HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2001-219 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-219
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 01-01) FOR THE
EASTLAKE III WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANNING
PROGRAM WITH ITS ATTENDANT ADDENDUM; MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the EastLake Company submitted an application requesting approvals for
amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and EastLake III General Development
Plan, and approval of a Sectional Planning Area Plan for the EastLake Woods and Vistas
Neighborhoods ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 01-01 was issued for public review on March 9, 2001, and was
processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
Draft EIR 01-01 on April 25, 2001;
WHEREAS, a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 01-01) was
prepared on the EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program; and
WHEREAS, FEIR 01-01 incorporates, by reference, the prior EIR's that address the
subject property including the Master EIR for EastLake (EIR 81-3, certified by the City Council
in February 1982) and the EIR and Supplemental EIR for EastLake III Olympic Training Center
(89-9, certified by the Chula Vista City Council in August, 1989) as well as their associated
Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR 01-01
are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista
hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures.
These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations
that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The
adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk, are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be
effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNiNG COMMISSION RECORD
Resolution 2001-219
Page 2
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on Draft EIR 01-01 held on April 25, 2001, their public heating on this project
held on June 27, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 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.).
II. FEIR 01-01 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 01-01 consists of the following:
1. Subsequent EIR for the EastLake III Woods and Vistas Re-planning Program
(including technical appendices) and an Addendum; and
2. Public Comments and Responses to Comment
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 01-01 ")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 01-01
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 01-01, the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution), and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) are prepared in accordance
with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines
(Califomia Code Regulation's Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the FEIR 01-01 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista, City Council.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
Resolution 2001-219
Page 3
The City Council does hereby approve, 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," of this Resolution.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible altematives,
certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or
cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the
fonn set forth in Exhibit "A," identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations
that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
C. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 01-01 and in the Findings of Fact for this
project, which is Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby finds 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 entity (such as
the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
D. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 01-01 and in the Findings of Fact for this
project, which is Exhibit "A," certain mitigation measures described in the above-referenced
documents are infeasible.
E. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 01-01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section
XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that altematives to the
project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 01-01, were not found to be
feasible.
F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Exhibit "B." The City
Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation,
the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project
components and comply with the feasible mitigation 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
Resolution 2001-219
Page 4
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 CCEQA") (Public Resources Code §21000 et
seq.).
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter y
Planning and Building Director
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 17th day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Salas and Horton
NAY S: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Rindone
ATTEST: Shirley Hortop//l~layor
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. 2001-219 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 17th day of July, 2001.
Executed this 17th day of July, 2001.
Susan BigeloCv, City Clerk ~
R2001-219 EXHIBIT,A
EASTLAKE WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANNING PROGRAM
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
July 2, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
11. DEFTNITIONS '~
Eli. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
IV. BACKGROUND 9
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 9
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA 11
VII. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS 13
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 14
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES t4
A. Land Use 22
B. Transportation/Traffic 23
C. Biological Resources 33
D. Hydrology/Dralnage 42
E. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality 50
F. Geology/Geologic Hazards 53
G. Noise 55
H. Air Quality 61
I. Cultural Resources 66
J. Paleontological Resources 69
K. Public Facilities 71
X. CUMULATIVE SIGN][FICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES 83 --
A. TransportatiordTraf~c Circulation 83
B. HydrologyfDrainage 90
C. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality 91
D. Noise 91
E. Air Quality 92
F. Cultural Resources 93
G. Paleontological Resources 94
H. Public Facilities 95
Xi. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 99
A. No Project Alternative 102 -
B. Development Consistent with the Existing EastLake III GDP 104
X21. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSDERATIONS 105
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Program;
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EIR #01-0 l, SCH #2000071019
FINDINGS OF FACT
INTRODUCTION
The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)1 prepared for this project
addressed the potential environmental effects of a proposed change to existing land use
plans in the EastLake Woods and Vistas neighborhoods and Panhandle site, in the 1 '030-
acre EastLake 1]] General Development Plan (GDP) area, the adoption of a Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan with associated regulatory documents; and adoption of related
amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan.
In addition, the SEIR evaluated two alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project
alternative, which assumes no development of the EastLake Woods, Vistas, and
Panhandle sites, and the Development Consistent with the Existing GDP for EastLake
alternative, which assumes implementation of the existing GDP.
These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, 15000 et seq.).
] The SEIR (RECON. June 2001) incorporates previously prepared documents. including the Master EIR
for EastLake (EIR 81-03). the EastLake I GDP EIR (1982). the EastLake III Olympic Training Center EIR
{89-9) and Supplemental EIR (89-9), the EastLake Trails Prezone and Annexation EIR (90-12), the City of
Chula Vista General Plan EIR (1989). the Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan Final Supplemental EIR (91-03), the
Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan Final Master EIR (1996). the EastLake Trails/Greens
Replanning ProFaro Final EIR (97-04), the Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-99-20).
the EastLake Business Center It Annexation Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-33). and the Salt Creek
Interceptor Sewer Final Program EIR (June 2001 ) by reference.
DEFINITIONS
"ADT" means average daily traffic.
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
"BMPs" means best management practices.
'~CDFG" means California Department of Fish and Game.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"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 units per acre.
"GDP" means General Development Plan.
"GMOC' means Growth Management Oversight Committee.
"gd" means gallons per day.
"LOS" means level of sen, ice.
"mgd" means million gallons per day.
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Progam.
"NPDES" means National Potlutant Discharge Elimination System.
"OTC' means Olympic Training Center.
"OWD" means Otay Water District. ._.
"PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan.
"RAQS" means Re~onal Air Quality Standards.
"S.~ViP" means Subarea Water Master Plan.
"SANDAG" means San Diego Association of Governments.
"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.
"USACE" means U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
"USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serx, ice.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
There are five areas included in the EastLake ~I 1,030-acre GDP area: the Woods, the
Vistas, a 45-acre parcel referred to as the Panhandle, the Olympic Training Center, and
Business Center II. The overall purpose of the proposed EastLake llI planning progam is
to amend the General Development Plan, adopt an SPA Plan and related regulatory
documents for the Woods and Vistas, and process a tentative subdivision map for the
Woods and Vistas. The Woods, Vistas, and Panhandle are the primary subjects of the
proposed GDP amendment. The proposed amendments also require an amendment to the
City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Map, and Circulation
Element. While the OTC is located within the boundaries of the GDP, it is not affected by
the amendment because it is largely developed. In addition, Business Center II is
proposed for transfer from the EastLake 111 GDP to the EastLake 11 GDP. The SPA Plan
and conceptual tentative map only address the Woods and Vistas, and consequently this
EIR provides a tentative map-level analysis only for the Woods and Vistas. The
Panhandle site is analyzed at the more conceptual GDP level because no proposed SPA
Plan for the property is under consideration at this time. Under the proposed GDP the
Panhandle site is designated for Public/Quasi-Public use with a secondary residential use
that would accommodate 90 dwelling units.
The project also includes off-site improvements to Otay Lakes Road and Olympic
Parkway, including widening the roadways and intersection improvements. Mitigation
for these potential impacts resulting from these improvements is included in the SE1R
and is discussed within these findings.
The proposed amendments to the EastLake III GDP and the SPA Plan for the Woods and
Vistas are described in detail below.
EastLake 1121 GDP
The existing and proposed EastLake ]]] GDP differ~ with respect to boundaries and
densities of residential areas. conversion of open space to parkland and small portions of
proposed residential areas to Retail Commercial and Tourist Commercial, and relocation
of the elementary and middle school sites. Ultimately, if adopted, the proposed GDP will
realize a net increase in acreage and dwelling units of low-medium and high density
residential housing and a net decrease in low, medium, and medium-high density
housing. Moreover, there would be a net increase in Commercial-Retail, Commercial-
Tourist, and Public/Quasi-Public uses and a net decrease in Research and Limited
Manufacturing, Professional Administrative, Park and Recreation, and Open Space Uses
which are largely due to de-annexation of Business Center 11 and redesignation of the
Panhandle site for Public/Quasi-Public use.
The proposed GDP includes 650 low density DUs on 298.2 acres (2.2 du/ac), 799 low-
medium density DUs on 154.5 acres (5.2 du/ac), 73 medium density DUs on 7.3 acres
(10 du/ac), 239 medium high density DUs on i5.9 acres) (15 du/ac), and 300 high density
DUs on 12.3 acres (24.4 du/ac). With the Panhandle site developed for Public/Quasi-
Public uses, the proposed GDP would develop 2.061 dwelling units on 942 acres, for an
overall average residential density of approximately 2.2 du/ac (or 4.2 du/ac within the
land area designated for residential uses). With the addition of 90 low density DUs with
development of the Panhandle site for residential uses, the overall residential density
would be approximately 2.3 du/ac (or 4.0 du/ac within the land area desigqaated for
residential uses ).
Nonresidential uses in the proposed GDP include Commercial Retail (12.2 ac),
Commercial Tourist (t8.4 ac), Park (15.2 ac), Public/Quasi-Public (245 ac with
Panhandle site designated for P/PQ use), Open Space (137.8 ac), and Circulation (25.5
ac).
4
Proposed amendments to the existing EastLake llI GDP include:
1. Remove the 102.6-acre Business Park 1I (Research and Limited Manufacturing) area
from the EastLake 1II GDP to reflect the previously approved annexation of said
acreage and land use to the EastLake H GDP and EastLake I SPA;
2. Adjust the boundaries between Low and Low-Medium Density Residential land use
designations to reflect a 38.4-acre reduction in the area of Low Density Residential
and an increase of 97.9 acres in the Low-Medium Density Residential designation or,
in the event the low density designation is applied to the Panhandle site, a 45-acre
increase in Low Density Residential would occur;
3. Adjust the boundaries between the Medium and Medium-High Density Residential
land use designations on the north side of Olympic Parkway to reflect a 16.6-acre
reduction in Medium-High Density Residential and the addition of 12.3 acres of High
Density Residential;
4. Increase the acreage of the Conunercial-Retail by 5.2 acres to a total of 12.2 acres by
chan~ng the land use designation from Medium (6-11 du/ac) and Medium-High (11-
18 du/ac) Density Residential (just north of Olympic Parkway) to Commercial-Retail;
5. Modify any additional applicable land use designnations and acreage to reflect the
GDP statistical modifications as shown in Table 3-1 of the SEIR;
6. Change the land use designation on the western half of the Vistas neighborhood from
Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac) to Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/ac);
7. Increase the acreage of Commercial-Tourist land use designation southeast of
Olympic Parkway from 14.8 to 18.4 acres;
8. Change the land use designation of the 20 acres south of Olympic Parkway betwee.n
Salt Creek and the existing Olympic Training Center from Medium-High Density
Residential, Professional and Administrative, and Commercial-Retail to High Density
Residential ( 18-27 du/ac ) and Public/Quasi-Public;
9. Change the land use designation of 13.5 acres in the Vistas, west of Wueste Road,
from Open Space to Park:
10. Modify other land use designations within the Vistas and Woods thereby reducing the
overall GDP Open Space from 186.2 acres to 136.7 acres (a portion of this Open
Space change results from the removal of the Open Space acreage within the
EastLake Business Center II that has been deleted from the EastLake llI GDP);
i 1, Change the land use designation of 15 acres located at the northeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway from Park to Public/Quasi-Public;
12. Change the middle school location to the north end of the Woods neighborhood just
east of Hunte Parkway;
13. Relocate the elementary school site from the center of the Woods neighborhood to the
northeast corner of Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road:
14. Modify the circulation plan of the circulation element to delete the secondary
collector loop road shown within the Vistas residential neighborhood. A Class I/I
collector road would be added to the circulation element along the eastern portion of
the Vistas neighborhood under the proposed GDP Amendment; and
15. Change the land use designation of 45 acres located in the Panhandle site from Park
to Public/Quasi-Public or Low Density Residential. Approximately 90 DUs could be
built under the Low Density Residential option.
EastLake Woods and Vistas SPA Plan
The EastLake HI SPA Plan includes both the Woods and the Vistas. (The OTC has an
approved SPA Plan and the Panhandle site may be included under a separate SPA Plan in
the future.) The SPA Plan defines, in more detailed terms. the development parameters of
the EastLake II/GDP, including the land use mix, design criteria, primary circulation
pattern, open space and recreation concept, and infrastructure requirements.
The SPA Plan site utilization plan for EastLake III shows the breakdown of land uses,
including housing density for the Woods and Vistas. The eastern portion of the Woods is
proposed for low density housing, with 407 DUs on 216.2 acres, for an average of 1.9
du/ac. The western portion of the Woods is proposed for low-medium density housing,
with 257 DUs on 43 acres, for an average of 6.0 du/ac. The Vistas is proposed for low,
low-medium, medium, medium-high, and high density housing, with 1,394 DUs on 229
acres, for an average of 6.1 du/ac. The total average density of the project is 4.2 du/ac
(2,061 DUs on 488.2 acres).
Discretionary Actions
In order to complete this replanning process, the following discretionary approvals from
the City of Chula Vista are being sought by the project applicant:
· Amendments to the EastLake llI General Development Plan to modify the adopted
land use plan, as described above.
6
* Amendments to the EastLake H GDP, including (a) .,Mnendment to the EastLake
Comrnunity Purpose Facilities Master Plan, previously adopted as part of the
EastLake II GDP to incorporate the required CPF acreage for the EastLake III project
and (b) Amendment to the EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program,
previously adopted as part of the EastLake II GDP and Trails SPA Plan to revise the
location of affordable housing sites and affordable housing requirements for the
EastLake ~I project.
· Adoption of the Woods and Vistas SPA Plan and associated regulatory documents for
the Woods and Vistas including (a) Planned Community District Regulations, (b) Air
Quality Improvement Plan, (c) Water Conservation Plan, (d) Public Facilities
Financing Plan, (e) Design Guidelines, and (f) EastLake Comprehensive Affordable
Housing Progam.
· Amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, including the Land Use Element and
Land Use Map, and the Circulation Element. These amendments include amendment
to the circulation system in the Vistas and chan~ng the designation of Olympic
Parkway and Otay Lakes Road to eight- and seven-lane prime arterials, respectively,
to reflect proposed modifications to the adopted GDP.
· Tentative subdivision map,
· Interim off-site sewer improvements. These discretionary actions are exclusive of the
approval of the planned Salt Creek Interceptor. The environmental review for the
discretionary approval of the Salt Creek Interceptor is discussed separately in the
Final Proyam Environmental Impact Report for Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer (June
2 O0 1 ).
The City of Chuta Vista is the Lead Agency and has discretionary power of approval for
all the actions sought by the applicant for the proposed project. This SEIR 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.
Required Permits and Approvals
PeNits required from the resource agencies, including a 1603 Streambed Alteration
Agreement, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 petmiD, a 401 waiver or authorization,
and an NPDES permit from the Redonat Water Quality Control Board. A permit may be
required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (section i0 of the Endangered Species
Act) for impacts to the least Bell's vireo and a permit may be required from California
7
Department of Fish and Game for impacts to the Otay tarplant. A permit will not be
necessary, however, if the City has a taking authorization.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the proposed EastLake III GDP and SPA Plan project can be
summarized as follows:
· Assure a high quality of development consistent with city and community goals and
objectives, the Chula Vista General Plan, and EastLake II/GDP.
· Create an economically viable plan that can be realistically implemented within
current and projected economic conditions.
· Facilitate adequate provision of community facilities, such as transportation, water,
flood control, sewage disposal, schools, and parks, and provide adequate assurance to
the developer that approved development will be allowed in a timely and
economically viable manner.
· Implement and demonstrate consistency with the Chula Vista General Plan (as
amended), EastLake l]l GDP (as amended), and related plans at the more detailed
SPA level for Planned Community (P-C) zoning.
· Provide site/project documentation showing that development will be consistent with
other city policies and regulations.
· Implement the housing element of the Chula Vista General Plan.
· Establish a framework for subsequent construction and occupancy permitting.
· Establish a land use plan that provides housing and employment opportunities for
residents while maintaining an acceptable quality-of-life standard within the EastLake
corm-nunity.
· Control and manage redonat Fowth by establishing a phased approach to
development and a Public Facilities Financing Plan which will ensure that necessary
public facilities are in place at the time of need, providing for the siting and financing
of such facilities.
* Provide for biolo~cal mitigation opportunities within the proj ect's design.
· Establish ~eenbelt and open space connections in accordance with the General Plan.
· Provide uses that are compatible with and complimentary to the OTC.
BACKGROUND
The City of Chula Vista approved the establishment of EastLake as a planned community
in 1982. The EastLake Planned Community Master EIR (#81-03) was prepared in
February 1982. and the EastLake General Plan Amendment, including the EastLake I
General Development Plan, was adopted in August 1982. Following the preparation of
the original EIR for the EastLake I GDP, subsequent EIRs have been prepared for GDP
Amendments and Sectional Planning Area Plans within EastLake I, II, and 11I (Olympic
Training Center). The existing EastLake Hl GDP was approved in 1990. The Final EIR
(#89-9) for EastLake 111, Olympic Training Center was prepared in October 1989 and
included the SPA Plan for the OTC. It also included the GDP for all of EastLake III as
well as a proposal to annex EastLake llI and the Trails (EastLake H) from the
unincorporated area of San Diego County into the City of Chula Vista.
The original GDP for EastLake llI proposed a mixed-use development with residential,
industrial, commercial, public-quasi public, parks and recreation, and open space uses. At
that time, the EastLake III GDP project was determined to have cumulatively significant
impacts that could not be fully mitigated for public services and utilities (water supply,
sewer treatment capacity, and nonrenewable energy resources), visual resources (views
from surrounding areas), and air quality (primarily from automobile emissions). Other
impacts were determined to be below a level of sigTdficance either prior to or after
implementation of mitigation measures.
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 Subsequent EIR for the project (EIR #01-01), including
appendixes and technical reports;
· All reports. applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documents
prepared by the planning consultant. the project applicant, the environmental
9
consultant, the EastLake Company, and the City of Chula Vista that are before the
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
· All documents and comments and correspondence submitted by members of the
public and public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on
the EIR for the project;
* All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the
public in connection with this project, up through the close of the public hearing on
July 27, 2001.
· 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, with respect to this project or the EIR for the project;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public hearings for this project;
· All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with this
project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
· Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which the members of the
City Council consider regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws
and regulations, and including but not Iimited 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 (El:R 81-3)
- EastLake llFOlympic Training Center Final EIR (89-9)
- EastLake Trails/Greens Replanning ProFaro, Final SEIR (97-04); and
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 at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California, 9 1910.
