Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/08/06 Item 10.~ ~~. CITY COUNCIL . ~ . , ~°~ - ~:~y:. - AGENDA STAT EM E N T - .,. ,;,~~ cm' of CHUTAVISfA AUGUST 06.2013. Item +~ ITED4 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PALOA4AR GATE~~jAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED REZONING ACTIONS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRON1~gNTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-]0-0~/SCH 201 1 1 1 107) FOR THE PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-10-24) AND RELATED ZONING CHANGES: MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT: ADOPTLNG A STATEA4ENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION'S: AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION' MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONA4ENTAL QUALITY ACT ORDIN.4i\'CE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTII~'G THE PALOMAR GATER'AY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PL.au\T (PCM-] 0-24) AND RELATED REZONINGS TO IIvIPLE?`4ENT THE 200 GENERAL PLAN SUBAHTTED BY: KELLY G. BROUGHTON. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REVIE~~'ED BY: CITY D4ANAG ASSISTANT CITY . ANAGEIZ~ 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO SUiYL1'IARY This public hearing and related actions are for consideration of the proposed Palomaz Gateway District Specific Plan (PGDSP) and Final Environmental Impact Report. The prepazation of the PGDSP is intended to implement the Ciq~`s General Plan and facIlitate revitalization of ~\%estem Chula Vista, in particulaz the 100-acre azea located around the Palomaz Trolley Station. The PGDSP is one more in a series of planning tools adopted to implement the vision established by the 2005 General Plan. A Specific Plan is a tool for the effective planning and development of areas in need of revitalization. State law (Government Code 6540-6~4~7) establishes the process for adopting specific plans and requires that the City Council hold a public hearing prior to adoption of the proposed actions. 10-1 AUGUST 06.20li. Item )) Paee 2 of 16 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepazed to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed PGDSP. CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Ovemding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); have been prepazed that reflect the conclusions of the Final EIR. These documents are attached to the City Council Resolution. The Final EIR also contains comments and responses to the comments received during the public review period, which ran from April I ~, 2013 to May 30, 2013. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold the required public hearing and approve the resolution certifying the Final EIR EIR-]0-OS (SCH No. 20 1 1 1 1 1077) for the Palomaz Gateway Specific Plan; making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA; and approve the ordinance adopting the Palomar Gateway Specific Plan and related rezoning actions. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered the proposed Specific Plan and the Final EIR during a public hearing held on June 26; 2013 and approved Resolution PCM-10-24 with a vote of 4-]-1-0 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the resolution and the ordinance. The dissenting vote did not raise questions or issues related. to the proposed Specific Plan or Final EIR. BACKGROUND The most recent update to the City of Chula Vista General Plan occurred in 200. The primary focus of the General Plan Update (2005) was on the currently developed areas of the City. in particular the western portions of the City. Within the Southwest portion of the City, the General Plan designated five "Areas of Change" that would need to go through a more detailed planning process. One of these areas is the Palomar Gateway District. The General Plan mandates the preparation of a Specific Plan for this area. According to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, a Specific Plan is "a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined azea. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts; or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision." Specific Plans must comply with Sections 65450 - 65457 of the California Government Code. 10-2 AUGUST 06. 2013. Item /~ Paee 3 of 16 Specific Plans must also be consistent ~~th the policies contained ~~ithin the General Plan and may be adopted by resolution or b}• ordinance. This differentiation allo«s cities to choose whether their specific plans, or portions thereof; ~•ill be policy driven (adopted by resolution); or regulatory (adopted by ordinance). The proposed Specific Plan; which is the subjects of tonight`s public hearine and actions; is a regulatory document and is proposed to be adopted by ordinance. All zonins related portions of this Specific Plan (i.e. land use matrix, permitted uses and development regulations) are prepazed to seine as regulatory provisions and supersede other regulations and ordinances of the City for the control of land use and development within the Specific Plan boundazies. Other portions; such as the development design guidelines provide direction for future planning and public improvement efforts. Future development projects, subdivisions; public improvement projects and other implementing programs shall be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. The PGDSP is established pursuant to the authorit}• granted in Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.07; Specific Plans; and the California Government Code; Title 7, Division 1; Chapter 3; Article 8; Sections 6~4~0 through 6~4~7 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 6451. Prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan; City staff undertook an extensive public eneaeemem strateev «ith the communit}•. The community outreach effort was designed to im•oh•e the various citizens and interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process. In 2007-2008 the Cit}• began the "Southwest United in Action' community strengthening process; which culminated in the Southwest Leaders Conference in A4av and June of 2009. ?\4anv of the eraduates from the Leaders Conference went on to become active participants in the first staee of the specific planning process for the Southwest, a series of three Urban Design \\'orkshops; each focusing on different `:Areas of Change` that had been identified by the 2005 General Plan Update. The Palomar Gateway District Urban Design \Vorkshop was held on July 11; 2009 and included a walkitte tour and brainstorming session; culminating in the preliminary design recommendations for the district contained in the Urban Design \Vorkshop Summaz}• Report included as Exhibit A of the PGDSP. From the Southwest Leaders' Conference and the Urban Design \\%orkshops, staff identified and reached out to a group of individuals with interest; knowledge of the azea and leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest \4%orkina Group (S\\'\VG). The S\\%\VG represented across-section of the southwest communit}•. including communit}' organizations. businesses; and residents. This group d•as tasked both ~yith providing oversight for the southwest planning efforts; and with working to engage other members of the cormunity with the process. S\\'\\'G participants met montlily to revie~y and direct the latest efforts; and have attended more tazgeted workshops for individual planning azeas. includine the Palomar Gateway District. The finished PGDSP document bears the mazk of this extensive public outreach process. Staff and S\\%\\'G members have worked hazd to develop a plan that both allows transit-oriented development in the Palomar Gateway District. and at the same time does not overburden this area with additional auto trips. 