HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2001-218 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-218
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), ADOPTING
THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE FIRST
PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALT CREEK
GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR
WHEREAS, the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Imerceptor ("Project") is being designed to
convey wastewater flows fi~om developments within the Salt Creek Basin, in eastern Chula Vista
and also provide additional capacity to the existing wastewater collection system in Southem
Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Creek Sewer has been envisioned in a series of planning documents
for the City of Chula Vista including the City General Plan (GP), the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP), the Multiple Species Conservation Program Subregional Plan, and the
Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the environmental review process to analyze potential
environmental impacts resulting ~-om the construction of this facility, a Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 01-03), was prepared for this project; and
WHEREAS, this Final EIR includes an analysis of four possible alignments for the trunk
sewer termed "Policy Options 1 through 4," and these alignments were all completely analyzed
at a project-level; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2001, the Planning Commission upon completion of their
review of this Final EIR, determined that the FEIR was complete and in compliance with the
California Environmental and therefore certified the FEIR and adopted the Findings of Fact and
recommended that City Council certify the FEIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact identified as Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution, conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR 01-03 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feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
"1~" of this Resolution, are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of
Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
WHEREAS, the construction of First Phase of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor
involves the construction of the portion of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer between Industrial Blvd.
and Interstate - 805 Freeway, and does not require the acquisition of right-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
finds, determines, resolves and orders as follows:
Resolution 2001-218
Page 2
I. CITY COUNCIL RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on Draft EIR 01-03 held on April 11, 2001 and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom and the proceedings; all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at their meeting on June 13, 2001 on FEIR 01-03 and all evidence introduced before
the City Council at their meeting on July 17, 2001 on FEIR 01-03 are hereby incorporated into
the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the
decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6,
subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the
California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA") (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.).
II. FEIR 01-03 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 01-03 consists of the following:
1. Program EIR for the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer (EIR 01-03 including technical
appendices) and an Addendum;
2. Public Comments and Responses to Comment
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 01-0Y')
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 01-03
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2. Findings of Fact
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 01-03 and the Findings of Fact (Exhibit
"A") and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B") are prepared in
accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA
Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF PLANNiNG COMMISSION
That the City Council finds that the FEIR 01-03 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM ACTION
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
Resolution 2001-218
Page 3
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve and accepts as its own,
incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained
in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A."
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 01-03 and in the Findings of Fact for this
Project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the City Council does hereby find pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation
measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding
upon the City of Chula Vista to implement the same.
C. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program")
set forth in Exhibit "B." The City Council further finds that the Program is designed to ensure
that, during project implementation, the responsible parties implement the Project components
and comply with the feasible mitigation measure identified in the Findings of Fact and the
Program.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Public Resources Code §21000 et
seq.].
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds
that FEIR 01-03 and the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A"), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit "B") are prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA
(Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Califomia Code Regs. Title 14
§15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and
therefore should be certified.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approve construction of the First
Phase of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and that all mitigation measures pertinent to
the First Phase contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "B,"
of this Resolution, are hereby made express conditions of the project construction of the First
Phase.
Resolution 2001-218 -
Page 4
Presented by Approved as to form by
PASSED, thAt?ROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
Califomia, this 17t day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Salas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Rindone
Shirley Hortoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk ~/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2001-218 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
t
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 17 h day of July, 2001.
Executed this 17th day of July, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk fl
R2001-218 EXHIBIT A
DnArT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SALT CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWER PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR # 01-03)
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
July 6, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. DEFINITIONS
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
V. TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Aesthetics
B. Air Quality
C. Biological Resources
D. Cultural Resources
E. Geology and Soils
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
G. Land Use and Planning
H. Noise
I. Traffic/Transportation
J. Paleontological Resources
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Aesthetics
B. Air Quality
C. Biological Resources
D. Cultural Resources
E. Noise '
F. Traffic/Transportation
X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. No Project Alternative
B. Alternative Location - Pump Stations to Poggi/Telegraph Canyon Sewer
Alignments
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer;
Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH #2000111072; EIR # 01-03
FINDINGS OF FACT
iNTRODUCTION
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR) prepared for the
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Project (Project) addressed the potential environmental
effects of a proposed pipeline facility including an interceptor and four laterals spanning
from the Salt Creek drainage in Eastem Chula Vista to the westem edge of the City via
Main Street at a project level of analysis. The analysis of the Staff Recommended
Alignment Altemative Project included discussion of Policy Option I and Policy Option
2, as alternative alignments for a portion of the span aimed at reducing certain potential
environmental impacts. The Draft Program EIR also addressed potential effects of a
connecting tnmk sewer within the Wolf Canyon drainage area of Eastern Chula Vista and
an additional lateral from the EastLake Panhandle at a program level, however those
portions of project have been omitted from the Final Program EIR and are not being
considered as part of the project description.
In addition, the Final Program EIR evaluated two alternatives to the proposed project: 1)
The No Project alternative, which assames no development of the Salt Creek Interceptor
Sewer and; 2) A locational alternative which involves placement of the pipeline within
existing sewer easements through a series of pump stations. The Addendum to the Final
Program EIR also evaluated two additional policy options, Policy Option 3 and Policy
Option 4, for a portion of the span of the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative.
Policy Option 3, is a dual pipe alternative in the same alignment as Policy Option 1, but
with no access road. Policy Option 4, involves tunneling under sensitive habitat areas
and following the alignment of Policy Option 2 for a portion of the proposed option.
These Findings address Policy Option 3, which is proposed to be carded forward as the
preferred alignment in the area where policy options have been considered. The impacts
and mitigation measures for Policy Option 3 are the same as those identified and
proposed under Policy Option 1 in the Final EIR.
This Program EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City of
Chula Vista Environmental Review Guidelines. These findings have been prepared to
comply with requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.
Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14,
15000 et seq.).
1
II.
DEFINITIONS
"ACOE" means U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
"BMPs" means best management practices.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"CDFG" means California Department of Fish and Game.
"City" means City of Chula Vista.
"CNEL" means community noise equivalent level.
"CPF" means Community Purpose Facilities.
"dB(A)" means A-weighted decibels
"du/ac" means dwelling traits per acre.
"GDP" means General Development Plan.
"LOS" means Level of Service.
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program.
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
"OTC" means Olympic Training Center.
"OWD" means Otay Water District.
"PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan.
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards.
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"SANDAG" means San Diego Association of Govemmeuts.
2
"SCAQMD" means South Coast Air Quality Management District.
"SEIR" means Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
"SPA" means Sectional Planning Area.
"SR" means State Route.
"SWPPP" means Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
"SWRCB' means State Water Resources Control Board.
"USFWS' means United States Fish and Wildlife Service
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed pipe facilities would range in size from approximately 21 inches to
approximately 48 inches, and would convey up to 13 million gallons per day (MGD) of
sewage. The City of San Diego has indicated that the flows conveyed by these facilities
have been anticipated in the design of their receiving facilities, based on growth
projections by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Reach 9B is the
westernmost portion of the pipeline, with Reaches 8A/B through 6 moving east through
the Otay River Valley. Reach 5 turns north at Salt Creek Canyon, and Reaches 4 and 3
continue north up the canyon to Olympic Parkway. Reach 1 has already been constructed
and Reach 2 has been studied and its alignment approved as part of approved
development within which the Reach is located. Reaches 1 and 2 are not considered to be
part of the proposed project.
Also, the project proposes associated facilities, including but not limited to, three sewer
laterals serving Village 11 on the west side of Salt Creek, and one sewer lateral serving
the Olympic Training Center on the east side of Salt Creek. The EIR addresses the
laterals serving Village 11 and the Olympic Training Center at a "project level." Unless
expressly indicated otherwise, all analyses of potential impacts presented by the
construction and maintenance of the Village 11 and the Olympic Training Center laterals
in addition to the reaches of the interceptor are at the project level.
Discretionary Actions
In order to complete this process, the following discretionary approvals from the City of
Chula Vista City Council are being sought:
3
· Staff Recommended Alignment with one of the Policy Options as evaluated in the --
proposed project description and Addendum.
· Permits required from the resource agencies, include a 1600 Streambed Alteration
Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, a 404 Permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a 401 certification, and an NPDES permit from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Section 10 (a)(1)(b) permit may be
required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and similar take authorization may
be required from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to
threatened and listed species. Such permits will not be necessary, however, if the
City has take authorization under the MSCP Subarea Plan for all species affected by
this Project.
· An encroactunent permit from Caltrans will be necessary for the proposed crossing of
Interstate 5, Interstate 805 and possibly SR125 should the right-of-way for this
facility be owned by Caltrans prior to construction of the proposed project. An
encroachment permit from the City of San Diego would be necessary for the crossing
of Interstate 5 and Hollister Street as well as the potential crossing of a water line
facility. An encroachment permit from the San Diego County Water Authority would
be necessary for construction across existing easements. An encroachment permit
from San Diego Gas and Electric would be necessary for construction across electric
and gas line easements. An encroachment permit from the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board would be necessary for construction beneath the San Ysidro
Trolley line.
The City of Chula Vista is the Lead Agency and has discretionary power of approval for
all the actions sought for the proposed project. This Program EIR is intended to satisfy
CEQA requirements for environmental review of those actions. Future discretionary
approvals may be required. No other actions by other agencies or jurisdictions have been
identified that would be required to accomplish the project as proposed.
Project Goals and Objec~tives
The goals and objectives of the proposed Salt Creek Interceptor Project can be
sununarized as follows:
· The objectives of the Project are to provide adequate and efficient sewage conveyance
facilities for existing and approved development in the easternmost areas of the City of
Chula Vista, in accordance with the following objectives:
In the developed portions of the City, the alignment of pipeline facilities should
follow existing roads or other linear public rights-of-way where practicable, rather
than establishing new easements over developed private property.
4
Consideration should be given to Chula Vista City Council Policy #570-03,
related to future decisions minimizing the use of sewage pump stations.
Within Reach 5 an existing segment of the pipeline was constructed in 1995 in
conjunction with construction of a high pressure gas line in a parallel easement.
The Salt Creek Interceptor would connect to this existing facility.
IV.
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 Program EIR for the project (EIR # 01-03), including the
Addendnm, appendices and technical reports;
· All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day
public comment period on the Draft EIR;
· All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the
Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
· The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project;
· All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with
the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
· All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the 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 with respect to the City's actions on the Project;
· All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the
public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing
on July 10, 2001;
All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on the project;
· Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public hearings; and
· Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider,
including but not limited to the following:
- Chula Vista General Plan
Relevant portions of the Zoning Codes of the City of Chula Vista
- Final EastLake Planned Community Master EIR (EIR 81-3)
- EastLake III/Olympic Training Center Final EIR (EIR 89-9)
- Otay Ranch GDP EIR (EIR 90-01)
Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited
above; and
Otay Ranch Village 11 EIR (EIR 01-02) Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations;
- 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 Susan Bigelow,
Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located a1276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision
on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or
City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without
exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of
two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which
the City was aware in approving the Salt Creek Interceptor Project. (See City of Santa
Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d 381,391-392 [142
Cal. Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205
6
Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620].) Other documents influenced the expert
advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City. For
that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City's
decisions relating to the adoption of Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd.
(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181
Cal.App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal. Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of
Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)
TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS 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 in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081,
sub& (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, sub& (a).) For each significant environmental
effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a
written finding reaching one or more of three 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 EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 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, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion
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 EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines, § 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
7
technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal"
considerations. (See also citizens of Coleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors CGoleta II")
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cat. Rptr. 410].)
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 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183
Cal.Rptr. 898].) "' [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." (Ibid.; see also 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 altematives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code, § 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 (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") 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.
8
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 modification 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, § 15091, 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 feasible
environmentally 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, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd.
(b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, "It]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 II, 52 Cal.3d 553,576.)
VI.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Program EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the
City of Chula Vista ('ICity" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other
responsible parties, to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not
merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will
come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with
these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
VII.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, sub& (a)(1), the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The
9
program is designed to ensure that during project implememation, the applicant and any
other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below.
The program is described in the document titled Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program.
VIII.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Program EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental
effects (or "impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided.
The project will result in significant environmental changes to the following issues:
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise traffic/transportation and
paleontological resources as a result of the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer, Village 11
Laterals, and Olympic Training Center Lateral. These significant environmental changes
or impacts are discussed in Program EIR # 01-03 (City ID #) in Table ES-1 on pages ES-
4 through ES-25 and in Chapter 3.0, pages 3.1-5 through 3.10-5.
The proposed project would also result in significant irreversible environmental changes
to land use, biological resources, energy and cultural resources.
A. AESTHETICS
Standards of Significance:
· The project will have a substantial, demonstrative negative aesthetic effect.
The project will result in adverse alteration of existing long-duration foreground or
middle ground views from public viewing places.
A substantial adverse visual alteration to any onsite natural feature due to grading or
construction of structures or roads. Considering such alterations, a significant impact
is inconsistent with the Chula Vista General Plan which states that open space
provides for the preservation of scenic vistas.
10
Reaches 3 and 4 Policy Option 2
Significant Impact: The placement of the pump station would create a direct project
impact on aesthetics. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.1, pp. 3.1-8]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State 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 SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Because Policy Option 2 is not a gravity flow line, it would require
the placement of above-ground lift, or pump, stations. The construction of these
pump stations could create a negative aesthetic effect in or near the preserve
because the pump stations would be visible where they would not otherwise exist.
To reduce the effects, the design of the pump station housing and landscaping
could include camouflaging and other techniques to blend the pump stations into
the preserve.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.1, pp. 3.1-9]
The City will appropriately design the pump station housing, landscaping
techniques to blend into the natural contour and surrounding vegetation, and
include additional camouflaging techniques appropriate within the preserve.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
B. AIR QUALITY
Standards of Significance
· Conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of an applicable air quality plan;
· Result in the release of substantial concentrations of pollutants such as ozone or
respirable particulates (PM10);
· Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Reaches 3-9A/B, Policy Options 1, 2, 3 or 4
Significant Impact: Direct project impacts from PMI0 emissions during construction
for all reaches and Policy Options. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-6 through 3.2-
7]
I1
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes _
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
substtmtially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in
the SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Due to the necessity of excavating for preparation of the pipeline
bed, transporting excess spoil soil and recovering the trench once the pipeline is in
place, soil movement is necessary. The movement of soil resources in the
capacity described for the project would result in the release of PM10 into the air.
