HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1999-19431 RESOLUTION NO. 19431
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PROCESS PLANS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY FROM THE
EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SUNBOW PROPERTY TO A
POINT ABOUT ONE MILE EAST OF THE PROPOSED SR-125;
ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR THE OLYMPIC PARKWAY EXTENSION
WHEREAS, the Olympic Parkway alignment through Poggi Canyon has been envisioned
and addressed in a series of prior environmental documents including the City of Chula Vista
General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (EIR088-2), the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP) EIR (EIR-90-01), Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One EIR
(EIR 95-01 ), Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment EIR (97-03), EastLake GDP EIR (EIR 89-09),
EastLake Greens EIRs (EIR 86-04), EastLake Greens/Trails Replanning Program EIR (EIR 97-04)
and Sunbow EIR (EIR 88-01); and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch SPA One and EIR 97-03 approved and certified,
respectively, on October 30, 1998, required the developers of Otay Ranch to construct
Olympic Parkway from Brandywine to proposed SR-125 (Olympic Parkway) in accordance
with the threshold requirements set forth in the SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan
(PFFP); and
WHEREAS, developers of Otay Ranch SPA One are requesting that the City of Chula
Vista (City) process construction plans for construction of the roadway; and
WHEREAS, City staff prepared an environmental initial study on the construction of
Olympic Parkway from the eastern boundary of the Sunbow project to a point about one mile
east of proposed State Route 125 (Project); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21094 and 21083.3
and Sections 15152 and 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare a tiered environmental document for the construction
of the project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed construction of the project is consistent with the General Plan
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed construction of the project is consistent with the Sunbow,
Otay Ranch and EastLake environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, the analysis contained in the project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
is limited to those significant effects on the environment not examined in the prior
environmental documents, including impacts peculiar to the project; and
WHEREAS, a notice of availability of the initial study posted at the County of San Diego
on February 16, 1999, and mailed to adjacent property owners and interested parties on
February 26, 1999, in accordance with the City guidelines for implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
Resolution 19431
Page 2
WHEREAS, during the public review period, which closed March 29, 1999, comments
were received from members of the public and the City Resource Conservation Commission,
and these comments have been responded to; and
WHEREAS, the contents of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project consist
of the following:
1. Initial Study IS-99-20 for extension of Olympic Parkway from east of the
Sunbow property to a point approximately one mile east of the proposed SR-
125; and
2. Mitigation Monitoring Program for IS-99-20; hereafter all collectively referred
to as "1S-99-20"
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. INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND
CONSIDERED
That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered
IS-99-20 for this Project including the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution)
and the proposed mitigation measures contained therein, and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution), prior to approving the Project.
Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that IS-99-20, the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A"
to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B"
to this Resolution) are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. title 14,
§ 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
Ill. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the IS-99-20 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista City Council.
IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in
the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
Resolution 19431
Page 3
B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in IS-99-20 and in the Findings of Fact for
this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, 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 same.
That development policies and standards previously adopted by the City will,
to the extent applicable to the proposed project, substantially mitigate the
effects of the proposed project as set forth in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Findings of Fact. That mitigation measures previously adopted
as conditions of approval for the Otay Ranch, Sunbow and EastLake
development projects will be and are hereby required to be undertaken as
conditions of approval for the proposed project.
C. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council
hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set
forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy 'of which is on file in'th~ office'of
the City Clerk, 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 measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the
Program.
V. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et
seq.).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby authorizes the City Engineer to process plans for the construction of
Olympic Parkway.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
Resolution 19431
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 13th day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Padilia, Sales and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley HorK,~n, ~Vlayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk '~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No, 19431 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 13th day of April, 1999.
Executed this 13th day of April, 1999.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk o
FINDINGS OF FACT
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CITY OF CHULA VISTA
for the
OLYMPIC PARKWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
APRIL 13, 1999
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. iNTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
II. DEFINITIONS .......................................................... 3
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ 4
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................... 4
B. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ............................... 5
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................... 5
D. PROJECT PHASING .............................................. 8
E. PROJECT PERMITS REQUIRED .................................... 8
IV. RECORD OF iPROCEEDINGS ............................................. 9
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA .................................... 11
VI. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS ......................................... 12
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN ...................................... 12
VIII. PROJECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ....................... 12
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................... 13
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................... 16
C. GEOPHYSICAL ................................................. 18
D. WATER ........................................................ 25
E. AIR QUALITY .................................................. 34
F. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ............................... 39
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................... 44
H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ............................ 53
IX. HAZARDS ............................................................ 55
J. NOISE ......................................................... 58
K. PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................. 61
L. THRESHOLDS .................................................. 63
M. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................. 67
N. AESTHETICS ................................................... 71
O. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................ 76
P. PALEONTOLOGiCAL RESOURCES ................................ 81
Q. RECREATION .................................................. 83
R. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................... 85
I. INTRODUCTION
These findings have been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
CCEQA'') (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
14, § 15000 et seq.), which enable the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency for the Olympic Parkway
Extension Project ("Project") to make full use of the environmental analysis it previously prepared
on a plan or program via a process known as "tiering." Public Resources Code section 21068.5
defines "tiering" as:
"the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental
impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower
or site-specific environmental impact reports [or negative declarations] which
incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and
which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being
mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the
prior environmental impact report."
(See also CEQA Guidelines, § 15385; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36
Cal. App.4th 1359, 1374.)
"Tiering is neqded in order to provide increased efficiency in the CEQA process. It
allows agencies to deal with broad environmental issues in EIRs at planning stages
and then to provide more detailed examination of specific effects in EIRs on later
development projects that are consistent with or implement the plans2 These later
EIRs are excused by the tiering concept from repeating the analysis of broad
environmental issues examined in the general plan EIRs."
(Discussion following CEQA Guidelines, § 15385.)
Such later EIRs or negative declarations typically incorporate the earlier analyses by reference and
focus on the specific details regarding the particular projects in question. (Pub. Resources Code, §
21068.5; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15385, subd. (a), 15152, subd. (a); Las Virgenes Homeowners
Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 307.) The tiering process,
then, is not intended to avoid site-specific environmental review, but rather is intended to ensure that
such site-specific review not include mmecessary repetitive analysis of issues already analyzed at
the "first tier" stage.
Where a lead agency has employed tiering in preparing an EIR for a plan or policy document, later
EIRs for specific projects need not discuss significant effects identified in the earlier EIR if such
effects: (I) already have been mitigated or avoided; or (2) were examined in such detail that they
can be mitigated or avoided by site-specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other
means in connection with the approval of the later project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21094, subd.
(a).)
"Ifa development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an
environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the
application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be
limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the
project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental
impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant
than described in the prior environmental impact report."
(Pub. Resources Code, 5 21083.3, sub& (b).)
Even though site-specific analysis is thus limited, the lead agency still must inform the public that
it is using tiering, identify the earlier EIR(s) upon which the agency has relied, and inform the public
of where the prior EIR(s) can be found and reviewed. (Pub. Resources Code, 5 21094, subd. (e);
CEQA Guidelines, 5 15152, subd. (g).)
Public Resources Code section 21083.3 provides for a qualified exemption applicable in the tiering
context where a first tier environmental document was prepared on a zoning, community or general
plan. (Pub. Resources Code, 5 21083.3, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, 5 15183, subd. (a); Gentry,
supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1406.) Where a project, consistent with such a zoning, community, or
general plan, is proposed, that project "shall not require additional environmental review, except as
might be necessary t? examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are
peculiar to the project or its site." (CEQA Guidelines, 5 15183, subd. (a).) Thus, in a manner similar
to the application of general tiering principles, the lead agency must provide second-tier
environmental review only where it finds that the project may have effects that:
"(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be
located,
"(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action,
general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
"(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which
were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community
plan or zoning action, or
"(4) Are previously identified significant effects, which, as a result of substantial
new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are
determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior
EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines, 5 15183, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, 55 21083.3, subds.
(a), (b), 21094, subd. (a).)
2
The Mitigated Negative Declaration CMND'') represents the final tier in the analysis of potential
environmental impacts for the Olympic Parkway Extension Project and incorporates by reference
the analysis, discussions, and supporting documents for the City of Chula Vista General Plan
Environmental Impact Report ("General Plan EIR"), the Sunbow EIR, the Otay Ranch SPA One
EIR, the Otay Ranch GDP EIR, the Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program Supplemental EIR
CSEIR"), SPA One West EIR, Eastlake GDP EIR, and Eastlake Greens EIR. (Pub. Resources Code,
§ 21068.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15152; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3, subd. (b).)
II. DEFINITIONS
"BMP's" means Best Management Practices.
"Caltrans" means California Department of Transportation.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"CNEL" Equivalent noise level.
"CO" means carbon monoxide.
"EIR" mean Environmental Impact Report.
"ECVTPP" means Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan.
"GDP/SRP" means General Development Plan/Sub-Regional Plan.
"General Plan EIR" means City of Chula Vista General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
"LOS" means level of service,
"MHPA" means Multiple Habitat Planning Area.
"MMP" means Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
"MND" means Mitigated Negative Declaration ~br the Olympic Parkway Extension Project.
"MSCP" means Multi Species Conservation Program.
"NOI" means Notice of Intent.
"NOx" means nitrogen oxide.
3
"PMm" means particulate matter with diameter of 10 microns or less.
"RMP" means Resource Management Plan.
"ROC" means reactive organic compounds.
"ROG" means reactive organic gases.
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"TDS"means total dissolved solids.
"USACOE" or "ACOE" means United States Army Corps of Engineers.
IlL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed project, Olympic Parkway, has been previously considered in o~er
environmenta! planning documents. The earliest contemplation of the roadway was
identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Final EIR, dated May 31, 1989. The
Olympic Parkway, known as Orange Avenue, had been identified as a proposed roadway on
the Proposed Circulation Element, Figure 3-8, page 3-133 of the Final EIR. The Circulation
Element of the General Plan calls fbr Orange Avenue (Olympic Parkway) to constructed as
a six-lane arterial from 1-805 to Paseo Ranchero and then as an expressway east to proposed
State Route 125. The Sunbow Final EIR, dated September 1989, relied on this General Plan
proposed roadway extension and incorporated these roadway improvements in their Final
EIR (see pages 2-4, 4-4, 4-10 and Appendix C, Traffic Report, pages 14-36). Subsequent
projects such as the 1993 Otay Ranch GDP, the 1996 Otay Ranch SPA and the 1998 Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program EIR's identified a roadway network similar to the
Adopted Chula Vista General Plan, which included the proposed Olympic Parkway.
Since the earliest consideration of Olympic Parkway, variations of the roadway alignment
have been identified, most notably being the proposed alignment identified in the Otay
Ranch GDP EIR (see Figures 2.3-4 and 3.10-2, page 3.10-1 i), particularly the roadway
segment between SR-125 and Hunte Parkway. This segment of the roadway has varied in
aligmnent fi'om its originally proposed straight design to the current southern curved design.
Alternatives to roadway designs were also analyzed with these proposed projects. For
example, the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR considered reducing a portion of the roadway
segment from a 6-lane prime arterial to a 4-lane facility (see Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p.
4.10-14). The current roadway design and alignment is a culmination of previous plans,
providing the most efficient alignment for plmmed development in the area.
4
B. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, in southwestern Sm~ Diego County.
The Olympic Parkway will ultimately extend from 1-805 to the Olympic Training Center.
Olympic Parkway currently terminates at Brandywine Avenue. The roadway project extends
eastward through Otay Ranch and Eastlake and terminates at Hunte Parkway. The project
site is located within Sections 17 and 18, Range l West, Township 18 South of the USGS
7.5' Imperial Beach Quadrangle. The project also extends into unsectioned lands, Range 1
West, Township 18 South of the Jamul Mountain Quadrangle; and unsectioned lands, Range
1 West, Township 18 South of the National City Quadrangle. (Initial Study, p. 1.)
The proposed Olympic Parkway is located in an area of the City of Chula Vista known as
the "Eastern Territories." The roadway will be an extension of East Orange Avenue, which
currently runs from 1-805 eastward and terminates at Brandywine Avenue. This portion of
the roadway presently operates as a four-lane major street with bike lanes on both sides from
1-805 to Oleander Avenue. East of Oleander Avenue, it is a two-lane roadway with
improvement along the avenue. On-street parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is
35 mph east of Oleander Avenue. The project area is a partially developed area of the City,
east of Interstate 805 (I-805), which is comprised of several large vacant land holdings, all
of which are proposed or approved For development. (MND/Initial Study, pp.l-2.)
The proposed Olympic Parkway will traverse several large approved and partially developed
planning areas, namely Sunbow, Otay Ranch, McMillin (formerly Otay Ranch) and Eastlake.
Each of these planning areas contemplated the roadway construction of Olympic Parkway,
and as such, included and analyzed this roadway segment in their project's environmental
review.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Roadway
The proposed project consists of the extension of Olympic Parkway (Orange Avenue) from
the eastern boundary of the Sunbow property to a point approximately one mile east of SR-
125. Olympic Parkway is a five-mile long roadway which will provide direct access to 1-805
and proposed State Route 125 (SR- 125) from the proposed development areas of the Eastern
Territories of Chula Vista. This portion of the Olympic Parkway extension traverses
Sunbow, 0tay Ranch, McMiIlan-Otay Ranch, New Millcranium and Eastlake. Olympic
Parkway is currently classified by the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element as a six-
lane prime arterial east of 1-805 to the proposed SR-125.
The preliminary design plans for Olympic Parkway call for the roadway to basically follow
Poggi Canyon. The entire alignment will be constructed predominately on fill which ranges
from 0 to as much as 50 feet in depth, and the roadway will be elevated above the existing
5
ground, except at the Sunbow development. It will steadily climb from Sunbow and
typically be approximately 20-30 feet above the existing elevation. The maximum elevation
is at the Palomar crossing where the elevation will be approximately 60 feet above the
current elevation of Poggi Canyon. While the source of fill material is not restricted by
design, several upland borrow areas have been identified within the Otay Ranch and
McMillan properties along the roadway alignment.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 2; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-10; Otay Ranch GDP, p. 2-17; Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, p. 2-27;Easttake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 49.)
Drainage Plan
In order to accommodate the runoff that currently runs through Poggi Canyon, as well as
additional ranoff from future development, the road extension plan includes a drainage
system consisting of an earthen channel with drop structures and a detention facility. The
drainage system will be similar to the existing detention facilities that were created for the
Telegraph Canyon channel located to the north of the project site adjacent to Telegraph
Canyon Road. Between the eastern end of the project and approximately halfway between
La Media and Paseo Ranchero the channel will be on the noah side of the roadway. For this
portion of the roadway, a smaller temporary channel is proposed for the southern side of the
road. The tem~porary channel will be at the base of the slope that will be created by the
roadway grading. At the time the southern side of the road is graded for future development,
the temporary channel will be removed and the finished grading will match the northem side
of the road. The temporary channel will have drop structures and erosion control
landscaping. No native revegetation is planned for the temporary channel.
Approximately halfway between La Media and Paseo Ranchero the channel will cross under
the road to the southern side of the road. The minimum depth of the main channel is 12 feet,
and the bottom width of the channel varies between 25 feet at the east end and widening to
50 feet at the west end where it enters the detention basin. Side slopes are proposed at 3:l
in accordance with the City's design criteria. A five foot buffer and a 10-foot wide
maintenance trail are also proposed.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 2-3; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-54;Otay Ranch GDP, pp. 3.9-15 - 3.9-20;
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-5 - 4.9-4.9-8; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning
Program SEIR, pp. 105-t06.)
Drop Structures
There are up to 25 drop structures and one culvert on the secondary charmel. The main
channel has fewer drop structures, a detention basin in addition to a revegetation area that
is currently under construction. The drop structures will vary in height up to are nine feet
tall with the same three to one side slopes. The width of the top of the drop structures will
6
be up to 54 feet wider than the bottom. The slope of the face of the drop structure is 2:1.
The entire drop structure is riprap lined to protect from erosion and to minimize velocities.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 3.)
Detention Basin
A large detention basis is also proposed which will accommodate the increased flow rates
associated with increased irapermeability of the watershed when developed through build-
out. The proposed channel design will ensure that the 100-year post-development flood flow
exiting the project area is kept to a level that is at or below the 100-year pre-development
flows. Because the benn height is less than 25 feet and the basin capacity is less thm~ 50
acre-feet, the detention basin does not qualify as a dam according to State dam criteria.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 3; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-54; Otay Ranch GDP, p. 3.9~15; Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-5 - 4.9-4.9-8 Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p.
100.)
Utilities
The proposed project includes the placement of utilities within the Olympic Parkway right-
of-way. Wet utilities include the Poggi Canyon sewer and potable water and reclaimed water
lines. The P?ggi Canyon sewer will consist of an 18oinch sewer line and associated
manholes. Potable water facilities consist of an Otay Water District 16-inch potable water
line as well as the relocation of a 54-inch City of San Diego potable water line from Paseo
Ranchero to La Media. The reclaimed water lines consist ofa 16-inch line from Brandywine
to La Media, and an 18-inch line from La Media to Eastlake Parkway.
