Open Space |
0.7 |
|
|
|
Preserve |
212.7 |
|
|
|
Circulation |
16.1 |
|
|
|
Subtotal |
363.4 |
|
1,740 |
5,638 |
Total |
1,374.7 |
40,000 |
6,897 |
22,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROW = right-of-way
a Population estimates based on 3.24 persons per residential dwelling unit.
b Includes 2.9 acres of roadway, which is located within the Preserve and is an allowable use in the Preserve. This acreage is not accounted for in the Circulation acreage.
c Includes 51.5 acres of Village Eight East Community Park (P-2) and 7.3 acres of Neighborhood Park.
d Includes 22.6 acres of Active Recreation Area (AR-11) and 11.2 acres of Open Space
Comments on the Draft EIR
The University Villages Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from August 5, 2014 through September 18, 2014. Letters of comment were received on the University Villages Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals:
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse)
United State Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Department of Transportation, District 11
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health
County of San Diego Planning & Development Services
San Diego County Archaeological Society
Bonita Valley Horsemen and Tijuana River Valley Equestrian Association
Duane Bazzel
Allen Matkins/Otay Land Company
Vulcan Materials
Hazard Construction
TC Construction
West Coast Sand and Gravel
Coast Aggregates
Flatiron
Comments received during the 45-day public review period and the responses to those comments have been included in the University Villages 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 University Villages Draft EIR during the public review period. Corrections and clarifications have been made in the University Villages Draft EIR, and the University Villages 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 University Villages Final EIR-13-01
The University Villages Final EIR identified direct and cumulative significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that would result from the Project. Where environmental impacts have been determined to be potentially significant, the University Villages Final EIR presents mitigation measures directed at reducing those adverse environmental effects. The mitigation measures proposed for the Project are feasible and will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of the Project on the environment, and have been included in the University Villages MMRP. Where environmental impacts have been determined to be significant and no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to below significance, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043, 15091, and 15093.)
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions from the 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/Unavoidable
2. Significant and Mitigated to Less Than Significant
3. Less Than Significant/No Impact
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/Unavoidable Impacts
· Landform and Aesthetics - Direct and Cumulative Impacts
- The Project would result in a direct impact due to the change in character of the site from open, rolling topography to urban development. Due to the cumulative permanent conversion of the existing rural setting that characterizes Otay Ranch to an urban setting, the Project, in combination with planned future development, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce this impact but not to below significance.
· Transportation, Circulation, and Access - Direct and Cumulative Impacts
- The Project would result in direct impacts relative to conflicts with applicable congestion management plans and cumulative impacts at the following locations in the identified study years:
o I-805 SB Ramps / Olympic Parkway intersection (Years 2020, 2025 and 2030)
o Orange Avenue between Melrose Avenue and the I-805 SB ramps (Years 2020, 2025 and 2030)
o I-805, from SR-94 to Market Street(Years 2025 and 2030)
o I-805, from Market Street to E Division Street (Years 2020, 2025 and 2030)
o I-805, from Plaza Boulevard to Bonita Road (Year 2025 and 2030)
o I-805, from Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road (Year 2030)
o SR-905 from I-805 to La Media Road (Year 2030)
· Air Quality - Direct and Cumulative Impacts
- The Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative air quality impact because its development yields are not consistent with the growth projections in the current San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). The current RAQS are based on the City's 2005 GPU. Thus, the Project would exceed the regional growth projections until the RAQS is updated to reflect the projected growth. The Project would also result in a significant direct and cumulative impact because construction activities and project operations would violate air quality standards for criteria pollutants and contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation for criteria pollutants.
· Cultural Resources - Cumulative Impact
- Although the actions of the proposed Project would be mitigated through data recovery, curation, and reporting, the proposed Project's contribution to the cumulative loss of cultural resources would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
· Agricultural Resources - Direct and Cumulative
- The Project would result in a direct and cumulative impact to agricultural resources due to the conversion of undeveloped agricultural lands to an urban environment.
· Sewer - Direct
- As the location and scope of construction of any newly developed treatment facility is unknown at this time, the development of treatment capacity beyond the City's existing and allocated capacity may result in a potentially significant direct environmental impact, even though such a project would likely be subject to its own environmental review in compliance with CEQA.
· Energy - Direct and Cumulative
- Compliance with mitigation measure 5.3.5-1 of the 2013 Otay Ranch GPA/GDPA EIR in conjunction with Statewide and City energy programs and policies would reduce impacts. However, because no assurance can be made that long-term energy will be supplied to the site, as well as other planned development sites at full buildout, the Project would result in a significant direct and cumulative impact to energy resources.