To reduce the significance of these effects, best management practices outlined in
Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9 would be incorporated.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9]
· The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during
all earthwork phases of the project:
1. The construction disturbance "footprint" shall be kept as small as possible;
2. Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas in A
order to avoid particle blow-off;
3. Washing down or sweeping streets from which site access is taken to
remove dirt carried from the site to the street to keep vehicles from
pulverizing the dirt into fine particles;
4. Periodically street sweepers will be utilized to aid in the removal of dirt
carried from the site to the street.
5. Terminating soil excavation, clearing or grading when wind speeds exceed
25 mph for an hourly average;
6. Covering/tarping all vehicles hanling spoils on public roadways unless
additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport;
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Direct impacts to surrounding lands uses from fugitive dust
emissions as a result of hauling excavated material from the site [Program EIR,
Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2~6] -
12
Finding: Pursuant to section 1509l (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Due to the necessity of excavating for preparation of the pipeline
bed, transporting excess spoil soil and recovering the trench once the pipeline is in
place, soil movement is necessary. The movement of soil resources in the
capacity described for the project would result in the release of PM10 into the air.
To reduce the significance of these effects, best management practices outlined in
Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9 would be incorporated.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9]
· The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during
all earthwork phases of the project:
1. The construction disturbance "footprint" shall be kept as small as possible;
2. Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas in
order to avoid particle blow-off;
3. Washing down or sweeping streets from which site access is taken to
remove dirt carried from the site to the street to keep vehicles from
pulverizing the dirt into fine particles;
4. Periodically street sweepers will be utilized to aid in the removal of dirt
carried from the site to the street.
5. Terminating soil excavation, clearing or grading when wind speeds exceed
25 mph for an hourly average;
6. Covering/tarping all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways
unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during
transport;
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Direct project impacts as a result of combustion emissions. Even
thought these effects were not identified as significant, the San Diego Air Basin's non-
attainment of 03 and PM10 result in direct effects. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp.
3.2-6 through 3.2-7]
13
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Due to the necessity of using fossil fuel powered equipment such
as tract excavators, backhoes, dump tracks and diesel generators, the proposed
project would result in a short-term increase in combustion emissions within the
San Diego Air Basin. In order to reduce these effects, best management practices
included in Subchapter 3.2 , pp. 3.2-9 of the EIR would be implemented. In
addition, adherence to a traffic control plan would reduce emission impacts
related to traffic delays and would therefore further reduce combustion emission
related impacts.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9]
· The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during
all earthwork phases of the project:
1. The construction disturbance "'footprint" shall be kept as small as possible;
2.Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas in
order to avoid particle blow-off;
3. Washing down or sweeping streets from which site access is taken to
remove dirt carried from the site to the street to keep vehicles from
pulverizing the dirt into fine particles;
4.Periodically street sweepers will be utilized to aid in the removal of dirt
carried from the site to the street.
5.Terminating soil excavation, clearing or grading when wind speeds exceed
25 mph for an hourly average;
6. Covering/tarping all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways
unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during
transport;
· The construction contractor shall comply with the approved traffic control
plan to reduce non-project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce
construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention of truck
queuing around local sensitive receptors shall be incorporated into this plan.
14
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Significant Impact: Direct project impacts to existing traffic flow on Main Street and
Otay Valley Road [Program EIR, subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-7]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Due to the necessity for construction within Main Street and Otay
Valley Road, project construction would result in one lane closure on each
roadway. Traffic delays which may occur as a result of a lane closure would
result in an increase in combustion emissions. As outlined in the significance
criteria, an increase in combustion emissions constitutes a significant impact. In
order to reduce this effect, adhearance to the traffic control plan outlined in
Subchapter 3.9 of the EIR shall occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9]
· The construction contractor shall comply with the approved traffic control
plan to reduce non-project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce
construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention of truck
queuing around local sensitive receptors shall be incorporated into this plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Reaches 3-gA/B Policy Option 2
Significant Impact: Direct effect of odor impacts from the pump station [Program
EIR, subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-8]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Depending on location and operating circumstances, pump stations
can have the potential to emit objectionable odors. The proposed pump station
would be located close enough to existing and future residences to qualify as a
potential odor impact. In order to reduce this effect, odor control practices and
15
mechanisms shall be incorporated into design of the pump station. Proper
maintenance will also ensure that odor effects are reduced.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.2, pp. 3.2-9]
· Proper odor control practices and mechanisms shall be incorporated into the
design of the pump station. The pump station shall also be properly
maintained to avoid objectionable odors to surrounding land uses.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance
· Substantial effects, including indirect effects such as habitat fragmentation, on a
rare or endangered species of plant or animal or habitat of that species is
considered a significant impact.
· Substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or '
wildlife species is considered a significant impact.
· Substantial reduction of habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants is considered a
significant impact.
· Impacts considered adverse to the assemblage of a preserve design consistent with
NCCP guidelines and planning efforts for this subregion are considered
significant.
Vegetation Communities
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 1 or 3
Significant Impact: Development of Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 1 or 3 would
permanently impact a total of 3.21 acres of natural upland plant communities (0.36 acres
of annual grassland, 0.89 acres of broom baccharis scrub, 0.22 acres of disturbed broom
baccharis scrub, 1.56 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.18 acre of disturbed coastal sage
scrub), 0.31 acre ofwetland communities (0.05 acre of cismontane alkali marsh, 0.07 acre
of cismontane alkali marslVfreshwater marsh, 0. 11 acre of disturbed wetland, 0.002 acre
of mule fat scrub, 0.03 acre of mixed riparian scrub, 0.05 acre of tamarisk scrub) and
26.16 acres of non-natural upland communities (0.83 acre of agriculture, 12.44 acres of
16
disturbed habitat and 12.89 acres of developed land). [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp.
3.3-34 through 3.3-35]
In addition, the proposed project would temporarily impact a total of 4.36 acre of natural
upland communities (0.38 acre of annual grassland, 0.89 acre of broom baccharis scrub,
0.20 acre of disturbed broom baccharis scrub2.73 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.16 acre of
disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.004 acre of southern cactus scrub), 0.35 acre of
wetland communities (0.06 acre of cismontane alkali marsh, 0.07 acre of cismontane
alkali marsh/freshwater marsh, 0.09 acre of disturbed wetland, 0.01 acre of mule fat
scrub, 0.07 mixed riparian scrub and 0.05 acre oftamarisk scrub) and 24.95 acres of non-
natural upland communities (0.82 acre of agriculture, 11.38 acre of disturbed habitat and
12.75 acre of developed land). [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-34 through 3.3-35]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Both permanent and temporary impacts to the above outlined
habitat types would constitute a significant effect due to the sensitive nature of
these resources. Disturbance to these habitats would result in impacts to rare or
listed threatened or endangered species within the project area. This impact is
identified as significant based on the significance criteria outlined above. The City
will mitigate .at the ratios outlined in Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-48.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-48 through 3.3-50]
· UPLANDS:
Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for upland habitats,
since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the conservation analysis
for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered implementation of the project. Under
the Subarea Plan the project complies with the siting criteria identified in the Plan.
Within the staging areas, natural upland habitats will be surveyed prior to
construction and protected with construction fencing to prevent encroachment.
Without the Subarea Plan - Restoration of all temporary disturbance areas shall be
conducted on site at a ratio of 1: 1. For areas where direct permanent impacts will occur,
mitigation of impacted coastal sage scrub (including undisturbed, disturbed and broom
baccharis scrub) shall be provided at a ratio of 1:1. For southern cactus scrub, the
17
mitigation ratio shall be 3:1 for direct, permanent impacts. For non-native grasslands the
ratio shall be 0.5: 1. Mitigation for direct impacts shall be provided at an on site location
within existing disturbed areas, or at an off site location within the City of Chula Vista.
The revegetation plan will include collection of Otay tarplant seed within the impact area
and dispersed in the adjacent are within the Chula Vista Preserve. The top four inches of
topsoil disturbed by the project would be salvaged, as would native plants, and stored at
clearly marked areas for use in the revegetation plan. Within the staging areas, natural
upland habitats will be surveyed prior to construction and protected with construction
fencing to prevent encroachment.
· WETLANDS:
I~ith or without the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for wetland vegetation is required
as follows: For permanent impacts, wetland habitat creation, enhancement, and/or
restoration of like-quality and like-functioning habitat at a ratio of 2:1 shall be
performed. For temporary impacts, onsite restoration or enhancement of the
affected area at a ratio of 1: 1 shall be performed.
Significance Mter Mitigation: Less than significant.
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 2 or 4
Significant Impact: Development of Reaches 3-g A/B with Policy Options 2 or 4
would permanently impact a total of 2.22 acres of natural upland communities (0.43 acre
of annual grassland, 0.04 acre of broom baccharis scrub, 1.69 acre of coastal sage scrub,
0.05 acre of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 0.01 acre of southern cactus scrub), 0.24 acre of
wetland communities (0.03 acre of cismontane alkali marsh, 0.07 acre of cismontane
alkali marsh/freshwater marsh, 0. 11 acre of disturbed wetland and 0.03 acre of mixed
riparian scrub) and 27.96 acres of non-natural upland communities (1.76 acres of
agriculture,~ 12.88 acres of disturbed habitat and 13.32 acres of developed land). [Program
EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-34 through 3.3-36]
Developmere of Reaches 3-8 A/B with Policy Options 2 or 4 would also temporarily
impact a total of 3.38 acres of natural upland vegetation (0.43 acre of annual grassland,
0.03 acre of broom baccharis scrub, 2.87 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.04 acre of
disturbed coastal sage scrub, 0.01 acre of southern cactus scrub), 0.26 acre of wetland
conunanities (0.03 acre of cismontane alkali marsh, 0.07 acre of cismontane alkali
marsh/freshwater marsh, 0.09 acre of disturbed wetlands and 0.07 acre of mixed riparian
scrub) and 26.73 acres of non-natural upland communities (1.76 acre of agriculture, 11.79
acres of disturbed habitat and 13.18 acres of developed land). [Program EIR, subchapter
3.3, pp. 3.3-34 through 3.3-36]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
18
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in
the SEIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Both permanent and temporary impacts to the above outlined
habitat types would constitute a significant effect due to the sensitive nature of
these resources. Disturbance to these habitats would result in impacts to rare or
listed threatened or endangered species within the project area. This impact is
identified as significant based on the significance criteria outlined above. The City
will mitigate at the ratios outlined in Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-48.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-48 through 3.3-50]
· UPLANDS:
Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for upland habitats,
since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the conservation analysis
for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered implementation of the project. Under
the Subarea Plan the project complies with the siting criteria identified in the Plan.
Within the staging areas, natural upland habitats will be surveyed prior to
construction and protected with construction fencing to prevent encroachment.
Without the Subarea Plan - Restoration of all temporary disturbance areas shall be
conducted on site at a ratio of 1: 1. For areas where direct permanent impacts will
occur, mitigation of impacted coastal sage scrub (including undisturbed, disturbed
and broom baccharis scrub) shall be provided at a ratio of 1:1. For southern
cactus scrub, the mitigation ratio shall be 3:1 for direct, permanent impacts. For
non-native grasslands the ratio shall be 0.5: 1. Mitigation for direct impacts shall
be provided at an on site location within existing disturbed areas, or at an off site
location ~vithin the City of Chula Vista. The mvegetation plan will include
collection of Otay tarplant seed within the impact area and dispersed in the
adjacent are within the Chula Vista Preserve. The top four inches of topsoil
disturbed by the project would be salvaged, as would native plants, and stored at
clearly marked areas for use in the revegetation plan. Within the staging areas,
natural upland habitats will be surveyed prior to construction and protected with
construction fencing to prevent encroachment.
· WETLANDS:
With or without the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for wetland vegetation is required
as follows: For permanent impacts, wetland habitat creation, enhancement, and/or
restoration of like-quality and like-functioning habitat at a ratio of 2:1 shall be
19
performed. For temporary impacts, onsite restoration or enhancement of the
affected area at a ratio of 1: 1 shall be performed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Sensitive Plant Species
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options ! or 3
Significant Impact: Development of Reaches 3-8 A/B with Policy Options 1 or 3
would result in significant direct impacts to 2 southwestern spiny rush populations, 21
San Diego sanflower populations, 2 snake cholla populations and 1 variegated dudleya
populations. Although the EIR does not identify impacts to I population of south coast
salt scale, 7 populations of San Diego marsh-eider and 2 populations of San Diego barrel
cactus as significant, these impacts are included as mitigation for the project includes
mitigation for these species [Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-37 through 3.3-38]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Disturbance of existing rare plant individuals or populations is
significant due to the general decline and subsequent concern over the vitality of
these species throughout the San Diego County Area. As stated in the
Significance Criteria, the project would result in a significant impact if it has an
substantial effect, including an indirect effect, on a rare or endangered or
otherwise sensitive plant or animal species. In order to reduce these impacts to
levels below significance, the mitigation measures described below and on pp.
3.3-49 through 3.3-50 in the EIR will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-49 through 3.3-50]
· Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for covered
species, since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the
conservation analysis for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered
implementation of the project. Under the Subarea Plan scenario, Spring 2001
surveys for narrow endemics will be conducted to supplement the current
database regarding sensitive species within the area of potential effect. A
determination will be made that no more than 5% of the individuals within the
area of potential effect, for each narrow endemic species, would be directly
impacted by the project.
20
Mitigation for impacts to non-covered species will be incorporation of seed or
nursery stock of those species into the preserved and/or restoration areas. As
an impact-reducing mitigation measure, salvagable plant species (San Diego
barrel cactus, snake cholla and variegated dudleya) will be salvaged prior to
construction and installed within the preserve (it should be noted that, while
impacts to San Diego barrel cactus have not been identified as significant, the
City proposes to conduct salvage for this species, and it is therefore, included
in this mitigation measure). Also, impacts to San Diego sunflower will be
mitigated through the use of San Diego sunflower seed or container plants in
the revegetation of temporary impact areas on the project site. Any narrow
endemic plant species found within the final staging areas will be avoided
through the placement of construction fencing around those populations prior
to construction. Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best
Management Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and
maintenance activities within the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors,
respectively.