As presently planned, the roadway would be constructed coincident with the development
of the adjacent lands to the greatest extent possible. However, where adjacent developments
are not proceeding along a coincident schedule, the roadway would be constructed as a fully
stand alone action. Funding for this portion of the roadway is through Transportation
Development Impact Fees, Sewer Development Impact Fees, Otay Water District and City
of San Diego CIP funding (utilities), and developer financing. (MND/Initial Study, p. 3;
Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-17 - 4-19; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13 - 15 - 4.13 - 16;Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 161 - 173. )
Borrow Areas
Approximately 4.7 million cubic yards of cut and fill will be required for project
implementation. Fill material required for the project will be derived from five borrow areas
within the Otay Ranch property, as well as from Eastlake. The borrow areas will be
excavated in accordance with the existing approved development plans for the Otay Ranch,
McMillan-Otay Ranch and Eastlake developments; however, rather than exporting the excess
material to an undisclosed location off-site, the fill material that is excavated from these
7
properties will be utilized for the Olympic Parkway construction.
The size of the borrow areas are as follows: Borrow Area (1) 76.32 acres; Borrow Area (2)
33.50 acres; Borrow Area (3) 32.50 acres; Borrow Area (4) 56.82 acres; and Borrow Area
(5) 7.40 acres. With the exception of Borrow Area (1), these areas are void of any sensitive
wetland or upland habitat. Borrow Area (1) contains 7.14 acres of coastal sage scrub and
0.87 acres of maritime chaparral. Figure 17 of the Initial Study depicts the habitat located
within Borrow Area (1). (MND/Initial Study, pp. 3-4.)
D. PROJECT PHASING
The roadway was originally anticipated to be constructed over a 10-15 year period. As
planned development adjacent to the proposed roadway alignment ensued each developer
would be responsible for their portion of the improvement. However, additional
development approvals in the Eastern Territories have triggered the need for more immediate
improvement of Olympic Parkway per development thresholds (i.e., number of dwelling
units and/or commercial and industrial acreage to be developed) established by the City's
Eastem Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) and the Growth Management
Plan.
Olympic ParkFeay will be constructed in the following four phases:
Phase I (by the year 2000) includes grading the alignment fi'om Brandywine to SR-125,
constructing the Poggi Canyon Sewer from Brandywine to SR-125, constructing the water
main from Eastlake Parkway to E. Palomar Street, and constructing roadway improvements
from Brandywine to Paseo Ranchero.
Phase II (by theyear 2001) involves the construction of roadway improvements from Paseo
Ranchero to E. Palomar Street.
Phase III (by theyear 2003) includes constructing roadway improvements from E. Palomar
Street to Eastlake Parkway and grading the alignment from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway.
PhaseIV(by theyear2004) comprises of grading from Eastlake Parkway to Hante Parkway
and constructing ultimate roadway improvements from Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway.
(Initial Study, p.4; Sunbow EIR, p. 2-7;Otay Ranch GDP, p. 2-22; Otay Ranch SPA One
EIR, pp. 2-25 - 2-28.)
E. PROJECT PERMITS REQUIRED
The project will result in impacts to water and/or streambeds that fall under both state and
federal regulatory programs, The following permits are required for project implementation:
8
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Chula Vista will issue, provide public notice
of, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Sections 15070 and
15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In so doing, the City Council
will authorize the City Engineer to process the necessary plans for the extension of Olympic
Parkway east of the Sunbow Project to the approximate alignment of proposed SR-125.
Section 404 Permit. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, placement of dredged or
fill material within Waters of the U.S. requires a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Section 401 Certification or Waiver. The Clean Water Act also requires the issuance of
a state water quality certification or waiver under Section 401 to be issued by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board for any action that may result in degradation of the water of the
State.
Section 1603 Agreement. In addition to the federal act requirements, the proposed project
constitutes an alteration of a streambed and falls under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and
Game Code.
(Initial Study, pp. 4-5.)
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the Findings of Fact set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the
City ofChula Vista's decisions on the Olympic Parkway Extension Project consists of the following
documents, in addition to any other documents identified in Public Resources Code section 21167.6,
subdivision (e):
The Notice of Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other public notices
issued by the City in conjunction with the Olympic Parkway Extension Project;
The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Olympic Parkway Extension Project, dated
February 15, 1999;
· The City of Chula Vista General Plan, dated 1989;
· The Final EIR for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, dated May 1989;
· The Sunbow EIR, dated September 1989;
The Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, dated April 1996;
9
The Otay Ranch GDP EIR, dated July 1992;
The Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program Supplemental EIR, dated July 1998;
· All comments submitted to the City by agencies or members of the public during the public
review period from, February to March 29, 1999, on the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
The "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Olympic Parkway Feasibility Study," Kimberly-
Horn, May 19, 1998;
The Mitigation Monitoring Plan;
All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisiommakers in connection with the Project,
and all documents cited or referred to therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating
to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies
with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the
City's actions on the Project;
· All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the Project, up through the close of all public hearings on March 29, 1999;
Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City in connection with the Project;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions,
public meetings, and public hearings;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and
local laws and regulations;
· Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; 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, City Clerk
to the Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching their decisions on the
Olympic Parkway Extension Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the
Commission, Council, or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the
10
Olympic Parkway Extension Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found
in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior plam~ing or legislative
decisions with which the Council was aware in approving the Olympic Parkway Extension. (See
City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d 381,391-392
[I 42 Cal. Rptr. 873]; DomineV 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 Council. For that reason, such documents form
part of the underlying factual basis for the Council's decisions relating to the adoption of Olympic
Parkway Extension Project. (See pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris
Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852,866 [226 Cal. Rptr. 575];
Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal. Appo4th 144, 153, 155 [39
Cal. Rptr.2d 54].)
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resoumes Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Emphasis added.) The
same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant ett~cts of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects."
(Emphasis added.)
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented,
in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for
which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §
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
as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second generally
permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility andj urisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, §
15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion in some cases is that "[s]pecific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
In the present situation, the City of Chula Vista has employed tiering to prepare the MND/lnitial
Study and to conduct its environmental review under CEQA for the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project. In so doing, the City has relied and incorporates by reference EIRs prepared for the City's
11
General Plan, as well as the Sunbow EIR, the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, the Otay Ranch GDP EIR,
and the Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program Supplemental EIR. Accordingly, the
MND/[nitial Study incorporates the earlier analyses and findings by reference and adds specific
details regarding impacts peculiar to the Olympic Parkway Extension Project. (Pub. Resources
Code, § § 21068.5, 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines, § § 15385, subd. (a), 15152, subd. (a); § 15183, subd.
(a); Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1406; Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, supra, 177
Cal.App.3d at p. 307.) For each potentially significant environmental effect identified in the
MND/Initial Study for the the Project, the City of Chula Vista's written findings conclude that
mitigation measures, changes, or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the MND/Initial Study.
V1. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
MND/Initial Study are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City
hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely
informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when City
decisiomnakers formally approve the Olympic Parkway Extension Project.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring plan adopted concurrently with
these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of constructing and implementing the
Project.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
A Mitigation Monitoring Plan CMMP") has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted
concurrently with these findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); CEQA
Guidelines, § 15074, subd. (d).) The City will use the MMP to track compliance with Project
mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public review during the compliance
period.
VIII. PROJECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts specific to the Olympic Parkway Extension Project are analyzed in the tiered MND/Initial
Study and are summarized in this section (Project Effects and Mitigation Measures). Mitigation
measures and conditions of approval have been added after circulation of the MND/Initial Study
which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are
not necessary to mitigate an unavoidable significant effect; accordingly, recirculation of the
MND/Initial is not required. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.)
12
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact (Ia): The project will not conflict with any General Plan designation or
zoning. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 23 .)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project is a circulation element roadway as identified in the City' s General Plan. The
alignment of the project is consistent with the conceptual alignment depicted in each the approved
Sectional Planning Area plans transected by the roadway. The general roadway alignment is
depicted specifically on Figure 4-4 of the Proposed Grading Plan of the Sunbow EIR and subsequent
figures within the document; on Figures 2-5 and 2-9 of the Land Use Plans of the Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, and on Figure 2.3-1 of the Otay Ranch GDP EIR; and on Figure 3-3 of the Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR and subsequent figures within the document.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 24.) The Sunbow EIR, Otay Ranch SPA One E1R, Otay Ranch GDP EIR,
and Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR identified no specific land use impacts
associated with the cOinstraction and operation of Olympic Parkway. (Otay Ranch SPA One EIR,
pp. 4.1-5 - 4.1-13; Otay Ranch GDP, pp. 3.1-44 - 3.1-52; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning
Program SEIR, pp. 42-45; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-3 - 4-4.) As such, the project will not conflict with
any general plan designations or zoning.
Signi[icance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 23.)
Impact (lb): The proposed project could conflict with environmental plans and
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 23-25.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project, including mitigati on measures, that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental
effects identified in the MND/Initial Study. (MND/Initial Study, p. 27.)
Explanation:
The proposed project could conflict with environmental plans and policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project. With the exception of the Sunbow property, the property is subject to
13
the City's Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The MSCP is a regional habitat
conservation plan and State-level Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) covering south
San Diego County, including portions of the Otay Ranch, the Eastlake planning area, and the
remaining jurisdictional area of Chula Vista. The City's MSCP is a plan and process for the local
issuance of permits under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts for impacts to threatened
and endangered species. The City of Chula Vista's MSCP has not been adopted at this time.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 24.)
Potential impacts on regional habitat planning efforts will, in fact, be less than significant. The City
of San Diego and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service certified a joint EIR/EIS for the San
Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in the Spring of I997. The MSCP defines
a Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which an open space preserve is ultimately to be
assembled, primarily for the conservation of biological resources within southwestern San Diego
County. Consistent with the MSCP, in October 1997, San Diego County adopted a south county
sub-regional plan. The MSCP adopted by the City of San Diego and USFWS, and the South County
MHPA adopted by the Board of Supervisors, each contemplate development of in Poggi Canyon,
including the Olympic Parkway extension. The City of Chula Vista expects to adopt its own
component of the MSCP later this year. Previous EIRs prepared and certified by the City for
planned development by the City in the vicinity of the proposed project concluded that no impacts
would result from potential conflicts between the MSCP and the development planned by the City,
including the OlympiSParkway extensionproject. (Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4. 1-1 1 to4.1-13,
4.3-41 to 4.3-42; Eastlake EIR, pp. 92-93.)
Open space planned within Otay Ranch is considered by the wildlife agencies to be an integral
component of the MHPA and, as part of the planning effort for the MSCP, the wildlife agencies and
Otay Ranch landowner(s) conducted negotiations to determine the appropriate configuration of open
space on Otay Ranch to achieve consistency with the goals of the MSCP. Those negotiations
concluded with an agreement executed by the wildlife agencies on February 22, 1996. The
agreement resulted in changes in the Otay Ranch preserve configuration from that delineated in the
Otay Ranch GDP approved on October 23, 1993. The agreement contemplates development in
Poggi Canyon, including the Olympic Parkway, and the resulting loss of habitat, in exchange for
open space in the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountain parcels (MND/Initial Study, p. 48.) The
agreement, in conjunction with the analysis in the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, establishes that
potential conflicts with regional habitat planning efli3rts will be fully mitigated and less than
significant. (Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-13, 4.3-41 to 4.3-42.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Adherence to the City's Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). (MND/Initial Study, p. 24.)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The following previously implemented mitigation measures from prior EIRs will further reduce
14
potentially significant impacts.
· Any future development approval associated with the SPA One plan shall be
consistent with the adopted SPA One plan, and related discretionary actions
including the General Development Plan Amendments, Overall Design Plan, Village
Design Plan, and Conceptual Grading Plan. Consistency with these plans will ensure
that all policies and development standards contained within the plans are complied
with. Compliance will ensure that setbacks, landscaping, building design, lighting
standards, grading techniques, etc. are fully implemented which wilt avoid land use
impacts.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.1-10)
Significance alter Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 24.)
Impact (Ic): The project will have a less than significant impact on agricultural
resource operations. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 23, 26.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study states that the proposed project may result in the loss of farmland of local
importance, but that impacts on agricultural resources and operations are less than significant. The
conclusion is based on the fact that the proposed project will traverse a corridor that is not currently
utilized for intensive agriculture or the production of agricultural crops, that the lands traversed by
the proposed project have not been used for such purposes in the recent past, and because the
conversion of farmland of local importance is considered a less-than-significant impact pursuant to
the 1989 Chula Vista General Plan update 3 -71. (MND/Initial Study, p. 26.) Incorporating analysis
in the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR by reference, the MND/Initial Study also states that the proposed
project will not result in impacts to any Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or
Unique Farmland. (MND/Initial Study, p. 26; see also Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.7-10.) The
Olympic Parkway Extension will therefore not result in any potentially significant impacts on
agricultural resources that are peculiar to the proposed project.
The discussion in the MND/Initial Study is also based on previous analysis in the Otay Ranch GDP
EIR and Otay Ranch SPA One EIR. (MND/Initial Study, p. 26.) Both EIRs address potentially
significant impacts associated with the loss of farmland and conclude, through SPA One, that all
potentially significant impacts on such resources could be mitigated to below a level of significance.
15
(See Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp, 4.9.8-1 to 4.9.8-4; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.7-10 to 4.7-14.)
Impacts on agricultural resources associated with the Olympic Avenue Extension project were
therefore adequately addressed in the prior EIRs and adherence with the development standards
established for Otay Ranch, Sanbow, and Eastlake generally will substantially mitigate agricultural
resource impacts associated with the proposed project.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 26.)
Impact (Id): The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community. (IVIND/Initial Study, p. 26.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 1509I.)
Explanation:
The proposed project traverses an area of vacant land and will not disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established community. The proposed project involves the construction and
operation of a roadway contemplated by local agency-approved plans adopted pursuant to state
planning and zoning law. The Olympic Parkway Extension Project is designed to accommodate the
new development that exists pursuant to, and the further development contemplated by, the approved
plans. (MND/Initial Study, p. 26; Sanbow EIR, p. 4-3; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program
SEIR, pp. 42-44; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 2-1 to 2-25; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 2-1 to 2-28.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 23, 26.)
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact (lla): The project will not result in an increase in the population of the area.
(IVIND/Initiat Study, pp. 27-28.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in an increase in the population of the area because no
16
residential dwelling units or development other than construction and operation of the roadway
extension are proposed. (MND/Initial Study, p. 28.) As a result, there is no potentially significant
impact peculiar to the proposed project with respect to cumulative exceedances of regional or local
population projections. To the extent implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP, Otay Ranch SPA
One, Eastlake, and Sunbow developments could result in population- and housing-related impacts,
such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and certified for those projects.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.8-1 to 4.8-6; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-8 4; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re~
Planning Program SEIR, pp. 42-44.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 27-28.)
Impact (lib): The project will not induce growth in the area. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 27-28.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
Construction and operation of the Olympic Parkway Extension will not result in potentially
significant growth-inducing impacts that are peculiar to the proposed project. The proposed project
is an extension of infrastructure through an area that is both planned for and is currently developing,
including properties and developments owned by Sunbow, McMillan, Otay Ranch, and Eastlake.
The project will provide access to these planned communities consistent with the City's adopted
plans for development in the area and the circulation element. (MND/Initial Study, p. 28 .) To the
extent implementation of planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project could result
in growth-inducing impacts, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and
certified for those projects. (Sunbow EIR, p. 4-8; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program
SEIR, pp. 42-44; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 7-1 to 7-8; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 6.2.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 27-28.)
Impact (IIc): The project will not displace existing housing. (MND/Initial Study, p. 28 .)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
17
The proposed project will not displace existing housing as it will traverse vacant land As a result,
construction and operation of the Olympic Parkway Extension will not result in impacts associated
with the displacement ofhousing that are peculiar to the proposed project. (MND/lnitial Study, pp.
27-28 .) To the extent implementation of planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project
could result in impacts associated with the displacement of existing housing, such impacts are
adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and certified for the inidividual development
projects. (See, e.g., Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.8-1 to 4.8-6 )
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 27-28.)
C. GEOPHYSICAL
Impacts (IIIa&b): The project has the potential to result in significant impacts to unstable
earth conditions and disruptions, displacements compaction or
overcovering of the soil. (MND/Initial Study, p. 29.)
Finding:
Chm~ges or alterations~ have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 30-31).
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study indicates the proposed project could result in impacts associated with
unstable earth conditions, changes in geologic substructures, and disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering of soils. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 28.) To assess the geophysical
impacts that are peculiar to the project, a preliminary geotechnical evaluation was performed for the
proposed project. (See Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Olympic Parkway Feasibility Study
("Olympic Parkway Geotechnical Study"), Kimley-Horu (May 18, 1998).) (MND/Initial Study, p.
29.) The Olympic Parkway Geotechnical Study concludes the overalI project is feasible, but that
special mitigation measures will be required to address localized geotechnical conditions and
impacts. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 29-31 .)