10
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision
on the EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning ProFam, even if not every document was
formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as pan of the City files generated in
connection with the EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Pro~am. 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 le~slative decisions with which
the City Council was aware in approving the EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning
Program. (See Ci.ty of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Forenation Commission (1978) 76
Cal. App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal.Rptr. 620].) Other
documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then
provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form pan of the
underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of
EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Pro~am. (See Pub. Resources Code, section
21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris h~dustries v. CiO, Council qf Cit3., of San Jose
(1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Socie.ry, bic. v.
Coun~ of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by
CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the
si~,mificant 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 pan, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, section
21081, sub& (a); CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (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
11
as identified in the final EIR."/CEQA Guidelines, section 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, section 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The
third potential conclusion is that "[s]peci~c economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highl3~ trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, section 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 technolo~cal factors." CEQA-Guidelines section 15364 adds
another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citiz. ens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supen, isors CGoleta It') (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal.RplT. 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 technolo~cal 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 alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code. section 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 "m~onal 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.
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, section 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, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code,
section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he wisdom of
approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of
interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it
simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52
Cal.3d 553,576.)
VII.
LEGAL EPI~ECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the SEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible
13
parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "'
"Applicant"), 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.
VHI.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the
City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the
applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identified below. The program is described in the document entitled EastLake Woods ._.
and Vistas Replanning Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The MMRP
will remain available for public review during the compliance period.
SIGNIFICANT EPHzCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Subsequent 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 sig'ni~cant irreversible environmental changes to the following
issues: land use, transportation/traffic, biolo~cal resources, hydrology/drainage,
landfog alteration/visual quality, geology/geolo~c hazards, noise, air quality. cultural/
paleontolo~4cal resources, and public facilities. These significant environmental changes
or impacts are discussed in Subsequent EIR 01-01 in Table 1-3 on pages 9-54 and in
Chapter 4.0, pages 97-416.
The SEIR also discusses the Panhandle site at the more conceptual, progarnmatic GDP "
level under a separate subheading because no proposed SPA Plan for the property is
under consideration at this time and the specific uses of the site are not yet known. As
14
such, future plans and applications to develop the Panhandle site will be subject to a more
comprehensive CEQA review and will be subject to further. more specific mitigation
measures as necessary. These Findings of Fact maintain that format and discuss the
Panhandle site under a separate heading in the following discussions.
Land Use
Panhandle Site
Significant land use impacts may result at the time development plans are proposed
resulting from potential inconsistencies with the goals and objectives of the Eastern
Territories Area Plan and MSCP Subarea Plan.
Transportation/Traffic
Woods and Vistas
Direct project impacts to roadways would occur on Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to
Hunte Parkway and on Otay Lakes Road from H Street to Telegaph Canyon Road.
Planned activity centers in the Woods and Vistas may be associated with access hazards
or circulation impediments.
An analysis was conducted of the three access points to the Woods and the Ol.vmpic
Parkway and Otay Lakes Road access points to the Vistas. Assuming the driveways are
unsignalized, four of the five driveways are calculated to operate at LOS F.
Panhandle Site
Traffic generated by future development may significantly impact the circulation system.
SecondaD' Impacts Associated with Off-Site D'affic Mitigation Improvements
The off-site traffic improvements could create secondary impacts associated with land
use, biological resources, construction-related water quality impacts, construction-related
traffic impacts (potential closures, traffic delays, and hazards), aesthetics/landform
alteration, noise, and culturalJpaleontolo~cal resources.
Biolo~cal Resources -..
Woods and lqstas
Development of the EastLake III project site would impact disturbed Diegan coastal sage
scrub, non-native Fassland, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, disturbed wetland,
and freshwater marsh. Additional impacts could occur to disturbed habitat, ornamental
vegetation, and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. for the off-site
improvements to Otay Lakes Road, east of the Woods parcel.
Development of the EastLake HI project site would impact '32 Otay tarplants and
construction activities could result in significant impacts to raptors. Impacts from
construction noise to least Bell's vireo would also be significant. Indirect impacts may
occur on the City of San Diego "Cornerstone Lands" and the Chula Vista MSCP preserve
lands adjacent to the project site.
Panhandle Site
Development of the Panhandle site may cause significant impacts to existing biolo~cal
resources on- and off-site, including disturbed coastal sage scrub, non-weftand
jurisdictional waters and potential weftands (i.e., vernal pools). Indirect impacts may
occur on the City of San Diego "Cornerstone Lands" and the Chula Vista MSCP preserve
lands adjacent to the project site.
Hvdrolo~v/Dralnage
Woods and Vistas
Under the developed site conditions, potentially significant water quality impacts could
result from ranoff flowing across impervious surfaces as well as landscaped areas
containing pollutants. Additional impacts to water quality may result from the use of
reclaimed water for on-site irrigation of parks and nonresidential landscape.
In order to avoid impacts to the Otay Reservoirs and potable water supplies the project
proposes to divert surface flows from approximately 243 acres to the Salt Creek Basin.
Approximately 60.4 acres of undisturbed natural open space and landscaped,
manufactured slopes within the Woods and Vistas would continue to drain into Otay
Reservoirs. The vegetation used in landscaping of the manufactured slope will serve as a
natural filter for the limited quantity of ranoff to the reservoirs. The vegetation will be
drought tolerant, the majority of which will be native. Pesticides and fertilizers would not
be used on these slopes to further protect the water quality of the reservoirs
I6
Development of the proposed project could cause an increase in the amount of runoff and
have potentially significant hydrolo~c impacts on downstream drainage facilities during
the t00-year, 50-year, and 10-year storm events. in addition, the proposed diversion
from the Vistas neighborhood may exceed the capacity of the existing Olympic Parkway
storm drain system, which would be a significant impact if storm water ranoff is not
directed beyond the Olympic Parkway system to the existing Salt Creek outfall(s) located
on-site.
Groundwater seepage, if detected in site-specific testing once development plans have
been finalized, could create a significant impact.
Panhandle Site
Future development could cause an increase in the amount of runoff and have potentially
sigTdficant impacts on downstream drainage facilities.
Groundwater seepage, if detected in site-specific testing once development plans have
been finalized, could create a significant impact on the Panhandle site.
Landform Alteration/Visual Quality
Woods and Vistas
The proposed development would alter existing landforms and the visual characteristics
of the site through grading, excavation of the ridge tops~ and in-filling of canyons. Open
expanses of rolling hills used for agricultural purposes would be developed with
residential, public/quasi-public, and commercial areas separated by open space.
Panhandle Site
Development of the Panhandle site, depending on the proposed use, may significantly
impact the existing landforms and visual characteristics of the site as well as affect views
from surrounding areas.
Geolo~v/Geolo_,zic Hazards
Woods and Vistas
Significant impacts could result from development on compressible and expansive soils.
The highly expansive nature of Diablo clays, which predominate on the project site,
makes them unsuitable for foundation supports. Alluvial and colluvial deposits in the
drainage courses could undergo liquefaction.
17
Unstable conditions may result from grading in axeas with cut or underlying fill slopes.
Slope faces associated with clay beds may also become unstable due to an increased
potential for seepage caused by migration of perched groundwater.
Panhandle Site
Significant impacts could result from project development on compressible and
expansive soils if further investigation determines their presence on-site. Potential
impacts could also result from geologic hazards.
Noise
Woods and Vistas
Traffic on Mc!jor Roadways
The proposed project would be affected by traffic noise generated on Otay Lakes Road, a
portion of Hunte Parkway, and Olympic Parkway. The traffic on these streets could
generate noise levels ~eater than 65 CNEL, which is the City's residential exterior
standard, at ~ound-level sensitive receivers on a limited portion of the project site.
Construction Noise
If least Bell's vireo axe present in the habitat north of Otay Lakes Road during project
construction, excessive construction noise (60 decibels or more) at any least Bell's vireo
nest site during the breeding season would be considered a significant impact.
Traffic on b~ten~al Roadways
interior noise levels at the residential pads adjacent to Street "P" within the Vistas site
could exceed the City's 45 CNEL residential interior noise standard resulting in a
significant noise impact.
Noise Generated By Non-Residential Uses
Because the specific uses are not 'known, development of the commercial areas could
result in significant noise impacts if those uses were to violate the Noise Ordinance.
Panhandle Site
Significant noise impacts from construction, project operations, and/or traffic-related
noise could result if the Panhandle site is developed for public/quasi-public use or low
density residential uses.
18
Air Quality
Woods and Vistas
Cot!fozTnance with Regional Plans
The project is not consistent with the ~owth assumptions in the RAQS, and therefore, the
proposed project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the RAQS.
Implementation of the proposed project could therefore result in significant air emissions
to the air basin that are not currently planned for.
Project Operations Emissions
Project operations-related emissions, including those from stationary and mobile sources,
are projected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Construction Emissions
The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of construction
equipment exhaust emissions, potentially resulting in a significant air quality impact.
Construction activities are projected to generate sufficient quantities of fugitive dust to
create a significant impact.
Panhandle Site
Construction on the Panhandle site and project operations could significanfiy impact air
quality depending on the proposed land use.
Cultural Resources
Woods and Vistas
The proposed development of the Woods parcel would result in direct and indirect
impacts to CA-SDI-7976.
Panhandle Site
The four lithic scatter sites at the Panhandle have not been evaluated for cultural resource
si~oTdficance under CEQA, and therefore the impact is considered significant.
Paleontolo,oical Resources
Woods and Vistas
Areas of the Otay Formation may be exposed during grading and construction activities.
Exposure of this formation would likely disturb fossil remains in the Vistas and Woods.
Panhandle Site
Areas of the Otay Formation may be exposed during grading and construction activities.
Exposure of this formation would likely disturb fossil remains in the Panhandle site.
Public Facilities
POTABLE WATER
lA'bods and Vistas
The proposed project places additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities,
which could be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the
project' s anticipated growth ..... -
Panhandle Site
Development of the Panhandle site would result in an incremental increase in water
demand, thereby potentially impacting water storage and conveyance facilities.
RECYCLED VVATER
Woods and Vistas
The proposed project places additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities,
which could be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the
project' s anticipated growth.
Panhandle Site
Development of the Panhandle site would incrementally increase the demand for recycled
water, thereby potentially impacting recycled water storage and conveyance facilities.
2O
SE~qER
Woods and Vistas
Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in sewage
generation. This increase could cause a significant impact if construction of new
infrastructure does not coincide with the project's anticipated development. If the Salt
Creek Interceptor is not completed prior to consideration of the tentative map, wastewater
shall be temporarily pumped to facilities in Telegaph Canyon and/or Pog~ Canyon.
Panhandle Site
Wastewater generation from development of the Panhandle site would require
conveyance facilities and potentially impact the City's sewer system and treatment
capacity.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Panhandle Site
If the Panhandle site is developed with low density residential uses. potentially
significant impacts to park and recreation facilities could occur.
POLICE
Woods and Vistas
The project would cause an incremental increase in calls for police services and
contribute to an increase in response time for the Chula Vista Police Department.
Panhandle Site
Development of the Panhandle site could cause an incremental increase in calls for police
services and contribute to an increase in response time for the Chula Vista Police
Department.
FIE
Woods and Vistas
The project would increase the demand for fire services and could contribute to an
increase in response time for the Fire Department.
21
ParThandle Site
The project would increase the demand for fire services and could contribute to an
increase in response time for the Fire Department.
The majority of the impacts presented above can be reduced below a level of significance
with the mitigation measures described in the SEIR and below. However, certain of the
impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided with mitigation; but, as described in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that the
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. The following
subsections describe specific impacts, setting forth the reasons why they are significant
and where applicable, unavoidable, the mitigation measures, and/or why the mitigation
measures proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other
considerations. All page numbers following the impacts refer to pages from the SEIR.
A. LAND USE
Standards of Significance:
A significant land use impact is identified if the project could:
· Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project;
· Directly conflict with existing or planned land use;
· Physically divide an established community;
· Remove existing community elements that have been identified by the community
as important in defining community character; or
· Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan
Impact:
· There is the potential for significant land use impacts at the time development
plans are proposed for the Panhandle site because consistency with city and
redohal plans is based on future compliance with the goals and objectives of
these plans. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.1, pp. 118-119]
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
22
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Implementation of the project would result in the conversion of
undeveloped land, currently designated as Park and Recreation, from that historically
used for agricultural production to that desi~ated as a Public/Quasi-Public use area or, in
the alternative, Low Density Residential use. The specific uses of the 45-acre site have
not been finally proposed, although it may be included in the future "University SPA" or
it may be developed with up to 90 single-family dwellings. It is anticipated that
development of the Panhandle site under either designation wilt be consistent with the
policies and guidelines in both the Eastern Territories Area Plan and the Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. However, because it is premature
to prepare detailed development plans for the Panhandle, the land use re-designation is
considered a program level action. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish mandatory
performance criteria to ensure that future planning of the Panhandle at the project level
will not result in conflicts with or si~-mificant impacts to the Eastern Territories Area Plan
and MSCP. [See discussion in SEIR, Section 4.1, pp. 118-119.]
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEER, Subchapter 4.1, page 120]
4.1.5.1 At the time detailed development plans are proposed for the Panhandle
site, conformance with adopted goals and objectives of the Eastern
Territories Area Plan and MSCP Subarea Plan shall be required as a
condition of project approval.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
B. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Standards of Significance:
Near-Term (Study Horizon Year 0-4/Pre-Year 2005)
Intersections
A) Significant direct project impact results if both the following criteria are met:
1 ) LOS E or LOS F.
2) Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of entering volume.
23
B ) Cumulative impact results if only #1 is met.
Street Segments
If ADT methodology indicates acceptable LOS C or better conditions, there is no impact.
If ADT methodology indicates LOS D, E, or F, the Growth Management Oversight
Committee method should be utilized according to the following criteria.
A) Significant direct project impact results if the following criteria are met:
1 ) LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F for 1 hour.
2) Project trips compromise 5% or more of segment volume.
3) Project adds ~eater than 800 ADT to segments.
B ) Si~i~cant cumulative impact results if only #i is met.
Freeways
A) Significant direct project impact results if both the following criteria are met:
1 ) LOS E or LOS F.
2) Project constitutes 5 percent or more of the total forecasted ADT on that
freeway segment.
B ) Sig-nificant cumulative impact results if only #1 is met.
Long-Term (Year 2005 and Later)
bitersections
Direct project impact if both the following criteria are met:
1 ) LOS E or LOS F.
2) Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
B) Cumulative impact is only #1 is met.
Street Segments
Use the ADT methodology.
24
A) Direct project impact results if all three of the following criteria are met:
1 ) LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F.
2) Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of total segment volume.
3) Project adds ~eater than 800 ADT to the seg'ment.
B/ Cumulative impact results if only #t is met. However. if the intersections along a
LOS D or E operating segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact
is considered not significant because intersection analysis is more indicative of
actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. ff the segment
level of service is LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of the intersection
LOS. The impact is direct if the project is responsible for over 5 percent of U'affic
contribution and the impact is cumulative if the project is responsible for less than
5 percent of traffic contribution.
C) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in "A" above occurs at
study horizon year 10 or later, and is off-site and not adjacent to the project, the
impact is considered cumulative.
D) In the event a direct identified project specific impact in "A" above occurs at
study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is off-site and not adjacent to this
project, but the property immediately adjacent to the project specific impact is
also proposed to be developed in approximately the same time frame, an
additional analysis may be required to determine whether or not the project-
specific impact would still occur if the development of the adjacent property does
not occur. If the additional analysis concludes that the project specific impact is
no longer a direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative.
Freeways
A) Direct project impact if both the following criteria are met:
1 ) LOS E or LOS F.
2) Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway
se~'nent.
B) Cumulative impact if only #1 is met.
25
Impact:
·Direct project impacts to roadways would occur on Olympic Parkway from SR~
125 to Hunte Parkway. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, pp. 161.169]
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
si~ificance.
Explanation: The street segment was assessed by comparing the current street segment
volume to the theoretical capacity (v/c) of the roadway. Olympic Parkway from SR-125
to Hunte Parkway will operate at LOS F for one or more hours as a result of project
traffic. In addition, project trips will compromise 5% or 'more of segment volume and the
project adds ~eater than 800 ADT to the se~mnent. (The total external trip generation for
the Woods and Vistas under the proposed land uses yields 23.940 average daily trips
(ADT)). Widening this segment of Olympic Parkway to six lanes would accommodate
the additional project traffic volume.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 204]
4.2.5.1 The applicant shall construct this portion of the Olympic Parkway to six-
lane prime arterial standards at the time the first project dwelling unit is
constructed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
· Direct project impacts to roadways would occur on Otay Lakes Road from H
SWeet to Telegaph Canyon Road. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, pp. 161,169]
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 sig-nificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR, below a level of
sigmificance.
Explanation: The street segment was assessed by comparing the current street segrnent
volume to the theoretical capacity of the roadway. Otay Lakes Road from H Street to
Telegraph Canyon Road will operate at LOS D for two or more hours and LOS E and F
for one or more hours as a result of project traffic. In addition, project trips will
26
compromise 5% or more of segment volume and the project adds geater than 800 ADT
to the segment. (The total external trip generation for the Woods and Vistas under the
proposed land uses yields 23,940 ADT.) Widening this portion of Otay Lakes Road or
constructing intersection improvements would accommodate project traffic x'olume.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 204]
4.2.5.2ff development exceeds 1,259 dwelling units without SR-125, the
applicant shall widen this portion of Otay Lakes Road to six lanes or
construct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes Road, which provides
additional capacity to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
· Planned activity centers in the Woods and Vistas, such as the elementary and
middle schools, park and recreation areas, and the commercial district, may
experience access hazards or circulation impediments. These conditions could
pose significant traffic impacts. [SEll>,, Subchapter 4.2, pp. 195-196]
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: The proposed project includes several uses that may result in site-specific
traffic and circulation issues: two schools (elementary and middle school), a public park,
a private recreation area, a community purpose facility (which may support baseball
fields), and the retail and tourist commercial uses in the southern portion of the Vistas.
Because site plans have not been drafted for any of these uses, site-specific impacts
cannot be determined at this time. Potential impacts that are common to these types of
uses, however, can be anticipated and site planning can minimize these potential impacts.
Traffic and circulation issues associated with elementary and middle schools relate to
student pick-up/drop-off, parking, and vehicle and pedestrian access. Park and recreation
areas also need sufficient parking and safe access. The primary traffic concerns
pertaining to commercial areas are safe and efficient vehicle access from the street, and
protection of shoppers traveling via alternative transportation modes.