Without the Subarea Plan - As an impact-reducing mitigation measure,
salvagable plant species (San Diego barrel cactus, snake cholla and variegated
dudleya) will be salvaged prior to construction and installed within the
preserve (it should be noted that, while impacts to San Diego barrel cactus
have not been identified as significant, the City proposes to conduct salvage
for this species, and it is therefore, included in this mitigation measure). Also,
impacts to San Diego sunflower will be mitigated through the use of San
Diego sunflower seed or container plants in the revegetation temporary impact
areas on the project site. Impacts to variegated dudleya and snake cholla will
be mitigated through the preservation of habitat containing those species
within the preserve. Any sensitive plant species found within the final staging
areas will be avoided through the placement of construction fencing around
those populations prior to construction. Indirect impacts shall be avoided
through the use of Best Management Practices, including strict limitations for
all construction and maintenance activities within the identified 40 foot and 20
foot corridors, respectively.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 2 or 4
Significant Impact: Development of Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 2 or 4 would
result in 1 population of southwestern spiny rush, 21 populations of San Diego sunflower,
1 population of snake cholla and 1 population of variegated dudleya. In addition, as a
result of surveys conducted in the spring of 2001, approximately 71 individual Otay
tarplant plants were discovered in the Policy Option 2 alignment (letter report supplement
Dudek and Associates, May 23, 2001). Although the EIR does not identify impacts to 1
21
population of south coast salt scale, 8 populations of San Diego marsh-eider and 1
populations of San Diego barrel cactus as significant, these impacts are included as
mitigation for the project includes mitigation for these species [Program EIR, subchapter
3.3, pp. 3.3-37, 3.3-39 through 3.3-40]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Disturbance of existing rare plant individuals or populations is
significant due to the general decline and subsequent concern over the vitality of
these species throughout the San Diego County Area. As stated in the
Significance Criteria, the project would result in a significant impact if it has an
substantial effect, including an indirect effect, on a rare or endangered or
otherwise sensitive plant or animal species. In order to reduce these impacts to
levels below significance, the mitigation measures described below and on pp.
3.3-49 through 3.3-50 in the EIR will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-49]
· Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for covered
species, since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the
conservation analysis for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered
implementation of the project. Under the Subarea Plan scenario, Spring 2001
surveys for narrow endemics will be conducted to supplement the current
database regarding sensitive species within the area of potential effect. A
determination will be made that no more than 5% of the individuals within the
area of potential effect, for each narrow endemic species, would be directly
impacted by the project.
Mitigation for impacts to non-covered species will be incorporation of seed or
nursery stock of those species into the preserved and/or restoration areas. As
an impact-reducing mitigation measure, salvagable plant species (San Diego
barrel cactus, snake cholla and variegated dudleya) will be salvaged prior to
construction and installed within the preserve (it should be noted that, while
impacts to San Diego barrel cactus have not been identified as significant, the
City proposes to conduct salvage for this species, and it is therefore, included
in this mitigation measure). Also, impacts to San Diego sunflower will be
mitigated through the use of San Diego sunflower seed or container plants in
the revegetation of temporary impact areas on the project site. Any narrow
endemic plant species found within the final staging areas will be avoided
22
through the placement of construction fencing around those populations prior
to construction. Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best
Management Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and
maintenance activities within the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors,
respectively.
· Without the Subarea Plan - As an impact-reducing mitigation measure,
salvagable plant species (San Diego barrel cactus, snake cholla and variegated
dudleya) will be salvaged prior to construction and installed within the
preserve (it should be noted that, while impacts to San Diego barrel cactus
have not been identified as significant, the City proposes to conduct salvage
for this species, and it is therefore, included in this mitigation measure). Also,
impacts to San Diego sunflower will be mitigated through the use of San
Diego sunflower seed or container plants in the revegetation temporary impact
areas on the project site. Impacts to variegated dudleya and snake cholla will
be mitigated through the preservation of habitat containing those species
within the preserve. Any sensitive plant species found within the final staging
areas will be avoided through the placement of construction fencing around
those populations prior to construction. Indirect impacts shall be avoided
through the use of Best Management Practices, including strict limitations for
all construction and maintenance activities within the identified 40 foot and 20
foot corridors, respectively.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Staging Areas
Significant Impact: Staging area use would result in direct impacts to 1 population of
California adolphia and 1 population of Sun Diego sunflower. Although the EIR does not
identify impacts to the population San Diego marsh-eider as significant, impacts to this
population are included as mitigation for the project includes mitigation for these species
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-37]
Findin g: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Disturbance of existing rare plant individuals or populations is
significant due to the general decline and subsequent concern over the vitality of
these species throughout the San Diego County Area. As stated in the
Significance Criteria, the project would result in a significant impact if it has an
substantial effect, including an indirect effect, on a rare or endangered or
otherwise sensitive plant or animal species. In order to reduce these impacts to
23
levels below significance, the mitigation measures described below and on pp.
3.3~49 through 3.3-50 in the EIR will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-49]
· All sensitive plant populations within staging areas shall be completely
avoided
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Sensitive Animal Species
Reaches 3-8 A/B, Policy Options 1, 2, 3 and 4
Significant Impact: Development of the project would result in direct impacts to the
federally listed threatened California gnatcatcher and federally listed endangered quino
checkerspot butterfly. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-41 through 3.3-42]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Disturbance of the habitat or individuals of a federally listed
endangered or threatened species (in this case the California gnatcatcher) is
considered a significant impact as outlined in the Significance Standards above.
Construction of the pipeline would result in direct impacts to this sensitive species
as well as its habitat, a regulated resource. In order to reduce these impacts to
levels below significance, the mitigation measures described below and on pp.
3.3-49 through 3.3-50 in the EIR will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-50 to 3.3-51]
· Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for covered
species, since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the
conservation analysis for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered --
implementation of the project. Under the Subarea Plan the project complies
with the siting criteria identified in the Plan. In areas potentially affecting
24
least Bell's vireo nesting sites, noise levels will not exceed 60 CNEL during
the breeding season, March 15 to September 15. In areas potentially affecting
raptor and/or California gnatcatcher nesting sites, noise levels will be
modified, if necessary, to prevent noise from negatively impacting the
breeding success of the pair during the breeding season (December 1 to May
31 for raptors and February 15 to August 15 for California gnatcatcher). The
quino checkerspot butterfly is a federally listed endangered species and may
not be covered by the Subarea Plan. If the quino checkerspot butterfly is
included in the Subarea Plan, the project shall comply with all mitigation and
monitoring for that species required by the Subarea Plan. If not, additional
surveys, in accordance with federal protocol, will be required in the year that
the project grading commences. If adult quino checkerspot butterflies are
found, avoidance through appropriate construction techniques and facility
maintenance activities shall be required. If avoidance is not possible, any
impacts to the species will require separate permitting under the federal
Endangered Species Act; the mitigation required under such a permit may
include, but not to be limited to, the purchase of additional mitigation land in
an offsite location. Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best
Management Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and
maintenance activities within the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors,
respectively.
· Without the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for the identified direct impacts can be
achieved through habitat replacement, as identified in Mitigation Measure [a].
For gnatcatchers, an additional mitigation measure will be to ensure that
habitat replacement areas contained a 1: 1 ratio of gnatcatcher pairs. The City
will be required to obtain a permit for gnatcatcher take under the federal
Endangered Species Act.
For quino checkerspot butterfly, additional surveys, in accordance with federal
protocol, will be required in the year that the project grading commences. If
adult quino checkerspot butterflies are found, avoidance through appropriate
construction techniques and facility maintenance activities shall be required.
If avoidance is not possible, purchase of mitigation land in an offsite location
will be required. Any impacts to the species will require separate permitting
under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Nesting bird surveys will need to be conducted within 500 feet of construction
areas. If listed bird species are found nesting in these areas, mitigation
measures will be either to restrict construction activity during the breeding
season or reduce noise level to below 60 CNEL in those areas if construction
occurs during the breeding season.
25
Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best Management
Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and maintenance
activities within the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors, respectively.
Significant Impact: Short-term indirect impacts would occur to qnino checkerspot
butterfly and nesting bird species [Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-41 through 3.3-
43]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)( l ) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
substantially lessen or avoid the significant enviromnental effect as identified in
the Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Disturbance of the habitat or individuals of a federally listed
endangered or threatened species (in this case the Quino checkerspot butterfly) is
considered a significant impact as outlined in the Significance Standards above.
Construction of the pipeline would result in short-term indirect impacts to this
sensitive species as well as its habitat, a regulated resource. In order to reduce
these impacts to levels below significance, the mitigation measures described
below and on pp. 3.3-49 through 3.3-50 in the EIR will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-50 to 3.3-51]
Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for covered
species, since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the conservation
analysis for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered implementation of the
project. Under the Subarea Plan the project complies with the siting criteria
identified in the Plan. In areas potentially affecting least Bell's vireo nesting sites,
noise levels will not exceed 60 CNEL during the breeding season, March 15 to
September 15. In areas potentially affecting raptor and/or California gnatcatcher
nesting sites, noise levels will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise from
negatively impacting the breeding success of the pair during the breeding season
(December 1 to May 31 for raptors and February 15 to August 15 for California
gnatcatcher). The quino checkerspot butterfly is a federally listed endangered
species and is not covered by the Subarea Plan. For quino checkerspot butterfly,
additional surveys, in accordance with federal protocol, will be required in the
year that the project grading commences. If adult quino checkerspot butterflies
are found, avoidance through appropriate construction techniques and facility
maintenance activities shall be required. If avoidance is not possible, any impacts
to the species will require separate permitting under the federal Endangered
Species Act; the mitigation required under such a permit may include, but not to
be limited to, the purchase of additional mitigation land in an offsite location.
26
Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best Management Practices,
including strict limitations for all construction and maintenance activities within
the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors, respectively. The following measures
will also be implemented to avoid impacts to quino checkerspot butterfly.
Restriction of all construction activity, east of the Hanson Aggregate
Mining Facility, during the adult flight season (as armoanced by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]).
Restriction from large patches of dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta)
adjacent to the project corridor during the entire year. This includes the
potential staging area which contains approximately five acres of dwarf
plantain and was the location of a 2001 quino checkerspot observation.
These areas shall be marked via stoking and flagging prior to construction;
stakes and flags are to be maintained throughout construction.
Without the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for the identified direct impacts can be
achieved through habitat replacement, as identified in Mitigation Measure [a].
For gnatcatchers, an additional mitigation measure will be to ensure that
habitat replacement areas contained a 1: 1 ratio 6f gnatcatcher pairs. The City
will be required to obtain a permit for gnatcatcher take under the federal
Endangered Species Act.
For quino checkerspot butterfly, additional surveys, in accordance with federal
protocol, will be required in the year that the project grading commences. If
adult quino checkerspot butterflies are found, avoidance through appropriate
construction techniques and facility maintenance activities shall be required.
If avoidance is not possible, purchase of mitigation land in an offsite location
will be required. Any impacts to the species will require separate permitting
under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Nesting bird surveys will need to be conducted within 500 feet of construction
areas. If listed bird species are forrod nesting in these areas, mitigation
measures will be either to restrict construction activity during the breeding
season or reduce noise level to below 60 CNEL in those areas if construction
occurs during the breeding season.
Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best Management Practices,
including strict limitations for all construction and maintenance activities within
the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors, respectively. The following measures
will also be implemented to avoid impacts to quino checkerspot butterfly.
27
Restriction of all construction activity, east of the Hanson Aggregate
Mining Facility, during the adult flight season (as announced by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]).
Restriction from large patches of dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta)
adjacent to the project corridor during the entire year. This includes the
potential staging area which contains approximately five acres of dwarf
plantain and was the location of a 2001 quino checkerspot observation.
These areas shall be marked via staking and flagging prior to construction;
stakes and flags are to be maintained throughout construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options l or3
Significant Effect: Development of the project would result in permanent impacts to
0.31 acre of wetlands and 0.04 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. (776 linear feet of
impact). [Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-43 to 3.3-44]
Development of the project would also result in temporary impacts to 0.35 acre of
wetlands and 0.04 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. (606 linear feet of impact).
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-43 to 3.3-44]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
substantiaily lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The proposed project would result in the reduction of wetland
habitats within the project area. Reduction of habitat for a fish, wildlife or plant
species is considered a significant impact as outlined in the Significance
Standards above. In order to mitigate these significant impacts to a level below
significance, mitigation measures on pp. 3.3-49 to 3.3-51 and described below
will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-49 and 3.3-51]
· With or without the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for wetland vegetation is
required as follows: For permanent impacts, wetland habitat creation,
enhancement, and/or restoration of like-quality and like-functioning habitat at
28
a ratio of 2:1 shall be performed. For temporary impacts, onsite restoration or
enhancement of the affected area at a ratio of 1: 1 shall be performed.
· For unvegetated Waters of the U.S., topographic contours of all impacted
areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions. Jurisdictional waters,
including wetlands, will be avoided in the staging areas through the placement
of construction fencing surrounding those sensitive areas prior to construction.
Separate permitting under the federal Clean Water Act for impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. will be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 2 or 4
Significant Impact: Development of the project would result in permanent impacts to
0.24 acre of wetlands and 0.05 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. (798 linear feet of
impact). [Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-43 to 3.3-44]
Development of the project would also result in temporary impacts to 0.36 acre of
wetlands and 0. 10 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. ( 1,174.1 linear feet of impact).