Geophysical impacts associated with planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project,
which includes the proposed project itself, has been the subject of extensive prior environmental
review. ( Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.5-21 to 3.5-23, 4.9.6-1; "Otay Ranch SPA One EIR", pp. 4.5-
7 to 4.5-8.) In each instance, the previous EIRs conclude geophysical impacts can be mitigated to
below a level of significance through the implementation of specific mitigation measures and
through required adherence to specific mitigation-related performance standards. (Otay Ranch GDP,
pp. 3.5-23 to 3.5-24, 4.9.6-1; Otay Ranch SPA EIR, pp. 4.5-8 to 4.5-10.) As such, the previous EIRs
18
adequately addressed geophysical impacts associated with planned development in the vicinity of
the proposed project. As set forth below, continued implementation of and required adherence to
the mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs for potentially significant geophysical
impacts will further ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed project will be fully
mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
1. The recommendations contained in the "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Olympic
Parkway Feasibility Study" shall be implemented as part of project grading and construction.
As identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation a comprehensive subsurface
evaluation, including development-specific subsurface exploration and laboratory testing is
recommended to be performed to aid design and construction of future roadway
improvements. The purpose of the subsurface evaluation is to assess sub~Urface geotechnical
conditions and to provide specific data regarding potential geotechnical hazards and
constraints, as well as inIbrmation pertaining to the engineering characteristics of underlying
earth materials. From these data, specific geotechnical reconunendations for
grading/earthwork, slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage, pavement design,
drainage and other geotechnical design considerations can be prepared. The following
identifies the preliminary geotechnical recommendations to address alluvium, landslides,
slope stability, Excavatability, groundwater, liquefaction and dynamic settlement, soil
corrosivity add expansive soil.
Alluvium - The majority of the proposed alignment is underlain by significant depths of
compressible and liquefaction-susceptible alluvium. Feasible earthwork options include
removal and recompaction of compressible alluvium, dewatering as needed, and removal
recompaction down to the water table. Surcharge the remaining saturated alluvial section
to achieve stable density for roadway support and minimal liquefaction potential. Detailed
geotechnical sampling and testing will be required to model surcharge effectiveness,
particularly the imposed load/settlement-time relationships.
Landslides - Further investigation of the landslide features mapped and possible features
identified from aerial photographs/topography needs to be performed to evaluate the
potential for slope failures adjacent to the proposed alignment. Some of these features may
require stabilization or removal during grading. In some cases, possible landslides identified
in geotectmical studies of the area may not represent a landslide hazard. Slope Stability - In
general, cuts in the granular formationat materials should be grossly stable at gradients of 2: 1
(horizontal to vertical). Considerable erosion and gullies were observed on the newly cut
slopes located on the south side of Poggi Canyon in the Sunbow development. Planting
these slopes should help reduce surficial stability and erosion problems. Grading plans for
the canyon roadway have not been finalized. Cut and fill slopes descending into the canyoB
shall be evaluated for gross and surficial stability.
19
Excavatability - Alluvial materials found in Poggi Canyon should be excavatable with
conventional grading equipment. Formational materials in the eastern area of the project will
likely contain scattered concretionary materials which could require local heavy ripping.
Special handling of the oversize material in the fill will probably be required.
Groundwater - Canyon areas to receive fill should have subdrains installed to reduce and
control potential future seepage out of the slopes. Where fill embankments are planned for
both the planned parkway and the Poggi Creek drainage, consideration should be given to
installing a subdrain at the base of the alluvial removals and prior to fill placement.
Dewatering may be required as part of the remediation of the underlying alluvium.
Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement - Subsurface exploration and associated laboratory
testing shall be performed during the design phase of the roadway to evaluate the liquefaction
and dynamic settlement potential of on-site soils. It is possible that liquefaction will have
limited impact on the planned parkway. Under these circumstances, consideration can be
give to reading minor damage to roadways rather than totally mitigation against any potential
movement. If liquefaction of underlying soils is found to be a significant problem, mitigation
of already graded area could include stone piles, compaction grouting or other ground
modification techniques.
Soil Corrosivity - Soils within the alignment have been identified as corresive with respect
to both ferrou~ metals and concrete. Further testing shall be performed to determine the
extent of the corrosive materials so that improvements can be designed accordingly.
Expansive Soil - Soils exhibiting expansive characteristics are present within the formational
materials, residual/colluvial soils and alluvium. Expansive soils also have generally poor
engineering characteristics. Selective grading shall be performed to prevent these materials
from being placed within 5 feet of the final grade of the proposed roadway. If expansive
soils are exposed in cut portions of the roadway, these materials should be under cut 5 feet
and replaced with non-expansive materials.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31 .)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The following previously mitigation measures from prior EIRs further ensure potentially significant
impacts associated with geophysical resoumes are fully mitigated.
· A qualified geotechnical engineer for the Project Applicant shall prepare site-specific
geotechnical studies at the tentative map level, but prior to construction, that meet
engineering standards of the appropriate jurisdiction and, based on proposed development
plans, evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope instability,
landslides, faults, liquefaction, and rippability characteristics.
2O
Impacts related to slope instability shall be mitigated by site-specific geotechnical
static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses conducted prior to submittal of
tentative maps that will provide input relative to appropriate slope design
alternatives. These mitigation measures shall include benching, adjusting heights
and inclinations of proposed cut and fill slopes, retaining walls, slope protection,
and/or erosion control devices.
Significant impacts due to ground rupture shall be avoided by not building directly
over the fault trace.. A site-specific geotechnical study would be necessary at the
tentative map level to identify specific fault locations and delineate fault setback
zones (as necessary) in accordance with city and/or county guidelines.
Potential damage from seismic ground shaking shall be mitigated by adhering to the
Uniform Building Code, state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural
Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), and applicable local building codes.
Such seismic design suggests assuming a design ground acceleration that is equal to
two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration. The design
acceleration for the Otay Ranch area is 0. 18g. The seismic design parameters,
provided as a result of a site-specific geotechnical study, shall be utilized by a
qualified structural engineer in the design and construction of the Project.
A qualified geotechnical engineering consultant shall perlbrm an investigation of the
site to evaluate the liquefaction potential upon submittal of tentative maps. Where
potential for liquefaction is determined to be moderate to high (such as in major
tributary canyon bottoms), mitigation measures shall include removal and
recompaction of loose, unconsolidated soils, vibrofloatation, or dynamic compaction
techniques.
Landslide impacts shall be mitigated based upon site-specific geotechnical studies
on all tentative maps submitted for the Project to delineate the limits of slides (i.e.,
head and toe). Landslides which may potentially impact developed areas shall be
completely removed or buttressed during site grading. However, basal erosion of the
slopes shall be avoided. Oversaturation and subsequent loading of the soils and
sediments (from lawns, etc.) shall be avoided.
(SPA One PEIR, p. 4.9.6-1; see also, (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, p. 4.9.6-1; Sunbow
EIR, p. -42; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 124.)
Significance atter Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31.)
21
Impact (IIIc&d): Potentially significant impacts to topography or ground surface relief
features and the destruction, covering or modification of a unique
geologic or physical feature. (1ViND/Initial Study, p. 29.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental eftbcts identified in, and in
accordance with, the MNDfInitial Study ( pp. 30-31).
Explanation:
The proposed project will result in a change in topography and the covering of Poggi Canyon, which
is a unique physical feature. According to the preliminary design plans for Olympic Parkway, the
roadway will basically follow Poggi Canyon. In order to construct the roadway, Poggi Canyon will
be graded, and fill material will be brought into the canyon from adjacent borrow areas. The
roadway will be elevated by imported fill material above the existing ground level for the entire
alignment (with the exception of where it passes through the Sunbow development), with typical
elevations of 20 to 30 feet above existing ground levels, and reaching a maximum of 60 feet above
the current elevation of Poggi Canyon at the location ofplmmed Palomar Road. (MND/Initial Study,
p. 29.)
Proposed construction and operation of the Olympic Parkway Extension Project will not result in
impacts that a peculiar to the project to the extent the proposed project itself, and related geophysical
impacts, are adequately analyzed in previous EIRs. As set forth above, geophysical and grading
impacts of planned development has been the subject of and is adequately addressed by extensive
environmental review over the last decade. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-25 to 3.2-36, 4.9.3-1 to
4.9.3-2; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.2-6 to 4.2-1 l, 4.2-23 to 4.2-24.) The previous analysis
provides sufficient detail for the City to formulate mitigation measures at this juncture for impacts
peculiar to the project. Moreover, continued implementation of and required adherence to the
mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs for potentially significant geophysical impacts,
including grading and fill impacts, will further ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed
project will be fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measures identified under Impact IIIa&b. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31.)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The previously mitigation measures from prior EIRs, as identified under Impact IIIa&b, will further
reduce potentially significant impacts.
22
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31 .)
Impact (IIIe&f): The project may potentially result in an increase of water erosion of soils
and will modify the channel of the Poggi Canyon streambed.
(IViND/Initial Study, pp. 28-29.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 30-31 ).
Explanation:
Modifications to Poggi Canyon and the borrow areas adjacent to the project associated with
construction of the proposed roadway could result in a temporary increase in soil erosion. The
proposed project includes, however, the creation of a new drainage channel on the north side of the
roadway that will control rimoff from the roadway, as well as from upstream developments. The
drainage channel consists of a series of catch basins, drops structures, and a large detention basin
which have been designed to convey flow in a east to west direction along the length of the parkway.
(MND/Initial Study, p229 .) The timctions of the charmel from the standpoint offloodflow alteration
and streambed stabilization are anticipated to be improved over the present condition. In its present
form, the Poggi Canyon channel consists of an erosive bottom with varying slopes and limited
vegetation development. As the watershed develops, increased runoff is expected to exacerbate
erosion within those areas which are presently incised and increase head cutting through flatter
portions of the charmel as erosion gullies migrate upstream (similar to what had already occurred on
the Sunbow site immediately downstream of the proposed channel improvements). The proposed
channel would be stabilized at a width and slope that will allow for non-scouring flows (less than
6 feet per second) to be conveyed through the entire system. A large detention basin is proposed to
further address the increased flow rates associated with increased impermeability of the watershed
when developed thorough buildout. The net result of the channel design is to ensure that the 100-
year post-development flood flow exiting the project area is kept to a level that is at or below the
100-year pre-development flows. Proposed wetland vegetation and drop structures will further aid
in stabilizing the channel areas against erosion. (MND/Initial Study, p. 30.) Thus, creation of the
new drainage channel, along with implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures set
forth in the Olympic Parkway Geotechnical Study and required adherence to all applicable NPDES
permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater runoff and pertinent City regulations, will
reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
As noted above, the geophysical impacts associated with planned development, including the
proposed project, have been the subject of and is adequately addressed by extensive environmental
review over the last decade. (Sunbow EIR, p. 4-42; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-25 to 3.2-36, 3.5-
23
21 to 3.5-24, 4.9.3-1 to 4.9.3-2, 4.9.6-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.2-6 to 4.2-11, 4.2-23 to
4.2-24,, 4.5-7 to 4.5-10.) This previous analysis provides sufficient detail for the City to formulate
mitigation measures at this juncture for erosion-related impacts, at least to the extent such impacts
exist. Moreover, continued implementation of and required adherence to the mitigation measures
identified in the previous EIRs for potentially significant geophysical impacts, including erosion-
related geophysical impacts, will further ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed
project will be fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measures identified under Impact IIIa&b. (MND/lnitia Study, pp. 30-31 .)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The previously mitigation measures from prior EIRs, as identified under Impact III a, b, c & d, will
further reduce potentially significant impacts.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/lnitial Study, pp. 30-31 .)
Impact (IIIg): ~ The project is located as such to potentially expose people to geologic
hazards. (MND/Initia Study, p. 30.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmenta effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/initial Study ( pp. 30-31 ).
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study discloses that the project site is located in the general proximity of severa
active and potentially active faults, including the San Diego Trough, Coronado Bank, Rose Canyon,
San Migue[, Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones. The MND/Initial Study also
discloses that no active faults are known to transect the proposed roadway alignment. Finally, the
MND/Initial Study provides that, under current conditions, there is a potential for liquefaction of the
alluvial soils in Poggi Canyon, but that such possibility is dependent on final grading and the manner
in which loose alluvium is treated during construction. As a result, the MND/Initial Study identifies
potentially significant impacts associated with landslides and seismic activity. (MND/Initial Study,
pp. 28-20.) Such impacts can be fully mitigated, however, through adherence to City design
standards and the mitigation measures set forth in the Olympic Parkway Geotechnical Study.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31 .)
24
As noted above, the geophysical impacts associated with planned development, including the
proposed project, has been the subject of and is adequately addressed by extensive environmental
review over the last decade. (Sunbow EIR, p. 4-42; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-25 to 3.2-36, 3.5-
21 to 3.5-24, 4.9.3-1 to 4.9.3-2, 4.9.6-1; Otay Ranch SPA One E1R, pp. 4.2-6 to 4.2-11,4.2-23 to
4.2-24,, 4.5-7 to 4.5-10.) This previous analysis provides sufficient detail for the City to formulate
mitigation measures at this juncture for erosion-related impacts, at least to the extent such impacts
exist. Moreover, continued implementation of and required adherence to the mitigation measures
identified in the previous EIRs for potentially significant geophysical impacts, including exposure
of people to geologic hazards, will further ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed
project will be fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measures identified under Impact !IIa&b. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31.)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The previously mitigation measures from prior EIRs, as identified under Impact IIIa&b, will further
reduce potentially significant impacts.
Sign!ficance ai?er Mi{igation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 30-31 .)
D. WATER
Impact (IVa): The project will cause potentially significant changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff in the
project area. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33 .)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 35-36).
Explanation:
Construction of the proposed project will increase impervious surfaces in the project area and will
affect the natural drainage system within Poggi Canyon. Changes in existing absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and/or rate and amount of surface runoff will result as the project will fill the
existing Poggi Canyon drainage, and a new drainage channel will be created. Construction of the
new drainage channel, as well as implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, will
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33 .)
25
Impacts associated with changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of
surface runoff in the project area have been the subject of extensive previous environmental review.
(Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-53 to 4-54; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 101 to 105;
Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp.4.9-4 to 4.9-11 .)
That analysis provides a sufficient level of detail to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the
proposed project. As set forth below, continued implementation of and required adherence to the
mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs for potentially significant impacts on water
resources will further ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed project will be fully
mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Adherence to standard City grading and construction procedures/requirements as well as to the
following Previous-Tier mitigation measures identified in prior EIR's. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 35-
36.)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The following previously identified mitigation measures from prior EIRs further ensure that
potentially significant impacts are fully mitigated.
Implementation of measures contained in Sunbow EIR 88-01, as well as standard City
grading and construction procedures/requirements would mitigate project drainage and water
quality impacts to a level less than significant. The channel proposed as part of the roadway
project implements some of the drainage mitigation measures identified in EIR 88-01.
(Sunbow EIR, p. 4-54.)
As identified in the SPA One EIR, potentially significant water resources impacts resulting
from development in the project area can be reduced to a less than significant level through
the use of Best Management Practices and through the implementation of mitigation
measures. Mitigation measures identified in the SPA One EIR include the following:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading the applicant shall
comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban rnnoffand stormwater
drainage and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant thereto.
The City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego have a Municipal Permit from the
State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for stormwater discharge.
In order to be covered under NPDES Municipal Permit No. CA 0108758, the
proposed developed area will be required to mitigate impacts to stormwater quality.
In addition, RWQCB has issued one general permit that applies to construction activity. In
26
order to be covered under the Construction General Permit, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must
be filed with RWQCB. Compliance with the Permit requires that a stormwater pollution
plan be prepared and implemented for the project.
Best management practices, design, treatment, and monitoring for stormwater quality must
be addressed with respect to Municipal and Construction Permits.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.9-10; see also (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-15 to 3.9-20.)
Implement the following Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR water mitigation
measures:
4.4.4.1 Hydroseeding and landscaping of any cut/fill slopes disturbed or built during the
construction phase of (the Eastlake Trails project) with appropriate ground cover
vegetation would be performed within 30 days of completion of grading activities.
4.4.4.2 Areas of native vegetation or adjoining slopes to be avoided during grading activities
would be delineated to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and slopes.
4.4.4.3 Artificial ground cover, hay bales, and catch basins to retard the rate of runoff from
manufactured slopes would be installed if grading occurs during wet weather season
(November I through April 1).
4.4.4.4 Fine particulates in geologic materials used to construct the surficial layers of
manufactured slopes would not be specific unless a suitable alternative is not
available.
4.4.4.5 Temporary sedimentation and desilting basins between graded areas and streams
would be provided during grading.
4.4.4.6 Detention basins, effective tbr very large drainage areas. These are essentially ponds
with controlled release rates to minimize downstream effects. Some pollutants can
settle during storage and improve the quality of water released.