27
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, pp. 205-206]. Revisions to mitigation measures 4.2.5.10 and
4.2.5.11, which strengthen the effectiveness of the measures by adding performance
standards, are reflected in replacement pages for the Final SEIR and MMRP.
4.2.5.10 All non-residential projects (with the exception of schools) shall comply
with the City's GMOC standards and other applicable traffic policies
and standards. The City En~neer shall review all site plans for
nonresidential uses, (with the exception of schools), and require a
project-specific traffic study if the project has the potential for resulting
in traffic hazards or circulation impacts. Recommendations to reduce
potentially si~nificant impacts, pursuant to the GMOC standards and
City traffic standards and policies, shall be incorporated into the site
plan and required as a condition of project approval.
4.2.5.11 Potential traffic impacts resulting from development and operation of the
schools shall be reviewed by the respective school districts when
specific projects are under consideration. Any street improvements shall
be coordinated with the City and shall comply with applicable City street
standards and policies. The City shall request review of all draft plans.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than sig-nificant
Impact:
An analysis was conducted of the three access points to the WoOds (one each on
Proctor Valley Road. Hunte Parkway, and Otay Lakes Road) and the Olympic
Parkway and Otay Lakes Road access points to the Vistas. Assuming the
driveways are unsignalized, four of the five driveways are calculated to operate at
LOS F, which is considered a significant impact. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page
197]
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: The project includes five access points from existing or future roads. As
indicated in the PFFP, some of the access points are necessary to provide adequate traffic
circulation in and out of the project. The Proctor Valley Road access point, however, will
serve as a convenience only because Proctor Valley Road is not required by this project
for either congestion management nor for access by emergency services. Therefore, the
28
access point will be installed only if and when Proctor Valley Road is constructed as
required by other projects. The preliminary traffic analysis demonstrated that four of
these five access points would suffer less than acceptable levels of service if the
intersections at those planned access points are not signalized and fail to include turning
lanes. A preliminary review of forecasted traffic volumes for the project access points
indicate that single left-turn lanes could be provided to in~ess each access point and
single left-turn and right-turn lanes could be provided to e~ess each access point.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 206] Revisions to mitigation measures 4.2.5.12, 4.2.5.13,
and 4.2.5.14, which clarify application of the mitigation, are reflected in replacement
pages for the Final SEIR and MMRP.
4.2.5.12 Prior to approval of the first final map, which triggers the installation of
the related street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an
a~eement to construct and secure a fully activated traffic signal
including interconnected wiring at the following intersections:
a) Proctor Valley Road and Woods Entry Street (between WR-1 and
WR-3) (Note: EastLake will pay for the construction of Proctor
Valley Road improvements, along the frontage of the project
extending from the weste~y subdivision boundary to Northwoods
Drive, and the City may use the payment as the City deems
appropriate to acquire completed portions and/or pay directly for
the construction of the Proctor Valley Road improvements. )
b) Hunte Parkway and Woods Entry (between WR-6 and WR-7)
c) Hunte Parkway and Woods Entry Street (between PQ-2 and WR-
4)
d) Otay Lakes Road and Woods Entry Street (adjacent to PQ-3)
e) Otay Lakes Road and Vistas Entry Street (between VR-1 and VR-
5)
f) Otay Lakes Road and Wueste Road
g) Olympic Parkway and Vistas Entry Street (between VR-4 and VR-
10)
h) Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road (adjacent to C-2)
29
i) Wueste Road and Vistas Entry Road (adjacent to Park P-1 )
4.2.5.13 With the exception of the Proctor Valley Road access point, the
applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals in
conjunction with the improvement plans for the related street. The
developer shall install under~ound improvements, standards and
luminaries in conjunction with the construction of the applicable street
improvements. In addition, the applicant shall install mast arms, signal
heads, and associated equipment when traffic signals warrant as
determined by the City Engineer.
4.2.5.14 The applicant shall provide single lefi-tum lanes to in~ess each access
point, with the exception of the Proctor Valley Road access point, and
single left- and right-turn lanes shall b~ provided to egress each access
point.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
Traffic generated by future development may significantly impact the circulation
system. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 199]
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 si~onificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR, to below a level of
sigrdficance.
Ex~planation: Development of the Panhandle site is expected to generate traffic, with
volume being dependent on its final designatiofi for public/quasi-public or residential use.
Increased traffic will affect the surrounding circulation system and requires additional
analysis. The trip generation associated with the 90-unit residential use project would
generate approximately 900 ADT. The trip generation associated with Public/Quasi-
Public uses would be approximately 2,700 ADT based on a trip rate of 60 ADT per acre.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 207]
4.2.5.15 Prior to the approval of any detailed development plans for the
Panhandle site, a detailed traffic study shall be conducted, including a
3O
detailed impact analysis. Specific mitigation measures for traffic
impacts associated with the Panhandle site shall be required at that time
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including any improvements
related to any necessary roadway segments, intersections, and ingress-
egress to reduce impacts to below a level of significance and to comply
with the City's GMOC standards.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Seconda~3' Impacts Associated with Off-Site Traffic Mitigation Improvements
Impact:
· The off-site traffic improvements to Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road
could create secondary impacts associated with land use, biological resources,
construction-related water quality impacts, construction-related traffic impacts
(potential land closures, traffic delays, and hazards), aesthetics/landform
alteration, noise, and culturalJpaleontological resoumes. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2,
pp. 207-209]
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: The off-site traffic improvements for direct and cumulative traffic impacts
could create secondary impacts associated with land use, biological resources,
construction-related water quality impacts, construction-related traffic impacts (potential
land closures, traffic delays, and hazards), aesthetics/landform alteration, noise, and
cultural/paleontological resources. Off-site improvements, including road widening could
create landform alteration impacts and increased noise impacts for the existing uses~
especially houses with frontage on the roadway by placing the noise source closer to the
homes. In addition, grading to widen the roadways could create impacts to
culmral/paleontological resources and construction-related water quality and traffic
impacts. Although these off-site roadway improvements have not been designed or
engineered, program-level mitigation requirements are identified below to reduce the
impacts to below a level of significance at the time the improvements are designed.
Depending on the detailed design of the off-site traffic improvements additional
environmental review may be required.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, pp. 209-2 i0]
3i
The proFaro-level mitigation measures include the following:
4.2.5.16 Prior to the approval of the roadway improvement project, a biolo~cal
reconnaissance based on detailed grading and design plans shall be
conducted to document any impacts to sensitive biological habitats and
species. Any impacts to sensitive biolo~cal habitats shall be mitigated
pursuant to the mitigation ratios described in the City of Chula Vista
Subarea Plan.
4.2.5.17 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the roadway improve-
ment, a detailed acoustical study for the affected roadway segment shall
be prepared to determine the need for any noise attenuation measures
(such as setbacks, walls, and berms) for adjacent noise sensitive land
uses (e.g., residential areas).
4.2.5.18 Prior to the approval of the design plans for the roadway improvements,
a detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared to ensure that potential
aesthetic impacts associated with any grading necessary for the
improvement are mitigated.
4.2.5.19 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval,
monitoring of any grading for the presence of cultural and
paleontological resources shall be required. If such resources are
encountered during the Fading operations, the protocol described in
section 4.9 of this EIR shall be required.
4.2.5.20 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval,
applicable construction-related water quality mitigation measures shall
be required by the City Engineer. These hydrology and water quality
mitigation measures are described in section 4.4 of this EIR
4.2.5.21 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval,
preparation of a traffic control plan for delays and hazards associated
with construction impacts shall be prepared and approved by the City
En~neer.
For the widening of Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegaph Canyon Road, the
following mitigation measure shall be required:
4.2.5.22 Plans prepared for the improvement of Otay Lakes Road between H
Street and Tele~aph Canyon Road shall be designed to avoid impacts to -*
the church library.
32
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on biolo~cal resoumes if it:
· Has an adverse or substantially adverse impact, either directly or indirectly through
habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
stares species in local or redonat plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
· Has a substantial adverse impact to any wetland riparian resource protected under
California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 or the Clean Water Act Section 404 or
any other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service;
· Conflict with the adjacency guidelines and policies of the City' s MSCP;
· Has a substantial impact on the movement of any resident or miFatory fish or
wildlife species or with established resident or mi~atory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of wildlife nursery sites; or
· Conflicts with the provisions of adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NatUral
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, re~onal, or state habitat
conservation plan or any other approved state, re~onal, or local conservation plan.
Sensitive Plant Cotnmunities
Impact:
· Development of the EastLake 1311 project site would adversely affect sensitive
plant cormmunities. [SEIZR, Subchapter 4.3. page 244]
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: Development of the project site, including Fading and other construction
activities, would impact 1.5 acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, 6.55 acres of
33
non-native grassland, 0.1 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.2 acre of mule fat scrub, 0.14
acre of disturbed wetland, and 0.02 acre of freshwater marsh. Additional impacts could
occur to 12.7 acres of disturbed habitat, 1.1 acre of ornamental vegetation, and
approximately 1,140 linear feet (0.05 acre) of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. for the off-site improvements to Otay Lakes Road, east of the Woods parcel.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4,3, pp. 248-249]
As a condition of the future tentative map approval for the Woods and Vistas parcels and
off-site Otay Lakes Road improvements, the following mitigation measures would be
required:
4.3.5.1 Diegan coastal sage scrub, a Tier 121 plant community located outside the
MSCP preserve lands and mitigated inside the MSCP preserve lands is at a
ratio of 1:1. If mitigated outside the MSCP preserve lands, a 1.5:1
mitigation ratio is required. Thus, the project applicant shall provide
mitigation of 1.5 to 2.25 acres of coastal gage scrub depending on the
location of the mitigation site. These mitigation ratios for coastal sage
scrub shall apply to the project whether or not the MSCP Implementing
Agreement is in place at the time of issuance of grading permits.
At the time a tentative map is processed, the applicant shall prepare and
obtain approval of a conceptual mitigation plan for Diegan coastal sage
scrub. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the cutting or removal
of natural vegetation, whichever comes first, the project applicant shall
obtain approval of a detailed mitigation plan and obtain all necessary
permits.
The applicant shall provide mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub by
a combination of on-site preservation (1.2 acres is being preserved on-
site), restoration of similar habitat on-site, or purchase of similar habitat
from a mitigation bank.
4.3.5.2 Mitigation for impacts to non-native ~assland, a Tier III plant community,
located outside the MSCP preserve lands and mitigated inside the MSCP
preserve lands, is at a ratio of 0.5:1. If mitigated outside the MSCP
preserve lands, a 1:1 mitigation ratio is required. The applicant shall
mitigate between 3.28 acres to 6.55 acres, depending on the location of the
mitigation site. These mitigation ratios for non-native grassland shall .-.
apply to the project whether or not the MSCP Implementing Agreement is
in place at the time of issuance of grading permits.
34
Preparation and approval of a detailed mitigation plan for non-native
grassland shall be required at the time a tentative map is processed. Prior
to the issuance of a grading permit or clearing and grubbing permit,
whichever comes first, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary.
permits.
As an option, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
prepare and bond for the implementation of a non-native grassland
restoration plan approved by the City of Chula Vista for impacts to non-
native grassland. The restoration plan shall occur concurrent with project
grading.
4.3.5.3 The City of Chula Vista requires that impacts to weftands be avoided to
the maximum extent possible. When avoidance is not feasible, the
applicant shall be required to minimize impacts to the greatest extent
possible and mitigate for loss of wetland habitat, including weftand habitat
creation of at least a 1:1 ratio. To mitigate impacts to weftands and non-
weftand jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the following conditions would
be required as a condition of the future tentative map approval for the
Woods and Vistas parcels and off-site Otay Lakes Road improvements:
a) As a condition of tentative map approval the applicant shall obtain a
section 404 permit from USACE, a standard or conditional 401
Certificate from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a
Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG (section 1603) for
impacts to wetlands and non-weftand jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
both on-site and off-site.
b) Impacts to 0.1 acre of southern willow scrub shall require mitigation at
a ratio of 3:1 for a total of 0.3 acre of southern willow scrub
mitigation. If the southern willow scrub that is affected is occupied by
least Bell's vireo, the mitigation could range from 3:1 to 5:1 as
determined by USACE and CDFG federal section 404 and state 1603
permitting processes respectively. Impacts to 0.17 acre of mule fat
scrub and 0.02 acre of freshwater marsh shall require mitigation at a
ratio of 2:1 for a total of 0.38 acre of mitigation for these impacts.
Also, a ratio of 1:1 is required for impacts to 0.14 acre of disturbed
weftand. (Mitigation for the 0.14 acre of non-weftand jurisdictional
waters will be subject to final determination by the USACE and
CDFG.) Total mitigation for wetland impacts is 0.96 acre as shown in
SEIR Table 4.3-8. Mitigation ratios are subject to approval by USACE
and CDFG. As currently proposed, mitigation for impacts to wetlands
would occur at the wetland restoration site located within Salt Creek
35
on the east side of Hunte Parkway immediately upstream of the
detention basin. Prior to approval of the tentative map, the exact
location and size of the wetland restoration area shall be determined
and a weftand restoration plan shall be prepared and approved in
conjunction with the 404 and 1603 permitting process.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Sensitive Plants
Impact:
· Development of the EastLake HI project site would adversely affect sensitive
plants. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.3, page 244]
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: Development of the EastLake HI project site. including Fading and other
construction activities will adversely affect Otay tarplant. The grading of the proposed
project will impact 24 individuals located on the eastern edge of the agricultural field on
the Woods parcel. An additional 8 individuals will be indirectly impacted due to their
proximity to development. This impact to 32 Otay tarplant is approximately three percent
of the on*site population. Under the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take, an impact to 20
percent of the Otay tarplant is permitted provided that the impacts can be demonstrated as
unavoidable pursuant to Sections 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.3.6 of the draft Chula Vista Subarea
Plan. Draft equivalency findings are required for the take of narrow endemic plant
species (i.e., Otay tarplant) pursuant to the provisions of the City's Subarea Plan. These
findings have been submitted to the City and must be approved in order for take of
narrow endemic plant species.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.3, page 2501
As a condition of the future tentative map approval for the Woods and Vistas parcels, the
following mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive plants would be required.
4.3.5.4 As a condition of any tentative map approval, the applicant is required to
mitigate impacts to a minimum of 32 Otay tarplant individuals at a 3:1
ratio. The actual number of tarplant individuals to be mitigated shall be
36
based on the results of a spring survey conducted prior to issuance of any
Fading permit or the clearing, grubbing, cutting or removal of vegetation,
whichever comes first., In no event shall mitigation be based on less than
32 individuals. The Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit would allow
impacts to occur up to 20 percent of the on-site population. Findings of
Equivalency, as defined in the draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan, have been
prepared for consideration by the City Council. Findings of Equivalency
require the City to demonstrat~ that compensation (mitigation) "would
result in a Preserve design for the species of concern that is functionally
equivalent to the Preserve design that would occur in the absence of the
identified impact." ff the City has not acquired take authorization at the
time of tentative map approval, federal and state take permits pursuant to
the federal and state Endangered Species Acts must be obtained from
USFWS and CDFG for impacts to listed species. If the MSCP
Implementing A~eement is not in place at the time of tentative map
approval, a 4:1 mitigation ratio for Otay tarplant shall be required.
Preparation and approval of a detailed mitigation plan shall be required at
the time a tentative map is processed. Prior to the issuance of a gading
permit or clearing and grubbing permit, whichever comes first, the project
applicant shall obtain all necessary permits.
The applicant shall also implement a final restoration and long-term
management progam on the existing agricultural land supporting Otay
tarplant. The final restoration plan shall be developed and approved prior
to gading permit approval. The final restoration plan shall describe soil
salvage and seed collection procedures, habitat enhancement, maintenance
and monitoring tasks, and success criteria for the existing population and
recovered habitat. A conceptual restoration and management plan has been
developed and is provided as an attachment to Appendix C4 in the SEIR.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Sensitive Wildlife
Impact:
· Construction activities could adversely affect sensitive wildlife. [SEIR,
Subchapter 4.3, pp. 244-245]
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
37
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of --
significance.
Explanation: Construction activities, including eucalyptus and pepper tree removal and
Fading could adversely affect raptors. Although no raptor nests were observed on the
site, there is a potential for raptors to nest in the eucalyptus trees during the nesting
season of February 1 to August 30. All active raptor nests are protected under the Fish
and Game Code Section 3503.5.Construction noise could also adversely affect least
Bell's vireo. If construction occurs during the breeding season of the least Betl's vireo
(March 15 to September 15), there may be a loss of active nests for this species due to
excessive noise. Excessive noise is considered 60 decibels at the nest site.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.3, pp. 250-251 ]
To mitigate impacts to sensitive wildlife the following conditions would be required as a
condition of the future tentative map approval for the Woods and Vistas parcels:
43.5.5 ff the City has not acquired take authorization at the time of tentative map
approval for the Woods and Vistas, the applicant may be required to -
proceed with a Section 7 consultation with USFWS pursuant to the
permitting process under the Endangered Species Act for the removal of
least Bell's vireo occupied southern willow scrub. A pre-construction
presence/absence survey to locate nesting least Bell's vireo and to measure
noise levels near the nest site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
The pre-conslruction survey shall extend beyond the project footprint and
shall be targeted for active nest of any sensitive bird species. The survey
shall encompass suitable habitat surrounding the project footprint within
300 feet of the site during breeding season. In addition, if there are active
nests, construction noise within 500 feet of an occupied least Bell's vireo
nest shall not exceed 60 decibels during its breeding season of March 15
to September 15. Also, direct take of nests, eggs, or birds shall be avoided.
A biological monitor shall be present if construction activities would occur
during the least Bell~s vireo breeding season in order to minimize impacts
to this species.