· Climate Change - Direct
- The project would increase land use intensity and associated vehicle trips that have not been anticipated in local air quality plans; therefore, the Project would result in a direct impact due to the inconsistency at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts in the RAQS. In addition, even with required mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would result in operational emissions that would exceed the City's significance thresholds for ozone precursors. Ozone precursors, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a contributing factor in global warming.
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.
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). 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 LU-1 through LU-3 would reduce potential land use compatibility impacts due to the presence of a City of San Diego water line within the Villages Eight East and Ten development areas. Mitigation Measure LU-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts due to the inconsistency with the intent of General Plan Policy E 6.4.
· Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
- Mitigation Measure AES-1 through AES-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to landform alteration, lighting, glare, and shadows to less than significant.
· Transportation, Circulation and Access
- Mitigation Measures TCA-1 through TCA-17 would reduce potentially significant impacts to GMOC thresholds, access and frontage, traffic volumes and level of service standards to less than significant.
· Air Quality
- Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) to less than significant.
· Noise
- Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-9 and BIO-17 and BIO-18 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels, short-term increase in noise level, temporary increases in ambient noise levels and groundbourne vibration noise levels to less than significant.
· Cultural Resources
- Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains to less than significant.
· Paleontological Resources
- Mitigation Measures PAL-1 through PAL-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant.
· Biological Resources
- Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, HYD-1 through 5 and BIO-1 through BIO-17 would reduce potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species; riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities; federally protected wetlands; wildlife movement; and conflicts with local policies and ordinances, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), and Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) to less than significant.
· Water Quality and Hydrology
- Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to water quality standards, drainage patterns, surface runoff, drainage capacity, and degradation of water quality, to less than significant.
· Geology and Soils
- Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to exposure to expansive soils to less than significant.
· Public Services
- Mitigation Measures PUB-1 through PUB-15 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.
· Public Utilities
- Mitigation Measures UTL-1 through UTL-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to compliance with water supply standards and adequate wastewater facilities to less than significant.
· Hazards/Risk of Upset
- Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 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.
3) Less than Significant Impacts/No Impact
Less than significant impacts and no impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas:
· Land Use: With adoption of the proposed GDPA/GPA, conflicts with land use designations in the General Plan would be less than significant. No significant effects were identified for compatibility and/or conflicts with HCP, NCCP, and other land use plans and policies. The Project would not result in significant cumulative land use impacts.
· Landform and Aesthetics: Less than significant effects were identified for scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state highway and consistency with visual character plans and policies. The project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to landform or light and glare.
· Transportation, Circulation and Access: Less than significant effects were identified for road safety, emergency access, air traffic patterns and consistency with transportation and transit policies.
· Air Quality: Less than significant effects were identified for the creation of objectionable odors. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to TACs or generation of odors.
· Noise: Less than significant effects were identified for permanent increase in noise levels, aircraft noise, and consistency with noise plans and polices. The Project would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts.
· Cultural Resources: Less than significant effects were identified for the significance of historical resources.
· Paleontological Resources: Less than significant effects were identified for consistency with paleontological plans and policies and loss of paleontological resources. The Project would not result in significant cumulative paleontological resource impacts.
· Water Quality and Hydrology: Less than significant effects were identified for groundwater supplies and recharge; hazards; consistency with water quality policies; flooding; and inundation. No impact was identified for placement of housing within the 100-year flood zone. The Project would not result in significant cumulative water quality or hydrology impacts.
· Geology and Soils: Less than significant effects were identified for exposure to seismic hazards, soil erosion, geologic hazards; and consistency with geotechnical policies. The Project would not result in significant cumulative geology and soils impacts.
· Public Services: Less than significant effects were identified for the provision of new or altered fire, police, library, recreation facilities; consistency with police, fire, school, library and park plans and policies; location of schools; and compliance with park thresholds. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to public services.
· Public Utilities: Less than significant direct effects were identified for new water, recycled water and wastewater treatment facilities; water supply; consistency with water, wastewater, recycled water, solid waste and energy plans and policies; wastewater treatment/engineering standards; sufficient landfill capacity; solid waste regulations; and wasteful use of energy. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to public utilities except energy (discussed above).
· Climate Change: Less than significant effects were identified for compliance with the goals of AB 32. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to climate change.
· Agricultural Resources: No significant effects were identified for conflicts with existing zoning; and consistency with agricultural resource policies and loss of forest land.