4.4.4.7 Infiltration basins, designed to hold runoff and allow percolation into the ground.
These basins need adequate storage volume and good permeability of the underlying
soils.
4.4.4.8 Infiltration trenches and dry wells, holes, or trenches filled with aggregate and then
covered. Dry wells are typically used for runoff from roofs; infiltration trenches
typically serve larger areas, such as streets and parking lots in commercial areas.
Both are best suited for areas with permeable soils and a sufficiently low water table
or bedrock.
27
4.4.4.9 Porous pavement such a lattice pavers or porous asphalt. These may be used to
replace large areas of paving that are not subject to heavy traffic.
4.4.4.10 Vegetative controls. Plant materials which intercept rainfall and filter pollutants and
absorb nutrients.
4.4.4.11 Grassed swales, shallow grass-covered channels used in place of a buried storm
drain. This type of vegetative control is most applicable to residential areas.
(Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 105-106.)
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33.; (Otay Ranch GDP
EIR, pp. 3.9-15 to 3.9-20Sunbow EIR, p. 4-54;Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.9-10; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 106.)
Impact (IVb): The project will not result in the exposure of people or property to water
related hazards. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 32~33 .)
Finding:
No mitigation measures arc required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in the exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding, as the roadway will not be located within the 100-flood plain. The proposed project
will not be constructed in an area susceptible to impacts from tidal waves. (MND/Initial Study, p.
33 .) As a result, construction and operation of the Olympic Parkway Extension will not result in any
potentially significant impacts associated with exposure of people or property to water related
hazards that are peculiar to the project. To the extent implementation of planned development in the
vicinity of the proposed project could result in impacts associated with the exposure of people or
property to water related hazards, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior E1Rs prepared
and certified planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-53
to 4-54; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 101 to 105; Otay Ranch GDP E1R,
pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/lnitial Study, pp. 32-33.)
28
Impact (IVc): Less than significant impacts associated with the projects' discharges
into water surfaces, diminishing water quality. (IVIND/Initial Study, p.
33.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study acknowledges that runoff from impervious surfaces typically contains
pollutants such as oils, fuel residues, and heavy metals which would diminish water quality in
downstream water. The MND/Initial Study concludes, however, that runoff from the proposed
project, as well as runoff from existing and planned development in the area, will be controlled and
fully-mitigated via a detention basin proposed as part of the drainage system to be located on the
north side of the roadway. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33.)
Water quality impacts associated with existing and planned development in the vicinity of the
proposed project has been the subject of extensive previous enviromnental review. (Sunbow EIR,
pp. 4-53 - 4-54; Eastl~al~e Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 104 - 105; Otay Ranch GDP
EIR, pp. 3.9-12 to 3.%20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11 .) That ~inalysis
provides a sufficient level of detail to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed
project. Continued implementation of and required adherence to the mitigation measures identified
in the previous EIRs for potentially significant impacts on water resources which are described above
under Impact (Na) will further ensure that water-related impacts associated with the proposed project
are fully mitigated.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 33.)
Impact (IVd): The project will cause potentially significant changes in amount of
surface water in Poggi Canyon. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 35-36).
Explanation:
Decreased absorption of rainfall which would occur with increased impervious surfaces could
29
potentially change the amount of seasonal surface water in Poggi Canyon. Construction of the new
drainage system, which includes a large detention basin in the new drainage channel, will reduce the
impact to hydrology flows/drainage to a less than significant level. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33.)
Impacts associated with surface water quantity in the project area have been the subject of extensive
previous environmental review. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-53 - 4-54; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning
Program SEIR, pp. 101 - 105; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11 .) That analysis provides a sufficient level of detail to adequately
address the impacts peculiar to the proposed project. Continued implementation of and required
adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs for potentially significant
impacts on water resoumes, which are set forth above under Impact (IVa), will further ensure that
water-related impacts associated with the proposed project are fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Construction of the new drainage system, which includes a large detention basin in the new drainage
channel. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33.)
Significance a[~er Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 33.)
Previous-Tier Mitiga~tion Measures
Mitigation measures for Impact (IVa) will further ensure impacts are less than significant.
Impact (IVe): The project will cause potentially significant changes in Poggi Canyon
water currents. (MND~[nitial Study, p. 33 .)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 35-36).
Explanation:
Portions of Poggi Canyon contain fresh water. The project proposes to fill the canyon and to create
a new drainage facility. The replacement drainage fhcility will generally flow in the same direction
as the existing drainage that will be impacted. Related impacts will be fully mitigated through the
replacement drainage facility and through conditions imposed by the USACOE and RWQCB 404
and 401 certification process, respectively. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33.)
Impacts associated with changes in the course of direction of water movements has been the subject
30
of extensive previous environmental review. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-53 - 4-54; Eastlake Greens/Trails
Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 101 - 105; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20, 4.9.10-1;
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11 .) That analysis provides a sufficient level of detail
to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed project. Continued implementation of
and required adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs for potentially
significant impacts on water resources, which are set forth above under Impact (IVa), will further
ensure that water-related impacts associated with the proposed project are fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Construction of the new drainage system, which includes a large detention basin in the new drainage
channel and adherence to the conditions of the USACOE 404 permit, and DFG Streambed Alteration
Agreement RWQCB 401 certification. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 33-36.)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for Impact (IVa) will further ensure impacts are less than significant.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33 .)
Impacts (IVf&g): The project will not cause changes in quantity ofgroundwater nor alter
direction or rate of flow ofgroundwater. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 32, 34.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The principal groundwater aquifer in the vicinity of Otay Ranch is the Otay River Valley. Regional
ground-water flow is from east to west, with the direction of local ground-water flow controlled by
the orientation of the drainage basin at issue and topography. Groundwater within the Poggi Canyon
Basin flows in a westerly direction. The increase in impervious surfaces associated with
development on the Olympic Parkway Extension will increase the amount of runoff from
precipitation, but the project will not result in impacts on ground-water quantity that are peculiar to
the project because neither the SPA One area, nor the Sunbow or Eastlake developments are located
in an area of significant groundwater recharge. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 34; see also Sunbow EIR,
pp. 4-53 - 4-54; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 10 l - 105; Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.9- - 4.9.) To the extent implementation ofplarmed development in the vicinity of
the proposed project could result in impacts associated with increases in quantity and direction or
flow of ground-water, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and certified
31
planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project. (Sunbow EIR, p. 4-54; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 105 - 106; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-
20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch SPA One E1R, pp. 4.9-1 to 4.9-1 I.)
Significance a~er Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 32, 34.)
Impact (IVh): The project will result in less than significant impacts to groundwater
quality. (MNDflnitial Study, p. 34.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resoumes Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The increase in impervious surfaces associated with development on the project site will increase
the amount ofrunofffrom precipitation, while decreasing the amount ofpercolation. The project,
however, is not located in an area of significant groundwater recharge. Therefore, no impact to
groundwater quality iS anticipated. (MND/Initial Study, p. 34.)
Groundwater quality impacts associated with existing and planned development in the vicinity of
the project has been the subject of extensive previous environmental review. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-53
- 4-54; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 104 - I05; Otay Ranch GDP EIR,
pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11.) That analysis
provides a sufficient level of detail to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed
project. Continued implementation of and required adherence to the mitigation measures identified
in the previous EIRs for potentially significant impacts on water resources, which are set forth above
under Impact IVa, will ensure that water-related impacts associated with the proposed project are
fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation is required. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 35-36.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 34.)
32
Impact (IVi): The project will cause potentially significant alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters in Poggi Canyon. (MNDflnitial Study, p. 34.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 35-36).
Explanation:
The proposed project will alter the course or flow of flood waters because the natural drainage
system of Poggi Canyon will be altered. This impact will be mitigated through the implementation
of the drainage system proposed as part of the project. This drainage system will also accommodate
expected flood flows from future developments within the drainage basin. The proposed drainage
plan consists of the construction of a new drainage channel and detention basin to accommodate
storm water runoff. Implementation of the storm drain plan will reduce impacts resulting from
alterations to the course or flow of flood waters to a less than significant level. (MND/Initial Study,
p. 34.)
Flood-related impact~s associated with existing and planned development in the vicinity of the project
have been the subject of extensive previous environmental review. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-53 - 4-54;
Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 104 - 105; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-12
to 3.9-20, 4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11.) That analysis provides a
sufficient level of detail to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed project.
Continued implementation of and required adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the
previous EIRs for potentially significant impacts on water resources, which are set forth above under
Impact IVa, will ensure that water-related impacts associated with the proposed project are fully
mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Construction of a new drainage channel and detention basin to accommodate storm water runoff.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 34.)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures tbr Impact (IVa) will further ensure impacts are less than significant.
Significance afier Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 34.)
33
Impact (IVj): The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies. (IVIND/Initial Study, p. 32, 34.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
Water use associated with the proposed project is limited to the use of reclaimed water for slope
landscaping. (MND/Initial Study, p. 34.) Because the project use of water is limited to reclaimed
water, the Olympic Parkway Extension will not significantly affect the amount of potable water
available for public water supplies. (MND/Initial Study, p. 34.) As a result, construction and
operation of the proposed project implementation of the Olympic Parkway Extension will not result
in potentially significant ~vater supply impacts that are peculiar to the project. To the extent
implementation of planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project could result in public
water supply impacts, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and certified
planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-18 - 4-19; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 161 - 166;Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20,
4.9.10-1; Otay Ranch!SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-11.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 34.)
E. AIR QUALITY
Impact (Va): The project will have potentially significant impacts to existing air
quality violations on a short-term basis. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND. (MND/Initial Study pp. 37-39.)
Explanation:
Prior EIR's identified potential impacts associated with short-term air quality. Based on the
previous-tier mitigation measures set forth below, those EIR's concluded the impact would be
reduced to below a level ofsignificance. (OtayRanchGDPEIR, p.4.9.12-1;SunbowEIR, pp. 4-50
- 4-51 ;Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.11-7 - 4.11 - 16; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program
34
SEIR, pp. 150-153.)
The San Diego region is currently a noneattainment area for federal and state standards for ozone,
carbon monoxide, and particulates (PMI0). The incremental increase in short-term construction
impacts associated with clearing, borrow area excavation, and grading activities as well as tailpipe
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment will contribute to existing air quality violations
on a short-term basis. Compliance with pollution control measures identified in the previous EIRs
during construction will reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant level. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 37.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Compliance with pollution control measures during construction will reduce air quality impacts to
a less than significant level. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measures identified in the Stmbow EIR (88-1 ), are:
Use of watering or other dust palliatives to reduce fugitive dust; emissions reductions of
about 50 pelFCent can be realized by implementation of these measures.
Hydroseeding, landscaping, or developing of disturbed areas as soon as possible to reduce
dust generation.
Proper covering of trucks hauling fill material.
Enforcement of a 20 mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
Use of heavy-duty construction equipment that is equipped with modified combustion/fuel
injection systems for emission control.
(Sunbow EIR, p. 4-51.)
Mitigation Measures identified in the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR (95-01 ), to reduce construction
emissions are:
Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units (i.e., phase
construction to minimize impacts).
Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
· Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
35
· Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust.
Stabilize (for example, hydroseed) graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize
fugitive dust ·
Pave permanent roads jig q~ickly as possible to minimize dust.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.11-1 l - 4.11-12; see also Otay Ranch GDP EIR, p.
4.9.12-1.)
Mitigation Measures identified in the Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR (97-04),
to reduce construction emissions are:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable San
Diego APCD dust control agents 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 until dust emissions are not visible. Emissions
reductions of about 50 percent can be realized by implementation of these measures.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris should be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and
spills.
3. Enfome a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to
reduce resuspension ofparticulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes
to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed area shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and
as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
7. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
8. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities.
36
9. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together
with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide to the extent
available and feasible.
10. Use electrical construction equipment, to the extent feasible.
11. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
12. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be minimized
(i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
(Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 151 - 152 .)
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-
51; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, p. 4.9.12-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.11 - 16; Eastlake Greens/Trails
Re-Plarming Program SEIR, p. 153.)
Impact (Vb): The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.
~(IVIND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
Currently, there arc no sensitive rcceptors located in the vicinity of the roadway alignment or borrow
areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive reccptors to
pollntants. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37 .) Future planned development along the roadway corridor will
not be impacted from the project as land uses have been planned around the roadway, and sensitive
rcccptors will not be located adjacent to the roadway. (IVIND/Initial Study, p. 37.) As a result,
construction and operation of the proposed project will not result in potentially significant impacts
associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants that are peculiar to the project.
Moreover, to the extent implementation of planned development in the vicinity of the proposed
project could result in impacts associated with the exposure of sensitive reccptors to pollutants, such
impacts arc adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and certified planned development in
the vicinity of the proposed project. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-48 - 4-51; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.11 -
1 to 3.1 l -22, 4.2.12-9, 4.9.12-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.11 - 1 to 4.11 - 16. ) Thus, because
the proposed project alignment is generally consistent with the alignment analyzed in previous EIRs,
no new impact is anticipated. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
37
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Impact (Vc): The project will not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 37.)
Finding:
No mitigation is required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a roadway. Construction and use
of the roadway after completion will not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate, either locally or regionally. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37; see also (Sunbow EIR,
pp. 4-48 - 4-51; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.11-1 to 3.11-22, 4.2.12~9, 4.9.12-1; Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.11ol to 4.11-16.)
Significance: Less th,an significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Impact (Vd): Normal operation of the project will not create objectionable odors.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a roadway. Construction and use
of the roadway after completion will not will not create objectionable odors. (MND/Initial Study,
p. 37; see also (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-48 - 4-51; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3. I 1 - 1 to 3.11-22, 4.2.12-9,
4.9.12-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.1 l-1 to 4.11-16.)
Significance: Less than significant. (IvlND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
38
Impact (Ve): The project will not result in a substantial increase in stationary or non-
stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air
quality. (MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures arc required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway Extension is designed and planned to redistribute existing and future traffic
patterns, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. Air quality
impacts associated with current and planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project has
been analyzed at length in prior EIRs. (iVIND/Initial Study, p. 37-38 .) These EIRs analyzed in detail,
and treated as significant, long- and short-term impacts associated with changes in stationary and
non-stationary source emissions and deterioration in ambient air quality. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-48 -
4-51; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 150 - 151; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp.
3.11-1 to 3.11-22; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9.12-1, 4.11-1 to 4.11-16.) Because the
proposed project is consistent with and contemplated by planned development in the vicinity,
construction and operation of the project would not result in potentially significant air quality
impacts that arc peculiar to the project. Moreover, to the extent implementation of planned
development in the vicinity of the proposed project could result in impacts associated with increased
air emissions from stationary or non-stationary sources or a deterioration in ambient air quality,
including short term construction related-impacts, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior
EIRs prepared and certified planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 37-38;General Plan EIR, pp. 3-49 - 3-52; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-48 - 4-51;
Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 150 - 151 ;Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.11 -1
to 3.11-22, 4.2.12-9, 4.9.12-1; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.11-1 to 4.11-16.) Continued
adherence to and required compliance with the development standards and mitigation measures set
forth in the prior EIRs and as set forth below will substantially mitigate any air-quality impacts
peculiar to the project.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 37-38.)
F. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Impact (VIa): The project will not generate increased vehicular trips or traffic
congestion. (MND/lnitiat Study, pp. 39-40.)
39
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway Extension is designed and planned to redistribute existing and future traffic
patterns, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. As a result,
the proposed project will not generate increased vehicular trips or result in traffic congestion.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 40.) To the extent implementation of planned development in the vicinity
of the proposed project could result in increased vehicular trips or traffic congestion, such impacts
are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs prepared and certified platorod development in the vicinity
of the proposed project. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-27 - 4-29; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program
SEIR, pp. 54 - 81; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.10-1 to 3.10-41, 4.9.11-1 to 4.9.11-27; Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR, pp. 4.10-1 to 4.10-33.) Because the proposed project is consistent with and
contemplated by planned development in the vicinity, construction and operation of the project
would not result in potentially significant impacts associated with increased vehicle trips and traffic
congestion that are peculiar to the project. Continued adherence to and required compliance with
the development standards and mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIRs and as set forth below
will substantially mitigate any project-related impacts associated with traffic and circulation.
Signi[icance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Impact (VIb): The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features or
incompatible uses. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 39-40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway Extension is designed and planned to redistribute existing and future traffic
patterns, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. The roadway
will be designed and constructed to the City' s safety engineering standards. As a result, the proposed
project will not result in hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses that are peculiar
to the project. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.) Impacts associated with hazards to safety from roadway
design features or incompatible uses have also been analyzed in detail, and treated as significant, in
previous EIRs. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-27 - 4-29; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR,
pp. 54 - 81;Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.10-1 to 3.10-41, 4.9.11-I to 4.9.11-27; Otay Ranch SPA
40
One EIR, pp. 4.10-1 to 4.10-33.) To the extent implementation of planned development in the
vicinity of the proposed project could result in safety-related impacts associated with roadway
design, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs. Continued adherence to and
required compliance with the development standards and mitigation measures set forth in the prior
EIRs and as set forth below will substantially mitigate any project-related impacts associated with
traffic and cimulation.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 39-40.)