4.3.5°6 The applicant shall avoid removal of all on-site eucalyptus trees and the
pepper trees in the off-site Otay Lakes Road improvement area during the
raptor breeding season of February 1 to August 30 (i.e., grading should
occur between September 1 and January 31). If this is not possible, the
applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting American
kestrels, Cooper's hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and red-tailed hawks (or
38
other raptors) required to avoid impacts to these species. If an active raptor
nest is located, the applicant shall flag the nest area and provide a 300-foot
buffer zone. The applicant shall not allow construction activity within this
300-foot buffer area until the nest has been vacated.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
MSCP Prese~,e Lands and City of San Diego Cornerstone Lands
Impact:
The City of San Diego "Cornerstone Lands" and the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve
Lands may be adversely affected by the proposed project. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.3,
page 245]
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: No MSCP preserve lands are on-site; however, the City of San Diego's
MSCP Multiple Habitat Planning Area is directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of
each parcel. Upper and lower Otay Reservoirs are Cornerstone Lands within the City of
San Diego's MSCP Multiple Habitat Planning Area. The Cornerstone Lands provide a
natural open space corridor in the South Bay area and are incorporated into the City of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. The western boundary of the Panhandle parcel and the
southwestern boundary of the Vistas parcel is adjacent to a 100 percent conservation area
within the City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve. The EastLake I11 project is within the
Development Area as shown in Figure 2 of the adopted draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
Management issues for projects adjacent to the City of San Diego's Multiple Habitat
Planning Area or the City of Chula Vista's MSCP preserve lands are outlined in the
respective Subarea plans. Adjacency management issues discussed in the City of San
Diego's Subarea plan include drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, barriers, invasive species,
and brush management. The City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan addresses barriers,
drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasives, and buffers. Compliance with the adjacency
guidelines ensures that projects will not damage the integrity of the preserve system.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.3, pp. 251-252]
39
To mitigate potential impacts to adjacent City of Chula Vista Preserve Lands and City of
San Diego MSCP Cornerstone LandS, the following conditions would be required as a
condition of the future tentative map approval for the Woods and Vistas parcels:
43.5.7 In order to reduce indirect impacts on Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Lands
and City of San Diego Cornerstone Lands below a level of significance,
the following mitigation measures shall be a condition of any future
tentative map approval and shall be implemented prior to the issuance of
any Fading permit in accordance with land use adjacency guidelines
defined in the draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
· The proposed project shall comply with the City of Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Adjacency Management Issues (Section 6.3.2) regarding
drainage into the preserve. The Subarea Plan adjacency requirements
prohibit the release of materials that could deFade the ecosystems in
the preserve and mandate the maintenance of drainage facilities. The
Hydrology section (Chapter 4.4) also discusses impacts and mitigation
requirements that ensure that downstream impacts within Salt Creek
would be avoided.
· lllegal intrusions into the preserve (e.g., orchards, decks~ etc.) shall be
prevented and removed on an annual basis and on a complaint basis.
· In order to prevent illegal intrusions by domestic animals, humans, and
motorized and non-motorized vehicles into the preserve, fencing or
other methods aFeed upon by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego
shall be required.
· In order to avoid indirect drainage impacts to the preserve, the
EastLake m project will comply with the MSCP Subarea Adjacency
Management Issues regarding drainage (Section 6.3.2 of the MSCP
Subarea Plan).
· In order to protect wetland habitats in the Salt Creek watershed and
also allow for the establishment of landscaped areas adjacent to the
creek, limited use of fertilizers, herbicicles, and pesticicles in the
landscaped areas within and adjacent to Salt Creek shall only be
allowed during the landscape establishment period. Use of these
chemicals shall be prohibited after the establishment period unless
unusual circumstances warrant their use. In order to ensure that the
wetland buffer is maintained with minimal use of chemicals and in a
way that fosters establishment of a native plant community, the
maintenance and monitoring of the wetland buffer portion of the slope
40
shall be carried out by a qualified native landscape maintenance firm
and monitored by a qualified biolo~st. In addition. prior to the
approval of the tentative map, the landscape plans for the
manufactured slopes adjacent to Salt Creek shall be reviewed and
approved by the City to ensure that native plants are used on the that
portion of the slope between the wetland buffer area and the ~eenbelt
trail.
· All lighting on the site shall be directed away from the preserve or
shall be adequately shielded during construction activities. Residences
outline the periphery of the preserve on the Woods parcel; therefore,
lighting will not be a significant issue. Commercial development is
proposed for the Vistas parcel and lighting adjacent to these areas shall
be directed away from the preserve or shielded with native or non-
invasive plants, berms, or walls.
· Noise impacts adjacent to the preserve lands shall be minimized.
Berms or walls shall be installed adjacent to commercial areas and any
other use that may introduce noises that could impact or interfere with
wildlife utilization of the preserve. Construction activities will include
noise reduction measures or be conducted outside the breeding season
of sensitive bird species. In particular, grading resuictions shall be
implemented during the breeding season of the California gnatcatcher,
and if construction is proposed during the breeding season, noise
levels shall not exceed 60 dB(A) L~q within 500 feet of an active
gnatcatcher nest.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site may adversely affect biolo~cal resources
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.3, page 246]
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
sigTdficance.
Explanation: Development of the Panhandle site may cause significant impacts to
existing biolo~cal resources on- and off-site (City' s Preserve Lands and the City of San
41
Diego Cornerstone Lands), including disturbed coastal sage scrub, non-wet. land
jurisdictional waters, and potential wetlands (i.e., vernal pools).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.3, page 252]
4.3.5.8 Prior to the approval of any detailed development plans at the Panhandle
site, an updated biological survey and wetland delineation shall be
conducted and a detailed impact analysis prepared. Detailed mitigation
measures for impacts at the Panhandle site would be required at that time
and would consist of (1) application of mitigation ratios described above
for the Woods and Vistas parcels for impacts to coastal sage scrub, and
(2) compliance with the MSCP and adhei'ence to the adjacency guidelines
prescribed in the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and the City of San Diego
MSCP to reduce impacts to the City~s Preserve Lands and the City of San
Diego Cornerstone Lands to below a level of significance. This will
include conformance with adjacency guidelines such as drainage,
landscaping, noise, and domestic pets. In. addition, if impacts to non-
wetland jurisdictional waters and potential wetlands (i.e., vernal pools) are
identified on the Panhandle site based on a detailed wetland delineation, a
section 404 permit from USACE, a standard or conditional 401 Certificate
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed
Alteration Agreement from CDFG (section 1603) would be required.
4.3.5.9 If the City does not have take authorization prior to approval of tentative
maps, federal and state take permits pursuant to the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts must be obtained from USFWS and CDFG for
impacts to listed species.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
D. HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on hydrology, drainage, and water
quality if it:
· Violates water standards or water discharge requirements as set by the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board;
· Substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with
groundwater recharge;
· Substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
· Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff;
· Alteration of an existing 100-year floodplain or flood re,me;
· Subject existing or proposed people or structures to flooding due to alteration of an
existing 100-year floodplain;
· Potentially degrade the water quality associated with a sensitive wetland or
hydrolo~c resource; or
· Substantially degrade water quality.
Impact:
· Development of the proposed project could result in significant water quality and
hydrolo~c impacts. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, pp. 259, 263-264, 266-268]
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 si~_~mificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Under the developed site conditions, potentially significant water quality
impacts could result from runoff flowing across impervious surfaces as well as
landscaped areas containing pollutants. Additional impacts to water quality may result
from the use of reclaimed water for on-site irrigation of parks and nonresidential
landscape. The only project runoff reaching the Otay Reservoirs would be from the
manufactured slopes along the eastern boundary of the Vistas.
Development of the proposed project could cause an increase in the amount of runoff and
have potentially si~nificant hydrolo~c impacts on downstream drainage facilities during
the 100-year, 50-year, and t0-year storm events. In addition, the proposed diversion
from the Vistas neighborhood may exceed the capacity of the existing Olympic Parkway
storm drain system, which would be a significant impact if storm water runoff is not
directed beyond the Olympic Parkway system to the existing Salt Creek outfall(s) located
on-site.
43
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, pp. 270-274]
4.4.5.1 Prior to approval of the tentative map and/or final grading and design
plans, as determined by the City Engineer. the applicant shall obtain
approval of a drainage plan for the project that will convey storm water
runoff generated by the project to a public drainage system adequate to
carry those waters in accordance with current engineering standards as
set forth in the Public Works Standards for the City of Chula Vista.
4.4.5.2 As a condition of fading permit and tentative map approval, no grading
or other surface-disturbing activities on any site shall be allowed
between October 1 and the following April 1, or when the City Engineer
determines that erosion, mudflow, or sediment discharge from grading
may adversely affect downstream properties, drainage courses, storm
drains, streets, easements, or public or private facilities or improvements
unless an erosion and sedimentation control system approved by the City
En~neer has been implemented on the site to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Erosion control measures may include, but are not limited to,
the short-term use of ~avel bags, matting, mulch, berms, hay bales, silt
fences, or similar devices along all Faded areas to minimize erosion and
sediment transport. The exact design, location, and schedule of use for
such devices shall be conducted pursuant to direction and approval by
the City En~neer.
4.4.5.3 Prior to issuance of Fading permits or any landform modification, the
applicant shall delineate areas of native vegetation to remain undisturbed
based on adopted grading plans to avoid any off-site impacts.
4.4.5.4 Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit, the applicant shall locate
temporary desilting basins at all discharge points adjacent to drainage
courses or where substantial drainage alteration is proposed in the
Fading plan. The exact design and location of such facilities shall be
based on hydrological modeling and determined pursuant to direction by
the City Engineer.
4.4~5.5 The applicant shall, within six months of commencement of grading
activities, hydroseed and landscape Faded and common areas with
appropriate found cover vegetation consistent with the City's grading
ordinance and with the mitigation requirements in the Biology section of
the EIR. These revegetated areas shall be inspected monthly by a
44
qualified biologist until vegetation has been firmly established as
determined by the City.
4.4.5.6 Compacted areas shall be scarified by the applicant, where appropriate,
to induce surface water infiltration and revegetation as directed by the
project geologist, City Engineer, and/or biolojst.
4.4.5.7 Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall obtain either
(a) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits (NPDES Permit
No. CA 0108758) from the SWRCB or (b) a municipal permit from the
City of Chula Vista that is in effect at the time of issuance of
construction/grading permits. Such permits are required for specific (or
a series of related) construction activities that exceed five acres in size
and include provisions to eliminate or reduce off-site discharges through
implementation of a SWPPP. Specific SWPPP provisions include
requirements for erosion and sediment control, as well as monitoring
requirements both during and after construction. Pollution control
measures also require the use of best available technology, best
conventional pollutant control technology, and/or best management
practices to prevent or reduce pollutant discharge (pursuant to SWRCB
definitions and direction).
The SWPPP also includes specified vehicle fueling and maintenance
procedures and hazardous materials storage areas to preclude the
discharge of hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., fuels,
lubricants, and solvents) and specific measures to preclude spills or
contain hazardous materials, including proper handling and disposal
techniques and use of temporary impervious liners to prevent soil and
water contamination.
4.4.5.8 Post-construction erosion control measures shall be included in the
project's tentative map and/or final design as determined by the City
Engineer, and implemented by the applicant where proposed disturbance
is adjacent to or encroaches within existing drainage courses as
determined by the City Engineer.
4.4.5.9 The applicant shall incorporate all applicable BMPs contained in the
State Best Management Practices to be considered in the Development
of Urban Storm Water Management Plan in the project's tentative map
and/or final design plans as determined by the City Engineer.
Specifically, these may include measures such as the use of
detention/desilting basins, retention structures, sediment/oil traps at
inlets or manholes, infiltration facilities, permeable pavements,
45
vegetation controls, discharge controls. maintenance (e.g., street
sweeping). and erosion controls.
4.4.5.10 As a condition of approval of the tentative map, the applicant will be
required, prior to issuance of a ~ading permit for any area of the project
(including off-site areas) draining towards the Upper or Lower Otay
Reservoirs. to accomplish the following:
a) Obtain the approval of the City of Chula Vista and all other
applicable agencies for any proposed structural drainage runoff
detention and/or diversion facilities within the Otay Lakes
watershed.
b) Obtain the approval of the Ciiy of Chula Vista and all other
applicable agencies of all operational and maintenance agreements
associated with any proposed structural drainage runoff detention
and/or diversion facilities within the Otay Lakes watershed.
4.4.5.11 The applicant shall design surface drainage to collect and discharge
runoff into natural stream channels or drainage structures. All drainage
systems shall be designed in accordance with the City's Public Works
Standards.
4.4.5.12 Project operation and maintenance practices shall include a schedule for
regular maintenance of all private drainage facilities within common
development areas to ensure proper working condition. This will be the
responsibility of the homeowners association.
4.4.5.13 The applicant shall design surface and subsurface drainage to preclude
ponding outside of designated areas, as well as flow down slopes or over
disturbed areas.
4.4.5.14 Runoff diversion facilities (e.g., inlet pipes and brow ditches) shall be
used where appropriate to preclude ranoff flow down graded slopes.
Drainage terraces for slopes in excess of 40 feet in vertical height shall
only be required for stabilization purposes. Slopes in excess of 40 feet in
height may not require terraces provided that slope-specific analysis
demonstrates that such measures are not needed in order to achieve the
intent of the City's grading ordinance. The applicant shall demonstrate
compliance in grading plan prior to issuance of gading permit.
4.4.5.15 Energy-dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap, or drop
structures) shall be used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings,
46
and/or downstream of all culverts, pipe outlets, and brow ditches to
reduce velocity and prevent erosion. The applicant shall demonstrate
compliance in gading plan prior to issuance of grading permit.
4.4.5.16 Prior to issuance of the grading permit for any site in that drainage area,
the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed detention facilities
would reduce 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year post-development peak
flows to equal to or less than pre-development conditions. The proposed
on-site detention facilities shall be desig-aed to ensure that there is no
increase in downstream (i.e., south of Olympic Parkway) velocities in
Salt Creek. See also mitigation measure 4.3.5.7 in Chapter 4.3,
Biological Resources.
4.4.5.17 Long-term maintenance of all on- and off-site detention/desilting basins
shall be the responsibility of a maintenance district, homeowners
association, or other mechanism approved by the City. Prior to issuance
of the first grading permit for the Salt Creek detention basins or approval
of the first final map, a maintenance program for the ordinary and usual
maintenance of the Woods' detention basin shall be established. The
maintenance program shall include, but not be limited to (a) a manual
describing the operation and maintenance of the detention basins; (b) an
estimate of the cost of such operation and maintenance activities; and (c)
a funding mechanism for financing the maintenance program. The
applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of the
maintenance program for all applicable federal and state governmental
agencies.
4.4.5.18 Regular maintenance of the greenbelt and community trails shall be the
responsibility of the City of Chula Vista or the homeowners association,
depending on designation, to minimize the potential for erosion into
Lower Otay Reservoir. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit for
the trails or approval of the first final map, a maintenance program for
the ordinary and usual maintenance of the trails shall be established.
4.4.5.19 Urban runoff control steps that would reduce direct impacts from project
pollutants to a level below significance are stated below. These
measures shall be made a condition of the tentative map and shall be
implemented on the final grading and improvement plans. Imple-
mentation of these measures is the responsibility of the applicant.
a) Per the Clean Water Act, "best management practices" to control
pollutants and sediment from entering storm water runoff are
required for the project area. Source control BMPs via landscaping
47
of all slopes and street fights-of-way shall be provided to prevent
erosion. Any other applicable source control or BMPs which may
be implemented on a citywide basis in conjunction with the City's
Municipal NPDES permit shall be incorporated into the specific
plan. The size, capacity, and location of any other pollution
control devices which would be used to capture urban pollutants
on-site will be detennined as part of the project-specific drainage
studies prior to the approval of future subdivision maps.
b) The City's Department of Hanning and Building shall verify that
the mitigation measures are conditions for the approval of the
tentative map and that they are implemented on the ~ading plans
and improvement plans for the project.
4.4.5.20 In order to avoid indirect impacts on the Otay Tarplant Preserve,
Preserve lands, and Otay Lakes, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides
shall not be applied to the manufactured slopes along the eastern
periphery of the Woods and Vistas parcels. Potable water shall be used
for irrigation.
4.4.5.21 An educational progain to discourage access and contact with the
reservoirs shall be required as a condition of approval for future
temative maps.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than sig-ni~cant
Impact:
Groundwater seepage could create a significant impact. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.4,
page 266]
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 envirom-nental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Groundwater seepage, which is compounded by changes in rainfall and
drainage panems, may destabilize soil and adversely affect construction. Future irrigation
would introduce significant quantities of water into the underlying soil, which would also
create the potential for seepage at the face of slopes or at the surfaces of lower elevation
pads. If seepage were subsequently observed throughout the site, this could indicate the
presence of perched goundwater flowing laterally rather than a regional ~oundwater
48
table. Changes in rainfall and/or site drainage may similarly produce other areas of
locally perched Foundwater prone to seepage.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, page 274]
4.4.5.22 For areas with the greatest potential for groundwater seepage, impacts
could be reduced to a less than significant level through installation of
subsurface drains as determined by the Soils En~neer and approved by
the City En~neer. Implementation of these measures is the
responsibility of the applicant.
4.4.5.23 The applicant shall obtain a Dewatering Waste Discharge Permit
(NPDES No. CA0108804) for the removal and disposal of groundwater
(if necessary) encountered during construction. Such permits are
intended to ensure compliance with applicable water quality, and
beneficial use objectives, and typically entail the use of BMPs to meet
these requirements. Discharge under this permit will require compliance
with a number of physical, chemical, and thermal parameters (as
applicable), along with pertinent site-specific conditions (pursuant to
Redonat Water Quality Control Board direction).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site could result in sig-nificant water quality and
hydrolo~c impacts. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, page 266, 268]
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
si~nificance.
Exl~lanation: In general, runoff impacts resulting from future development of the
Panhandle site would be similar to those identified elsewhere within the project site.
Future development could cause an increase in the amount of ranoff and have potentially
significant impacts on downstream drainage facilities. Site-specific review would be
required when specific plans become available.