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.3, pp. 3.3-43 to 3.3-44]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The proposed project would result in the reduction of wetland
habitats within the project area. Reduction of habitat for a fish, wildlife or plant
species is considered a significant impact as outlined in the Significance
Standards above. In order to mitigate these significant impacts to a level below
significance, mitigation measures on pp. 3.3-49 to 3.3-51 and described below
will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter3.3, pp. 3.3-49and3.3-51]
· With or without the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for wetland vegetation is
required as follows: For permanent impacts, wetland habitat creation,
enhancement, and/or restoration of like-quality and like-functioning habitat at
a ratio of 2: l shall be performed. For temporary impacts, onsite restoration or
enhancement of the affected area at a ratio of 1: 1 shall be performed.
29
· For unvegetated Waters of the U.S., topographic contours of all impacted
areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions. Jurisdictional waters,
including wetlands, will be avoided in the staging areas through the placement
of construction fencing surrounding those sensitive areas prior to construction.
Separate permitting under the federal Clean Water Act for impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. will be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Regional Corridors and Linkages
Reaches 3-8 A/B, Policy Options 1, 2, 3, or 4
Significant impacts to regional corridors and linkages would not occur as a result of these
project components.
MSCP and Chula Vista Subarea Plan Preserve Design
Reaches 3-8 A/B, Policy Options 1, 2, 3, or 4
Significant impacts to the MSCP would not occur as a result of these project components.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance
Integrity: Integrity is the degree to which a subsurface deposit remains intact and
undisturbed. If the deposits have been disturbed, then the extent to which they retain
information to address important research questions must be determined.
Variability: The variability of a deposit is indicated by differences in a site's
stratigraphic pattern, which reflects changes that have occurred at the site through
time. Greater differences between artifacts from different levels, whether in quantity,
type, or cultural affiliation, signify more dynamic site variability and a greater
possibility that the site offers an opportunity to address important research questions
relating to human or environmental chm~ge or continuity through time.
Age: Age refers to the placement of a deposit in a particular time sequence,
which is essential to the assignment of cultural affiliation and chronology. Age is
generally determined by radiocarbon dating, although the recognition of index
artifacts (i.e., artifacts that are time-sensitive or culture-specific) at a site can also
provide a date. If obsidian is present at the site, hydration studies can furnish relative
dates for a site.
3O
Function: Function is the role that a particular site played in the overall subsistence
pattern of a group of inhabitants of an area. Assuming that the artifacts recovered
from a site represent the range of activities that took place there, its function in the
subsistence pattern of the occupants can be defined. The analysis of an assemblage
should provide evidence of site activities. When this information is compared to
information from other sites in the area, research questions that focus on intersite
relationships and catchment theories can be addressed.
Reaches 3-9 A/B Policy Options 1, 2, 3 or 4
Significant Impact: Undetected buffed portions of sites may be indirectly affected
during construction [Program EIR, subchapter 3.4, pp. 3.4-15 and 3.2-16]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The project may impact the integrity of unknown cultural
resources. Therefore due to the fact that impacts to 'these resources are somewhat
unknown, a significant impact would occur. In order to prevent significant
impacts from occurring to these resources should they be encountered, mitigation
measures outlined on pp. 3.4-17 of the EIR and outlined below will be
implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.4, pp. 3.4-17]
· Monitoring of all trenching and clearing activities during the pipeline
construction by a certified Archeologist;
· In the event that any undetected elements of the sites are encountered,
construction shall be halted at that location until the discovery carl be
evaluated and mitigation measures implemented to reduce the significance of
impacts to a less than significant level The City of Chula Vista'a Mitigation
monitor will be notified following the suspension of work and, prior to any
action, in order to ensure that proper procedures are followed;
· Any activities related to the proposed project within the location of SDI-
12,809 will require boundary markers restricting access to a significant
archeological site located to the immediate north of the APE in this area. In
addition, a temporary barrier fence will be erected at the northern edge of the
31
pipeline construction corridor to ensure that no encroachment into the
sensitive portions of the site would result
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Standards of Significance
The project will result in exposure of people or structures to major geologic or soils
hazards.
Reaches 3-9 A/B Policy Options 1, 2, 3, or 4
Significant Impact: Alteration of the existing structure of potentially unstable soils
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-10]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The alteration of the existing structure of unstable soils could
result in a hazard to humans, existing structures or the proposed project. As stated
in the Significance Standards, this would constitute a significant impact. In order
to reduce this impact to a level below significance, the mifgation measures
outlined on pp. 3.5-12 to 3.5~13 in the EIR and outlined below will be
implemented.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-12 to 3.5-13]
· Removal depths shall be evaluated by a qualified geotechnial consultant
during excavation. Significant removals of compressible material are not
anticipated, and shall generally be limited to within 2 to 3 feet of the bottom
of the proposed sewer line. Compressible soils beneath the proposed sewer
alignment shall be removed to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of
the proposed sewer line. The lower excavation level shall be overlain with
Mirafi 600x (or equivalent). Mirafi 600x is a type of fabric utilized for
pipeline trench lining in order to provide for long-term trench stability.
32
Excess soil shall be replaced with 2 feet of crashed aggregate prior to
additional fill placement or construction of sewer improvements.
· Dewatering will increase the overburden pressure resulting in unwanted
settlement if it is done for wide areas. Due to the level of groundwater
existing above the proposed inlet elevation, dewatering methods near the
western portion of the alignment will consist of a conventional well-point
system.
· In areas where loose, saturated soils conditions are present, sections of pipe
foundations and pipe zones shall be fitted with stabilized fabric.
· Finer grain material shall be separated from open-grade rock around pipeline
structures or within any portion of trench backfill. This will occur through the
installation of filter fabric to prevent piping and settlement.
· Vibratory shoring installation or removal methods shall be avoided within
areas currently supporting existing infrastructure improvements. If vibratory
methods are necessary, a settlement analysis and/or settlement monitoring of
the pipeline or adjacent ground is required. If this method is necessary,
settlement monitoring of adjacent sidewalks and structures shall be evaluated
for shoring performance success.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Heavy ripping and/or the use of heavy-duty earthwork equipment
may expose people or structures to an excavation hazard. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.5,
pp. 3.5-11]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( I ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The use of heavy ripping and/or the use of heavy-duty earthwork
equipment may expose people to geologic hazards due to exposure of trenches, or
exposure to unstable rock or earthen material. As outlined in the Significance
Standards, exposure of people to potential geologic hazards constitutes a
significant impact. In order to reduce this potential impact to a level below
significance, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.5-13 of the EIR and
outlined below will be implemented.
33
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-13]
· In order to address excavations associated with rippability of the pipeline
alignment, a rippability study shall be performed. This study will outline
detailed rippability of each geologic unit within the study urea. A rippability
study may include a seismic refraction survey and/or trackhoe excavation. If
the results of the rippability study or conditions discovered in the field during
construction require additional disturbance beyond the 40-foot construction
corridor width, additional environmental reviews of the urea proposed to be
disturbed must be conducted.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Caving of loose and/or saturated artificial fill and alluvium may
present a hazurd to construction workers within and uround pipeline trenches. [Program
EIR, subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-11]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations ure required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Caving of loose and/or saturated artificial fill and alluvium may
present hazards to construction workers as these materials ure prone to give way
under weight of vehicles or people. As stated in the Significance Standurds,
exposure of people to potential geologic or soil hazurds is considered a significant
impact. In order to reduce the potential for this significant impact to occur, the
mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.5-12 of the EIR and outlined below shall
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-13]
· All excavation shall comply with OSHA requirements. Special care shall be
taken for excavation near existing improvements and to verify that the
integrity of the existing improvements will not be impacted. For shored
excavations, a qualified geotechnical consultant shall review and approve the
contractors proposed shoring design. Shoring and excavation design in the
urea of Interstate 805 and Interstate 5 shall be performed in accordance with
the Caltrans Trenching and Shoring Manual.
34
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Pipeline jacking beneath Interstate 5 may result in passive earth
pressure at the location of the thrust block which could result in lateral support. [Program
EIR, subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-11]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Pipe jacking beneath Interstate 5 would result in potential earth
pressure at the location of the thrust block. This pressure could result in structure
integrity issues for Interstate 5. As stated in the Significance Standards, exposure
of structures to major geologic or soil hazards is considered a significant impact.
In order to prevent this significant impact from occurring, the mitigation measure
outlined in pp. 3.5-14 and described below shall occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and are made 'binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-14]
· During pipe jacking underneath I-5, a safety factor of two shall be included in
the design of any thrust blocks. In addition, pipe jacking beneath the existing
railroad spur shall be performed in accordance with regional and local
Caltrans and MTDB standards and requirements.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significance.
Significant Impact: Redirection of grotmdwater resources to surface waters
(dewatering). [Program EIR, subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-11]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Redirection of groundwater resources to surface waters could pose
a potential threat to humans or structures as the stmctm'e and/or stability of the
groundwater plume may be altered. This may cause weakening of the surface
area around the underground resource as well as potential soil erosion issues near
the point of discharge. As stated in the Significance Standards, potential geologic
or soil hazards are considered significant. In order to reduce these potential
35
impacts to levels below significance, mitigation measures outlined on pp. 3.6-7
and described below shall occur.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-13 and pp. 3.6-17]
· Dewatering shall be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of the
RWQCB. A permit to discharge water from dewatering activities will be
required.
· In order to comply with existing regulations surrounding groundwater
discharge, an NPDES General Storm Water Permit Program Permit shall be
obtained by the City. This permit will require the City to outline all Best
Management Practices (BMPs) planned in order to reduce potential water
quality impacts. These BMPs are implemented through site specific
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and
is monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Effect: Seepage of ground or surface water into an exposed trench [Program -
EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-11 to 3.5-12]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Seepage of ground or surface water into an exposed trench may
present water quality issues or jeopardize the integrity of the trench. Exposure of
people or structures to potential geologic or soil hazards such as that described
above is considered to be a significant impact. In order to reduce potential
impacts to levels below significance, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.5-
14 in the EIR and described below will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.5, pp. 3.5-14]
· In order to control seepage into exposed trench areas, tight sheathing will be
located within the trench. If this method is not possible, pumping by way of a
snmp located at the base of the trench will be employed. A combination of
both methods may be necessary in some alignment locations.
36
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Standards of Significance
· The project will result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements as set by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board;
· The project will substantially deplete grotmdwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge;
· The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site;
· The project will substantially increase the rate or amount of surface ranoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on or off site;
· The project will create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of
polluted runoff;
· The project will result in alteration of an existing 100-year floodplain or flood regime;
· The project will subject existing or proposed people or structures to flooding due to
alteration or disturbance to an existing floodplain;
· The project will potentially degrade the water quality associated with a sensitive
wetland or hydrologic resource; and
· The project will substantially degrade water quality.
Reaches 3-9 A/B Policy Options 1, 2, 3, or 4
Significant Impact: Exposure of the pipeline to scour effects as a result of its location
within a delineated 100-year floodplain. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-13]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Construction of the pipeline within a delineated 100-year
floodplain leaves the potential for scour impacts to this infrastructure facility. As
37
outlined in the Significance Standards, subjecting an existing or proposed
structure to flooding hazards due to alteration or disturbance to an existing
floodplain constitutes a significant impact. In order to reduce this potentially
significant impact from occurring, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.6-16
of the EIR and described below will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-16]
· A scour analysis of the Otay River and Salt Creek shall be completed during
final design to determine potential pipeline washout dangers commonly
associated with major flooding events. Subsequent to this analysis, design of
the pipeline and construction specifications shall include recommendations
from the report to ensure that potential impacts from scouring do not impact
the integrity of the pipeline.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Exposure of surface water resources to groundwater during trench
and construction area dewatefing. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-14]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Exposure of surface water resources to groundwater as a result of
trench construction and dewatefing could degrade local surface water quality in
addition to potentially degrading water quality of sensitive aquatic resources such
as wetlands. As outlined in the Significance Standards, degredation of water
quality as well as potential degredation of sensitive aquatic resource water quality
is considered a significant impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts
below a level of significance, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.6-17 of the
EIR and outlined below will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-17]
· Dewatering shall be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of the
RWQCB. A permit to discharge water from dewatering activities will be
required.
38
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: The potential to violate existing water quality standards and
guidelines [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-14]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The proposed project could violate existing water quality control
plans through the discharge of groundwater resources as well as construction
within or near natural, sensitive waterways. As outlined in the Significance
Standards, violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board is considered a significant
impact. In order to reduce potential impacts to levels below significance, the
mitigation measure listed on pp. 3.6-17 of the EIR and described below will be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-17]
· In order to comply with existing regulations surrounding groundwater
discharge, an NPDES General Storm Water Permit Program Permit shall be
obtained by the City. This permit will require the City to outline all Best
Management Practices (BMPs) planned in order to reduce potential water
quality impacts. These BMPs are implemented through site specific
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and
is monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Potential turbidity effects to surface waters as a result of exposed
trench soils. [Program EiR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-14]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Should weather events occur during construction, exposed trench
soils may wash away and result in turbididy in local waterways. As outlined in
the Significance Standards, substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of a
39
site or area which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site
would constitute a significaht impact. In order to reduce potential impacts to
below a level of significance, the mitigation measure descirbed on pp. 3.6-17 of
the EIR and outlined below shall occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-17]
· During construction, material stockpiles shall be placed such that they cause
minimal interference with on-site drainage patterns. In case of rain, exposed
stockpiles shall be covered with impermeable materials such as tarps in order
to allow drainage to occur without excessive sediment loading.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Potential impacts to South San Diego Bay as a result of
construction m-off and construction equipment impacts. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6,
pp. 3.6-17].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Due to the exposure of soils during construction, run-off from the
project construction site could result in downstream water quality impacts. As
stated in the Significance Standards, affecting the water quality of a sensitive
wetland or hydrologic resources such as South San Diego Bay would result in
significant impacts. In order to reduce these impacts to a level below
significance, the mitigation measure described on pp. 3.6-17 of the EIR and
described below shall occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.6-17]
· In order to minimize potential impacts to sensitive hydrologic resources
associated with the South San Diego Bay, all equipment required for both
construction, general operation and periodic maintenance shall be refueled or
maintained within existing City of Chula Vista or San Diego street areas or
designated staging areas. Best Management Practices to contain accidental
spills of hazardous materials shall be utilized when performing maintenance or
refueling. All stationary equipment, such as motors, pumps, generators, and
40
welders, shall be stored on existing city streets or designated staging areas.