Impact (VIc): The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway, Extension is designed and planned to redistribute existing and future traffic
pattems, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. As a new
roadway, the proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access
to nearby uses. Instead, construction of the roadway will provide additional emergency access within
the area surrounding the project. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.) Traffic-related impacts associated with
vehicle access are addressed in previous EIRs. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-27 - 4-29; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 54 - 81; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.10- I to 3.10-41,
4.9.11 - 1 to 4.9.11-27; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.10- I to 4.10-33 .) To the extent the proposed
project is consistent with and contemplated by planned development that could result in impacts
associated with traffic aces, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs. Moreover,
continued adherence to and required compliance with the development standards and mitigation
measures set forth in the prior EIRs will substantially mitigate any project-related impacts associated
with traffic and circulation.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Impact (VId): The project will not result in insufficient parking capacity. (MND/Initial
Study, pp. 39-40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
41
Explanation:
The project will not result in insufficient parking capacity, as it does not involve the development
of land uses which would generate the need for parking facilities. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Accordingly, there is no potentially significant parking impact pecu|iar to the proposed project.
Signiiqcance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Impact (VIe): The project will not cause hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 39-40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway Extension is designed and planned to redistribute existing and future traffic
patterns, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. The roadway
will be designed and constructed to the City' s engineering standards for a 6-lane primary arterial/4-
lane major roadway. As a result, the proposed project will not result in hazards or barriers for
pedestrians or bicyclists that are peculiar to the project. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.) Impacts
associated with hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists have also been analyzed in detail, and
treated as significant, in previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.10-1 to 3.10-41,4.9.11- I to
4.9.ll-27; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.10-1 to 4.10-33.) To the extent implementation of
planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project could result in traffic-related hazards
for pedestrians or bicyclists, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Impact (VIf.): The project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
· transportation. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 39-40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
42
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway Extension is designed and planned to redistribute existing and future traffic
patterns, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. The roadway
will be designed and constructed to permit bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and will accornn~odate the
expansion of public transit routes. Accordingly, the proposed project will not conflict with adopted
policies supporting alternative transportation, as it will permit bicycle and pedestrian traffic and will
accommodate the expansion of public transit routes. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.) As a result, the
proposed project will not result in conflicts with adopted alternative transportation policies that are
peculiar to the project. Moreover, to the extent implementation of planned development in the
vicinity of the proposed project could result in conflicts with adopted alternative transportation
policies, such impacts are adequately addressed in the prior EIRs. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-27 ~ 4-29;
Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 54 - 81; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.10-1
to 3.10-41,4.9.11-1 to 4.9.11-27; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.10-1 to 4.10-33.)
Significance: Less than significant. (IVIND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Impact WIg): The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne, or air traffic
transportation. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project is not located in close proximity to rail, waterborne, or air traffic. Accordingly,
the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant impacts associated with these modes
of traffic. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Impact (VIh.): The project is not classified as a "large project" by the Congestion
Management Program. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
43
Explanation:
The Olympic Parkway Extension is designed and planned to rcdistributc existing and future traffic
patterns, and to alleviate existing and future congestion on other east-west roadways. The proposed
project is not classified as a "large project" by the Congestion Management Program, as it will not
generate automobile trips. The project has been identified as a needed improvement to serve
ongoing and future development in the project area. (MND/Initial Study, p. 40; see also Sunbow
EIR, pp. 4-27 - 4-29; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 54 - 81; cites.)
Significance: Less than significant. (IvIND/Initial Study, p. 40.)
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact (VIla): The proposed project could result in impacts to endangered, sensitive
species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or~avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study.
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study explains that biological resource impacts as a result of construction and
operation of the proposed project have been previously addressed in the previous EIRs prepared and
certified for planned development in and around the project site. (MND/Initial Study, p. 41; Sunbow
EIR, pp. 4-61 - 4-63; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 93 - 94; Otay Ranch
GDP EIR, pp. 3.3-1 to 3.3-176, 4.9.4-1 to 4.9.4-26; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-46.)
These previous EIRs establish development policies and standards to mitigate impacts to listed
species throughout Otay Ranch. (S unbow EIR, pp. 4-61 - 4-63; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning
Program SEIR, pp. 93 - 94;Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.3-130 to 3.3-139, 3.3-141 to 3.3-176, 4.9.4-
8 to 4.9.4-24; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-42 to 4.3-46.) The most current biological data is
provided by the Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for Otay Ranch SPA One and
GDP/SRP Amendment Areas (Dudek, February 1998) and the Eastlake Greens/Trails Replanning
Program SEIR for Eastlake (RECON, April 1998). The MND/Initial Study also explains that
project-related impacts to wetlands and upland habitat with respect to the Sunbow development and
the portion of the roadway alignment through that development have been fully mitigated through
approved permits issued by the USACOE, DFG, and the RWQCB; implementation of an approved
wetland grading and revegetation plan for Poggi Canyon, a wetland restoration plan, and a coastal
sage scrub mitigation plan. (MND/Initial Study, p. 4I.) In addition, the MND/Initial Study
44
concludes no significant impacts to biological resources that are peculiar to the proposed project
would result for the portion of the roadway that traverses the Eastlake properties. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 42; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Plarming Program SEIR, pp. 93 - 94.) Finally, the
MND/Initial Study indicates that the majority of impacts to sensitive biological resources would
result in the portion of the alignment that traverses the portions of Otay Ranch SPA One.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 42.)
As regards impacts to species of concern, the MND/Initial Study provides that disturbance of coastal
sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub associated with grading and construction of the roadway
may result in impacts to gnatcatcher and cactus wren populations in the project area. The California
gnatcatcher is listed by USFWS as a threatened species and the cactus wren is listed as a species of
special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. Both species are covered by the
MSCP. The Cooper's Hawk and the White-Tailed Kite have also been sited in the project area.
Both of these species are listed by the CDFG as species of special concern. Impacts to habitat
utilized by these species may result in impacts to their viability in the project area. hnplementation
of Mitigation Measures identified below, including obtaining an interim take permit, and required
compliance with and adherence to the performance standards established by the Otay Ranch GDP
EIR and Otay Ranch SPA One E1Rs for impacts on sensitive species, will reduce impacts to such
species to a less than significant level. (MND/Initial Study, p. 44.)
Finally, impacts to endangered, sensitive species, and species of concern have been the subject of
extensive previous en{,ironmental review tbr planned development in the area. (Sunbow E1R, pp.
4-61 - 4-63; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 93 ~ 94; Otay Ranch GDP EIR,
pp. 3.3-22 to 3.3-54 3.3-99 to 3.3-121,3.3-164 to 3.3-176, 4.9.4-5 to 4.9.4-24; Otay Ranch SPA One
EIR, pp. 4.3-16 to 4.3-46.) Accordingly, impacts to such species are not peculiar to the project and
were theretbre adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. Continued implementation of and
required compliance with mitigation measures previously identified in the prior EIRs, and as set
forth below will ensure such impacts are fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, taken from the SPA One EIR will reduce
potentially significant impacts.
· Because a majority of the impacts to biological resources resulting from the grading and
construction of the roadway and Borrow Area (1) occur within Otay Ranch properties,
significant impacts to biological resources would be mitigated through adherence to the
requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) (Phases 1 and 2), and
the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The Phase 2 RMP
establishes a series of standards for preservation of species and habitats to be applied
project-wide for Otay Ranch and provides for the preservation of regionally significant
wildlife corridors.
45
· Components of the Phase 2 RMP relevant to impacts to biological resources associated
with construction of the proposed roadway include the Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration
Master Plan and Restoration Analysis and the Biota Monitoring Program. These Phase
2 RMP components are intended to mitigate direct impacts from development of the entire
Otay Ranch (with the exception of direct unavoidable impacts to the coastal California
gnatcatcher, cactus wren).
The San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) was approved by the City
of San Diego in March 1997 and by the County of San Diego in October 1997 with
approval by the City of Chula Vista expected in 1999. The MSCP defines a Multiple
Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which an open space preserve is ultimately to be
assembled, primarily for the conservation of biological resoumes within southwestern San
Diego County. Open space planned within Otay Ranch is considered by the wildlife
agencies to be an integral component of the MHPA and, as part of the planning effort for
the MSCP, the wildlife agencies and Otay Ranch landowner(s) conducted negotiations to
determine the appropriate configuration of open space on Otay Ranch to achieve
consistency with the goals of the MSCP. Those negotiations concluded with an agreement
executed by the wildlife agencies on February 22, 1996. The agreement resulted in
changes in the Otay Ranch preserve configuration from that delineated in the Otay Ranch
GDP approved on October 23, 1993. The agreement allows the "take" of habitat in Poggi
Canyon (OlT~mpic Parkway alignment) in exchange for open space in tk~e Proctor Valley
and San Ysrdro Mountain parcels.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 37.)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
Adherence to previous-tier mitigation, as set forth below, for impacts on biological resources will
further ensure the impacts are fully mitigated.
· As a condition of SPA One approval, the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) shall be
implemented in accordance with the requirements of the adopted General Development Plan and
the Phase 1 RMP. The Phase 2 RMP encompasses a series of tasks that must be performed over
time throughout implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP. Components included within the
Phase 2 RMP relevant to impacts to biological resources resulting from SPA One and the oft~ite
facilities west of Paseo Ranchero include the following:
Preserve Conveyance Plan;
Otay Ranch Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub Habitat Replacement Plan;
and
Biota Monitoring Program.
These Phase 2 RMP components will mitigate direct impacts to SPA One biological resources to a
46
less-than-significant level (with the exception of direct impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher,
cactus wren, and Otay tarplant) as follows:
With SPA One, provide for conveyance of 1,186 acres to the Otay Ranch preserve, with
the first conveyance of 593 acres occurring in Year 3 of the Otay Ranch development
program. The first conveyance area will be located on the Otay Valley parcel and will
contain substantial acreage of upland scrub habitats and populations of Califomia
gnatcatchers and cactus wrens.
Pursuant to policy 3.4 in the Phase 1 RMP, implement the first phase of the coastal sage
scrub and maritime succulent scrub restoration programs with SPA One, including
minimum restoration of 17.6 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and 9.8 acres of maritime
succulent scrub habitat in accordance with the restoration ratios set forth on page 93 of
the Phase 2 RMP.
Beginning in 1996, implement the requirements of the Biota Monitoring Program
including initial surveys for California gnatcatcher and other sensitive species within the
10 study plots established as part of the Phase 2 RMP.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit that would result in impacts to freshwater marsh or
open water ihabitat, ensure that necessary permits from USFWS and DFG have been
obtained.
Prior to approval of plans for the Light Rail Transit construction west ofPaseo Ranchero,
conduct an additional survey for Hemizonia conjugens in the appropriate season and, if
observed, carry out a mitigation program in accordance with the requirements of a 2081
permit to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game,
(SPA One FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-4.2 - 4.3-43; 4.3~43 - 4.3-45 (Discussion); SPA One
Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP.)
Signi[~cance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 44.)
Impact (Vllb): The proposed project will not impact locally designated species.
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
47
Explanation:
As explained above under Impact (VIIa), biological resource impacts associated with the proposed
project have been the subject of extensive previous environmental review for planned development
in the area. (IVIND/I~tial Study, p. 41; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-61 - 4-63; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-
Planning Program SEIR, pp. 93 - 94; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.3~1 to 3.3-176, 4.9.4-1 to 4.9.4-
26; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-46.) The same analysis discloses that
implementation of the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts on
biological resources within the portion of the alignment crossing the Eastlake properties and that any
such impacts associated with the Sunbow properties have been fully mitigated. (IVIND/Initial Study,
pp. 41-42.) Finally, the previous EIRs and most recent biological data forthe proposed project do
not identify any locally designated species that would be impacted by the project. Thus, no impacts
to locally designated species that are peculiar to the project would result.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 41 .)
Impact (VIIc): The proposed project could result in impacts on locally designated
natural communities.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study.
Explanation:
As explained above under Impact (VIIa), biological resource impacts associated with the proposed
project have been the subject of extensive previous environmental review for planned development
in the area. (MND/Initial Study, p. 41; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-61 - 4-63; Eastlake Greens/Trails P~e-
Planning Program SEIR, pp. 93 - 94; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.3-1 to 3.3-176, 4.9.4-1 to 4.9.4-
26; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-46.) The same analysis discloses that
implementation of the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts on
biological resources within the portion of the alignment crossing the Eastlake properties and that any
such impacts associated with the Sunbow properties have been fully mitigated. (IVIND/Initial Study,
pp. 41-42.) As regards upland habitat impacts on the Otay Ranch SPA One portion of the proposed
alignment, the MND/Initial Study discloses that grading and construction of the roadway will impact
a total of I 1.23 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.08 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 5.12 acres of
maritime succulent scrub, 4.62 acres of disturbed maritime succulent scrub, 3.04 acres of Valley
Needlegrass Grassland, and 0.03 acres of disturbed habitat. (IVIND/Initial Study, pp. 43-44.) The
MND/InitiaI Study concludes these impact will be fully mitigated by the mitigation measures
described above under Impact VlIa, as well as by implementing the Preserve established in the Otay
48
Ranch General Development Plan and RMP as modified by the Chula Vista City Council on
November 10, 1998, by Resolution #19254. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 43-44.)
The Otay Ranch SPA One EIR specifically concluded that implementation of the roadway
extensions of East Palomar Street, East Orange Avenue (now the Olympic Parkway), and the future
light rail easement would result in direct impacts to the sensitive habitats identified above. (Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-12 to 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4.) In adopting the Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan and certifying the EIR, the City concluded such impacts could be mitigated to below
a level of significance. (See Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through
4.3-45 (Discussion).) As a result, sensitive habitat impacts associated with the Olympic Parkway
Extension are not peculiar to the project. Moreover, such impacts were adequately addressed in the
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR. Implementation of mitigation measures t~om the Otay Ranch SPA One
development for impacts on sensitive habitats, along with other mitigation measures listed below
under the Biological Resources Mitigation heading, will ensure such impacts are fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the above listed mitigation measures in Impact Vlla will reduce potentially
significant impacts.
Previous-Tiered Mitigation Measures:
Continue implementation and required adherence to mitigation measures identified under Impact
VIIa.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 43-44.)
Impact (VIId): The proposed project could result in impacts to wetland habitat.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study.
Explanation:
As explained above under Impact (VIIa), biological resource impacts associated with the proposed
project have been the subject of extensive previous environmental review for planned development
in the area. (MND/Initial Study, p. 41; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-61 - 4-63; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-
Planning PrQgrnm SEIR, pp. 93 - 94; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.3-1 to 3.3-176, 4.9.4-1 to 4.9.4-
26; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-46.) The same analysis discloses that
49
implementation of the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts on
biological resources within the portion of the alignment crossing the Eastlake properties and that any
such impacts associated with the Sunbow properties have been fully mitigated. (MND/Initial Study,
pp. 41-42.)
As regards wetlands impacts on the Otay Ranch SPA One portion of the proposed alignment, the
MND/Initial Study discloses, based on a detailed technical report prepared by Merkel & Associates,
Inc., dated January 26, 1999, that grading and construction of the roadway will impact a total of 7.91
acres of Water of the United States, consisting of 4.29 acres of disturbed herbaceous wetland, 2.04
acres of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.50 acres of mule fat scrub, 0.06 acres of southern willow scrub,
and 0.05 acres ofriparian woodland. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 47, 44-45.) The MND/Initial Study
provides that wetlands impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance, as set forth in detail
below, through the creation of wetland habitat within the new, larger drainage to be located on the
north side of Olympic Parkway. (MND/Initial Study, p. 48.) As proposed, the 7.91 acres of
jurisdictional waters will be off-set by the creation of 9.28 acres of wetlands on-site. Overall, the
mitigation wetlands are expected to provide greater functions and values than most of the existing
wetlands within the project site. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 48-49.)
The proposed project is consistent with and is contemplated by the Otay Ranch SPA One
development and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The Otay Ranch SPA One disclosed
that implementation of the plan of which the proposed roadway extension is a part, would result in
wetlands impacts to Poggi Canyon. (Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-15, 4.3-6, Figure 4.3-2, 4.3-
13, Figure 4.3-4.) In adopting the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and certifying the EIR, the City
concluded such impacts could be mitigated to below a level of significance. (See Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-45 (Discussion).) As a result, the wetlands
impacts associated with the Olympic Parkway Extension are not peculiar to the project. Moreover,
such impacts were adequately addressed in the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR. Implementation of
mitigation measures from the Otay Ranch SPA One development for wetlands impacts, along with
the other mitigation measures listed below and under Impact VIIa will ensure such impacts are fully
mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, taken from the SPA One EIR, will reduce
potentially significant impacts:
Wetland Permits
· Impacts to Waters of the U.S. such as those located within por. tions of Poggi Canyon, will
require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Water Quality
Certification (pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act) will also be
necessary from the California Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, under the
50
Califomia Department of Fish and Game Code Section 1600, any obstruction, diversion,
or alteration to any stream, streambed, adjacent riparian habitat, and sometime contiguous
upland habitat requires an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Impacts occurring within the project area will require a 1601 agreement.