49
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SE][R, Subchapter 4.4, page 274]
4.4.5.24 As a condition of approval for any future development plans at the
Panhandle site, the project applicant shall comply with applicable
federal, state, and City regulations, including the Clean Water Act and
more specific objectives mandated by the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board Order No. 2001-01. As required above for the
Woods and Vistas, any future development proposal shall reduce storm
ranoff peak rates and velocity to predevelopment levels and prohibit any
increase in pollutant levels in ranoff. To achieve these standards, future
development of the site shall employ BMPs to reduce runoff and water
quality impacts to the maximum ext~nt practicable. Conformance is
supported through preparation of a SWPPP, which is required for
approval of NPDES and other permits.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
· Groundwater seepage could create a significant impact on the Panhandle site.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, page 267]
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: Groundwater seepage, which is compounded by changes in rainfall and
drainage patterns. may destabilize soil and adversely affect construction. Future irrigation
would introduce significant quantities of water into the underlying soil, which would also
create the potential for seepage at the face of slopes or at the surfaces of lower elevation
pads. If seepage were subsequently observed throughout the site, this could indicate the
presence of perched ~oundwater flowing laterally rather than a redonat ~oundwater
table. Changes in rainfall and/or site drainage may similarly produce other areas of
locally perched ~oundwater prone to seepage.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, page 274]
5O
4.4.5.25 For areas on the Panhandle site with the greatest potential for
groundwater seepage, impacts could be reduced to a less than significant
level through installation of subsurface drains as determined by the Soils
En~neer and approved by the City En~neer. Implementation of these
measures is the responsibility of the applicant.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
E. LANDFORM ALTERATION/VISUAL QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on landform and visual quality if it:
· Has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or obstructs or substantially alters
the visual character of a designated public view;
Substantially damages scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outeroppings~ and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
· Conflicts with the goals and policies established for preserving scenic highways and
roads;
· Results in architecture, urban design, landscaping, and/or landforms that negatively
detract from the prevailing aesthetic character of the site or surrounding area; or
· Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Impact:
· Development of the project could result in sig~nificant impacts to landforms and
visual quality. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.5, pp. 287, 290, 299]
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: The proposed development would alter existing landforms and the visual
characteristics of the site through ~ading, excavation of the ridge tops, and in-filling of
canyons. Open expanses of rolling hills used for agricultural purposes would be
developed with residential, public/quasi-public, and commercial areas separated by open
51
space. Development would, therefore, affect views from surrounding areas and result in ·
significant impacts to visual quality.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.5, pp. 302-303]
4.5.5.1 As a condition of approval for the anticipated future tentative map for the
Woods and Vistas, the applicant shall comply with the respective SPA
Plan Grading Concepts and Design Guidelines to ensure that project's
direct significant landform alteration and visual impacts are reduced to
below a level of sig'nificance. These measures have been included in the
conceptual grading plan included in this EIR and are listed below as
mitigation to ensure that the future tentative map would be in compliance
with the SPA Plan. The SPA Plan mitigation requirements included in the
Design Guidelines involve methods for architectural and site design,
housing density and arrangement, housing types, facade textures, lighting,
fencing, circulation, and comprehensive grading and landscaping plans,
among other measures and techniques. Specifically, the SPA Plan and
Design Guidelines provide the following that serve to reduce the aesthetic
impacts:
a) A Community Landscape Design that addresses streetscapes,
provides landscape intensity zones (see SEIR Fignres 4.5-7 and
4.5-8), geenbelt edge treatments at Salt Creek, and slope treatment
for erosion control.
b) Grading concepts that ensure manufactured slopes that are
contoured and blend and mimic with adjacent natural slopes.
c) Landscaping concepts that provide for a transition from the
manicured appearance of developed areas to the natural landscape
in open space areas.
d} Landscaping concepts that include planrings selected to frame and
maintain views. Landscaping should not block views created
through gading and/or site design.
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site may result in significant impacts to landforms
and visual quality. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.5, pp. 300, 302]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1l of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the sig'nificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
sig-rdficance.
Explanation: Development of the Panhandle site could alter existing landforms and the
visual characteristics of the site through grading and other construction activities. Open
expanses used for agricultural purposes would be developed with public/quasi-public or
residential areas. Development would, therefore, affect views from surrounding areas and
could result in significant impacts to visual quality.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, page 303]
4.5.5.2 When development plans are proposed for the Panhandle, a landform
alteration and visual quality impact assessment shall be conducted and
mitigation measures shall be required to reduce potentially significant
impacts. These measures would be similar to those described above for the
Woods and Vistas including incorporation of appropriate landscape,
Fading, and architectural guidelines.
F. GEOLOGY/GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Standards of Significance:
The project would have a significant impact if it:
· Is located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide. lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
· Is located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or is traversed by an active
fault;
· Results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; or
53
· Results in seismic-related Found failure. including liquefaction.
Impact:
· Project implementation may result in significant impacts to geologic resources
and/or occur as a result of geologic hazards. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.6, pp. 311-312]
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: Significant impacts could result from development on compressible and
expansive soils. The highly expansive nature of Diablo clays, which predominate on the
project site, makes them unsuitable for foundation supports. Alluvial and colluvial
deposits in the drainage courses could undergo liquefaction.
Unstable conditions may result from Fading in areas with cut or underlying fill slopes.
Slope faces associated with clay beds may also become unstable due to an increased
potential for seepage caused by miFation of perched Foundwater.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.6, page 314]
4.6.5.1 As a condition of issuance of Fading permits, the project applicant shall
be required to provide a detailed geotechnical/soils report to the City
Engineer to ensure that the following mitigation requirements axe
implemented in the Fading plan:
a) Upper soil layers shall be removed to a depth of two to three feet
during initial construction periods and replaced with competent
compacted fill. (Erosion and runoff measures are addressed in
Hydrology/Drainage, Subchapter 4.4. of the SEIR.)
b} Removal of the colluvium and alluvium deposits, followed by
replacement with compacted fill shall be required to eliminate the
potential for liquefaction.
c) The potential for settlement of compressible soils shall be
minimized by removing these soils and replacing them with
compacted fill in areas that would be subjected to new fill or
structural loads.
54
d) Highly expansive soils shall be kept below five feet of finished
grade to reduce the potential for differential movement.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
Project implementation may result in significant impacts to geolo~c resources
and/or occur as a result of geolo~c hazards. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.6, pp. 312-313]
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: Significant impacts could result from development on compressible and
expansive soils. The highly expansive nature of Diablo clays makes them unsuitable for
foundation supports and alluvial and colluvial deposits could undergo liquefaction.
Unstable conditions may result from grading in areas with cut or unde~ying fill slopes.
Slope faces associated with clay beds may also become unstable due to an increased
potential for seepage caused by migation of perched groundwater.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.6, page 314]
4.6.5.2 As a condition of approval of issuing any Fading permit on the Panhandle
site, detailed mitigation measures for impacts at the Panhandle site shall be
required at the time development plans are proposed. As with the Woods
and Vistas, a detailed geotechnica//soils report shall also be required to
identify development hazards and constraints and to determine appropriate
mitigation.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
G. NOISE
The proposed project would result in a sig-nificant impact ori~nating from noise if it
would:
55
· Result in exterior noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL in residential areas, schools,
libraries and parks, and 70 CNEL in office, business, and professional uses. and for
churches and auditoriums;
· Result in interior noise levels that exceed 45 CNEL for single- and multi-family
residential homes and 50 CNEL for the interior of commercial and professional
offices; or
· Result in noise levels from construction activities to residential receptors that exceed
75 dB, averaged over a 12-hour period, or to any least Bell' s vireo nest site during the
breeding season that exceed 60 dB.
D'aff~c on Major Roadways
Impact:
· Noise associated with traffic on major roadways may adversely affect the
proposed project. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, pp. 324-325]
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 sig'nificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
si~dficance.
Explanation: The proposed project would be affected by traffic noise generated on Otay
Lakes Road, a portion of Hunte Parkway, and Ol.vmpic Parkway. The traffic on these
streets could generate noise levels geater than 65 CNEL, which is the City' s residential
exterior standard, at gound-level sensitive receivers on a limited portion of the project
site.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, pp. 330, 336-337]
4.7.5.1 The applicant shall achieve mitigation of potential first-floor exterior noise
impacts through the construction of sound barriers as illustrated in SEIR
Figures 4.7-5 through 4.7-7. On the Woods site, a barrier varying from
four to six feet in height is required on the edge of the pad slopes for the
single-family homes along Otay Lakes Road and a portion of Hunte
Parkway. On the Vistas site, the single-family homes along Otay Lakes
Road and the single- and multi-family homes along Olympic Parkway _.
require barriers that are four to six feet in height.
56
The barriers shall be either walls or berms---~r a combination thereof~
constructed of solid material with a density of at least four pounds per
square foot and should not have any cracks or gaps. Examples of
acceptable barrier materials include, but are not limited to, masonry block,
wood frame with stucco, 0.5-inch-thick Plexiglas, or 0.25-inch-thick plate
glass. If transparent barrier materials are used, no gaps shall occur
between the panels. The transmission loss through a barrier shall be at
least 10 decibels greater than the estimated barrier attenuation (Federal
Highway Administration 1979:34). If a barrier attenuates noise levels by
5 dB(A) at a receiver location, the barrier transmission loss must be at
least 15 dB(A) to prevent audible noise from traveling through the barrier
and adding to the acoustical environment. Bamer heights are relative to
final pad elevations.
4.7.5.2 As seen in SEIR Figures 4.7-5 through 4.7-4 and Tables 4.7-4 and 4.7-5,
even with the construction of noise barriers. exterior noise levels at the
second floor for the single- and multi-family residences along Otay Lakes
Road, a portion of Hunte Parkway, and Olympic Parkway could exceed 65
CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to adequately
reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations. At the
time that building plans are available for these units, and prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit a
detailed acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant
that demonstrates that the building structure is adequately designed such
that second-floor interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be at or
below the 45 CNEL interior standard.
Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 CNEL, additional measures shall be
required to attenuate noise to the 45 CNEL standard, such as inoperable
windows or double-paned windows. For those units that require the
windows to be closed to achieve the City's interior noise standard, forced-
air circulation or air conditioning shall be provided by the applicant.
4.7.5.3 Future noise levels at the elementary school are projected to exceed 65
CNEL. Mitigation of the potential exterior noise impacts on the outdoor
usable areas such as the play areas can be achieved through the
construction of barriers varying from eight to five feet in height.
Mitigation of the exterior use areas could also be achieved through the site
design by placing the exterior use areas on the sides of the buildings
opposite the roadway.
4.7.5.4 A site design for the proposed fire station is not available at this time.
Future traffic on Otay Lakes Road is projected to generate noise levels on
57
the fire station site in excess of 65 CNEL. If exterior use areas such as
eating areas or recreation areas (e.g., basketball courtsl are proposed for
the fire station, they shall be placed on the side of the buildings opposite
the roadway. This will ensure that these use areas are adequately shielded
from roadway noise.
4.7.5.5Additionally, as indicated. it is assumed that the City's 45 CNEL
residential interior standard is applicable to the living and sleeping
quarters in the fire station. Given that future exterior noise levels due to
traffic are projected to exceed 65 CNEL, standard construction cannot be
assumed to adequately reduce projected interior noise levels to below 45
CNEL. Although it is likely that design of the fire station will be
sufficient to reduce exterior noise levels from traffic on Otay Lakes Road
to acceptable interior standards, the potential for interior noise standards to
be exceeded does exist. Consequently, at the time that building plans are
available for the fire station. and prior to the issuance of building permits,
a detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant that demonstrates that the building structure is adequately
designed such that noise levels in the living and sleeping quarters will be
at or below the City' s 45 CNEL interior noise standard.
4.7.5.6 If substantial changes in the proposed project ~ading occur as the final
design develops through the tentative map process, additional noise
analyses will be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Construction Noise
Impact:
· Construction noise may result in a sig~nificant impact. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.7,
page 328]
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 si~-:n~ficant envirommental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
si~i~cance.
Explanation: If least BelFs vireo are present in the hal~itat north of Otay Lakes Road
during project construction, excessive construction noise (60 decibels or more) at any
least Bell's vireo nest site during the breeding season would be considered a significant
impact.
58
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, page 337]
4.7.5.7 If construction is to occur during the breeding season for the least Bell's
vireo (March 15-September 15), a qualified biolo~st shall conduct a
focused survey of the least Bell's vireo habitat for breeding activity. If the
least Bell's vireo is observed, further mitigation measures will be required.
These include providing a temporary noise barrier, monitoring
construction noise at the edge of the occupied habitat, and noise
attenuation for noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A). Monthly noise
monitoring reports would be submitted to the City of Chula Vista.
Implementation of this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the
applicant.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
D'affic on bzte~77al Roadways
Impact:
Noise associated with traffic on internal project roadways could result in a
significant impact. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, page 328]
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 si~onificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
si~ordficance.
Explanation: Interior noise levels at the residential pads adjacent to Street "P" within the
Vistas site could exceed the City' s 45 CNEL residential interior noise standard resulting
in a significant noise impact from traffic on Street "P".
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, page 337]
4.7.5°8 Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 CNEL, additional measures shall be
required to attenuate noise to the 45 CNEL standard, such as inoperable
windows or double paned windows. For those units that require the
windows to be closed to achieve the interior noise standard, forced-air
circulation or air conditioning shall be provided by the applicant.
59
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Noise Getwrated By Non-Residential Uses
Impact:
· Noise generated by nonresidential uses on the project site may result in a
significant impact. [SEll>,, Subchapter 4.7, page 328]
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: Any proposed commercial uses would be required to comply with the
noise level standards specified in the City's Noise Ordinance. Because the specific uses
are not 'known, development of the Commercial areas could result in si~dficant noise
impacts if those uses were to violate the Noise Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, page 337]
4.7.5.9 At the time that specific uses are proposed for the commercial areas, the
development plans shall be reviewed and, if deemed necessary. by the City
Planning Director, acoustical studies shall be prepared that demonstrate
compliance with the City' s noise standards.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Significant noise impacts could result with development of the Panhandle site
[SEIR. Subchapter 4.7, page 329]
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
sig~nificance.
6O
Explanation: Significant noise impacts from construction. project operations, and/or
traffic-related noise could result if the Panhandle site is developed for public/quasi-public
use or low densit3, residential uses.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, page 337]
4.7.5.10 At the time development plans for the Panhandle are proposed, a noise
study shall be conducted to identify potential impacts and appropriate
mitigafon, if required. Mitigation may consist of noise barriers and/or
architectural treatments, depending on the characteristics and source of
the impact.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
H. AIR QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
California Air Resources Board
For long-term emissions, the cumulative impacts of a project can be measured by the
deuce to which the project is consistent with redonat plans to improve and maintain air
quality. The redonat plan for San Diego is the 1991/1992 RAQS and attached
Transportation Control Measures Plan as revised by the triennial updates adopted on
December 12, 1995 and June 1998. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria
for determining a project's impacts (State of California 1989), which include the
following:
1. Is a redonat air quality impact plan being implemented in the project area?
2. Is the project consistent with the ~owth assumptions in the re~onai air quality plan?
3. Does the project incorporate all feasible and available air quality control measures?
City of Chula Vista
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it:
· Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of an applicable air quality plan;
· Violates any ambient air quality standard;
61
· Contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or -'
· Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The City of Chula Vista uses the following South Coast Air Quality Management District
thresholds to assess the significance of air quality impacts (SCAQMD 1993 ):
Pollutant Proiect Construction Project Operation
Carbon Monoxide 24.75 tons/quarter 550 pounds/day
Reactive Organic Compounds 2.5 tons/quarter 55 pounds/day
Oxides of Nitrogen 2.5 tons/quarter 55 pounds/day
Oxides of Sulfur 6.75 tons/quarter 150 pounds/day
PM~0 6.75 tons/quarter 150 pounds/day
Co~iformance with Regional Air QualiD' Plans
Impact:
· The proposed project is not consistent with the ~owth projections of the local
regional air quality plan [SEIR, Subchapter 4.8, pp. 349-350]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: The proposed project is not consistent with the g-rowth projections of the
local redonat air quality plan and, consequently, is not consistent with the goals and
objectives of that plan. This represents a significant impact.
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of significance. The infeasibility of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
However, measures have been incorporated into the proposed project design to reduce air
quality impacts. These measures include pedestrian trials (Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail
and EastLake Community Trail ), on-street bicycle paths, and public transit stops planned
for Hunte Parkway, Olympic Parkway, and/or Otay Lakes Road. Future plans exist for
extension of trolley service to the Eastern Territories as well. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.8,
page 360]
Significance After Mitigation: These measures axe insufficient to attain confonnance
with the regional air quality plan. This impact is therefore significant and unmitigated
with implementation of the proposed project.
Project Operation Impacts
Impact:
· Project operations-related emissions would cause a significant regional impact on
air quality. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.8, pp. 350, 355]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: Project operations-related emissions, including those from stationary and
mobile sources, are projected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds and, therefore, would result
in a potentially significant regional impact on air quality.
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of significance. The infeasibility of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
However, measures have been incorporated into the project design to reduce operational
air quality impacts. These measures include pedestrian trails (Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail
and EastLake Community Trail), on-street bicycle paths, and public transit stops planned
for Hunte Parkway, Olympic Parkway, and/or Otay Lakes Road. Future plans exist for
extension of trolley service to the Eastern Territories as well. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.8, pp.
360-361]
Significance After Mitigation: These measures are insufficient to reduce the impact of
project operations on air quality below a level of significance. This impact is therefore
significant and unmitigated with implementation of the proposed project.
63
Construction Emission Impacts
Impact:
· Construction emissions would result in a significant air quality impact. [SEIR,
Subchapter 4.8, pp, 355.357]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of
construction equipment exhaust emissions, potentially resulting in a significant air quality
impact. Construction activities are projected to generate sufficient quantities of fugitive
dust to create a significant impact.
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of significance. The infeasibility of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
Mitigation Measures: the following construction mitigation measures for the proposed
project will reduce air quality impacts and shall be included as conditions of approval of
Fading and building permits issued for future tentative maps and shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.8, pp. 361-362]
4.8.5.1 All unpaved construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily or
have other acceptable San Diego APCD dust control agents applied during
dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or
acceptable APCD dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather
or windy days to prevent visible dust emissions.
4.8.5.2 Tracks hauling din and debris shall be properly covered to reduce
windblown dust and spills.
4.8.5.3A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit shall be posted on all unpaved roadways
used by construction vehicles.
4.8.5.4 On dry days, din and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by
vehicle movement. Approach routes to conslruction sites shall be cleaned
daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
4.8.5.5 On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
64
4.8.5.6 Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly
as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
4.8.5.7Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel
injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during Fading
and construction activities. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered
equipment shall be used. Also, equip construction equipment with
prechamber diesel en~nes (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the
extent available and feasible.
4.8.5.8 Low pollutant-emitting construction equipment shall be used.
4.8.5.9 Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible.
4.8.5.10The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units
shall be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures will reduce short-term impacts
from dust and emissions, but not below a level of significance. Construction-related
impacts to air quality are therefore significant and unmitigated.
Panhandle Site
Impact:
Construction on the Panhandle site and project operations could significantly
impact air quality. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.8, pp. 357,359]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: Construction on the Panhandle site and project operations could
significantly impact air quality depending on the proposed land use. Project operations-
related emissions, including those from stationary and mobile sources, could exceed
SCAQMD thresholds, depending on the proposed land use, therefore, could result in a
potentially significant redonat impact on air quality. The construction of the proposed
project would result in the generation of construction equipment exhaust emissions,
potentially resulting in a significant air quality impact. Construction activities also
generate furtive dust, which may create a si~ificant impact.