When equipment is being utilized along the pipeline alignment, drip pans shall
be placed under all potential discharge conduits or leaks.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
G. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Standards of Significance
· The project would have a direct land use conflict resulting in the need to relocate
existing residences or businesses;
· The project would result in a direct conflict with existing or planned land uses;
· The project would result in the removal of existing community elements (e.g., trees)
that have been identified by the community as important in defining community
character~
The project would conflict with adopted land use plans and policies;
· The project would temporarily substantially impede regular activities associated with
an existing land use. This would include blocking vehicular access to a land use for
more than four hours in a day.
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 1, 2, 3 or 4
Significant Impact: Temporary detours and limitations to access to quarry operations.
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.7, pp. 3.7-17].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Temporarily impacting accessibility to business would occur
during project construction. As outlined in the Significance Standards, temporary
restriction from a land use is considered a significant impact. In order to reduce
potential impacts to land use accessibility, the mitigation measure outlined on pp.
3.9-10 through 3.9-11 and described below will occur.
41
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.9-10 through 3.9-11]
· A traffic control plan shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented
for all affected roadways. The traffic control plan will show all signage,
striping, delineate detours, flagging operations, and any other procedures
which will be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the
construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The traffic
control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of
lane closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety.
The Traffic Control Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista's traffic control guidelines and will be prepared to ensure that
access will be maintained to individual properties and businesses, and that
emergency access will not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan will ensure
that congestion and delay of traffic resulting from project construction are not
substantially increased and will be of a short-term nature.
The limits of con~tructic~,n work area(s) and suggested alternate traffic routes
for through traffic will be published in a local newspaper periodically
throughout the construction period. In addition, the construction contractor
shall provide not less than a 2-week written notice prior to the start of
construction by mailing to owners/occupants along streets to be impacted
during construction.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista will ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to and from
public facilities such as public utility stations and community centers will be
provided. If normal access to these facilities is blocked by construction
alternative access shall be provided. Should this occur, the City of Chula
Vista will coordinate with each facility's administrators in preparing a plan for
alternative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to
commercial/industrial establishments, to include areas where mining
operations are being conducted, during regular business hours occurs.
Specific attention to the wide turning radius of large trucks associated with the
Otay Landfill and other cormnercial/industrial facilities along Main Street
shall be accommodated. If normal access to business establishments is
blocked, alternative access shall be provided. The City of Chula Vista shall
coordinate with the businesses in preparing a plan for alternative access.
42
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall maintain continuous
vehicular and pedestrian access to residential driveways from the public street
to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes
such continuous access for reasonable periods of time. For example, when the
pipeline is initially being excavated, access to individual driveways may be
closed during the course of a workday. Access shall be reestablished at the
end of the workday. If a driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as
described above, the construction contractor shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least five working days prior to the
closure.
Methods to maintain safe, vehicular and pedestrian access include the
installation of temporary bridge or steel plates to cross over unfilled
excavations. Whenever sidewalks or roadways are removed for construction,
the contractor shall place temporary sidewalks or roadways promptly after
backfilling until the final restoration has been made.
The traffic control plan shall include provisions to ensure that the construction
contractor' s work in any public street does not interfere unnecessarily with the
work of other agencies such as emergency services providers, mail delivery,
school buses, waste services, or Chula Vi,sta Transit Buses.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Reaches 9 zadB
Significant Impact: Temporary detours and limitations to access to quarry operations.
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.7, pp. 3.7-17 through 3.7-18].
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Temporarily impacting accessibility to business would occur
during project construction. As outlined in the Significance Standards, temporary
restriction from a land use is considered a significant impact. In order to reduce
potential impacts to land use accessibility, the mitigation measure outlined on pp.
3.9-10 through 3.9-11 and described below will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through _
these findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.9-10 through 3.9-11]
43
· A traffic control plan shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented
for all affected roadways. The traffic control plan will show all signage,
striping, delineate detours, flagging operations, and any other procedures
which will be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the
construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The traffic
control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
emergency service proriders regarding construction times and locations of
lane closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety.
The Traffic Control Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista's traffic control guidelines and will be prepared to ensure that
access will be maintained to individual properties and businesses, and that
emergency access will not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan will ensure
that congestion and delay of traffic resulting from project construction are not
substantially increased and will be of a short-term nature.
The limits of construction work area(s) and suggested aimmate traffic routes
for through traffic will be published in a local newspaper periodically
throughout the construction period. In addition, the construction contractor
shall provide not less than a 2-week written notice prior to the start of
construction by mailing to owners/occupants along streets to be impacted
during construction.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista will ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to and from
public facilities such as public utility stations and comn'tunity centers will be
provided. If normal access to these facilities is blocked by construction
alternative access shall be provided. Should this occur, the City of Chula
Vista will coordinate with each facility's administrators in preparing a plan for
altemative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to
commercial/industrial establishments, to include areas where mining
operations are being conducted, during regular business hours occurs.
Specific attention to the wide turning radius of large trucks associated with the
Otay Landfill and other commercial/industrial facilities along Main Street
shall be accommodated. If normal access to business establishments is
blocked, alternative access shall be provided. The City of Chula Vista shall
coordinate with the businesses in preparing a plan for altemative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall maintain continuous
vehicular and pedestrian access to residential driveways from the public street
to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes
44
such continuous access for reasonable periods of time. For example, when the
pipeline is initially being excavated, access to individual driveways may be
closed during the course of a workday. Access shall be reestablished at the
end of the workday. If a driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as
described above, the construction contractor shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least five working days prior to the
closure.
Methods to maintain safe, vehicular and pedestrian access include the
installation of temporary bridge or steel plates to cross over antilied
excavations. Whenever sidewalks or roadways are removed for construction,
the contractor shall place temporary sidewalks or roadways promptly after
backfilling until the final restoration has been made.
The traffic control plan shall include provisions to ensure that the construction
contractor' s work in any public street does not interfere unnecessarily with the
work of other agencies such as emergency services proriders, mail delivery,
school buses, waste services, or Chula Vista Transit Buses.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Blocking vehicular access to an existing land use including
commercial, industrial, residential and public facilities for more than four hours in a day
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.7, pp. 3.7-18 through 3.7-19]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Temporarily impacting accessibility to businesses and/or residences
would occur during project construction. As outlined in the Significance
Standards, temporary restriction from a land use is considered a significant
impact. In order to reduce potential impacts to land use accessibility, the
mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.9-10 through 3.9-11 and described below
will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.6, pp. 3.9-9 through 3.9-11]
· In order to prevent an increase in congestion and delay from the Coors
Amphitheatre concert loading and unloading events, facility design and
placement shall be such that three eastboand lanes are available during the
45,
concert season. This is intended to prevent additional congestion and delay
from occurring during event loading (ingress). This measure will mitigate
potential impacts to Main Street and 1-805, since no restrictions to the
eastbound lanes would result and lane configurations would be the same as
under existing loading procedure. In addition, no lane closures would be
allowed during loading and unloading of a concert event.
Signifcance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Multiple planned projects are constructed simultaneously with the
proposed project. [Program EIR, subchapter3.7, pp. 3.7-19]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The construction of multiple projects in one area at a time can
result in blocking access to land uses, causing the need to relocate existing
residences or land uses, alteration of a physical arrangement of a community or
conflict with adopted land use plans and/or policies. As outlined in the
Significance Standards above, all of these conflicts are considered significant
impacts. In order to reduce these impacts to levels below significance, the
mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.7-20 of the EIR and described below would
be implemented.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.7, 3.3.7-20]
· During project design, the City of Chula Vista will coordinate with each
jurisdiction affected by the project to determine the exact limits of project
construction. This coordination effort is intended to prevent any conflicts
resulting from other projects occurring within the direct vicinity of the project
and within the same time period.
Coordination with the following jurisdictional departments will occur in
conjunction with the proposed project:
· City of San Diego Traffic Engineering
· City ofChula Vista Engineering
MTDB
46
· Caltrans
· Project construction within a freeway right-of-way will require a licensing
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Caltrans. This agreement
will delineate all details such as tunneling, specifications for pipeline
depth below surface and encasement requirements. This document will
also discuss safety issues such as the use of a flag crow during work within
the right-of-way.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Potential impacts to existing land uses and public agency right-of-
ways. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.7, pp. 3.7-20]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Potential impacts to existing land uses including public rights of
way would result in a significant impact. As outlined in the Significance
Standards outlined above, direct conflict with existing or planned land uses would
result in a significant impact. In order to reduce potential impacts to a level below
significance, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.7-20 of the EIR and
described below would occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.7, pp. 3.7-20]
· During project design, the City of Chula Vista will coordinate with each
jurisdiction affected by the project to determine the exact limits of project
construction. This coordination effort is intended to prevent any conflicts
resulting from other projects occurring within the direct vicinity of the project
and within the same time period.
Coordination with the following jurisdictional departments will occur in
conjunction with the proposed project:
· City of San Diego Traffic Engineering
· City of Chula Vista Engineering
· MTDB
47
· Caltrans
· Project construction within a freeway fight-of-way will require a licensing
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Caltrans. This agreement
will delineate all details such as tunneling, specifications for pipeline
depth below surface and encasement requirements. This document will
also discuss safety issues such as the use of a flag crew during work within
the right-of-way.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
H. NOISE
Significant impacts ds a result of noise were not identified.
I. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION
Standards of Significance
· The project would close or alter access to an individual property or public facility;
· The project would close a road without sufficient detours;
· The project would change traffic patterns in such a way that congestion and delay are
substantially increased or emergency access is restricted (e.g., fire, police,
ambulance) on street segments or at intersections.
· The project would cause a significant safety hazard;
· The project would subjecting any portion of roadway to a significant increase in
construction traffic;
· The project would interfere with planned roadway improvements.
Reaches 3-8 A/B Policy Options 1, 2, 3, or 4
Significant Impact: Loss of access to a quarry operation. [Program EIR, subchapter
3.9, pp. 3.9-8]
Fin din g: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
48
Explanation: Temporarily impacting accessibility to a business would occur
during project construction. As outlined in the Significance Standards, temporary
restriction from a land use is considered a significant impact. In order to reduce
potential impacts to land use accessibility, the mitigation measure outlined on pp.
3.9-10 through 3.9-11 and described below will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-10 through 3.9-11]
A traffic control plan shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented
for all affected roadways. The traffic control plan will show all signage,
striping, delineate detours, flagging operations, and any other procedures
which will be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the
construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The traffic
control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of
lane closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety.
The Traffic Control Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista's traffic control guidelines and will be prepared to ensure that
access will be maintained to individual properties and businesses, and that
emergency access will not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan will ensure
that congestion and delay of traffic resulting from project construction are not
substantially increased and will be of a short-term nature.
The limits of construction work area(s) and suggested alternate traffic routes
for through traffic will be published in a local newspaper periodically
throughout the construction period. In addition, the construction contractor
shall provide not less than a 2-week written notice prior to the start of
construction by mailing to owners/occupants along streets to be impacted
during construction.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista will ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to and from
public facilities such as public utility stations and community centers will be
provided. If normal access to these facilities is blocked by construction
altemative access shall be provided. Should this occur, the City of Chula
Vista will coordinate with each facility's administrators in preparing a plan for
altemative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to
commemial/industrial establishments, to include areas where mining
49
operations are being conducted, during regular business hours occurs.
Specific attention to the wide turning radius of large tracks associated with the
Otay Landfill and other commercial/industrial facilities along Main Street
shall be accommodated. If normal access to business establishments is
blocked, altemative access shall be provided. The City of Chula Vista shall
coordinate with the businesses in preparing a plan for altemative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall maintain continuous
vehicular and pedestrian access to residential driveways from the public street
to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes
such continuous access for reasonable periods of time. For example, when the
pipeline is initially being excavated, access to individual driveways may be
closed during the course of a workday. Access shall be reestablished at the
end of the workday. If a driveway needsI to be closed or interfered with as
described above, the construction contractor shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least five working days prior to the
closure.
Methods to maintain safe, vehicular and pedestrian access include the
installation of temporary bridge or steel 'plates to cross over untilled
excavations. Whenever sidewalks or roadways are removed for construction,
the contractor shall place temporary sidewalks or roadways promptly after
backfilling until the final restoration has been made.
The traffic control plan shall include provisions to ensure that the construction
contractor's work in any public street does not interfere unnecessarily with the
work of other agencies such as emergency services providers, mail delivery,
school buses, waste services, or Chula Vista Transit Buses.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Reaches 9 A/B
Significant Impact: Short term impacts to Main Street and Otay Valley Road including
traffic delays, partial road closures and traffic congestion and associated hazards.
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-8 through 3.9-9]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Short term impacts to Main Street and Otay Valley Road could
result in road closures, changes in traffic patterns or present safety hazards. As
50
stated in the Significance Standards above, closing a roadway, adjusting traffic
patterns or introducing a potential roadway hazard all qualify as significant
impacts. In order to reduce the potential for significant impacts to occur, the
mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.%10 through 3.9-11 of the EIR and
described below will occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-10 through 3.9-11]
· A traffic control plan shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented
for all affected roadways. The traffic control plan will show all signage,
striping, delineate detours, flagging operations, and any other procedures
which will be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the
construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The traffic
control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of
lane closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety.
The Traffic Control Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista's traffic control guidelines and will be prepared to ensure that
access will be maintained to individual properties and businesses, and that
emergency access will not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan will ensure
that congestion and delay of traffic resulting from project construction are not
substantially increased and will be of a short-term nature.
The limits of construction work area(s) and suggested alternate traffic routes
for through traffic will be published in a local newspaper periodically
throughout the construction period. In addition, the construction contractor
shall provide not less than a 2-week written notice prior to the start of
construction by mailing to owners/occupants along streets to be impacted
during construction.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista will ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to and from
public facilities such as public utility stations and community centers will be
provided. If normal access to these facilities is blocked by construction
alternative access shall be provided. Should this occur, the City of Chula
Vista will coordinate with each facility's administrators in preparing a plan for
alternative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to
commercial/industrial establishments, to include areas where mining
51
operations are being conducted, during regular business hours occurs.