Wetland Mitigation
· Wetland impacts will be mitigated through the creation ofwetland habitat within the new,
larger drainage to be located on the north side of Olympic Parkway. A conceptual wetland
mitigation plan has been prepared for the proposed project, and is included as part of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. The proposed wetland mitigation site
occurs adjacent to Olympic Parkway within the reconstructed Poggi Canyon channel. As
proposed, the 7.91 acres of jurisdictional waters will be off-set by the creation of 9.28
acres of wetlands. The goal of the revegetation effort is to create a multi-layered willow
riparian woodland and mulefat scrubland with freshwater marsh habitat components
interspersed with willow woodlands along the central core of the reconstructed Poggi
Canyon charmel. The mitigation proposed excludes all hard structures, roadway crossings,
maintenance areas, and utility alignments crossing the channel, although these areas are
expected to develop similar wetland functions and values between period of maintenance
and would contribute to the overall function of the system. Table 2 depicts the impact
acreage and.proposed wetland mitigation for the project. Attachment C depicts a typical
section of tile mitigation concept. Overall, the mitigation lands are expected to provide
greater functions and values than most of the existing wetlands within the project site.
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
Continue implementation and required adherence to mitigation measures identified under Impact
VIIa.
Significance: Less than significant.
Impact (VIle): The proposed project would not result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or
migration corridors.
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the impact is less than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study explains that, even though the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR identified Poggi
51
Canyon as a local corridor for target mammal species and as a regional corridor for the coastal
California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, the canyon does not presently function as an effective
wildlife corridor. (See MND/Initial Study, pp. 41-42.) Poggi Canyon does not function as a wildlife
corridor due to its topographical separation from Salt Creek and Wolf canyons (except for two
shallow passes) and the presence of agricultural land and other development at its eastern and
western termini. Poggi Canyon therefore does not link two or more patches of habitat and, by
definition, is therefore not a functional wildlife corridor. Therefore, development impacts associated
with the SPA One Plan, including the proposed project, will not result in adverse impacts on wildlife
corridor functionality. (MND/Initial Study, p. 42; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.3-36 to 4.3-37.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the above listed mitigation measures in Impact VIIa will reduce potentially
significant impacts.
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
Continue implementation and required adherence to naitigation measures identified under Impact
VIIa.
Signi[icance: Less than significant.
Impact (VIIf): The proposed project could result in potential conflicts with regional
habitat preservation planning efforts.
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study.
Explanation:
Potential impacts on regional habitat planning efforts will, in fact, be less than significant.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 41, 48.) The City of San Diego and the United States Fish & Wildlife
Service certified aj oint EIR/EIS for the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
in the Spring of 1997. The MSCP defines a Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which
an open space preserve is ultimately to be assembled, primarily for the conservation of biological
resources within southwestern San Diego County. Consistent with the MSCP, in October 1997, San
Diego County adopted a south county sub-regional plan. The MSCP adopted by the City of San
Diego and USFWS, and the South County MHPA adopted by the Board of Supervisors, each
contemplate development of in Poggi Canyon, including the Olympic Parkway extension. The City
52
of Chula Vista expects to adopt its own component of the MSCP later this year. Previous EIRs
prepared and certified by the City for planned development by the City in the vicinity of the
proposed project concluded that no impacts would result from potential conflicts between the MSCP
and the development planned by the City, including the Olympic Parkway extension project. (Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-13, 4.3-41 to 4.3-42; Eastlake EIR, pp. 92-93.)
Open space planned within Otay Ranch is considered by the wildlife agencies to be an integral
component of the MHPA and, as part of the planning effort for the MSCP, the wildlife agencies and
Otay Ranch landowner(s) conducted negotiations to determine the appropriate configuration of open
space on Otay Ranch to achieve consistency with the goals of the MSCP. Those negotiations
concluded with an agreement executed by the wildlife agencies on February 22, 1996. The
agreement resulted in changes in the Otay Ranch preserve configuration from that delineated in the
Otay Ranch GDP approved on October 23, 1993. The agreement contemplates development in
Poggi Canyon, including the Olympic Parkway, and the resulting loss of habitat, in exchange for
open space in the Proctor Valley and San Ysidro Mountain parcels (MND/Initial Study, p. 48 .) The
agreement, in conjunction with the analysis in the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, establishes that
potential conflicts with regional habitat planning efforts will be fully mitigated and less than
significant. (Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-13, 4.3-41 to 4.3-42.) Required
compliance with and adherence to the mitigation measures set forth below under the Biologic
Resources Mitigation heading will further ensure that impacts will be fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the above listed mitigation measures under Impact VIIa will reduce potentially
significant impacts.
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
Continue implementation and required adherence to mitigation measures identified under Impact
VIIa.
Significance: Less than significant.
H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact(VIIIa): The project will not conflict with energy conservation plans.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 49.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
53
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project involves construction of a roadway and will not involve excessive use of non-
renewable resources and therefore will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans,
(MND/Initial Study, p. 49.) The previous EIRs for planned development in the area also do not
identify any potential impact from the proposed project with respect to conflicts with energy
conservation plans. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-74 to 3.13-76, 4.9.14-6.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 49.)
Impact (VIIlb): The project will not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner. (MNDflnitial Study, p. 49.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The project will require fuel, steel, and aggregate materials for construction. However, the operation
of the roadway will require only minimal use of energy for roadway lighting purposes, and will not
result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The project will
be coordinated with grading of adjacent areas, to be utilized for borrow material, which will reduce
length of trips from other regions. (MND/Initial Study, p. 49.) The previous EIRs for planned
development in the vicinity of the proposed project similarly do not identify any impacts from the
proposed project with respect to the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-74 to 3.13-76, 4.9.14-6.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 49.)
Impact (VIllc): The project will not impact a mineral resource protection area.
(IVIND/Initial Study, p. 49.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
54
Explanation:
The project site is not designated for mineral resource protection. (MND/Initial Study, p. 49.) As
a result, no potentially significant impacts associated with mineral resources will result. Similarly,
the previous EIRs prepared for planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project do not
identify any potential impacts associated with the proposed project and impacts on mineral
resources. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.8-1 to 3.8-12, 4.9.9-1 to 4.9.9-2.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 49.)
IX, HAZARDS
Impact (1Xa): The project will not result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in the use of hazardous substances and no impact to this issue
is anticipated. While vehicles transporting hazardous waste may utilize the proposed roadway, such
use will not significantly increase the risk of release of hazardous substances, as drivers will be
required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to the handling and use of
hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials in the grading and construction of the proposed
roadway will also be subject to compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The
project will not result in impacts associated with a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances that is peculiar to the project. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.) Previous EIRs for
planned development in the area similarly do not identify, a specific impact associated with the
proposed project. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.) To the extent such impacts could result with respect
to such planned development, the previous EIRs prepared and certified for such planned
development adequately addressed the issue. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.14-1 to 3.14-3, 4.9.15 - 1
to 4.9.15-2; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.14-1 to 4.14-6.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
55
Impact (IXb.): The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan.
(MND/Initial Study; p. 50.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The project will create an additional roadway to be utilized as part of an emergency response or
evacuation plan, potentially enhancing rather than interfering with such plans. (MND/Initial Study,
p. 50.) Previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the vicinity of the proposed
project do not identify impacts associated with emergency response plans that are peculiar to the
project. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 50.) To the extent such impacts are associated with planned
development in the vicinity of the proposed project, those impacts are adequately addressed in the
previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.14-1 to 3.14-3, 4.9.14-3 to 4.9.14-4; Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.14-3 to 4.14-6.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
Impact (IXc): The project will not create any health hazard. (MND/Initial Study, p.
50.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project is a roadway, and will not create any health hazard or potential health hazard.
(MND/lnitial Study, p. 50.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 50-51.) To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area identified impacts associated with health hazards, such impacts were
adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.14-1 to 3.14-3, 4.9.15-1
to 4.9.15-2; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.14-1 to 4.14-6.)
Sign('ficance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
56
Impact (IXd): The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
No known health hazards exist in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project will not
result in the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards. (MND/Initial Study,
p. 50.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area do not
identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. (MND/lnitial Study, pp. 50-51 .) To
the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area identified
impacts associated with the exposure of people to existing health hazards, such impacts were
adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.14-2 to 3.14-4, 4.9.15-I
to 4.9.15-2; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.14-1 to 4.14-6.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
lmpact(IXe): Theprojectwillhavenotincrease~rehazardsinthearea. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 50.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in fire hazards associated with
flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project will not introduce fire into significant stands of
vegetation. Any increase in the potential for fire hazards on-site will be reduced to a less than
significant level through compliance with the City' s brush management requirements. The specific
requirements for the proposed roadway will be developed through consultation with City fire
departments during subsequent design phases. The City's NCCP 4(d) permit requires thinning and
pruning of fire management zones rather than clearing and grubbing. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area do not identify
such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 50-51.) To the
extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area identified impacts
associated with increased fire hazards, such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs.
57
(Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-43 to 3.13-49, 3.14-2 to 3.14-4, 4.9.15-1 to 4.9.15-2; Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-35 to 4.13-40~ 4.14-1 to 4.14-6; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-14; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 180.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Compliance with the City's brush management requirements. (MND/Initial Study, p. 50.)
Signi[icance: Less than significant. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 50.)
J. NOISE
Impact (Xa): The project will contribute to increased noise levels in the area.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study. (IVIND/Initial Study, p. 52).
Explanation:
The proposed project will result in increased noise levels in the project area during grading,
construction and operation. Grading and construction will involve the use of graders, scrapers,
bulldozers, excavators, backhoes, front-end loaders, pavers, and heavy trucks. Construction noise
will be temporary in nature and will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation
noise mitigation measures intended to prevent noise levels from rising above the City's threshold
for what is acceptable. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Operation of the roadway will also result in increased noise levels as a result of the introduction of
vehicular traffic in the area. These impacts are not peculiar to the proposed project and have been
adequately addressed in previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the vicinity
of, and including, the proposed project. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Noise impacts associated with existing and planned development in the vicinity ot~ the project have
been the subject of extensive previous environmental review. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.12-I to
3.12-33; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.12-I to 4.12-31; Sunbow EIR~ p. 4-43; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 126.) That analysis provides a sufficient level of detail
to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed project. Continued implementation of
and required adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs for potentially
significant noise impacts, which are set forth below, will further ensure that such impacts associated
58
with the proposed project will be fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of prior-tier mitigation measures listed below. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The following previously implemented mitigation measures from prior EIRs will further reduce
potentially significant impacts.
1. During construction and grading the following measures shall be complied with:
· Grading and construction shall be limited to Monday through Saturday between the
hours of 7a.m. and 5p.m.
· All grading and construction equipment shall be equipped and maintained with
effective muffler systems, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Muffler
systems shall conform to the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control
Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations).
· Construction equipment shall be located as far away from existing residential uses as
practical.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.12-29 - 4.12-30)
Significance afterMitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52; Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.12-30 - 4.12-31; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 138.)
Impact (Xb): The project could potentially contribute to severe noise levels in the area.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study. ( MND/Initial Study, p. 52).
Explanation:
59
Prior EIR's identified potential impacts associated with traffic noise. Based on the previous-tier
mitigation measures set forth below, those EIR's concluded the impact would be reduced to below
a level of significance. (Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-48 - 4-51 ;Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.12-30 -
4.12-31; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 138.)
Operation of the roadway will also result in increased noise levels as a result of the introduction of
vehicular traffic into the area. The increase in noise levels in the project area generated by vehicular
traffic associated with future land development projects described in earlier referenced EIRs would
impact future development along the corridor; however the developments that will be abutting the
roadway have been planned to avoid significant noise level impacts. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Developments that will be abutting the roadway have been planned to avoid significant noise level
impacts. See prior-tier mitigation measures below. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52.)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The following previously implemented mitigation measures from prior EIRs will further reduce
potentially significant impacts.
2. Noise barriers shall be provided where residential unmitigated noise levels will exceed 65
dBA CNELFLdn. This barrier shall be a minimum 6 foot high solid barrier placed at
minimum setback line where possible. The barrier can be a 6' masonry wall, 6' earthen
benn, or other suitable material to provide noise attenuation (i.e. ,plexiglass). Landscaping
shall be utilized on or adjacent to the wall as determined to be appropriate by the Planning
Department to minimize visual impacts of the wall.
3. Prepare a site specific noise study prior to construction to determine the potential impacts
of the roadway adjacent uses.
4.Long term mitigation will take place in the form of noise barriers on site.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.12-29 - 4.12-31 )
· Long term mitigation will take place in the form of noise barriers on site, as well as
construction of homes with noise attenuating materials to achieve an interior 45dB(A).
(Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 138.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 52. Sunbow EIR, p. 4-51 ;Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR, pp. 4.12-30 - 4.12-31; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 138.)
60
K. PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact (Xla): The project will not cause an increase in fire protection services.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not generate an increase in dwelling units or population in the project area.
Therefore, the proposed roadway will not result in a need for new or altered fire protection facilities
or services. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.) Similarly, preevious EIRs prepared and certified for plarmed
development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 53-54.) To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area identified impacts associated with increased need for fire protection
services, such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp.
3.13-43 to 3.13-47; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-35 to 4.13-40; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-14;
Eastlake Greens/Trail~ Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 180.)
S&~nificance: Less than significant. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 54.)
Impact (X/b): The project will not cause an increase in police services. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 54.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation: ·
The proposed project will not generate an increase in dwelling units or population in the project area.
Therefore, the proposed roadway will not result in a need for new or altered police protection
facilities or services. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified
for planned development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed
project. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 53-54.) To the extent previous E1Rs prepared and certified for
planned development in the area identified impacts associated with increased need for law
enforcement-related services, such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay
Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13 -37 to 3.13 -43; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-31 to 4.13-35; Sunbow
61
EIR, p. 4-15; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 180.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
Impact (XIc): The project will not cause a need for new or altered schools.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 53-54.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not generate an increase in dwelling units or population in the project area.
Therefore, the proposed roadway will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities or
services. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 53-54.) To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for platreed
development in the ar~a identified impacts associated with increased need for new or altered schools,
such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-49
to 3.13-59; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4. 1 3q18 to 4.13-24; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-23; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 173-177.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
lmpact(XId): The project will cause less than significant impacts to public
maintenance services. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project involves the construction of a new roadway which would require both regular
and emergency maintenm~ce. The project will therefore result in the need for an expansion of public
services to maintain the roadway. The degree to which maintenance services would need to be
expanded would be less than significant, however, as construction of the roadway has been identified
as part of the City' s General Plan and Growth Management Plan forecasts. The City will be able to
62
provide an adequate level of roadway maintenance service to this roadway. (MND/Initial Study, p.
54.)
Previous EIRs prepared for planned development in the area also concluded impacts associated with
maintenance of public facilities could be fully mitigated. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and
certified for planned development in the area identified impacts associated with public services, such
impacts are adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13 - 1 to 3.13-92;
Otay Ranch SPA EIR, pp. 4.13~ 1 to 4.13-49; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR,
p. 46)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
Impact (Xle): The project will not cause a need for any other governmental services.
(MND/initial Study, pp. 53-54.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in a need for any other new or altered governmental services
because the project will not generate an increase in dwelling units or population. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 54.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area
do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 53-
54.) To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area
identified impacts associated with increased need for governmental services, such impacts were
adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-1 to 3.13-92; Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR 4.13-1 to 4.13-49.)
Signz_'[icance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
L. THRESHOLDS
Impact (XIIa): The project will not adversely impact Fire/EMS thresholds. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 54.)
Finding:
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub.
63
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standards [equires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within
7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. Because the
proposed project does not generate dwelling units or population in the project area, it will not
adversely impact City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards for Fire/EMS. The City of Chula Vista
has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is approximately
4 miles away and would be associated with a 4 to 7 minute response time (Rod Hastie - Chula Vista
Fire Department). The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 54.) (See also: Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13~43 to 3.13-49, 3.14-2 to 3.14-4, 4.9.15-1
to 4.9.15-2; Otay Rar~ch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-35 to 4.13-40, 4.14-1 to 4.14-6; Sunbow EIR, p.
4-14; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 180.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 54.)
Impact (Xllb): The project will not adversely impact Police thresholds. (IVIND/lnitial
Study, p. 55.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less.
Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an
average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less (Richard Preuss - Chula Vista Police
Department). The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Because the
proposed project does not generate dwelling units or population in the project area, it will not
adversely impact City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards for Police. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
(See also: Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13 -43 to 3.13 -49, 3.14-2 to 3.14-4, 4.9.15 - 1 to 4.9.15 -2; Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-35 to 4.13-40, 4.14-1 to 4. 14~6; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-14; Eastlake
Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 180.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
64
Impact (XIIc): The project will not adversely impact Traffic thresholds. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 55.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C"
or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur dinring the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below
their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections ofarterials with freeway ramps are exempted fi'om this Standard.