65
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of significance. The infeasibiliv,.' of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will reduce air quality impacts
and shall be included as conditions of approval of grading and building permits issued for
future tentative maps and shall be the responsibility of the applicant. [SEIR, Subchapter
4.8, page 362]
4.8.5.11 Detailed mitigation for air quality impacts at the Panhandle site shall be
required at the time development plans are proposed. Mitigation for
impacts at the Panhandle site would consist of application of
construction-emission mitigation measures similar to that described
above.
Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures will reduce impacts from
construction and project operations on the Panhandle site, but not below a level of
significance. Impacts to air quality are therefore significant and unmitigated.
I. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it:
· Diminishes the historical integrity of a significant historic resource, which is defined
as a resource that is:
1 ) On or eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources;
2) On or eligible for the National Register ofHistoric Places;
3)Locally designated as historically si~.~ficant; and/or the lead agency finds the
resource historically significant based on substantial evidence: or
· Darnages or destroys a unique archeological resource, which is defined as a resource
that:
1) Is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or
American history or recognized scientific importance in prehistory;
2) Can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions;
66
3)Has a special or particular quality such as the oldest. best example~ largest. or last
surviving example of its kind;
4) Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; and/or
involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be
answered only with archaeological methods.
Impact:
· Development of the proposed project could adversely affect cultural
resources.[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, pp. 368-369]
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
si~_~dficance.
Explanation: The proposed development of the Woods parcel would result in direct and
indirect impacts to CA-SDI~7976. Site CA-SDI-7976 exists on land designated for low-
density residential land use along with a small area of open space in the Woods.
Development of the Woods parcel would constitute a direct and potentially significant
impact to this pre-historic resource.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 371 ]
4.9.5.1 Prior to the issuance of a ~ading permit for the Woods, the applicant must
receive approval from the Director of Planning for a treatment pro~am for
site CA-SDI-7976 consisting of a research design, data recovery plan,
analysis, and report. The research design and data recovery pro~am shall
be oriented towards addressing re~onally important research questions.
The research design for CA-SDI 7976 should be developed prior to the
implementation of the data recovery excavations. It should include
rnethodolo~cal statements and provisions for incorporating special studies
(i.e., radiocarbon dating) as well as the specifics of the theoretical
orientation, and the research questions themselves. The results of the data
recovery effort must be summarized in a report that includes the research
design, results of the investigation, discussion of the issues and findings,
and includes the raw data generated during the investigation. In addition,
no development should occur on the site location or vicinity until the data
recovery investigation has been completed. Once the archaeolo~cal
67
consultant is satisfied that sufficient dam have been acquired from the site
to answer the research questions and that redundant dam would be
generated by additional field investigation, the site may be released for
development.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site could adversely affect cultural resources.
[SEll>,, Subchapter 4.9, page 369]
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 sig~nificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Of the eight prehistoric cultural resources on the Panhandle site, four are
cultural isolates and do not meet the criteria of significance under CEQA. No additional
recording or evaluation effort is recommended for the cultural isolates in the Panhandle
site. The four lithie scatter sites at the Panhandle have not been evaluated for cultural
resource significance under CEQA, and therefore the impact is considered significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 371 ]
4.9.5.2 Prior to any development plans for the Panhandle site, testing of the four
lithic scatter sites shall be conducted to determine significance. A
qualified archaeologist/cultural resource specialist shall conduct a site
testing investigation for the four lithic scatter sites on the Panhandle to
determine if any of the affected sites meet the si~tificance criteria under
CEQA. The project proponent shall submit the results of the testing
proFaro to the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of clearing,
grubbing, or ~ading activities for the Panhandle site. The testing pro~am
for each site shall consist of mapping, a surface collection, surface scrapes,
and subsurface test probes. Following site testing investigation, the
qualified archaeologist/cultural resource specialist shall analyze recovered
cultural material and a summary report shall be prepared and submitted to
the City of Chula Vista. The summary report shall document the
68
significance assessment investigations for the four lithic scatter sites and
make any necessary recommendations for impact mitigation.
J. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it:
· Directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site.
Impact:
· Development of the proposed project could impact paleontolo~cal resources.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 370]
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
si~mificance.
Explanation: Impacts to paleontolo~cal resources occur when earthwork activities cut
into geological formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. Areas of the Otay
Formation may be exposed during Fading and construction activities. Exposure of this
formation would likely disturb fossil remains in the Vistas and the Woods.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, pp. 372-373]
4.9.5.3 Prior to issuance of a ~ading permit, the applicant shall confirm in writing
to the City of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained
to carry out the mitigation described herein. A qualified paleontolo~st is
defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology
who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. A
paleontological monitor may be retained to perform the on-site monitoring
in place of the qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage
of fossil materials and who is working under the supervision of a qualified
paleontologist.
4.9.5.4 The qualified paleontolo~st or paleontolo~cal monitor shall attend a
preconstmction meeting to consult with the gading and excavation
69
contractors. The paleontolo~st's duties shall include monitoring of
~ading, salvaging, preparation of collected materials for storage at a
scientific institution that houses paleontological collections, and
preparation of a monitoring results report. For each step listed below, the
paleontologist should present results to the City of Chula Vista for review.
These duties are defined as follows:
a) The paleontologiist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
the Otay Formation to inspect cuts for fossils contained therein.
The Sweetwater Fonnation should be monitored on an as-needed
basis as determined by the paleontolo~st or paleontological
monitor. The frequency of inspections would depend upon the rate
of excavation, the materials excavated, and the abundance of
fossils. The paleontologist would work with the contractor to
determine the monitoring locations and amount of time necessary
to ensure adequate monitoring of the project site.
b) In the event that fossils are encountered, the paleontologist (or
paleontolo~cal monitor) shall have the authority to divert or
temporarily halt construction activities in the area of discovery to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely fashion. Because of
the potential for recovery of small fossil remains, it may be
necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on-site.
c) Fossil remains shall be cleaned, sorted~ repaired, cataloged, and
then stored in a local scientific institution that houses
paleontolo~cal collections, such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
d) A monitoring results report with appropriate graphics summarizing
the results (even if negative), analyses, and conclusions of the
above program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of
Chula Vista within 90 days following the termination of the
paleontological monitoring program.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
7O
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Parthandle site could impact paleontolo~cal resources.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 370]
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
sig, nificance.
Explanation: impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut
into geological formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. Areas of the Otay
Formation may be exposed during grading and construction activities. Exposure of this
formation would likely disturb fossil remains.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 373]
4.9.5.5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future development of the
Panhandle site, the applicant shall confirm in writing to the City of Chula
Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the
mitigation described herein. As with the Woods and Vistas, the qualified
paleontologist or paleontolo~cal monitor shall attend pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. The
paleontolo~st's duties shall include monitoring of grading, salvaging,
preparation of collected materials for storage at a scientific institution that
houses paieontological collections, and preparation of a monitoring results
report. The paleontolo~st should present results to the City of Chula Vista
for review.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
K. PUBLIC FACILITIES
POTABLE WATER
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on potable water if it:
71
· Encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of water, or use of
water in a wasteful manner;
· Results in substantial need for new. altered, or expanded services; or
· Contributes to a capacity deficiency in a re~onal facility.
Impact:
· The proposed project could result in significant impacts to potable water supply
and storage.[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 378, 380-381]
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 si~..onificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water
consumption and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The
projected Average Annual Demand for EastLake I13[ 980 Zone and 711 Zone is 912,069
gpd and i00~872 gpd, respectively, for a total of 1.012,941 gpd (including the Panhandle
site). Preliminary domestic water demand for the EastLake III SPA was also determined
as part of the Subarea Water Master Plan process and estimamcl at 953,355 gallons per
average day (0.95 mgd), not including the Panhandle site. The increase in potable water
demand has been planned for by the Otay Water District and will not have a significant
impact. Storage requirements for the 980 and 711 Zones are 15.97 mgd and 14.63 mgd,
respectively. The existing operational storage requirement for the 980 Zone is 10.00 mg
and is 5.0 mg 711 Zone. The OWD is curren~y processing storage capacity upgrades in
the 980 and 711 Zones. However, the impact to water storage and pumping facilities
could be sigttificant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's
anticipated growth.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR. Subchapter 4.10, page 382]
4.10.l.1 The applicant shall help provide for adequate potable water storage and
distribution facilities, which shall be constructed in accordance with the
Subarea Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water
infrastructure improvements are also described in the proposed Public
Facilities Financing Plans for EastLake 1II. The proposed PFFP
identifies the development impact fees that the applicant shall pay to
mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the applicant's
obligation to construct andjor pay for the necessary mitigation, and the
phasing improvements. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the
applicant shall provide written proof from OWD that adequate water
storage and distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed
project area.
4.10.1.2 A complete Subarea Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and approved by OWD prior to approval of the first tentative
map. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system facilities
including timing and cost by phase of development.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle Site could result in significant impacts to potable
water supply and storage. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 381 ]
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 si~-mificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Development of the Panhandle Site would result in an incremental increase
in water demand, thereby potentially impacting water storage and conveyance facilities.
In calculating the project demand, the SAMP assumed that the Panhandle site has an
underlying alternate land use of low density residential (2.0 dwelling units/acre),
resulting in a unit demand of 1,339 gpd/acre and a demand of 59,586 gpd.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 383]
4.10.1.3 At the time detailed development plans are proposed at the Panhandle
site, the project applicant shall help provide for adequate potable water
storage and distribution facilities for the Panhandle site, which shall be
constructed in accordance with the Subarea Master Plan and to the
satisfaction of the OWD. A complete Subarea Master Plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approved by OWD prior to
approval of any development plans. As with the Woods and Vistas
73
above, the Master Plan shall include the design of water system facilities "
including timing and cost by phase of development.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
RECYCLED WATER
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on recycled water service if it:
· Encourages activities that result in the use of large amounts of recycled water, or use
recycled water in a wasteful manner;
Results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services
Contributes to a capacity deficiency in a redonat facility; or
· Creates a public health risk.
Impact:
The proposed project could result in significant impacts to recycled water supply
and storage. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 384, 387]
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 si~_~Lificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in recycled
water use and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities.
Recycled water demand for EastLake 1]I was calculated at a dally average of 352,953
gallons (0.35 mgd) in the Preliminary SAMP. The largest user of recycled water
identified in the Preliminary SAMP is irrigated open space, followed distantly by public
parks and landscaping within the multi-family residential areas. The increase in recycled
water demand has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a significant impact.
The impact to recycled water storage and pumping facilities could be significant if
construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated ~owth.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR. Subchapter 4.10, pp. 387-388]
74
4.10.2.1 The applicant shall help provide for adequate recycled water storage and
distribution facilities; which shall be constructed in accordance with the
Subarea Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water
infrastructure improvements are described in the proposed Public
Facilities Financing Plans for EastLake 1II. The proposed PFFP
identifies the development impact fees that the applicant shall pay to
mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the applicant's
obligation to construct and/or pay for the necessary mitigation, and the
phasing improvements. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the
applicant would provide written proof from OWD that adequate water
storage and distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed
project area.
4.10.2.2 A complete Subarea Master Plan shall be required for approval prior to
approval of the tentative map. The recycled water system shall be
designed at that time and the timing and cost shall be identified by phase
of development.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site could result in si~cmificant impacts to recycled
water supply and storage if the site is irrigated with potable water [SEIR,
Subchapter 4.10, page 387]
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
sig~nificance.
Explanation: The SAMP analysis assumes the Panhandle site will be irrigated with
potable water. However, if it is decided that recycled water should be used for irrigation,
development of the Panhandle site would incrementally increase the demand for recycled
water, thereby potentially impacting recycled water storage and conveyance facilities.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 388]
75
4.10.2.3 If during the processing of detailed development plans for the Panhandle
site it is determined that the Panhandle site is to be irrigated with
recycled water, the project applicant shall help provide for adequate
recycled water storage and distribution facilities for the Panhandle site.
The facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the Subarea Master
Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. A complete Subarea Master
Plan shall be required prior to approval of any development plans. The
recycled water system shall be designed at that time and the timing and
cost shall be identified by phase of development.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
SEWER
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on sewer service it if:
· Results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services;
· Contributes to a capacity deficiency in a redonat facility;
· Creates a public health risk: or
· Exceeds City Engineering Standards.
Impact:
· Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to sewer
services [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 391-392]
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
sig~tificance.
Explanation: Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental
increase in sewage generation. The EastLake l]l Preliminary. Sewer Study estimated an
average sewage generation rate of 720,332 gpd or 688,032 gpd, with the Panhandle
sewage generation calculations based on commercial/industrial or residential uses,
respectively, which does not exceed the City's remaining capacity at Metro. This increase
could cause a significant impact if construction of new infrastructure does not coincide
with the project's anticipated development. If the Salt Creek Interceptor is not completed
76
prior to consideration of the tentative map, wastewater shall be temporarily pumped to
facilities in Telegraph Canyon and/or Pog~ Canyon.
Mitigation Measure: The following rmtigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.1 O, pp. 401402]
4.10.3.1 The applicant shall be responsible for a development impact fee imposed
on the proposed developments within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin for
consauction of the Salt Creek Interceptor. The phased construction of
sewer facilities and/or participation in redohal improvement programs,
based on the approved master plan, shall be incorporated into the PFFP
and/or subdivision map conditions to assure timely provision of required
facilities. The applicant shall comply with the sewer mitigation measures
as described in the proposed PFFP, including public facilities fees,
payment schedule by the developer, and timing of sewer improvements.
4.10.3.2 Prior to approval of any final map or any other grant of approval for any
improvement proposing to pump EastLake HI sewage flows to the
Telegraph Canyon and/or Poggi Canyon sewer trunks, the City
Engineer, at his/her sole discretion, shall determine the extent of those
improvements needed for pumping EastLake HI sewage flows consistent
with 1) the requirements of City Policy No. 570-03, 2) the Preliminary
Offsite Sewer Study for EastLake HI prepared by John Powell &
Associates Inc. dated November 2000 and revised January 3, 2001 (see
Attachment I of Subsequent EIR 01-01 ) and 3) the City Memorandum
dated February 19, 2001 (see Attachment I of Subsequent EIR 01-01).
Hows from no more than 1,610 Equivalent Dwelling Units shall be
pumped to Telegraph Canyon and/or Pog~ Canyon, as described in the
Preliminary Offsite Sewer Study for EastLake
Significance After Mitigation: Less than sigv. i~cant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site could result in si~mai~cant impacts to sewer
services [SEIR, S ubchapter 4.10, pp. 400-401 ]
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
77
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of '
significance.
Explanation: Wastewater generation from Panhandle site development would require
conveyance facilities and potentially impact the City's sewer system and treatment
capacity. With a 44-acre area, a commercial/industrial site, with average sewage
production of 2,500 gpd/acre, would produce 88,000 gpd. A 4-4-acre residential area
(assuming 6 du/ac and 3.3 persons/unit), with average sewage production of 80 gpd,
would produce 55,700 gpd. Temporarily pumping flows from the site could exceed
available capacity in the sewage conveyance systems in the Poggi Canyon Basin or
Telegraph Canyon Basins, resulting in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 402-403]
4.10.3.4 At the time detailed development plans are proposed, a sewer study shall
be prepared to identify wastewater generation, required transmission
facilities, and any treatment capacity issues. Based on the study,
appropriate mitigation shall be required, which could include on-and off-
site infrastructure upgrades and related development phasing.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
PARKS AND RECREATION
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on park and recreational facilities
if it:
· Results in a residential population that exceeds the capacity of existing and/or
planned park and recreation facilities:
· Does not conform to the park dedication standard of three acres of neighborhood and
community parkland per 1,000 residents; or
· Is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and other adopted plans
addressing parks, trails, and other recreational amenities.
78
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site could result in significant impacts to parks and
recreation resources. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 409]
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 si~_onificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: If the Panhandle site is developed for residential use, it would be subject to
the City's parkland dedication requirements and evaluated against the GMOC threshold
standards for park acreage. Should the Panhandle site be developed with low density
residential uses, potentially significant impacts to park and recreation facilities could
occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4. t 0, page 410]
4.10.5.1 As a condition of approval of detailed development plans at the
Panhandle site, the project shall comply with the City of Chula Vista' s
local parkland requirements as set forth by the City Parkland Dedication
Ordinance.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
POLICE
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on police services if it:
· Reduces the ability to respond to Priority I emergency calls throughout the City
within seven minutes in 84 percent of the cases, and maintain an average response
time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less.
79
Impact:
o The project would cause an incremental increase in calls for police services.
[SEER. Subchapter 4.10. page 412]
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: The Police Department currently fails to meet the threshold standards for
Priority One and Priority Two calls. Development of the proposed project would result in
an incremental increase in calls for police service. Giyen the location of EastLake 1311,
officers would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service,
and increased travel time consequently lengthens response time, thus exacerbating an
already significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[ SEER, S ubchapter 4.10, page 413 ]
4.10.6.1 Significant impacts to police services shall be addressed on a citywide
level through the payment of public facility fees. The proposed EastLake
I]I PFFP describes public facilities fees for police services based on
equivalent dwelling units by development phase. Prior to the issuance
of building pennits, the applicant shall pay the public facilities fees at
the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· Development of the Panhandle site would cause an incremental increase in calls
for police services. [SEER, Subchapter 4.10, page 412]
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 si~,mificant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The Police Department currently falls to meet the threshold standards for
Priority One and Priority Two calls. Development of the Panhandle site would result in
an incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of the site, officers
8O
would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service, and
increased travel time consequently lengthens response time. thus exacerbating an already
si~maificant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 413 ]
4.10.6.2 As a condition of approval of any detailed development plans for the
Panhandle site, the project applicant shall pay public facility fees at the
rate in effect the building permits are issued.
FIRE
Standards of Significance:
The proposed project would have a significant impact on fire protection services if it:
· Reduces the ability to respond to calls throu,,hout the City within seven minutes in 85
percent of the cases.
Impact:
· The project would increase the demand for fire services. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10,
pp. 414-415]
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
sigqni~cance.