· Hazards and Risk of Upset: Less than significant effects were identified for transport, use, storage or disposal of hazardous materials; existing hazardous material sites; emergency response and evacuation plans; wildland fires; and consistency with hazards plans and policies. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to hazards and risk of upset.
· Housing and Population: Less than significant effects were identified for population growth; and consistency with population/housing plans and policies. No impact was identified related to displacement of existing housing or people. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to housing and population.
· Mineral Resources: Less than significant effects were identified for loss of valuable or locally-important mineral resources; and consistency with mineral plans and policies. No impact was identified for the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. The Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources.
Village Ten Deferral Plan
The boundary between Villages Nine, Ten, and the University site were negotiated between the Applicant, the City, and Otay Land Company. The ultimate configuration was based on a proposal made by, and agreed to by, Otay Land Company. This configuration allowed the Village Ten SPA Plan Area to overlap Village Nine and was subject to a future land exchange agreement whereby Otay Land Company would benefit by receiving a corresponding acreage for development further to the north, at the intersection of Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway.
Because the land exchange agreement has not been finalized, the Project Applicant has developed a plan for Village Ten which does not rely on the need for the land exchange agreement. This revised land plan is generally referred to as the "Village Ten Deferral Plan." The Village Ten Deferral Plan involves the following components compared to the proposed Village Ten Tentative Map and SPA Plan:
· The 9.3-acre Deferral Area is comprised of 6.4 acres of residential land uses, 0.7 acres of land designated for CPF land uses, 0.2 acres of internal circulation and 2.0 acres of manufactured open space.
· The single-family neighborhoods south of Otay Valley Road identified on the proposed Village Ten land plan as a portion of neighborhoods R-8, R-13 and R-14 would be deferred. This would decrease the overall Village Ten residential units by 67 single- family units.
· The Deferral Plan includes a reconfigured R-13 residential neighborhood comprised of 19 single family lots.
· The 0.7 acre CPF-4 site designated on the Village Ten land plan would be deferred. This would decrease the overall Village Ten CPF acreage from 4.0 acres to 3.3 acres.
The Village Ten Deferral Plan was evaluated at the Project level to provide an actionable item for the decision makers, should this become the preferred plan. All environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR were evaluated. The analysis concluded that the changes to the proposed Project as a result of the Village Ten Deferral Plan would not create any new impacts that had not been previously identified, and in many cases the Village Ten Deferral Plan would slightly reduce impacts identified in the Draft EIR due to the reduction in residential units and associated reduction in vehicle trips. The Village Ten Deferral Plan would not result in any increase in the development footprint beyond what was previously analyzed.
Conclusion
All feasible mitigation measures with respect to impacts for the Project have been included in the University Villages Final EIR. As described above, the Project will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the application of these measures. Therefore, in order 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 (see Attachment 2).
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, other than the proposed Project described in the University Villages Final EIR. CEQA requires the examination of Project alternatives that could reduce or avoid significant impacts even if the alternatives would not accomplish the Project objectives. The University Villages Final EIR evaluated five alternatives: the No Project Alternative, Existing General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP Alternative (1,570 units), Reduced Density Alternative (4,053 units), Nuisance Easement Alternative (6,897 units, same as the project) and an Otay Subregional Plan (SRP) alternative (2,311 units).
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The impacts of the Nuisance Easement Alternative differ slightly from the proposed Project in that the mix of land uses would:
· generate 38 fewer ADT than the proposed project;
· use approximately 168 gpd more potable water, which is offset by the use approximately 1,477 gpd more recycled water;
· increase sewage flows by approximately 4,145 gpd; and;
· reduce the amount of residential units within the nuisance easement area (1,000 feet from property line)
Based on the City's assessment of the potential significant impacts of both the proposed project and the Nuisance Easement Alternative, the City finds that the Nuisance Easement Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
The University Villages Final EIR meets the requirements of CEQA and, therefore, staff recommends that the City Council certify that EIR- 13-01 that has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; make certain Findings of Fact; and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
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 of this action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by councilmember, 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 University Villages Project supports the Economic Vitality goal, particularly City Initiative 2.1.3 (Promote and support development of quality master-planned communities). The University Villages EIR supports the Villages Three, Portion of Four, Eight East and Ten implementation documents (the SPA Plan, GPA, GDPA 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, GPA, GDPA, TM, 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 the University Villages project.
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. University Villages FEIR-13-01 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (disk provided)
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (disk provided)
3. Draft City Council Resolution No. EIR-13-01
Staff Contact: Marni Borg, Environmental Project Manager