Because the proposed project does not generate dwelling units or population in the project area, it
will not adversely impact City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards for Traffic. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Standard as it will improve traffic on the surrounding roadways,
specifically, the project will alleviate existing and future projected traffic volumes on Telegraph
Canyon Road by provliding an additional east-west com~ection. According to the "Draft Olympic
Parkway Roadway and Intersection Phasing Analysis" (BRW Group, July 30, 1999), all intersections
on Olympic Parkway will operate at LOS D or better with the phased implementation of intersection
geometries as recommended in the report. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
Signt_'ficance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
Impact (XlId): The project will not adversely impact Parks/Recreation thresholds.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Standard. Because the proposed project does not generate dwelling
units or population in the project area, it will not adversely impact City of Chula Vista Threshold
Standards for Parks/Recreation. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55 .) (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-63 to
3.13-34; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-24 to 4.13-31.)
65
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
Impact (XIIe): The project will not adversely impact Drainage thresholds. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 55.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering
Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage
Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard. Because the proposed project does not generate dwelling units or population
in the project area, it will not adversely impact City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards for
Drainage. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
Significance: Less th,an significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 55.)
Impact (XlIf): The project will not adversely impact Sewer thresholds. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 56.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering
Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard simply in that the project itself will not generate a demand for sewer. The project includes
the installation of the Poggi Canyon sewer within the roadway, which will serve the proposed
developments along the alignment. Because the proposed project does not generate dwelling units
or population in the project area, it will not adversely impact City of Chula Vista Threshold
Standards for Sewer. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.) (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. -27 to 3.13-35; Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 13-10 to 4.13-18.)
66
Sign!ficance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Impact (XIIg): The project will not adversely impact Water thresholds. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 56.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resoumes Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are
constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized
during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program
the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Because the proposed
project does not generate dwelling units or population in the project area, it will not adversely impact
City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards for Water services. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Signz_'[icance: Less thin significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
M. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
lmpact (XIlla): The project will cause less than significant impacts on electricity
demand. MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed roadway will utilize electricity for madway lighting purposes. However the additional
demand for electricity generated by the project will be less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p.
56.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area do not
identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs
prepared and certified for planned development in the area identified impacts associated with
increased electrical demand, such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay
Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-74 to 3.13-76; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-25.)
67
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Impact(XIIIb): The project will have no impact on communication systems.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures arc required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed roadway will not result in a need for new communications systems, or result in
alterations to existing systems. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and
certified for planned development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the
proposed project.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Impact (XIIIc): The project will not impact water treatment or distribution systems.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
The proposed roadway will not require the use of water treatment or distribution facilities. Therefore,
the project will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to local or regional
water treatment or distribution facilities. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.) Similarly, previous EIRs
prepared and certified for planned development in the area do not identify such an impact that is
peculiar to the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area identified impacts associated with water treatment or distribution systems,
such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. ( Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13 -6
to 3.13 -26; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-1 to 4.9-11,4.13 -2 to 4.13 - 18; S unbow EIR, pp. 4-18,
4-19; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 161 - 163. )
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 56.)
68
lmpact(XIIId): The project will not cause impacts to sewer or septic facilities.
(IVIND/Initial Study; p. 57.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not require sewer or septic facilities for operation as no residential, or non-
residential development is proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the project will not result in
a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks. The project includes the
installation of the Poggi Canyon sewer within the roadway, which will serve the proposed
developments along the alignment. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared
and certified for planned development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to
the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development
in the area identified impacts associated with sewer or septic facilities, such impacts were adequately
addressed in the previous EIRs. ( Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13 -27 to 3.13 -35; Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.13 - 13 to 4.13 ~ 18; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-16, 4-17; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning
Program SE1R, pp. 147-173.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.)
Impact (Xllle): The project will cause less than significant impacts on storm water
drainage. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that further reduce or avoid the less than significant environmental effects identified in, and
in accordance with, the MND/Initial Study. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will require a storm water drainage system to control surface runoff; as Poggi
Canyon will be modified and a new channel will be constructed parallel to the proposed roadway.
Impacts to storm water drainage due to increased stormwater flows from the proposed roadway will
be less than significant; however, as the drainage control plan for the roadway will address
stormwater nmoff and drainage control. The final size and design of the detention basin will be
detem~ined with preparation of final grading plans and will be designed to accommodate a 100-year
frequency storm. Runoff from the portion of the roadway immediately adjacent to the Land Swap
69
parcel located east of SPA One and south of Eastlake Greens will be directed into existing drainage
facilities within Eastlake Parkway. (MND/lnitial Study, p. 57.)
Stormwater drainage impacts associated with existing and planned development in the vicinity of
the project has been the subject of extensive previous environmental review. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR,
pp. 3.9-12 to 3.9-20; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.9-5 to 4.9-11.) That analysis provides a
sufficient level of detail to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed project.
Continued implementation of and required adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the
previous EIRs for potentially significant stormwater impacts, which are set forth below, will further
ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed project will be fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Construction of the new drainage system, which includes a large detention basin in the new drainage
channel. (MND/Initial Study, p. 33, 57.)
Prior-Tier Mitigation Measures:
The following previously implemented mitigation measures from prior EIRs will further reduce
potentially significant impacts.
· Include the preparation of a comprehensive drainage infrastructure plan for the drainage
basin as defined by the appropriate jurisdiction. The specific master drainage plans shall
include drainage infrastructure, staging/development detail, timing, financing, and
responsibility for drainage impacts.
· The impacts associated with inundation shall be quantified by hydrologic and hydraulic
studies by a qualified hydrologist for the project applicant at the SPA level when a
detailed development plan is available. The hydraulic studies shall demonstrate that the
project design meets Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the County of San
Diego and City of Chula Vista floodplain encroachment and engineering standards
contained in the appropriate ordinances of each jurisdiction.
· At the SPA level, the impacts associated with change in water velocities shall be addressed
by detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies prepared by a qualified hydrologist.
· Urban runoffand surface water quality shall be specifically addressed in each SPA plan.
At the SPA level, detailed water quality analysis shall be performed and appropriate
mitigation measures developed. Amounts ofurbnn rtmoffloading shall be estimated for
metals, herbicides, pesticides, fuels, and surfactant.
· Best management practices shall be designed and implemented at the SPA Plan level in
order to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of surface water runoff. EIRs at the
70
SPA level shall include analysis of specific BMPs in the categories of reduced pollutant
generation, reduced pollutant transport, and treatment of polluted runoff. Specific BMPs
that shall be considered at the SPA level include mitigations to reduce impervious surfaces
such as grass swales, filter strips, constructed wetlands, detention ponds, infiltration
trenches/basins, replacement of concrete with permeable surface, and the use of natural
channels where possible. Mitigations to reduce or prevent pesticide contamination
impacts such as Integrated Pest Management, non-use ofpesticides along roadways, use
of only EPA-approved chemicals and plan ofpesticide use around upcoming precipitation
events.
(Otay SPA One EIR, p. 4.9.10-1.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.)
Impact (XIllf}: The project will not cause impacts to solid waste disposal facilities.
(IVIND/Initial Study, p. 57)
Finding:
No mitigation measu[es are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 2l~302; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
The proposed roadway will not generate solid waste, and therefore will not result in the need for new
systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal facilities. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.)
Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area do not identify
such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and
certified for planned development in the area identified impacts associated with solid waste, such
impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. ( Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-47
to 4.13-49.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 57.)
N. AESTHETICS
Impact (XIVa): The project will result in a less than significant short-term visual impact.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
71
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that further reduce or avoid the less than significant environmental effects identified in, and
in accordance with, the MND/Initial Study. (NfND/Initial Study, p. 58).
Explanation:
Construction of the proposed roadsray will result in short-term visual impacts due to landform
alteration and grading operations. Construction and operation of the proposed facility, however, will
not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. Short-term aesthetic impacts will be
reduced to below a level of significance through continued implementation of and adherence to
policies established by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan that relate to visual resources and
landform modification which, if applied to construction for the entire length of the proposed
roadway, will reduce aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level. (IVlND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
Aesthetic impacts associated with existing and planned development in the vicinity of the project
have been the subject of extensive previous environmental review. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-1
to 3.2-35; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.2-1 to 4.2-24.) That analysis provides a sufficient level
of detail to adequately address the impacts peculiar to the proposed project. Continued
implementation of and, required adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs
for potentially significant impacts on aesthetic resources, which are set forth below, will further
ensure that such impacts associated with the proposed project will be fully mitigated.
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures:
Adherence to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, which contains policies related to visual
resources and landform modification which, when applied to construction for the entire length of the
proposed roadway will reduce aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 58.)
Otay Ranch General Development Plan Policies and SPA One guidelines to address grading, which
are applicable to the proposed project include:
· Protection of graded slopes through utilization of proper erosion control measures (i.e.
hydroseeding for landscaping of slopes);
· Landscaping and design guidelines for the construction of roads through the project;
· The retention of significant landforms as much as possible;
· Utilization of grading that simulates the natural topography so that once the landscaping
matures, manufactured slopes are not discernible from natural areas;
72
· Utilization of contour grading for all grading that occurs in canyons and on hillsides;
· Utilization of proper native and naturalizing lar~dscape techniques to blend graded slopes
with natural open space areas;
· The preservation of prominent topographic features whenever possible; utilization of
varying slope heights;
· The modulation of long slopes;
· The protection of natural features such as significant rock outcrops and trees (not
applicable to SPA One);
· Rounding of the tops and toes of slopes;
· When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetation shall be used to alleviate sharp angular
appearances;
· When significant land forms are modified for project implementation, the land form
should be rounded as much as possible to blend into the natural grade;
· Manufacture slope faces over 25' shall be varied to avoid excessive "~at-planed" surfaces;
· Grading shall be sensitive to significant and/or sensitive vegetation and habitat areas;
· To complement landform grading, landform vegetation techniques will be utilized. As in
a natural setting, major element of the landscape are concentrated largely in the concave
"drainages," while convex portions are planted primarily with ground cover and minor
materials.
(Otay Ranch GDP E1R, pp. 3.2-32 to 3.2-36, 4.9.3-1 to 4.9.3-2; Otay Ranch SPA EIR, 4.2-9 to
4.2-10.)
Compliance with the SPA Plan Design Guidelines involving architectural and site design, lighting,
fencing, circulation, and comprehensive grading and landscaping plans, among other techniques
would reduce visual impacts to a less than significant level. (Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.2-9
to 4.2-10; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 124; see also, Otay Ranch GDP
EIR, pp. 3.2-32 to 3.2-36, 4.9.3-1 to 4.9.3-2.)
Significance alter Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 58-59.)
73
Impact (XIVb.): The project will not cause impacts to any scenic route. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 58)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not affect a scenic route. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.) Similarly~ previous
EIRs prepared and certified for platreed development in the area do not identify such an impact that
is peculiar to the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area identified impacts associated with scenic routes, such impacts were
adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-20 to 3.2-36; Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR, pp. 4.2-1 to 4.2-24.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
Impact (XIVc.): i The project will not create a demonstrable negative effect. (MND/Initial
Study, p. 58)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not create a demonstrable negative effect. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
Impact (XIVd): The project will cause less than significant light and glare impacts.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 58)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
74
Explanation:
The proposed project will result in the creation of a small amount of light and glare originating from
lighting along the roadway and vehicles. However, the amount of light and glare introduced by this
roadway will not significantly increase the level of light glow in the project area or cause the project
to fail to comply with Chula Vista outdoor lighting requirements. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area do not identify
such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and
certified for planned development in the area identified impacts associated with light and glare, such
impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-15 to 3.2-
20,
3.2-25 to 3.2-36, 4.9.3-1 to 4.9.3-2; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.2-2 to 4.2-24.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
Impact (XIVe): The project will not have a significant spill light impact in the project
area. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
.Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that further reduce or avoid the less than significant environmental effects identified in, and
in accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( p. 58).
Explanation:
The proposed project will not have a significant spill light impact in the project area. The project
traverses several large, comprehensively planned communities. Each planned community document
recognizes the future construction of the roadway and has been planned with proper setbacks and
landscaping to address compatibility issues associated with the future roadway. While the project
will involve road lighting and additional light will be generated by headlights, the impact to this
issue is not considered significant. All project lighting must comply with lighting standards of
Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19. (MND/initial Study, p. 58; Otay
Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.2-15 to 3.2-20, 3.2-25 to 3.2-36, 4.9.3-I to 4.9.3-2; Otay Ranch SPA One
EIR, pp. 4.2-2 to 4.2-24.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Project lighting shall comply with lighting standards of Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Title 19. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 58-59.)
Signz_'ficance afier Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 58.)
75
O. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts (XVa&b): The project could significantly impact a cultural resource site.
(MNDflnitial Study, p. 60.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant enviro~xrnental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 60-61).
Explanation:
A review of existing archaeological information was undertaken to establish the level of previous
study with the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Olympic Parkway proposed alignment and
associated borrow areas. Within the project APE, where surveys have been completed, 11
archaeological sites have been recorded. Ten of these sites, SDI-4258, SDi-11,387H, SDI-12,466,
SD1-13,867, SDI- 13,868, SDI- 13,869, SDI- 13,870, SDI- 12,465, SDI- 12,771H and SDI- 13,865 have
been tested and found to be not significant.
Based on the informat4on derivedfrom various archaeological studies, the APE for the project will
include 10 non~significant and one significant cultural resources. The significant site, SD1-13,872H
is important under CEQA criteria for the information potential contained in the deposit of historic
artifacts at the site. Destruction of the site during grading will be a significant adverse impact.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 60.)
The Otay Ranch SPA One EIR previously identified project-specific impacts with respect to SDI-
13,872H as potentially significant, but mitigable to a level below significance. (Otay Ranch SPA
One EIR, pp. 4.4-12, 4.4-14.) Accordingly, the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR adequately addressed the
project-specific impacts associated with this resource. Required compliance with the previous-tier
mitigation, as set forth below, for impacts on SDI-13,872H will furlher ensure the impacts are fully
mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
The proposed grading for Olympic Parkway will result in a direct adverse impact to SDI-13,872H.
In order to reduce the impacts to a level below significant, measures must be implemented prior to
grading to mitigate the adverse impacts. Ideally, the mitigation of impacts to significant cultural
resources is always avoidance of the resource through project redesign. Because the alignment for
the roadway is fixed, the only viable measure to mitigate the potential impacts to SDI-13,872H is
the recovery of sufficient artifacts and mitigation from the significant deposit to exhaust the research
potential of the site. Therefore, to mitigate the adverse direct impacts to SDI-13,872H, a data
recovery program will be necessary.
76
As a condition of approval for the road project, the mitigation of impacts to cultural resources should
includearequirementforadatarecoveryprogramatSDI-13,872H. The requirement should include
a statement that a research design should be prepared and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This
research design will serve as a guide for the excavations at the site and for the research effort needed
to reduce the significance of impacts by exhausting the research potential of the site. Generally, the
research design will include discussions of the general plan to recover data from the historic deposit,
the quantity and locations of excavations, the types of field work needed to successfully recover dam,
the types of laboratory analyses to be conducted, preservation techniques for historic artifacts, and
procedures to be implemented to conduct the field work and to deal with special situations that may
arise, such as encotmtering foundations or other features. The research design will include the
specific research questions or directions of research that will be applied to the information generated
by the recovery effort. All of the information from the fieldwork, laboratory analysis, and research
will be presented in a technical report to the City. The tasks of the research design are noted below:
Preparation of a research plan that explicitly provides research questions th~at can
reasonably be expected to be addressed by excavation, or historic research and
documentation, and subsequent analysis of collected data.
A statement of the types of data that can reasonably be expected to be recovered from the
site or from historic research, or both, and how that information will be used to address
the research orientation.
· A step-by-step discussion of field, laboratory, and/or archival research methods to be
employed. This will include the archaeological sampling strategy, or method of
documentation in the case of historic sites, methods of excavation, specialized studies to
be employed, laboratory techniques, and methods for the synthesis and interpretation of
recovered data.
Provisions for the permanent curation of recovered artifacts, photographs, notes,
documents, and other related materials must be clarified. A memorandum of agreement
with an appropriate institution may be necessary to forrealize the curation plan in
accordance with state and local mandates.
Site-specific mitigation recommendations must be accompanied with a requirement that
archaeological monitoring of all grading and excavations associated with the construction
of the new roadway is necessary in order to identify any masked or buried cultural
resources. Should previously undocumented cultural resources be encountered dining the
monitoring program, significance testing and mitigation of impacts to significant resources
would be required as appropriate.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 61 .)
77
Previous-Tier Mitigation:
Adherence to previous-tier mitigation, as set forth below, for impacts on SDI-I 3,872H will further
ensure the impacts are fully mitigated.
· Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the portion of SPA One that would impact SDI-
13,872H, a research design shall be prepared by a county certified archaeologist, and submitted
to the City of Chula Vista for review and approval. The research design shall discuss the data
recovery program at the site to be impacted, and shall outline the research approach and
objectives to be pursued during the further investigation of the site. Any other management
actions, such as site capping or project redesign or avoidance shall also be discussed in detail,
and specific procedures for implementation shall be noted. Compliance with this measure shall
be verified by the City of Chula Vista.
· All brushing and grading within the SPA-One Project shall be monitored. The monitoring of the
brushing and grading shall be conducted by one or more archaeologists, as dictated by the size
of the grading operation. All utility excavations, road grading, and brush removal shall be
coordinated with the archaeological monitor. Any resources which are graded shall be
intensively monitored during grading to ensure that any important features, isolates, or deposits
are either recorded and collected or excavated. Should any resources be encountered during the
monitoring of the brushing or grading which were not previously recorded, the grading shall be
temporarily stopped or redirected to another area while the nature of the discovery is evaluated.
Any resources that may be encountered shall require testing to determine their significance. If
the testing demonstrates that a resource is significant, then a data recovery program will be
necessary. The data recovery program shall follow the same format as described in Mitigation
Measure 1 in the FEIR at page 4.4-14.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.4-14.)
Significance al?er Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 61 .)
Impact (XVc): The project will not impact existing unique ethnic cultural values.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 60)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
78
Explanation:
The proposed roadway will not cause physical change which would affect unique etiu~ic or cultural
values. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 60-61 .) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. To
the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area identified
impacts associated with existing unique ethnic cultural values, such impacts were adequately
addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.4-1 to 3.4-47, 4.9.5-1 to 4.9.5-10; Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.4-1 to 4.4-16; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p.
139.)
Project Specific Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures under Impact (XV a&b) will further ensure any potential impacts are fully
mitigated.
Previous-Tier Mitigation:
Mitigation measures under Impact (XV a&b) will further ensure any potential impacts are fully
mitigated.
Significa.ce: Less than significm~t. (MND/Initial Study, p. 60)
Impact(XVd): The project will not impact existing religious or sacred uses.
(IVIND/Initial Study, p. 60)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
No known religious or sacred uses currently take place on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project will not restrict such uses. (IViND/Initial Study, p. 60.) Similarly,
previous EIRs prepared and certified l?or planned development in the area do not identify such an
impact that is peculiar to the proposed project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified
for planned development in the area identified impacts associated with existing religious or sacred
uses, such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.4-
1 to 3.4-47, 4.9.5-1 to 4.9.5-10; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.4-1 to 4.4-16.)
79
Project Specific Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures under Impact (XV a&b) will further ensure any potential impacts are fully
mitigated.
Previous-Tier Mitigation:
Mitigation measures under Impact (XV a&b) will further ensure any potential impacts are fully
mitigated.
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 60.)
Impact (XVe): The project area could potentially be an area considered "high
potential" for archeological resources. (MND/Initial Study, p. 60.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( pp. 60-61 ).
Explanation:
Within the project APE, where surveys have been completed, 11 archaeological sites have been
recorded. Ten of these sites, SDI-4258, SDI-11,387H, SDI-12,466, SDI-13,867, SDI-13,868, SDI-
13,869, SDI-13,870, SDI-12,465, SDI-12,771H and SDI-13,865 have been tested and found to be
not significant. Based on the information derived from various archaeological studies, the APE for
the project will include 10 non-significant and one significant cultural resources. The significant
site, SDI-13,872H is important under CEQA criteria for the information potential contained in the
deposit of historic artifacts at the site. Destruction of the site during grading will be a significant
adverse impact. (MND/Initial Study, p. 60; Otay Ranch GDP E1R, pp. 3.4-1 to 3.4-47, 4.9.5-1 to
4.9.5-10; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.4-1 to 4.4-16.)
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
Implement mitigation measures listed above under Impact XVa&b. (MND/Initial Study, p. 61 .)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures listed above under Impact XVa&b.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 61 .)
80
P. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact (XVIa): The project could potentially significantly impact paleontological
resources. (MND/Inifial Study, p. 62.)
Finding:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Olympic Parkway Extension
Project that reduce or avoid the potentially significant enviromnental effects identified in, and in
accordance with, the MND/Initial Study ( p. 62).
Explanation:
The MND/Initial Study explains that the proposed project site, in conjunction with previous
environmental analysis for planned development in the area, has been the subject of extensive
analysis. (MND/Initial Study, p. 62; Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.6-1 to 3.6-I 8, 4.9.7-1 to 4.9.7-2;
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.6-1 to 4.6-9; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR,
p. 139.) Because the proposed project site is underlain by the Otay formation and, at least with
respect to the Sunbow properties, the San Diego formation, there is a high possibility that
paleontological resources will be encountered during earthwork activities. As a result, potentially
significant impacts ~n paleontological resources could result. (MND/Initial Study, p. 62.)
Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce any potentially significant
impacts on paleontological resources to below a level of significance. (MND/Initial Study, pp. 62-
63 .)
Previous EIRs similarly identified project-related impacts on paleontological resources as
significant, but mitigable to below a level of significance. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.6-1 to 3.6-
18, 4.9.7-1 to 4.9.7-2; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.6-1 to 4.6-9; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-
Planning Program SEIR, p. 139.) The previous EIRs therefore adequately addressed potentially
significant impacts on paleontological resources. Required compliance with and continued
adherence to the previous tier mitigation measures set forth below will further ensure that impacts
on paleontological resources are fully mitigated.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to approval of grading permits, the applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista
that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation
program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques).
The palaeontologist shall attend pre-grade meetings to consult with grading and
excavation contractors.
2. A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of
81
previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (i.e. San Diego
and Otay formations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil
materials.) The paleontological monitor is defined as an individual wh has experience in
the collection and salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work
under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall be on-site on at least
a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
moderately sensitive geologic formations (i.e., unnamed river terrace deposits) to inspect
cuts for contained fossils.-
3. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover
them.
4. Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be
deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the
results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods
used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 62-63.)
Previous-Tier Mitigation Measures
Adherence to previous-tier mitigation, as set forth below, for impacts on paleontological resources
will further ensure the impacts are fully mitigated.
· All work shall be done by a qualified professional paleontologist with a working knowledge of
the Chula Vista/Otay Mesa area.
Prior to approval of grading permits, the applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista
that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation
program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.)
The paleontologist shall attend per-grade meetings to consult with grading and excavation
contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (i.e. San Diego,
and Otay formations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil
materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall be on-site on at least half-time basis during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive geologic formations
82
(i.e., unnamed river terrace deposits) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
In the event that fossils are discovered in moderately sensitive fonnations, it may be necessary
to increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the
monitoring should be reduced.
· When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them.
In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time (a few hours).
However, some fossil sediments (such as a complete whale skeleton) may require an extended
salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed
to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated
mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances to set up a screen-washing operation on
the site.
· Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be
deposited (with applicant 's permission) in a scientific institution with paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final sununary report shall be completed
which outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the
methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
· Prior to issuance of any grading permit for non-Otay Ranch parcel within the proposed
annexation area, a site specific paleontological assessment shall be conducted. The assessment
shall be conducted to determine the potential for paleontological resoumes to be encountered
onsite. If the area proposed for development has been identified as an area potentially containing
paleontological resources, the report shall identify measures to reduce the impact to a level less
than significant. These measures shall include, but not be limited to establishing a
paleontological monitor during grading, and conducting a recovery and reporting program.
(Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, p. 4.6-7 to 4.6-8.)
Signz.'ftcance after Mitigation: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 62.)
Q. RECREATION
Impact (XVIIa): The project will not impact neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities. (MND/Initial Study, p. 63.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
83
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in additional residential development and corresponding
population and therefore would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities. (MND/Initial Study, p. 63 .) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified
for planned development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed
project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area
identified impacts associated with increased demand for parks and other recreational facilities, such
impacts were adequately addressed in the previous E1Rs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-63 to 3-
13-74, 4.9.14-5 to 4.9.14-6; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-24 to 4.13-31,4.13-44 to 4.13-45;
Sanbow EIR, pp. 4-20, 4-21; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 177-180.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 63.)
Impact (XVIIb): The project will not impact existing recreational opportunities.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 63.)
Finding:
No mitigation measu~,es are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Explanation:
The proposed project will not result in a population increase which would affect existing recreational
opportunities. (MND/Initial Study, p. 63.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for
planned development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed
project. To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned development in the area
identified impacts associated with existing recreational opportunities, such impacts were adequately
addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-63 to 3-13-74, 4.9.14-5 to 4.9.14-6;
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13 -24 to 4.13 -31,4.13 -44 to 4.13 -45; Sunbow EIR, pp. 4-20, 4-21;
Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp. 177-180.)
Signi~cance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 63 .)
Impact (XVIIc): The project will not impact recreation parks and recreation plans.
(IVIND/Initial Study, p. 63.)
Finding:
No mitigation measures are required because the potential impact is less than significant. (Pub.
84
Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 .)
Explanation:
The proposed project will in no way interfere with recreation parks and recreation plans or programs.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 63.) Similarly, previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area do not identify such an impact that is peculiar to the proposed project.
(MND/Initial Study, pp. 53-54.) To the extent previous EIRs prepared and certified for planned
development in the area identified impacts associated with recreation parks and recreation plans,
such impacts were adequately addressed in the previous EIRs. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 3.13-63
to 3-13-74, 4.9.14-5 to 4.9.14-6; Otay Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 4.13-24 to 4.13-31,4.13-44 to 4.13-
45; Sunbow EIR, p. 4-20, 4-21; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, p. 177480.)
Significance: Less than significant. (MND/Initial Study, p. 63.)
R. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The MND/Initial Study indicates no cumulative impacts would result from the proposed project.
(MND/Initial Study, p. 64.) The conclusion in the MND/Initial Study with respect to potentially
significant cumulativ? impacts is based on the conclusion that cumulative impacts associated
with the proposed project were adequately addressed by previous EIRs prepared and certified for
planned development in the area, EIRs and plam~ed development which contemplate the
construction of the Olympic Parkway Extension. (Otay Ranch GDP EIR, pp. 6-1 to 6-54; Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR, pp. 6-3 to 6-10; Eastlake Greens/Trails Re-Planning Program SEIR, pp.
195-199; Sunbow EIR, pp. 5-3 to 5-4.) The previous EIRs adequately address cumulative
impacts associated with planned development in the vicinity of the proposed project, including
the proposed project itself, because the cumulative impacts associated with planned development
in the area were treated as significant in previous EIRs, mitigated or avoided as a result of
analysis in the previous EIRs, examined at sufficient level of detail to enable the City to fully-
mitigate the impacts peculiar to the proposed project identified in the MND/lnitial Study, or
because previously-identified significant cumulative impacts associated with planned
development cannot be fully mitigated or avoided despite the City's willingness to accept all
feasible mitigation measures to address cumulative impacts.
9041770.002
85
OLYMPIC PARKWAY MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
This mitigation monitoring program was prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the
Olympic Parkway Extension to comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which requires public
agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures.
This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation
measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
throughout the project approval process.
This monitoring program 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
· Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed~project consists of the extension of Olympic Parkway (Orange Avenue) from
the eastern boundary of the Sunbow property to a point about one mile east of SR-125.
Olympic Parkway is a 5-mile long roadway which will provide access to 1-805 and State
Route 125 (SR 125 ) from the proposed development areas of the Eastern Territories of Chula
Vista. This portion of the Olympic Parkway extension traverses the planned communities
of Sunbow, Otay Ranch, McMillan-Otay Ranch, New Millennium and Eastlake. Olympic
Parkway is currently classified by the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element as a six-
lane prime arterial east of 1-805 to the proposed SR-125.
The road extension plan includes a drainage system consisting of an earthen channel with
drop structures and a detention facility. A smaller temporary channel is proposed for the
northern side of the road. At the time the southern side of the road is graded for future
development, the temporary channel will be removed and the finished grading will match the
northern side of the road. The drainage plan includes drop structures and a large detention
basin.
The proposed project includes the placement of utilities within the Olympic Parkway right-
of-way. Wet utilities include the Poggi Canyon sewer and potable water and reclaimed water
lines.
About 4.7 million cubic yards of cut and fill will be required for project implementation. Fill
material required for the project will be derived from five borrow areas within the Otay
Ranch property, as well as from Eastlake. The borrow areas will be excavated in accordance
with the existing approved developments plans for the Otay Ranch, McMillian and Eastlake
developments; however, rather than exporting the excess material to an undisclosed location
off-site, the fill material that is excavated from these properties will be utilized for the
Olympic Parkway construction.
EXHIBIT B
The City of Chula Vista prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration is a"tiered" document that incorporates by reference several
EIRs conducting for planned developments that are traversed by the roadway. These
documents consist of the Sunbow General Development Plan EIR (EIR 88-01 ), Otay Ranch
(EIR 95-01), McMillan-SPA One West EIR (EIR 97-03) and the Eastlake Greens/Trails
Replatming Program Supplemental EIR (EIR 97-04).
Mitigation Monitoring Te~m
A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as
conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the
responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be
accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and
the MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula 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 communications skills.
The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following:
· Implement and manage the monitoring program;
· Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring;
· Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final
constmction monitoring;
· Act as liaison between the City of Chula Vista, the City' s Engineering Department, and
the City'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 coinpliance 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 activities observed that violate project
environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and
· Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs, and
personnel responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance.
The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in
performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and
functions are to:
· Maintain a working knowledge of the Olympic Parkway Extension permit conditions,
contract documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation
requirements for his or her assigned construction area;
· Assist the MM and Olympic Parkway Extension construction contractors in coordinating
with City of Chula Vista compliance activities;
· Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit
conditions; and
· Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist the
MM as necessary in preparing status reports.
The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when
environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project
implementation and to provide direction for mitigation.
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 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 participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would
have a complete list o fall the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would
include the City of Chula Vista, the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department, the MM,
and the construction crew supervisor. The MM would distribute to each environmental
Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to
his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are
anticipated to be implemented. In addition to the list of mitigations, the monitors will have
mitigation monitoring report (MMR) forms with each mitigation written out on the top of
the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions
addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the
MMR and file it with the MM following their monitoring activity. The MM will then
include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction
report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major
accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving
the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide
a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition and if appropriate,
each EM or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the MM. The
daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the
monitor. Weekly/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, letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula
Vista to conform the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed
on the project.
Actions in Case of Noncompliance
There are generally three separate categories ofnoncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
· Noncompliance requiting an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
· Infraction that initiates an immediate corrective action (no work or task delay); and
· Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
In all three cases, the MM would notify the Olympic Parkway Extension contractor and the
City of Chula Vista, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily basis.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program
should the 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.
The following text includes a summary of the project impacts and a list of all the associated
mitigation measures. The monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the mitigation
measures are properly implemented are incorporated into the measures. All the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are anticipated to be translated
into conditions o fproj ect approval. In addition, once the p roj ect has been approved and prior
to its implementation, the mitigation measures shall be further detailed.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes all the project impacts and lists all the associated mitigation
measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly
implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
are recommended to be translated into conditions of project approval and are stated herein
in language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Olympic Parkway
Extension has been approved and during various stages of implementation, the mitigation
measures shall be further detailed by the designated monitors, City of Chula Vista, and the
applicant.
,~.--- ~
E~= ,",'
~ 800
~0~ ~
o
._ _ ~ ~.g
' o~8
a3.ou>. ,m ,~ ~ ca
E~c
E .m :,=._:a
o '~ '~ '~ um
.~. ~ .u-x. .~.
....... ·E
o.0 ;--
~m '~
-t. :~ 0
u ~ .. o
~ 0
~..j"r 0 ..i::.:~
~ z O 0 ~ ~a~8~~_ ~E~
c ~E °8c
com~.~ --~ ....
~E
o~
~_
~ c ~ ~05 ~
0 G 0 . E ~.~ ~ Ecm" ~ ~ '
· c' 3o 8"
o ~ .~ ~= >~
' ~ '~= E o ~ 8
o ~ -ooo E ~80 o .....
~ ~ ~ a
- ~
"' ~ -- ~E~
c>E=occ ~ co~
~E® oo ~8
~E
no
E ~ 'E
~ E Oo
880
~ ~mo~ o w ~ 8 o .....
w o ~wE~ 'm d 'E
~ ~ ~w.E w~w~._wo~:cw~~ ~<moaw
o ~'
o~
E> ,~ 'E--
:"-
~.o~
F ~oo
X ~ o. O00
=-
ii ~ ~- o-8! .9
~_ ~E'~
.9 E
ES~
e~ ~°~z--'B~ 'i~'~
~E
~< _ ~.~
o8¢o
~,o
::E
o~
~ c.9
~ ~ o
~ ..E~
0 ~ ~ c o~o
_ ~ ou ~ ~o ~ o .....
~ w ~ w ~ o ~ ~w E~ ~ ~moow
~w
m~c~m~ *m ~ o~ ~aoo~m