Specific attention to the wide taming radius of large trucks associated with the
Otay Landfill and other commercial/industrial facilities along Main Street
shall be accommodated. If normal access to business establishments is
blocked, alternative access shall be provided. The City of Chula Vista shall
coordinate with the businesses in preparing a plan for alternative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall maintain continuous
vehicular and pedestrian access to residential driveways from the public street
to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes
such continuous access for reasonable periods of time. For example, when the
pipeline is initially being excavated, access to individual driveways may be
closed during the course of a workday. Access shall be reestablished at the
end of the workday. If a driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as
described above, the construction contractor shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least five working days prior to the
closure.
Methods to maintain safe, vehicular and pedestrian access include the
installation of temporary bridge or steel plates to cross over unfilled
excavations. Whenever sidewalks or roadways are removed for construction,
the contractor shall place temporary sidewalks or roadways promptly after
backfilling until the final restoration has been made.
The traffic control plan shall include provisions to ensure that the construction
contractor's work in any public street does not interfere unnecessarily with the
work of other agencies such as emergency services providers, mail delivery,
school buses, waste services, or Chula Vista Transit Buses.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Encroachment within the right-of-way of the San Ysidro Trolly
line, railroad freight line spur tracks and Interstate 5, 805 and potentially SR125 should
right-of-way of this future facility be acquired prior to pipeline construction. [Program
EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-8 through 3.9-9]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State 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 Progran~ EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: Construction of the project within existing rights-of-way of other
federal, state or local agencies could potentially alter the access to an existing
property or facility or subject the subject roadway to an increase in construction
52
traffic and hazards. As outlined in the Significance Standards, impacting an
existing public facility or subjecting a roadway to construction safety hazards
would result in a significant impact. In order to reduce potential impacts to levels
below significance, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.9-9 throgh 3.9-11 of
the EIR and described below shall occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-9 through 3.9-11]
· The City of Chula Vista will obtain an encroachment permit from respective
local and state authorities, as required prior to the commencement of the
construction phase. This process will include submittal of project plans,
review of plans by the respective authorities, possible revisions of the plans
relative to concerns brought forth by the issuing agency and finally, issuance
of the respective permit. Potential permitting agencies include Caltrans,
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), and the City of San
Diego.
· During project design, the City of Chula Vista shall coordinate with each
jurisdiction, as well as its own transit division which may be affected by the
project to determine the exact limits of project construction. This
coordination effort shall be followed by specific measures to avoid conflicts
resulting from other construction projects occurring within the direct vicinity
of the project and within the same time period.
Coordination with the following entities will occur in conjunction with the
proposed project:
City of San Diego Traffic Engineering
MTDB
Caltrans
Chula Vista Traffic Engineering
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Significant Impact: Access to and from Coors Amphitheater during concert events.
[Program EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-9]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1 ) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes
or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
53
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Program EIR, below a level of significance.
Explanation: The proposed project could impact planned traffic paRems
associated with the Coors Amphitheater should pipeline construction on Main
Street coincide with a concert event. As outlined in the Significance Standards,
changing traffic paRems in such a way that congestion and delay are substantially
increased is considered a significant impact. In order to reduce potential impacts
to a level below significance, the mitigation measure outlined on pp. 3.9-11 of the
EIR and described below shall occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these
findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.9, pp. 3.9-11]
· In order to prevent an increase in congestion and delay from the Coors
Amphitheatre concert loading and unloading events, facility design and
placement shall be such that three eastbound lanes are available during the
concert season. This is intended to prevent additional congestion and delay
from occurring during event loading (ingress). This measure will mitigate
potential impacts to Main Street and 1-805, since no restrictions to the
eastbound lanes would result and lane configurations would be the same as
under existing loading procedure. In addition, no lane closures would be
allowed during loading and unloading of a concert event.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
J. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance
· If the project results in disturbance of a paleontological resource.
Reaches 3-9 A/B Policy Options 1, 2, 3 or 4
Significant Impact: Excavation and trenching in geologic formations that have resource
bearing potential. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.10, pp. 3.10-3 through 3.10-4]
Finding: Pursuant io section 15091(a)(1) of the State 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 Program EIR, below a level of significance.
54
Explanation: Should a paleontological resource be encountered during project
construction, disturbance of this resource may occur. As stated in the
Significance Standards, potential impacts to paleontological resources would
constitute a significant impact. In order to avoid significant impacts to
paleontologcial resources, the mitigation measures outlined on pp. 3.10-4 of the
EIR and described below would occur.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, subchapter 3.10, pp. 3.10-4]
· Prior to beginning any excavation work, the City or its contractor shall
demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out a
paleontological resources mitigation program.
· A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original
cutting/trenching or previously undisturbed geologic formations to inspect
cuts for fossils.
· If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall
recover them. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to stop
work or divert work until fossils can be recovered.
· Prepare fossils, along with copies of all pertinent filed notes, photos and maps
shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections,
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
These findings discuss all direct project impacts contained in the Program EIR and
discussed at public hearings. However, to the extent that an impact or "alleged" impact
of the project either direct or secondary has not been discussed in this document, the City
Council hereby overrides such impact for the reasons described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
IX.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects" (Pub. Resources Code section 21082.2, sub& (b)). Several development
55
proposals and other related public works projects have been submitted for consideration
or have been recently approved by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the
County of San Diego in proximity to the Salt Creek Interceptor sewer and associated
lateral aligmnent locations. These "current or probable future" development proposals
would affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as the proposed
project. Several potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with
development of the proposed sewer infrastructure facilities in conjunction with these
surrounding development and public works 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, Caltrans, Metropolitan
Transit Development Board and Mexico) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to
cumulative impacts. The project along with the other related projects will result in the
following irreversible cumulative enviromnental changes. All page numbers following
the impacts refer to pages from the Program EIR.
A. AIR QUALITY
Cumulative Impacts: The project, when combined with other development projects
planned within the City of Chula Vista, would result in short-term air quality impacts due
to construction ofpipeline facilities. [Program EIR, subchapter 6, pp. 6-5]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X of these findings.
However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative
impacts to air quality and is a requirement of project approval.
Explanation: Implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts to
air quality associated with construction. The cumulative effect of the proposed
project and other projects in the vicinity would incrementally contribute to the
San Diego Air Basin's levels of PM-10 and 03. As a result, cumulative short-
term impacts to air quality associated with construction of the project and other
planned projects within the southem Chula Vista area are considered significant.
In order to reduce potential significant short term air quality impacts to levels
below significance, the mitigation measures described on pp. 3.2-8 through 3.2-10
of the EIR and outlined below will occur.
56
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 6, pp. 6-5, pp. 3.2-8 through 3.2-10]
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during all
earthwork phases of the project:
1. The construction disturbance "footprint" shall be kept as small as possible;
2. Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas in
order to avoid particle blow-off;
3. Washing down or sweeping streets from which site access is taken to
remove dirt carried from the site to the street to keep vehicles from
pulverizing the dirt into fine particles;
4. Periodically street sweepers will be utilized to aid in the removal of dirt
carried from the site to the street.
5. Terminating soil excavation, clearing or grading when wind speeds exceed
25 mph for an hourly average;
6. Covering/tarping all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways
unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during
transport;
7. The construction contractor shall comply with the approved traffic control
plan to reduce nun-project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce
construction interference with existing traffic and the prevemion of truck
queuing around local sensitive receptors shall be incorporated into this
plan.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the project in conjunction with other planned
development and the extension of SR 125 would result in continual urbanization in
Eastern Chula Vista, an area currently characterized as natural habitat. [Program EIR,
subchapter 6, pp. 6-6]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
57
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X of these findings.
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Project in conjunction with other planned projects within the eastern territories of
Chula Vista would result in significant cumulative impacts to sensitive biological
resources. Continued development within the eastem areas of Chula Vista and the
extension of SR-125 would extend urban land uses into vacant areas characterized
by natural habitats. In order to reduce potential impacts to these resources, the
mitigation scenarios outlined on pp. 3.3-48 through 3.3-52 of the EIR and
described below will reduce potential cumulative impacts to a level below
significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 6, pp. 6-5 through 6-6, pp. 3.3-48
through 3.3-52]
· Sensitive Habitats:
Uplands:
Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for upland habitats,
since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the conservation analysis
for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered implementation of the project. Under
the Subarea Plan the project complies with the siting criteria identified in the Plan.
Within the staging areas, natural upland habitats will be surveyed prior to
construction and protected with construction fencing to prevent encroackment.
Without the Subarea Plan - Restoration of all temporary disturbance areas shall be
conducted on site at a ratio of 1:1. For areas where direct permanent impacts will
occur, mitigation of impacted coastal sage scrub (including tindisturbed, disturbed
and broom baccharis scrub) shall be provided at a ratio of 1:1. For southern
cactus scrub, the mitigation ratio shall be 3:1 for direct, permanent impacts. For
non-native grasslands the ratio shall be 0.5: 1. Mitigation for direct impacts shall
be provided at an on site location within existing disturbed areas, or at an off site
location within the City of Chula Vista. Within the staging areas, natural upland
habitats will be surveyed prior to construction and protected with construction
fencing to prevent encroachment.
Wetlands:
With or without the Subarea Plan ~ Mitigation for wetland vegetation is required
as follows: For permanent impacts, wetland habitat creation, enhancement, and/or
58
restoration of like-quality and like-functioning habitat at a ratio of 2:1 shall be
performed. For temporary impacts, onsite restoration or enhancement of the
affected area at a ratio of 1: 1 shall be performed.
· Sensitive Plant Species:
All sensitive plants located within staging areas shall be completely
avoided.
Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for covered
species, since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the
conservation analysis for the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered
implementation of the project. Under the Subarea Plan scenario, Spring
2001 surveys for narrow endemics will be conducted to supplement the
current database regarding sensitive species within the area of potential
effect. A determination will be made that no more than 5% of the
individuals within the area of potential effect, for each narrow endemic
species, would be directly impacted by the project.
Mitigation for impacts to non-covered species will be incorporation of
seed or nursery stock of those species into the preserved and/or restoration
areas. As an impact-reducing mitigation measure, salvagable plant species
(San Diego barrel cactus, snake cholla and variegated dudleya) will be
sahzaged prior to construction and installed within the preserve (it should
be noted that, while impacts to San Diego barrel cactus have not been
identified as significant, the City proposes to conduct salvage for this
species, and it is therefore, included in this mitigation measure). Also,
impacts to San Diego sunflower will be mitigated through the use of San
Diego sunflower seed or container plants in the revegetation of temporary
impact areas on the project site. Any narrow endemic plant species found
within the final staging areas will be avoided through the placement of
construction fencing arotmd those populations prior to construction.
Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best Management
Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and maintenance
activities within the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors, respectively.
Without the Subarea Plan - As an impact-reducing mitigation measure,
salvagable plant species (San Diego barrel cactus, snake cholla and
variegated dudleya) will be salvaged prior to construction and installed
within the preserve (it should be noted that, while impacts to San Diego
barrel cactus have not been identified as significant, the City proposes to
conduct salvage for this species, and it is therefore, included in this
mitigation measure). Also, impacts to San Diego sunflower will be
mitigated through the use of San Diego sunflower seed or container plants
59
in the revegetation temporary impact areas on the project site. Impacts to
variegated dudleya and snake cholla will be mitigated through the
preservation of habitat containing those species within the preserve. Any
sensitive plant species found within the final staging areas will be avoided
through the placement of construction fencing around those populations
prior to construction. Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of
Best Management Practices, including strict limitations for all
construction and maintenance activities within the identified 40 foot and
20 foot corridors, respectively.
· Sensitive Animals:
Under the Subarea Plan - No additional mitigation is required for covered
species, since the project is considered a "planned facility" and the
conservation analysis tor the MSCP and Subarea Plan considered
implementation ot the project. Under the Subarea Plan the project
complies with the siting criteria identified in the Plan. In areas potentially
affecting least Bell's vireo nesting sites, noise levels will not exceed 60
CNEL during the breeding season, March 15 to September 15. In areas
potentially affecting raptor and/or California gnatcatcher nesting sites,
noise levels will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise from
negatively impacting the breeding success of the pair during the breeding
season (December 1 to May 31 for raptors and February 15 to August 15
for California gnatcatcher). The quino checkerspot butterfly is a federally
listed endangered species and is not covered by the Subarea Plan. For
quino checkerspot butterfly, additional surveys, in accordance with federal
protocol, will be required in the year that the project grading commences.
If adult quino checkerspot butterflies are found, avoidance through
appropriate construction techniques and facility maintenance activities
shall be required. If avoidance is not possible, any impacts to the species
will require separate permitting under the federal Endangered Species Act;
the mitigation required under such a permit may include, but not to be
limited to, the purchase of additional mitigation land in an offsite location.
Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best Management
Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and maintenance
activities within the identified 40 toot and 20 foot corridors, respectively.
l~ithout the Subarea Plan - Mitigation for the identified direct impacts can
be achieved through habitat replacement, as identified in Mitigation
Measure [a]. For gnatcatchers, an additional mitigation measure will be to
ensure that habitat replacement areas contained a 1: 1 ratio of gnatcatcher
pairs. The City will be required to obtain a permit for gnatcatcher take
under the federal Endangered Species Act.
60
For quino checkerspot butterfly, additional surveys, in accordance with
federal protocol, will be required in the year that the project grading
commences. If adult quino checkerspot butterflies are found, avoidance
tkrough appropriate construction techniques and facility maintenance
activities shall be required. If avoidance is not possible, purchase of
mitigation land in an offsite location will be required. Any impacts to the
species will require separate permitting under the federal Endangered
Species Act.
Nesting bird surveys will need to be conducted within 500 feet of
construction areas. If listed bird species are found nesting in these areas,
mitigation measures will be either to restrict construction activity during
the breeding season or reduce noise level to below 60 CNEL in those areas
if construction occurs during the breeding season.