Explanation: The Fire Department currently exceeds the threshold standards established
for response time. Increased response time is attributable, in part, to increased travel time,
which results from responding to freeway incidents, and the lower density, hilly terrain,
and the more circuitous non-grid nature of many streets in new residential developments
in eastern Chula Vista. The project would therefore cause a significant short-term impact
to fire services.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 415]
81
4.10.7.1 Significant impacts to fire sen:ices shall be addressed on a citywide
level through the pa,vment of public facility fees. The proposed EastLake
HI P~k,e describes public facilities fees for fire services based on
equivalent dwelling units by development phase. Prior to the issuance
of building permits, the applicant shall pay the public facilities fees at
the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Panhandle Site
Impact:
· The project would increase the demand for fire services and could contribute to
cause an increase in response time for the Fire Department. [SEIR, Subchapter
4.10, page 415]
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: The Fire Department currently exceeds the threshold standards established
for response time. Increased response time is attributable, in part, to increased travel time,
which results from responding to freeway incidents, and the lower density, hilly terrain,
and the more circuitous non-gild nature of many streets in new residential developments
in eastern Chula Vista. Development of the Panhandle site would place additional
demands on the Chula Vista Fire Department and would therefore cause a significant
short-term impact to fire services.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 415]
4.10.7.2 As a condition of approval of any detailed development plans for the
Panhandle site, the project applicant shall pay public facility fees at the
rate in effect the building permits are issues.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
These findings discuss all direct project impacts contained in the SEIR 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.
CLrMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFbECTS 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, subd. (b)). Several development
proposals 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
EastLake III. These "current or probable future" development proposals would affect
many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as EastLake Woods and
Vistas Replanning Program. Several potentially significant cumulative impacts are
associated with development of EastLake Woods and Vistas in conjunction with these
surrounding development projects.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, redohal 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, 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 environmental
changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to pages from the SEIR.
A. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Impact:
· The proposed project would conlribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2,
pp. 181-182, 186, 190, 195]
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 avoid
the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the
measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations
would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
83
Explanation: Under Year 2010 with SR-125. Ol.vmpic Parkway from SR-125 to
EastLake Parkway would operate at LOS E with project implementation in the long-term.
Revision to mitigation measure 4.2.5.3 clarifies the timing and manner of mitigation
implementation. After further analysis, it was determined that achievement of eight lanes
through a new Circulation Element street categor.v "Enhanced Prime Arterial" would be
more consistent with General Plan goals and policies than an "Eight-Lane Prime
Arterial." Therefore, the street seg~nent category will be renamed in the General Plan
Amendment accordingly. As discussed in the FEIR, the cumulative impact to this
segncnent of Olympic Parkway will not occur until 2010. Therefore, amending the
General Plan in 2002 will allow for the improvement to be made before the impact
occurs. These revisions are reflected in replacement pages in the FEIR and MMRP.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the hpplicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 204]
4.2.5.3 The General Plan shall be amended to designate Olympic Parkway from
SR-125 to EastLake Parkway as an Enhanced Prime Arterial with eight
lanes. The required amendment shall be adopted no later than the fn'st
General Plan Amendment considered for adoption in 2002. The applicant
shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of the two additional
lanes.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
· The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Otay Lakes Road from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.2,
pp. 186. 190, 195]
Finding: Pursum~t to section 15091 (a)(l) of the St, ate CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid the significant
enviromnental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Under the Year 2020, Otay Lakes Road from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway
would operate at LOS D in the long-term with project implementation. Revision to
mitigation measure 4.2.5.4 clarifies the timing and manner of mitigation implementation.
After further analysis, it was determined that achievement of seven lanes through a new
Circulation Element street category "Enhanced Prime Arterial" would be more consistent
with General Plan goals and policies than a "Seven-Lane Prime Arterial." Therefore, the
84
street seg~nent category will be renamed in the General Plan Amendment accordingly.
As discussed in the HEIR, the cumulative impact to this segment of Otay Lakes Road will
not occur until 2020. Therefore. amending the General Plan in 2002 will allow for the
improvement to be made before the impact occurs. These revisions are reflected in
replacement pages in the FEIR and MMRP.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 204]
4.2.5.4 The General Plan shall be amended to designate Otay Lakes Road from
SR-125 to EastLake Parkway as an Enhanced Prime Arterial with seven
lanes. The required amendment shall be adopted no later than the first
General Plan Amendment considered for adoption in 2002. The applicant
shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of the additional
(westbound) lane.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
· The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Otay Lakes Road from H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. [SEIR, Subchapter
4.2, pp. 169, 181,182, 186]
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 avoid the si~cmificant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Under the year 20t0, Otay Lakes Road from H Street to Telegraph Canyon
Road would operate at LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F for 1 hour in the near-
term and LOS D, E, and/or F in the long-term with project implementation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.2, page 204]
4.2.5.5 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards widening this roadway
seg~nent to six lanes or towards intersection improvements that provide
additional capacity along Otay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City
En~neer.
85
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact:
· The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to H Street. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp.
169, 181-182, 186]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Under Year 2005 without SR-125, Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to
H Street would operate at LOS F in the long-term with project implementation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 204-205]
4.2.5.6 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards widening Otay Lakes
Road from Bonita Road to H Sn'eet to six lanes or towards intersection
improvements that provide additional capacity along Otay Lakes Road to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than si~kmificant
Impact:
· If more than 9,429 new dwelling units are constructed, a significant impact is
calculated on Tele~aph Canyon Road as well as other streets in the near-term
cumulative scenario, including:
· East H Street/I-805 northbound ramps
· East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive
· Telegraph Canyon Roadfl-805 southbound ramps
· Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 northbound ramps [SEER, Subchapter 4.2,
page 1613
86
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 avoid the si~nificant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate sig~nificant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: LOS D on Telegraph Canyon Road as well as other streets in the near-term
cumulative scenario would not be maintained if over 9,429 total units are built and SR-
i25 is not constructed. City standards will therefore be exceeded on Telegraph Canyon
Road and the other segrnents listed above, resulting in a significant impact. The impact
was calculated to occur when the total number of dwelling units in the eastern territories
exceeds 9,429 units. This dwelling unit threshold is considered to be accurate within +20
percent.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 205]
4.2.5.7 Prior to the construction of SR-125, the City shall stop issuing new
building permits for EastLake HI when the City, in its sole discretion,
determines either:
a) Building permits for a total of 9,429 dwelling units have been
issued for projects east of 1-805 or;
b) An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with
the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance.
The start date for counting the 9,429 dwelling units is January 1, 2000.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may issue building permits if the
City decides in its sole discretion that either traffic studies demonstrate, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the circulation system has
additional capacity without exceeding the Growth Management Oversight
Committee traffic threshold standards, other improvements are constructed
which provide additional necessary capacity, or the City selects an
alternative method of implementing the Growth Management Oversight
Committee standards.
These traffic studies would not require additional environmental review
under CEQA; however, any improvements proposed in these traffic
studies would be subject to additional environmental review as needed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
87
Impact:
· The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts
on 1-805 from Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road, [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10,
pp. 169, 177, 182, 190, 195]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: 1-805 from Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road is expected to operate
at LOS F in the Year 2005 with and without SR-125.1-805 is also calculated to operate at
LOS F at buildout.
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of sig'nificance. The infeasibility of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce the
traffic impacts on 1-805 from Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road and are a
requirement of project approval. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10. page 205] "-
4.2.5.8Additional lanes are required to maintain acceptable LOS on 1-805
between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. Construction of the
additional lanes is the responsibility of Caltrans.
4.2.5.9 Continued freeway efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and
SANDAG shall determine additional mitigation strate~es for the re~onal
freeway system.
Significance After Mitigation: These mitigation measures will reduce this cumulative
effect, but not below a level of significance. The traffic impact on 1-805 from Bonita
Road to Telegraph Car~yon Road remains significant and unmitigated.
Secondarx.' Impacts Associated .,ith Off-Site Traffic Mitigation Improvements
Impact:
· The off-site traffic improvements to Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road
could create secondary impacts. [SEtR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 207-209]
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 avoid the significant
88
environmentai effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures described
below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate
significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Off-site traffic improvements to Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road
could create secondary impacts associated with land use, biological resources,
construction-related water quality impacts, construction-related traffic impacts (potential
land closures, l~affic delays, and hazards), aesthetics/landform alteration, noise, and
cultural/paleontological resources. Depending on the detailed design of the off-site traffic
improvements to the above-referenced segments of Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes
Road, additional environmental review may be required.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 209-210]
Application of the following pro~am-level mitigation measures shall be implemented at
the discretion of the Planning Director at the time the roadway improvements are
proposed to reduce the potential significant impacts to below a level of significance.
Depending on the detailed design of the off-site traffic improvements to the above-
referenced seg~nents of Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road, additional
environmental review may be required. The pro~am-level mitigation measures include
the following:
4.2.5.16 Prior to the approval of the roadway improvement project, a biolo~cal
reconnaissance based on detailed grading and design plans shall be
conducted to document any impacts to sensitive biological habitats and
species. Any impacts to sensitive biolo~cal habitats shall be mitigated
pursuant to the mitigation ratios described in the City of Chula Vista
Subarea Plan.
4.2.5.17 Prior to the issuance of any gading permit for the roadway improve-
ment, a detailed acoustical study for the affected roadway segment shall
be prepared to determine the need for any noise attenuation measures
(such as setbacks, wails, and berms) for adjacent noise sensitive land
uses (e.g., residential areas).
4.2.5.18 Prior to the approval of the design plans for the roadway improvements,
a detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared to ensure that potential
aesthetic impacts associated with any grading necessary for the
improvement are mitigated.
89
4.2.5.19 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, '
monitoring of any grading for the presence of cultural and paleon-
tolo~cal resources shall be required. If such resources are encountered
during the grading operations, the protocol described in section 4.9 of
this EIR shall be required.
4.2.5.20 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval,
applicable construction-related water quality mitigation measures shall
be required by the City En~neer. These hydrology and water quality
mitigation measures are described in section 4.4 of the EIR.
4.2.5.21 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval,
preparation of a traffic contTol plan for delays and hazards associated
with construction impacts shall be prepared and approved by the City
En~neer.
For the widening of Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph
Canyon Road, the following mitigation measure shall be required:
4.2.5.22 Plans prepared for the improvement of Otay Lakes Road between H
Street and Telegraph Canyon Road shall be designed to avoid impacts to '
the church library.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
B. HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE
Impact:
· The proposed project may contribute to a significant cumulative impact to
hydrology and water quality. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 438]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Under the developed site conditions, potentially significant cumulative
water quality impacts could result from runoff flowing across impervious surfaces as well
as landscaped areas containing pollutants. Additional cumulative impacts to water quality
may result from the use of reclaimed water for on-site irrigation of parks and
nonresidential landscape. Development of the proposed project together with other
90
anticipated projects in the Otay Lakes Basin and the Salt Creek Drainage Basin could
cause an increase in the amount of runoff and have potentially significant cumulative
hydrologic impacts on downstream drainage facilities during the 100-year, 50-year, and
10-year storm events. This and other projects could also pose potentially significant
cumulative impacts to wetlands and uplands habitats in those drainage basins. However,
those impacts will be reduced through the implementation of best management practices
and effective mitigation measures such as those applicable to this project. The City will
require the implementation of such measures for other projects that might contribute to
this potentially cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.4, pp. 270-274]
The project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to hydrology and water quality
would be applicable to potential cumulative hydrological impacts associated with the
proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
C. LANDFORM ALTERATION/VISUAL QUALIFY
Impact:
· Project development could result in significant cumulative impacts to landform
alteration and visual quality. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 433]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: The City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 EastLake 1/I GDP, and GDP
EIR anticipate that components of the EastLake I1/project, including the proposed
project's Panhandle site and other cumulative projects in the area, would alter and
develop the existing landforms and visual setting in the area. Open expanses of rolling
hills used for agricultural purposes would be developed with clustered residential and
commercial areas separated by open space. Consistent with the conclusions of the
previous 1989 EastLake 1II GDP EIR, the project's and other cumulative projects'
contributions to open space conversion would represent a sig'nificant cumulative impact.
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of significance. The infeasibility of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
91
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is designed to reduce
cumulative impacts to landfonn alteration and visual quality and is a requirement of
project approval.
The project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to landforms and visual quality
would be applicable for cumulative impacts to landform alteration and visual quality
associated with the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures will not reduce this impact
below a level of significance. The cumulative impact to landform alternation and visual
quality remains significant and unmitigable.
D. NOISE
Impact:
· Cumulative noise levels would not exceed land use compatibility standards if
mitigation measures are incorporated. Future development of the Panhandle site
with open space/park (as approved) or alternative uses, including a possible
public/quasi-public use, would not be expected to contribute to a significant
cumulative noise impact in the region. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 437]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable taws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Ambient noise levels in the project area would increase in association with
the proposed project traffic volumes in addition to other noise sources associated with
urban activities. Cumulative noise levels from EastLake 1II and other development in the
Eastern Territories would not exceed land use compatibility standards if mitigation
measures for impacts associated with development as described in Chapter 4.7, are
incorporated. Additional mitigation may be required to reduce noise impacts associated
with development of the Panhandle site, especially if future public/quasi-public uses are
proposed that result in significant lraffic or other noise-generating uses. However, the
site is in a relatively isolated location and separated from other sensitive uses. Future
development of this site with open space/park (as approved) or alternative uses, including
a possible public/quasi-public use, would not be expected to contribute to a significant
cumulative noise impact in the region
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.7, pp. 330, 336-337]
Project mitigation for direct and indirect noise impacts would be applicable to cumulative
noise impacts associated with the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
E. AIR QUALITY
Impact:
· Project operations could contribute to a significant cumulative impact on regional
air quality. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, pp. 438-439]
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Explanation: The San Diego area is a nonattainment basin for ozone. The San Diego Air
Pollution Control District is responsible for strategies to reduce air pollution in the air
basin and bases its projections of future air quality and pollutant emissions on population
and employment growth estimates developed by SANDAG. Incorporation of the
mitigation measures in Section 4.8 of the SEIR will reduce air quality impacts, but not
below a level of significance. Compliance with regional air pollution rules and
regulations will reduce potential short-term construction impacts; howe'~er, these impacts
remain significant. Project operations-related emissions, including those from stationary
and mobile sources, are projected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds and therefore would
result in a potentially significant regional impact on air quality. No mitigation currently
exists to reduce this impact below a level of sig'nificance; therefore, project operations-
related emissions could contribute to a significant cumulative impact on regional air
quality.
Implementation of the No Project alternative, as discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIR,
would reduce this impact below a level of significance. The infeasibility of the No
Project alternative is described in Section XI of these findings.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is available for cumulative project emissions
associated with the proposed project. However, measures have been incorporated into the
project design to lessen operational air quality impacts. These measures include
pedestrian trails (Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and EastLake Community Trail), on-street
bicycle paths, and public transit stops planned for Hunte Parkway, Olympic Parkway,
93
and/or Otay Lakes Road. Future plans exist for extension of trolley service to the Eastern "-'
Territories as well. In addition, the City's Growth Management Ordinance requires
preparation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan as pan of the SPA Plan for all major
development projects (50 dwelling units or geater). [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 439]
Significance After Mitigation: These measures are insufficient to reduce the cumulative
impact to air quality below a level of significance. The cumulative impact to air quality
therefore remains sig"nificant and unmitigated with implementation of the proposed
project.
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact:
· Loss of cultural resources from EastLake III and other projects in the area would
represent a cumulative impact. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 439]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would -
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: A significant pre-historic site (CA-SDI-7976) is located in the northeast
comer of the project site. A loss of cultural resources from EastLake ~I and other
projects in the area would represent a cumulatively significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 371]
Project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources would apply to
cumulative impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
G, PALEON'TOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact:
94
· A loss of paleontological resources from EastLake III and other projects in the
area would represent a cumulative impact. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 439]
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 avoid the si~tificant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The EastLake area contains significant paleontological resources. Fossils
were recovered from the underlying Otay and Sweetwater Formations in previous
EastLake consu'uction and represent a significant contribution to California paleontology.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.9, page 372]
Project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources would
apply to cumulative impacts to paleontolo~cal resources associated with the proposed
project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
H. PUBLIC FACILITIES
POTABLE WATER
Impact: The proposed project would incrementally increase consumption of potable
water. [SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 437]
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 avoid the si~nificant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The proposed project, including future development of the Panhandle site,
would incrementally increase re~onal water consumption; however, this increase
represents an insignificant impact ~ven current water availability. Also, this increased
demand for service has been anticipated and planned for by the City of Chula Vista. The
use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes and the proposed conservation measures
for reducing potable water consumption would reduce water consumption and avoid
contributing to a significant cumulative impact.
95
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 382]
Project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to potable water would apply to
cumulative impacts to potable water associated with the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
RECYCLED WATER
Impact:
· The proposed project would incrementally increase regional recycled water use.
[SEIR, Chapter 5.0, page 437]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of sigm~cance.
Explanation: The proposed project, including future development of the Panhandle site,
would incrementally increase regional use of recycled water; however, this increase
represents an insignificant impact given current water availability. Also, this increased
demand for service has been anticipated and planned for by the City of Chula Vista.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 387-388]
Project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to recycled water would apply to
cumulative impacts to recycled water associated with the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
SEWERS
Impact:
· The proposed project combined with similar projects in the surrounding area
could have a cumulatively significant impact upon the City of Chula Vista's
96
sewer infrastructure. [SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, pp. 392, 395-400: and Chapter 5.0.
pp. 437-438]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: Development of the Woods and Vistas would incrementally reduce the
capacity at the Point Loma Metro Sewer System. The capacity of the Pog~ Canyon
Sewer could be exceeded by cumulative projects prior to completion of the Salt Creek
Interceptor. However, due to the large area served by the Metro system and the
comparatively small increase generated by the Woods, Vistas and any future use
considered for the Panhandle site, the project would not result in a significant impact to
redonat sewer services. Also, this increased demand for service has been anticipated and
planned for by the City of Chula Vista. The proposed project combined with similar
projects in the surrounding area could have a cumulatively significant impact upon the
City of Chula Vista's sewer infrastructure if not mitigated through improvements to
existing facilities and extension of facilities under existing roadways as described in
Chapter 4.10 of the SEIR. These improvements would be made according to City
requirements and would reduce the project-specific impacts and the project' s conu-ibution
to cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 402]
4.10.33 If the Salt Creek Interceptor is not operational at the time of
consideration of the Final Maps, then the applicant may temporarily
pump wastewater flows to the Pog~ Canyon Basin or Telegraph Canyon
Basin. The applicant shall be required to comply with all the
requirements of Council Policy No. 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station
Financing Policy). In addition to the requirements imposed by said
Council Policy, the applicant shall be required to perform the following:
Removal of any new or modified pump station and associated
improvements to the satisfaction of the City En~neer upon
completion of the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor.
Connection of the project by gravity to the Salt Creek Sewer
Interceptor to the satisfaction of the City En~neer upon
completion of the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor.