Indirect impacts shall be avoided through the use of Best Management
Practices, including strict limitations for all construction and maintenance
activities within the identified 40 foot and 20 foot corridors, respectively.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.:
Mitigation for wetland habitats is provided in a Mitigation Measure above.
For unvegetated Waters of the U.S., topographic contours of all impacted
areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions. Jurisdictional
waters, including wetlands, will be avoided in the staging areas through
the placement of construction fencing surrounding those sensitive areas
prior to construction. Separate permitting under the federal Clean Water
Act for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. will be
required.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Signicant.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cumulative Impact: The project, when combined with other planned projects, may
have the potential to disturb unknown cultural resources.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
altemative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project altemative is described in
Section X of these findings.
Explanation: Although the proposed project would not impact known cultural
resources, development of the project, in conjunction with other planned
61
development, would require excavation activities that have the potential to disturb
unknown cultural resources. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources could
therefore be considered significant. Significant impacts that would potentially
occur due to cumulative development can be mitigated to a level of less than
significance through the mitigation measures outlined on pp. 3.4-17 of the EIR
and described below.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 6, pp. 6-6, pp. 3.4-17]
· Monitoring of all trenching and clearing activities during the pipeline
construction by a certified Archeologist;
· In the event that any undetected elements of the sites are encountered,
construction shall be halted at that location until the discovery can be
evaluated and mitigation measures implemented to reduce the significance
of impacts to a less than significant level;
· Any activities related to the proposed project within the location of SDI-
12,809 will require boundary markers restricting access to a significant
archeological site located to the immediate north of the APE in this area.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
D. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION
Cumulative Impact: Cumulatively considerable short-term traffic cimulation impacts
could result if multiple projects were under construction simultaneously and in the same
general location.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
altemative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X of these findings.
Explanation: The proposed project would contribute to short-term impacts to
traffic circulation on Main Street and Otay Valley Road. Significant cumulative
traffic circulation impacts could result over the short-term if multiple projects
were under construction simultaneously and in the same general location. Short-
term traffic impacts caused by construction of the projects proposed within the
study area would result from increased truck traffic and disruption of local traffic
to residences and businesses. The severity of the short-term impacts cannot be
determined at this time because it is not certain that any of the projects would
62
proceed simultaneously. However, implementation of the mitigation measures on
pp. 3.9-9 through 3.9-12 of the EIR and reflected below, would reduce potential
impacts to a level below significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are
required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through
these findings. [Program EIR, Subchapter 6, pp. 6-8, pp. 3.9-9 through 3.9-12]
· The City of Chula Vista will obtain an encroachment permit from respective
local and state authorities, as required prior to the commencement of the
construction phase. This process will include submittal of project plans,
review of plans by the respective authorities, possible revisions of the plans
relative to concerns brought forth by the issuing agency and finally, issuance
of the respective permit. Potential permitting agencies include Caltrans,
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), and the City of San
Diego.
· A traffic control plan shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented
for all affected roadways. The traffic control plan will show all signage,
striping, delineate detours, flagging operations, and any other. procedures
which will be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the
construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The traffic
control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of
lane closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety.
The Traffic Control Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista's traffic control guidelines and will be prepared to ensure that
access will be maintained to individual properties and businesses, and that
emergency access will not be restricted. Additionally, the Plan will ensure
that congestion and delay of traffic resulting from project construction are not
substantially increased and will be of a short-term nature.
The limits of construction work area(s) and suggested alternate traffic routes
for through traffic will be published in a local newspaper periodically
throughout the construction period. In addition, the construction contractor
shall provide not less than a 2-week written notice prior to the start of
construction by mailing to owners/occupants along streets to be impacted
during construction.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista will ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to and from
public facilities such as public utility stations and community centers will be
provided. If normal access to these facilities is blocked by construction
63
alternative access shall be provided. Should this occur, the City of Chula
Vista will coordinate with each facility's administrators in preparing a plan for
alternative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall ensure that continuous,
unobstructed, safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to
commercial/industrial establishments, to include areas where mining
operations are being conducted, during regular business hours occurs.
Specific attention to the wide turning radius of large tracks associated with the
Otay Landfill and other commercial/industrial facilities along Main Street
shall be accommodated. If normal access to business establishments is
blocked, alternative access shall be provided. The City of Chula Vista shall
coordinate with the businesses in preparing a plan for alternative access.
During construction, the City of Chula Vista shall maintain continuous
vehicular and pedestrian access to residential driveways from the public street
to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes
such continuous access for reasonable periods of time. For example, when the
pipeline is initially being excavated, access to individual driveways may be
closed during the course of a workday. Access shall be mestablished at the
end of the workday. If a driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as
described above, the construction contractor shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least five working days prior to the
closure.
Methods to maintain safe, vehicular and pedestrian access include the
installation of temporary bridge or steel plates to cross over untilled
excavations. Whenever sidewalks or roadways are removed for construction,
the contractor shall place temporary sidewalks or roadways promptly after
backfilling tmtil the final restoration has been made.
The traffic control plan shall include provisions to ensure that the construction
contractor' s work in any public street does not interfere unnecessarily with the
work of other agencies such as emergency services providers, mail delivery,
school buses, waste services, or Chula Vista Transit Buses.
· During project design, the City of Chula Vista shall coordinate with each
jurisdiction, as well as its own transit division which may be affected by the
project to determine the exact limits of project construction. This
coordination effort shall be followed by specific measures to avoid conflicts
resulting from other construction projects occurring within the direct vicinity
of the project and within the same time period.
64
Coordination with the following entities will occur in conjunction with the
proposed project:
-- City of San Diego Traffic Engineering
-- MTDB
-- Caltrans
-- Chula Vista Traffic Engineering
· In order to prevent an increase in congestion and delay from the Coors
Amphitheatre concert loading and unloading events, facility design and
placement shall be such that three eastbound lanes are available during the
concert season. This is intended to prevent additional congestion and delay
from occurring during event loading (ingress). This measure will mitigate
potential impacts to Main Street and 1-805, since no restrictions to the
eastbound lanes would result and lane configurations would be the same as
under existing loading procedure. In addition, no lane closures would be
allowed during loading and unloading of a concert event.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significance.
POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant
environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior
to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such
impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and
feasible within the meaning of CEQA. As noted earlier, in Section VI of these Findings,
an alternative may be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying
goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, "'feasibility' under CEQA
encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." of
a project. (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; see also Sequoyah Hills, supS,
23 Cal.App.4th at 715.)
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where
65
the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, as is the case with this Project, the agency, in
drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally
superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the project
as mitigated. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cat. Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842]; see also
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.
Rptr. 650].
Notwithstanding the fact that the Project would not result in significant unmitigated
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. Resources
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 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a
different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement
under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency
shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been
certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would
occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more
of the following findings:
(1) "[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 EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)( 1 ).[
(2) "such 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 section 15091, subd. (a)(2).]
(3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
66
make infeasible the mitigation measures 6r project alternatives identified in
the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3).]
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 Cal. App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.
Rptr. 898]) '"[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." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v.
City of Oakland ( 1993 ) 23 Cal .App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal .Rptr.2d 182] .)
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the Staff Reconkmended Alignment Alternative , has
substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting certain
alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project objectives
and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The
decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets the finally approved project objectives
with the least environmental impact. The findings below examine the alternatives to
determine feasibility.
The detailed discussion in Section IX demonstrates that all significant environmental
effects of the project 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.
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any
altematives identified in the Draft EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior
with respect to these impacts. (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal. App.3d at 519-527; [147
Cal. Rptr. 842]; 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].) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both
feasible and environmentally superior.
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Adequate capacity to serve future sewer demand does not exist within the existing
sewage infrastructure system in eastern Chula Vista. The No Project Alternative would
require that either an alternative sewage conveyance and/or treatment be provided in
eastern Chula Vista or would require substantial reductions in the amount of approved
development in eastern Chula Vista. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description of
the Final EIR, the City does not plan to construct large-scale sewage treatment facilities
within its jurisdiction. It should also be noted that any new sewage treatment facility in
eastern Chula Vista would still result in the need for conveyance of sewage to the facility,
67
and would likely result in similar pumping and pipeline infrastructure as the other
alternatives.
Curtailment of future development would not meet the objectives of the project to
provide sewage service to existing development, as well as planned development that is
approved conditioned upon the construction of new sewer facilities. Further, the
substantial changes in land use that would be needed to allow existing facilities to meet
future needs would cause substantial conflicts with adopted plans for housing, growth and
infrastructure. Future infrastructure and its financing are dependent on the levels of
development currently anticipated. The City has also entered into Development
Agreements that provided for development approvals in exchange for public benefits.
Those Agreements would need to be restrucmred, resulting in the loss of the negotiated
public benefits.
The No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives of the project to provide
sewage conveyance services to developing communities in eastern Chula Vista. In
addition, the No Project alternative would require that the City either eliminate future
development in the project service area, which would be inconsistent with existing
planning for the area, or construct independent sewage treatment facilities to serve the
project area, which would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant
environmental impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with
proposed project mitigation.
Finding:
1. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the City does not plan to
construct large-scale sewage treatment facilities within its jurisdiction. It
should also be noted that any new sewage treatment facility in eastern Chula
Vista would still result in the need for conveyance of sewage to the facility,
and would likely result in similar pumping and pipeline infrastructure as the
other alternatives.
2. Curtailment of future development would not meet the objectives of the
project to provide sewage service to existing development, as well as
approved development. Further, the substantial changes in land use that
would be needed to allow existing facilities to meet future needs would cause
substantial conflicts with adopted plans for housing, growth and infrastructure.
Future infrastructure and its financing are dependent on the levels of
development currently anticipated. The City has also entered into
Development Agreements that provided for development approvals in
exchange for public benefits. Those Agreements would need to be
restructured, resulting in the loss of the negotiated public benefits.
68
3. The No Project Altemative would not meet the objectives of the project to
provide sewage conveyance services to developing communities in eastern
Chula Vista. In addition, the No Project alternative would require that the
City either eliminate future development in the project service area, which
would be inconsistent with existing planning for the area, or construct
independent sewage treatment facilities to serve the project area, which would
not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts
related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project
mitigation.
B. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION
Reaches 9 through 5 of the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative are generally
located at a lower elevation than the areas to be served by the project. This is in
accordance with the objective of maximizing the use of gravity flow to convey sewage
from the project service area. Existing sewage facilities in the Telegraph and Poggi
Canyon basins are upstream of much of the area intended to be served by the project.
However, it is feasible to pump and force sewage flows upgradient from the service area
into these basins.
This alternative would involve the use of numerous pump stations and force mains to
convey sewage from lower elevations in the service area to these basins. As mentioned
earlier, the sizing of existing pipelines in these Telegraph and Poggi alignments would
not be adequate to convey the flows anticipated from approved development at buildout.
Therefore, this alternative would also propose to up-size those facilities or to construct
new parallel facilities within the existing alignments. It should be noted that
implementation of this alternative would still require improvements Or replacement of
facilities within portions of Reach 9, from a location approximately 4,000 feet west of
Interstate 805 to the MWWD Metro Interceptor line located approximately 400 feet west
of I-5. This is required because sewage from the Poggi basin currently flows into existing
facilities in Main Street. This alternative would increase flows into the Main Street line
beyond its current capacity. It is anticipated that the alignment for this portion of the
facility would be the same as proposed under the Staff Recommended Alignment
Altemative (i.e., constructed within Main Street).
Within Otay Ranch, the specific alignment and sizing of pipelines and pump stations
would need to be determined when more specific development plans are in place. This is
due to the fact that the sizing of pumps, force mains and related facilities is dependent on
the ultimate gradient and distance over which the sewage would need to be pumped,
which would not be determined until grading plans for development were further defined.
This would not be considered a significant constraint to phasing of the project, since
design of the facilities would likely be undertaken concurrent with the specific _.
development areas that the facilities would serve.
69
AESTHETICS
Impacts to aesthetics associated with the Alternative Location would be slightly less for
pipelines within the Otay Ranch area (Reaches 3-8A/~, all Policy Options) since the
facilities would be located within lathe roadways, which would reduce or eliminate the
need for separate maintenance roads. However, as stated in Section 3. ], of the Final EIR,
aesthetic impacts associated with the surfacing of maintenance roads are not considered
to be significant.
The Alternative Location alternative would require installation of pump stations at
various locations at the lower elevations of the Otay Ranch project area. These above-
ground facilities could potentially be visible from ~uture surrounding land uses.
However, it is anticipated that design and visual screening techniques could be employed
in the construction of the facilities that would reduce or avoid significant aesthetic
impacts.
Neither the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative Location
alternative would be expected to result in significant unmitigable impacts to aesthetics.
AIR QUALITY
The Alternative Location alternative would result in similar construction-related impacts
to air quality as the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative, since the same
construction techniques and time frames would be required for pipeline installation.
Long-term air quality impacts could be slightly higher for the Alternative Location
alternative, due to the increased energy consumption required for the pumping of sewage,
and potentially due to the consumption of diesel fuel to power the emergency generators
that are required for the pumps in case of power loss. However, the indirect air quality
impacts from electricity consumption, or from diesel -powered emergency generators, is
not anticipated to be significant.
Neither the Staff Recon'tmended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative Location
alternative would be expected to result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Alternative Location alternative would avoid most of the impacts to biological
resources that would result from the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative. In
addition, the Alternative Location alternative would result in most, if not all of the
facilities being placed within areas that are outside of the proposed Chula Vista Subarea
Plan preserve area. It is anticipated that the Alternative Location alternative would have
similar impacts to waters of the U.S., since numerous drainages exist within the proposed
development areas of Otay Ranch.
70
Mitigation measures, or design features of the Recommended Alignment Alternative
result in mitigation of all potential impacts to biological resources for that alternative to a
less than significant level. Therefore, while the Alternative Location alternative results in
reduced impacts to biological resources, it does not provide mitigation for impacts that
would be unmitigable under the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative.
Neither the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative Location
altemative would be expected to result in significant unmitigable impacts to biological
resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resource impacts associated with the Alternative Location alternative would need
to be evaluated upon the identification of specific alignments for the facilities. The Staff
Recommended Alignment Alternative does not result in any significant impacts to
cultural resources. Therefore, regardless of the level of impact associated with the
Alternative Location alternative, it does not provide mitigation for any significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Impacts to geology and soils that would be associated with the Alternative Location '
alternative are anticipated to be similar to those of the Staff Recommended Alignment
Alternative, since it is similarly regionally located. No significant unmitigable impacts to
soils or geology were identified for the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative.
Therefore, the Alternative Location alternative does not provide for mitigation of
significant impacts that could not be achieved under the Staff Recommended Aligmnent
Alternative.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The primary difference between the Alternative Location alternative and the Staff
Recommended Alignment Alternative in terms of hydrology and water quality is that the
pipeline alignments for the Alternative Location alternative are proposed to be located
within future streets, which would eliminate the need for surfacing of access roads.
However, neither the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative
Location alternative would be expected to result in significant unmitigable impacts to
hydrology or water quality.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Land use and planning impacts would be similar with both the Staff Recommended
Alignment Alternative and the Alternative Location alternative, since under the Staff
Recommended Alignment, the facilities are anticipated in both the Otay Ranch General
71
Development Plan and the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The Altemative
Location alternative could also potentially affect land uses along Telegraph Canyon Road
during construction. It is anticipated that application of measures similar to those
proposed for Main Street under the Staff Recommended Aligmnent Alternative could be
employed to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Some minor additional
land use impacts could be expected from the pump stations associated with the
Alternative Location alternative, however, it is anticipated that mitigation would be
available to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. This alternative is not
anticipated to require the acquisition of rights-of-way solely for the proposed facilities,
since the facilities would be located within existing and future roadways, which would
require public dedication themselves.
Neither the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative Location
alternative would be expected to result in significant tmmitigable impacts to land use.
NOISE
Some minor additional impacts to noise could be expected from the Alternative Location
alternative, as compared to the Staff Recommended Alignment alternative, from the
operation ofpnmps associated with the pump stations. HoGever, it is not anticipated that
impacts would be significant and unmitigable.
Neither the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative Location
alternative would be expected to result in significant unmitigable impacts to noise.
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION
The Alternative Location Alternative would result in additional construction within
existing roadways (Telegraph Canyon Road) for improvements to existing sewer facilities
to enable them to carry the additional sewage flows from the project area. It is
anticipated that application of measures similar to those proposed for Main Street trader
the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative could be employed to reduce such
impacts to less than significant levels.
Neither the Staff Recommended Alignment Alternative nor the Alternative Location
alternative would be expected to result in significant ttnmitigable impacts to traffic/
transportation.
PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCES
Neither the Alternative Location Alternative, nor the Staff Recommended Alternative
would result in significant impacts to paleontological resoumes since both would be
subject to mitigation measures that would avoid any significant impacts.
72
This alternative was not advanced to final planning and design stages since, while it is
considered to be feasible, it was detennined not to be practicable, due to the extensive
amount of infrastructure required to pump large volumes of flow against topographical
gradients. The extensive amount of pumping required for this alternative does not meet
the project objectives of reducing pumping, consistent with current City policy (#570-03).
In addition, the alternative also would require an extensive amount of construction that
would be required in Telegraph Canyon Road, a transportation facility that, until
additional regional transportation facilities are constructed, is approaching capacity levels
of traffic. It is not anticipated that ultimate buildout of the regional transportation system
will occur prior to the need to construct the proposed sewage facilities. Finally, the
alternative does not result in avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts
related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation.
Finding:
1. To serve development that is existing or is imminent, the pipelines in the
Telegraph and Poggi alignments would need to be improved, and/or
supplemented prior to those facilities reaching their capacity. This would
require extensive construction activity within Telegraph Canyon Road,
and would require construction of some of the pumping facilities. This
alternative was determined not to be practicable, due to the extensive
amount of infrastructure required to pump large volumes of flow against
topographical gradients. The extensive amount of pumping required for
this alternative does not meet the project objectives of reducing pumping,
consistent with current City policy (#570-03). In addition, the alternative
also would require an extensive amount of construction that would be
required in Telegraph Canyon Road, a transportation facility that, until
additional regional transportation facilities are constructed, is approaching
capacity levels of traffic. It is not anticipated that ultimate build-out of the
regional transportation system will occur prior to the need to construct the
proposed sewage facilities. Finally, the alternative does not result in
avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts related to the
project that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation.
73
EXHIBIT B
SALT CI~rI:K INTrI~CrPTOI~
MITII)ATION ~ONITOlalNI] larPOI~TINI) PlaO(ilaAM
JUly 9, 2001
INTRODUCTION
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula
Vista for the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer to comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which requires
public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation
measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional
mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the
project throughout the project approval process.
This monitoring program wfil serve 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 the following:
Monitoring team qualifications
Specific monitoring activities
Reporting system
Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Project is a proposed single, underground, poIyvinyl chloride
sewer pipeline (PVC) 18 to 48 inches in diameter with an estimated length of 73,519 feet. The
proposed pipe facilities would range in size from approximately 21 inches to approximately
48 inches, and would convey up to 13 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage. The
alignment of the pipeline is described in nine segments or "reaches".
The Sewer Project is designed to convey flows from planned mixed-use development in
eastern Chuia Vista to the City of San Diego's Metro Interceptor Sewer west of Interstate
5. The proposed project will extend from the existing sewer facilities located near Olympic
Parkway south along Salt Creek, west along the Otay River and Main Street until its
connection with the San Diego's Metro Interceptor Sewer west of Interstate 5. Reach 9B is
the westernmost portion of the pipeline, with Reaches 8A/B through 6 moving east through
the Otay River Valley. Reach 5 turns north at Salt Creek Canyon, and Reaches 4 and 3
continue north up the canyon to Olympic Parkway. Reach I has already been constructed
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer · Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Pregrarn MMRP-1
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
· and Reach 2 has been studied and its aligrnnent approved as part of approved development
within which the Reach is located. Reaches 1 and 2 are not considered to be part of the
proposed project.
Primary facilities include an interceptor serving planned and approved development adjacent
to the Salt Creek area. Associated facilities include three sewer laterals serving Village 11 on
the west side of Salt Creek, one sewer lateral serving the Olympic Training Center on the east
side of Salt Creek, plus connection structures associated with existing pipelines (Reaches 1
and 2, an existing 5,900 foot section of Reach 5 and the City of San Diego Metro Interceptor),
an access road, manholes and pre-determined staging areas.
The project also includes associated facilities, including but not limited to, three sewer
laterals serving Village 11 on the west side of Salt Creek, and one sewer lateral serving the
Olympic Training Center on the east side of Salt Creek.
The following is a discussion of the currently recommended alignment described by _
individual reaches.
Reach 9A/B
Reach 9 includes the westernmost portion of the project and is divided into two subreaches,
9A and 9B. Reach 9B extends from the southwestern part of the City, appkoximately 500 feet
west of 1-5 to a point approximately 500 feet east of where Main Street (old Otay Valley
Road) turns to the south, a distance of approximately 28,000 lineal feet, or 5.3 miles generally
defining the western boundary of the Otay Ranch. Reach 9B is characterized by a mixture
of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses and is located outside of the wildlife
refuge. At a point approximately 4,000 feet west of 1-805, the pipeline would divert from the
Main Street alignment and travel within Otay Valley Road. Reach 9A begins at a point
approximately 2,000 feet west of 1-805, where the alignment would be placed back into Main
Street. The reason for this diversion is a rise in elevation along Main Street that would
require the sewer to be placed too deep for practical maintenance. The pipeline would then
continue east to the end of the paved roadway, and further east beyond the paved road,
within a dirt road, for another approximately 500 feet. There is a segment of gravity sewer
line within Reach 9A south of the existing Chula Vista Auto Park that is not connected to
the main alignment, but is considered to be part of Reach 9A. This portion of Reach 9A is
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer · Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP-2
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
proposed to convey existing sewer flows from the Auto Park directly into a City of San Diego
facility via gravity flow. The flows from this area are currently pumped up to Main Street.
This portion of the project would eliminate the need for the existing pump station located
within the Auto Park. In Reach 9A/B, as well as throughout the alignment, possible
construction staging areas were identified based on the various opportunities and constraints
along the route.
Reaches 8A/B through 6
Reaches 8A/B through 6, approximately 17,700 linear feet, or 3.4 miles continue the pipeline
in the dirt road that services an existing quarry operation on the northern slopes of the Otay
River Valley. The dirt road is located in the river terraces above the floodplain of the Otay
River.
Reach 5
From Reach 6, the (Salt Creek Interceptor) alignment continues within existing dirt roads for
approximately 3,500 linear feet, until it reaches the existing pipeline segment constructed
within Salt Creek Canyon. The remaining portion of Reach 5 is the alignment of that
existing 5,900 linear foot 21" & 24" diameter pipeline.
Reaches 4 and 3
A portion of Reach 4 consists of the existing sewer pipe segment. That portion extends south
from the existing County Water Authority easement, into Reach 5. Policy Option 3, as
described in the Addendure to the Draft EIR is the proposed alignment for the facility in
Reaches 3 and 4.
Policy Options 1 or 3
Policy Options i or 3 consist of the segment of pipe within Reaches 3 and 4 of the proposed
alignment that is designed for gravity flow. The alignment extends north from the existing
pipeline and travels through the lower portions of the slopes that define the western side of
Salt Creek Canyon. This area contains native upland habitats through approximately two
thirds of the alignment (a total of approximately 6,000 linear feet of the 9,000 linear-foot
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer ~, Mitigation Monitoitng Reporting Program ' MMRP-3
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
length), the remaining portion of the alignment travels through cultivated agricultural fields.
Reach 3 would end at Olympic Parkway, on the west side of Salt Creek Canyon, and would
connect to the approved and/or constructed Reaches 2 and 1.
Under Policy Options 1 or 3, three sewer laterals would be proposed to extend from Village
11 of Otay Ranch to the facility, two in the northern Salt Creek area and one that would
parallel the existing power and water easements.
A gravity sewer lateral extending from the Olympic Training Center would also connect to
the alignment within Reach 4 under Policy Options 1 or 3. This lateral would convey
existing sewage flows from the Olympic Training Center that are currently pumped into the
Telegraph Canyon basin.
Policy Options 2 or 4
Policy Options 2 or 4 consist of an alignment that would avoid most of the impacts to
sensitive upland habitats along the western slopes of Salt Creek Canyon. This would be
achieved under Policy Option 2 by pumping sewage from the southern terminus of Reach 2
up to an alignment that is either within or parallel to the proposed alignment for future
Hunte Parkway, on the eastern edge of the future Village 11 of Otay Ranch. Policy Option
4 would avoid impacts by tunneling under portions of the alignment Containing sensitive
habitat. The alignment would then turn south, parallel to the existing SDG&E and County
Water Authority easements, and connect to the existing pipeline segment in Salt Creek
Canyore The total length of this segment is approximately 12,000 linear feet. It should be
noted that impacts to native habitats would occur within the proposed easement that would
parallel existing easements. Policy Option 2 also includes a pump station capable of pumping
approximately 4.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage. The pump station would be
located at the southerly terminus of Reach 2.
The lateral from the Olympic Training Center would still be required under Policy Options
2 or 4. It should be noted that, in the absence of Policy Options 1 or 3, the Olympic Training
Center lateral would be have to be increased in length over that proposed in Policy Options
1 or 3, since the connection point of the lateral would be southerly of the proposed
connection under Policy Options 1 or 3.
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer .e Mitigation Monitoring Reporiing Program MMRP-4
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be potentially
significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR include aesthetics, air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise, traffic/transportation, and paleontological resources.
The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed,
some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced
through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant
cumulative impacts requiring mitigation were identified for aesthetics, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology, hydrology, traffic/transportation, and paleontologicai
reSOUrCeS,
Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or
potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer and
therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM
A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as
conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the
responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be
accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and
the MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula V!sta, the
monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience
in working under trying field circumstances;
Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of
cost-effective mitigation options; and
Excellent communication skills.
The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following:
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer ·Mitigatjon Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP-5
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program '
Implement and manage the monitoring program;
Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring;
Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final
construction monitoring;
Act as liaison between the City of Chula Vista and the applicant's contractors;
Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs and
ESs in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project requirements,
construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort;
Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit
conditions;
Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation
or proposed additional mitigation;
Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project
environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and
Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and
personnel responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance.
The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in
performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and
functions are to:
Maintain a working knowledge of the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer permit conditions,
contract documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation
requirements for his or her assigned construction area;
Assist the MM and Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer construction contractors in
coordinating with City of Chula Vista compliance activities;
[Zi Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit
conditions; and
Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist
the MM as necessary in preparing status reports.
The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when
environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project
implementation and to provide direction for mitigation.
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Intercel~tor Sewer ,l, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP-6
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
PROGRAM PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place betweef~ all the parties
involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of
the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail v/ill be
addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss
specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior t6 any monitoring efforts. All parties
involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these
mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that
would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista
would include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and the construction
crew supervisor. The MM would distribute to each ~Environmental Specialist and
Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her
monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be
implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors v~li have mitigation monitoring
report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form.
Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the
effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it
with the MM follov~mg the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions
of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted
to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major accomplishments of the
monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program,
evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations
for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each EM or ES will be
required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the MM. The daily log report will be used
to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly
status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and
compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs,
and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula Vista to confirm the
implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project.
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer .e. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting program MMRP-7
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program -
ACTIONS IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work
or task delay; and
Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work
or task delay.
In each case, the MM would notify the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer contractor and the City
of Chula Vista of the noncompliance, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily
basis.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program
should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies
include "stop work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations,
citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand
the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case
of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are
recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate
for such conditions. In addition, once the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer Project has been
approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors, the City
of Chula Vista, and the applicant v~xll further refine the mitigation measures.
July 2001 2589-02
Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer · Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP-8