97
· Provide funding for establishing the Pog~ Canyon Pumped Sewer
Development Impact Fee. Said Development Impact Fee shall be
prepared by the City, as directed by the City Endricer, and
approved by City Council prior to approval of the first final map
for the project proposing to pump EastLake I11 sewage to the Pog~
Canyon Sewer.
· Funding a sewer flows monitoring progam for the Pog~ Canyon
Sewer as determined by the City En~neer.
Application of the Pog~ Canyon equivalent dwelling unit thresholds
identified in the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department Poggi
Canyon Trunk Sewer Study (see attachment to SEIR Appendix I) shall
be applied to the EastLake 1II project if one of the Pog~ Canyon Basin
alternatives is selected.
The thresholds for Pog~ Canyon Basin can be amended by the City
Engineer if he/she determines in his/her sole discretion, that the EDUs
assumption of in-basin flows are such that additional pump flows,
beyond what is currently allowed under this EIR, can be accommodated
as evidenced by monitoring.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
POLICE PROTECTION
Impact:
· The project could cause a cumulatively si~-mificant impact to police services.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 412]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The Police Department currently fails to meet the threshold standards for
Priority One and Priority Two calls. Development of the proposed project would result in
an incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of EastLake ~I,
officers would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service,
and increased travel time consequently lengthens response time, thus exacerbating an
already significant impact and contributing to a cumulative impact citywide.
98
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEIR, Subchapter 4.10, page 4 13]
The project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to police services would be
applicable to cumulative impacts to police protection associated with the proposed
project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
FIRE SERVICES
Impact:
· The project could contribute to a cumulatively sig-nificant impact to fire services.
[ SEIR, S ubchapter 4.10, pp. 414-415 ]
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 avoid the significant
environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the measures
described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would
mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance.
Explanation: The Fire Department currently exceeds the threshold standards established
for response time. Increased response time is attributable, in pan, to increased travel time,
which results from responding to freeway incidents, and the lower density, hilly terrain,
and the more circuitous non-grid nature of many streets in new residential developments
in eastern Chula Vista such as the proposed project. The project would therefore
contribute to a significant cumulative impact to citywide fire services.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings.
[SEll>,, Subchapter 4.10, page 415]
The project mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to fire services would be applicable
to cumulative impacts to fire services associated with the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than si~m~j.~cant
99
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as
outlined above, the City/County must consider the feasibility of any environmentally
superior alternative to the project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether
one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable
sig~nificant environmental effects. Where, as in this project, significant environmental
effects remain even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Subsequent El]R, the decisionmakers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in
the Subsequent EIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the
feasibility of project alternatives.
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
the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, 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 Califomzia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253
Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83
Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842]; see also Kings CourtO, Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]. Accordingly, for this project,
in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are si~dficant and
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are feasible, the decisionmakers must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to
the project, the decisionmakers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the
project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain
the basic objectives of the project." However, the Guidelines also require an EIR to
examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these
alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives."
[CEQA Guidelines section 15126.]
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 technolo~cal factors." [Pub. Resources
Code section 21061.1] The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of
100
"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 Feat 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:
(I) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant enviromnental
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, technolo~caI. 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 section 15091, suM. (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. (Ci.ty of Del Mar v. Ci.ty 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 Homeo,,ners Assn. v.
CiB, 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 finally approved project, while still resulting in
significant environmental impacts, 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
101
meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the project best meets the finally
approved project objectives with the least environmental impact.
The detailed discussion in Sections IX and X demonstrate that all significant
environmental effects of the project but three 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 SEIR. The remaining
unmitigated impacts are the following:
· Air quality (direct and cumulative - conformance with regional plans, construction
emissions project operations emissions),
· Transportation/traffic circulation (cumulative - 1-805: Bonita Road to Telegraph
Canyon Road), and
· Landform alteration and visual quality (cumulative - contribution to open space
conversion ).
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any
alternatives identified in the SEIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with
respect to the impacts listed above. (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527; [147
Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings Coun.ty FatTn Bureau v. Ci~ of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
692, 730-731 [270 Cai. Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cai.3d 376, 400403 [253 Cal.Rptr.
426].) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both
feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impact.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects, and the extent to which
particular aitematives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to
them, these findings will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also
address the environrnental merits of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of
impacts--even though such a far-ran~ng discussion is not required by CEQA. The
findings will also assess whether each alternative is feasible in light of the City's
objectives for the Project.
The City's review of project alternatives is ~ided primarily by the need to reduce
potential impacts associated with the Project, while still achieving the basic objectives of
the Project. Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate
and implement development over a large area. More specific objectives include those
previously listed in Section 1]I.
102
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126, subdivision (d)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines require the evaJuation of the
"No Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as
well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services."
Under the No Project alternative, EastLake 1II Vistas and Woods would remain
essentially in their existing undeveloped condition. The impacts associated with project
implementation and the potentially significant cumulative impacts of proposed and
approved developments in the area would not occur under this scenario. The No Project
alternative would thus nullify impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,
biological resources, cultural/paleontological resources, geology/geologic hazards,
hydrology, land use, noise, public facilities, traffic/circulation, and utilities/service
systems. However, EastLake I/I, as part of the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and
adopted EastLake ffI GDP, is an area planned for development, and it is likely that
similar development would be proposed for the site in the future.
With respect to water quality, no structural systems are currently in place to control the
polhitants associated with the existing land uses of dry farming and gazing, such as
organic matter, animal wastes, pesticides, and fertilizer. Based on the proximity to the
lakes and the streambed, the potential hazards to runoff and water quality are considered
moderate to high. The No Project alternative would thus continue the current runoff
conditions at Otay Lakes and Salt Creek.
Although the No Project alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the
proposed project, it would not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the
proposed project.
Finding:
1. The No Project alternative would not provide housing, which conflicts with the
housing goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided
for all income groups.
2. This alternative does not provide employment opportunities
3. This alternative provides little or no support for public transit, conflicting with the
adopted General Plan transit goals.
4. Retention of the project site in its existing state as primarily agricultural fields
would be inconsistent with the approved General Plan and existing EastLake
103
General Development Plan land use designations for the site. In addition, key
subregional traffic routes established in the Circulation Element would not be
implemented.
5. This alternative does not provide geenbelt connections. nor would it provide uses
complimentary to the Ol,vmpic Training Center.
6. Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals
of the General Plan and would require reevaluation of the existing GDP. The
project proposes to provide regional-serving public facilities designated in the
community plan, including Circulation Element roads, schools, parks, open space,
water conveyance facilities, and other infrastructure. These facilities would be
needed to support surrounding developments whether the project is implemented
or not. The No Project alternative would require that these facilities be provided
without the benefit of the dedications and financial participation from private
development, which may delay or preclude facilities from being provided. The
reduction in dwelling units will result in a loss of contributions into the PFFP
from the dwelling units/structures that would otherwise have made payments
upon issuance of building permits. The loss of units under the No Project
alternative would result in a shortfall of contributions into the PFFP and
potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities currently
identified in the PFFP for construction in this area.
7. The City and County would receive much lower long-term revenues in the form
of property and sales tax, resulting from the nondevelopment of residential.
implementation of the No Project Alternative would achieve very few of the objectives
established for the project. Although this Alternative would at least temporarily preserve
the open space and other natural features on the project site, it would amount to a failure
to attempt to plan the site for eventual development, despite the planned cogunity
designation contemplated by the General Plan and GDP.
The No Project Alternative is inconsistent with the City' s objectives seeking to plan the
project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of
public services and utilities. plans for parks and open space to serve residents, completes
the City's circulation and geenbelt systena within the City, and creates densities
sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure. The Alternative also falls to
meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area
reasonably close to future job-growth areas within the City, and favoring the construction
of affordable housing consistent with the City' s goals.
104
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project Alternative is not
feasible. (See Cio, of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417: Sequoyah Hills. supra, 23
Cal.App.4th at 715.)
B. DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING EASTLAKE HI GDP
An alternative land use concept to the proposed project would be to implement the
existing GDP and not proceed with the proposed amendments and corresponding SPA
Plan for the Woods and Vistas. Under this scenario, land uses adopted for the Woods and
Vistas would remain as shown in the adopted EastLake 1]/GDP (see SEIR Figure 3-1
and Table 3-1). Under this scenario, the proposed amendments to the City of Chula
Vista's General Plan would not be implemented.
Potential impacts associated with this alternative would not be substantially different
from those of the proposed project because the adopted and proposed GDP plans are
generally similar with respect to land use designations and hence share comparable
development requirements and impacts. As a result, the alternative is not considered
environmentally preferable to the proposed project. Furthermore, this alternative would
not accomplish some of the replanning goals and objectives for the Woods and the Vistas
associated with the proposed GDP.
Finding:
1. The resulting site design under this alternative would not implement the land use
concepts/objectives associated with the proposed project. Overall implementation
of the existing GDP would create a community with less residential acreage and
dwelling units and more nonresidential acreage as compared to the proposed
GDP. Under the proposed GDP there would, for example, be a modest increase in
buildout dwelling units (2,061 as compared to 1,767) which helps meet the
re~on's housing demand. In addition, this alternative does provide as wide of an
array of housing densities in both single- and multi-family options.
2. In addition, the location of the elementary school shown in the existing plan
would provide less inte~ation of the school/residential uses from a land use
planning perspective and is not as easily accessed as the site in the proposed GDP.
3. Also, this alternative would not implement the improvements to the internal
circulation pattern, including a Class 1II collector road which would be added to
the circulation element along the eastern portion of the Vistas neighborhood under
the proposed GDP Amendment.
4. This alternative does not provide for as many community amenities as the
proposed GDP, including a fire station site and community purposes facility site.
105
In addition this alternative does not include provisions for an Otay tarplant
preserve and a mitigation area in the Salt Creek corridor to protect sensitive
biolo~cal resources.
Implementation of this Alternative would not achieve as many of the objectives
established for the project. Compared to the proposed project, the Alternative is less
consistent with the City~s housing and transportation/traffic circulation objectives and
does not provide as much protection for Otay Tarplant and the habitats associated with
Salt Creek.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the Development Consistent with the
Existing EastLake III GDP Alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133
Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal. App.4th at 715.)
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSF. D
EASTLAKE WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANNING PROGRAM SEIR
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas,
described in detail in these Findings of Fact:
Transportation/Traffic (cumulative).
· Landform Alteration/Visual Quality (cumulative)
· Air Quality (direct project, construction-related, and cumulative).
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Although in these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will not, in some cases, fully avoid the impacts. Cumulative
impacts to traffic and landform alteration remain significant after mitigation, as do
project and cumulative impacts to air quality.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based
on this examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives both (1) meet
project objectives and (2) are enviromnentally preferable to the finally approved project.
As a result, to approve the project the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This statement
allows a lead agency to cite a project's economic, social or other benefits as a
I06
justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified si~_~d~cant environmental
effects that have not been avoided: The statement explains why, in the agency's
judgment, the project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable si~ificant effects. Where
another substantive law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or
the California or Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking
certain actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does
not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decisionmaker has
recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the final SEIR,
recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose more stringent
standards or measures.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather,
EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be
"adverse." [Pub. Resources Code section 21068] The Legislature amended the definition
to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial
impacts must also be addressed. Nevertheless, decisionmakers benefit from information
about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of
overriding considerations. [CEQA Guidelines section 15093.]
Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the
Project. Thus, even if a Court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by
substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each
individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits
can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this
Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section
IV.
The City finds that the project would have the following substantial social.
environmental, and economic benefits:
1. The project would place approximately 138 acres in open space for the
benefit of residents, the public, and wildlife, including the Otay tarplant
preserve and Salt Creek mitigation area.
2. The overall project area from a cumulative standpoint currently exceeds
federal and state air quality standards for a number of emissions factors,
including ozone and carbon monoxide. A substantial majority of these
emissions are attributable to motor vehicles. In order to comply with the
federal and California Clean Air Acts, the San Diego region must reduce
these sources. The project is desigmed to reduce the adverse impact to air
quality and automobile congestion by encouraging use of aitemative
modes of transportation such as biking and walking and the use of transit.
107
Trolley service is also planned for the Eastern Territories to provide
additional transit opportunities.
3. The project will provide for significant community-wide pubhc facilities.
As the plan is implemented, it will be responsible for constructing public
facilities and infrastructure to serve the project and incidentally the
subregion. These facilities include:
a) Improvements to regional backbone circulation sysmm;
b ) Schools serving the subregion including the on-site elementary and
middle schools;
c) A public park and gTeenbelt and community trails;
d) A fire station and a community purpose facility; and
Water line and sewer infrastructure improvements.
4. The project is generally consistent with and implements the land use
designations of the existing General Plan and General Development Plan, '
provides a mix of land uses that provides housing opportunities,
recreational opportunities, and public facilities in the Eastern Territories of
the City of Chula Vista. In addition to helping reduce the projected
countywide housing shorffall, the project also proposes a portion of the
dwelling units for affordable housing. A minimum of 10 percent of the
project's total dwelling units will be designated for low and moderate
income households, with one-half of these units (5 percent of the total
project) designated to low income and the remaining five percent to
moderate income households. The project therefore provides the
opportunity to complete the comprehensive planning process initiated for
the overall EastLake planned community in 1982.
5. The project will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing
by providing a wide variety of housing t.vpes and prices. SANDAG
housing capacity studies indicate a shortage of housing will occur in the
project area within the next 20 years. In recent years, the cost of housing
has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the project area
(e.g., commercial, industrial), reflecting a shorffall in residentially zoned
land. The project will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an
adequate supply of suitable land for residential development. The
proposed range of residential densities within EastLake Woods and Vistas
108
will result in housing types and prices that will promote socioeconomic
diversity, which the City finds both important and desirable.
6. The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the EastLake Woods and Vistas
Replanning Process has concluded that, at buildout, the project will have a
net positive impact on the City of Chula Vista. Based on fiscal analyses
prepared by CIC Research (2000) for EastLake ffI, the project is expected
to have a positive net annual fiscal impact on the City. Anticipated
revenues from EastLake gl project range from $324,000 in the first year
of development to $3,933,000 at full buildout of the project, with the net
annual fiscal impact being positive from year 1 ($37,000) to buildout
($1,837,000).
7. The project would generate new temporary construction-related jobs that
would enhance the economic base of the re,on.
8. Commercial tourist and conunercial retail uses will serve the needs of
OTC visitors and help ensure the long-term success of the OTC as a
world-class athletic training facility.
9. The project would provide a variety of housing types, ran~ng from estates
with lake views to multi-family units near the Village Center and OTC,
that would help achieve the City's goals to provide housing opportunities
for various income levels.
For these reasons on balance, the City Council finds there are economic, social, and other
considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project' s
unavoidable si~-ntificant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable effects
are considered acceptable.
I09
EXHIBIT B
EASTLAKE III
WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANNING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring reporting proyam (MMRP) was prepared for the City of
Chula Vista for the EastLake I]ZI Woods and Vistas Replanning Proyam to comply with
Assembly Bill 3180, which requires public agencies to adopt such prograrns 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 proyam will 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
The EastLake UI Replanning ProHam includes EastLake Woods, EastLake Vistas, and
the Panhandle site, all located within the EastLake l]] General Development Plan (GDP)
area. Development of the Woods and Vistas would involve the construction of a total of
27061 dwelling units. The eastern portion of the Woods is planned for single-family
residential use. including custom low density estate homes in the area closest to the Upper
Otay Reservoir. West of Hunte Parkway, low-medium density detached homes are
proposed in the area known as "Woods West." Low density estate homes are also
planned for the eastern portion of the Vistas. while more traditional single-family homes
in low- to low-medium densities are planned for the western portion. Low-medium
density as well as medium, medium-nigh, and high density housing, with densities up to
20 dwelling units per acre, are planned for the southern portion of the Vistas adjacent to
the proposed Village Center and existing Olympic Training Center.
Business Center I] is a 102.6-acre parcel located to the west of the Woods on Otay Lakes
Road. It is currently part of the adopted GDP for EastLake III but has an approved
tentative map as part of an extension of the EastLake Business Center further to the west.
It is included in the proposed EastLake IIZI GDP to be de-annexed into the EastLake 11
GDP. The Village Center would include both Commercial Tourist and Commercial Retail
uses such as a hotel, restaurants, and shops designed to sen'e the EastLake community,
with particular emphasis on serving the needs of Olympic Training Center visitors, staff,
and athletes. EastLake HI also proposes several public facilities, including schools, park
and recreation areas, and a fire station site.
Open space is designated around the perimeter of both neighborhoods, some of which
would be incorporated into the EastLake Community Trail and/or the City of Chula
Vista's Greenbelt Trail.
The project also includes designating the 45-acre Panhandle site for Public/Quasi-Public
uses, with a secondary use of Low Density Residential. With a Low Density Residential
use the Panhandle site could accommodate as many as 90 single-family dwelling units.
Future plans and applications to develop the Panhandle site will be subject to a more
comprehensive review under the California Environmental Quality Act and will be
subject to further, more specific mitigation measures as necessary.
The proposed amendments to the EastLake 1II GDP, Chula Vista General Plan, and the
SPA Plan for the Woods and Vistas are described in the Subsequent Environmental
impact Report (SEIR) text.
The SEIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be
potentially si~-mificant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the SEIR
include land use, transportation/traffic, biological resources, hydrology/drainage,
landform alteration/visual quality, geology/geologic hazards, noise. air quality,
cultural/paleontological resources, and public facilities. 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 transportation/traffic circulation, hydrology/drainage,
landform alteration/visual quality, noise, air quality, cultural/paleontolo~cal resources,
and public facilities.
Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as sig~tificant or
potentially sigrdficant. The monitoring program for the EastLake llI Replanning Program
therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
Mitigation Monitorin_,2 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 (lESs),
and the MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula
Vista, 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:
· Implement and manage the monitoring proHam;
· Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring:
· Administrate and prepare dally logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final
construction monitoring;
· Act as liaison between the City of Chula Vista, the EastLake Company (the project
applicant), 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:
3
· Maintain a working 'knowledge of the EastLake III permit conditions, contract
documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation
requirements for his or her assigned construction area:
· Assist the MM and EastLake l]I construction contractors in coordinating with City of
Chula Vista compliance activities;
· Observe consu'uction 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.
Program Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between 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 will 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 to 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 flame that these mitigations are
anticipated to be implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation
monitoring report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure wfiuen 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 following 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 pro~am, summarize problems encountered
in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome
4
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 dally log report will be used to record and account for the
monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly an~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.
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 EastLake I]I 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 proyam
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.
SU1VIMARY 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 EastLake ffI Replanning Program
has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors,
the City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will further refine the mitigation measures.