10-3 AUGUST 06.20li. Item /~~ Page 4 of 16 R is important to note that the preparation of the PGDSP was facilitated by the financial participation of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). In 2009, the City. applied for and was successful in obtaining a grant from SANDAG's Smart Gro~~th Incentive Program. SANDAG's grant contributed $400,000, with matching funds from the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $150,000, for the preparation of the PGDSP and EIR. Preparation of the PGDSP began in January 2010 with the active participation of the Southwest Community. Once the drafr of the PGDSP was completed in March 2012, City staff and consultants began the preparation of the required Program Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan. The Program EIR for the proposed PGDSP has been prepazed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21000, el seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title l4, Sections 15000 ei seg.). The purpose of this Program EIR is to address the potential environmental effects of and provide CEQA documentation for the implementation of the PGDSP. This document is intended to be used by the City of Chula Vista, as Lead Agency, in approving the proposed PGDSP. In addition, as a Program EIR, this document.is intended to be used by the City, as well as CEQA Responsible and Trustee Agencies, when taking action on subsequent permits to allow development within the Palomar Gateway District in accordance with the PGDSP. The rest of this report covers an overview of the PGDSP and the Final EIR and issues raised during the ETR public review period (prior to the Planning Commission hearing). DISCUSSION The PGDSP is a descriptive and normative document containing six sections, including an introduction, existing conditions, land use and development regulations; design guidelines, infrastructure/public facilities, and other sections. The most pertinent sections are discussed in detail below. Location The approximately 100-gross acres Palomar Gateway District (PGD) is located at the interchange of Palomaz Street and the Interstate 5 freeway (see Attachment 1). The PGD is considered the major southern gateway to the City of Chula Vista for visitors entering both from the freeway and from the San Diego Trolley Blue Line. The Palomar Streetll-5 Freeway interchange is considered one of the busiest traffic interchanges in the City. The PGD radiates from the Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. The PGD includes the properties north of Palomar Street around Walnut Street, Trenton Street and Industrial Boulevard. Further east, the PGD also extends north from Palomar to Oxford Street to include several warehouse buildings that contain a variety of commercial and industrial uses. South of Palomar Street. the PGD extends along Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road to Anita Street, and contains a variety of single-family and multi-farnily residential uses, as well as a few commercial and industrial uses. 10-4 AUGUST 06; 20li; Item /C1 Paee ~ of 16 Interstate ~ frames the ~=est side of the district ~iith businesses and housine ~~°est of I-6 in the West Fairfield district: to the north beta=een I-~ and Industrial Boulevazd is a mobilehome park; east of Industrial Boulevard is the San Dieeo County Health and Human Ser<=ices Agency building, Hazborside Elementary= School and Harborside Park. Community commercial centers ~~~th lazee anchor businesses such as Tazeet. Costco and ~~~almart are east of the Harborside Pazk; and commercial retail and employment uses aze south of Palomar Sveet and east of Industrial Boulevazd. South of Anita Sveet is primarily industrially designated employment uses. Existine Conditions The PGD is currently comprised of a variety of land uses that include residential. commercial, and industrial. Residential development is the dominant land use. primarily= concentrated south of Palomar Street; with densities ranging from approximately 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. There aze currenth= about 400 residential units in the PGD, including 67 rooms related to nyo hotels. Land uses to the north of Palomaz Street include a mix of industrial and multi-family= residential housing; ~iith a major commercial azea on the northeast comer of Palomar Sveet and Industrial Boulevard that attracts shoppers and employees from surrounding communities and the state of Baja California. Land uses south of Palomaz Sveet include single and multi-family residential housing. industrial. and vacant land. with the Palomaz Transit Station on the southeast comer of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. .A~1'ALYSIS Specific Plan Oven iew and Issues The PGDSP document begins with an introductory chapter providing a definition of a specific plan, its purpose and intent; and describing State Law requirements for its prepazation and consistency w=ith the General Plan. Section 1.4 of the PGDSP provides a detailed description of the Community Outreach Process followed by the City and the community prior to and during the preparation of the PGDSP. Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of the PGD's existing conditions. ~yhich reveal an area in need of effective planning and provision of standard infrastructure. This chapter also contains the vision for the area as contained in the 200 General Plan. The General Plan objective for the PGD is to help transition the area from a logy-density=, auto-focused interchange into a D4ixed Use Transit Focus Area surrounding the Palomar Transit Station. The vision for the Mised Use Transit Focus Area includes higher intensih= residential uses. as well as mixed use developments that offer a combination of pedestrian-friendh= residential: office. and retail uses with strong linkages to the Palomaz Transit Station. A mix of retail and office uses would be located alone Palomaz Street with residential uses above and/or behind the retail and office uses. The adopted General Plan land use designations for the PGD are: High Residential, ?~4ixed Use Transit Focus Area, Retail Commercial and Pazks/Recreation. Based on these adopted General Plan land use designations, projected build-out within the PGD could include up to 2,400 total dwelling units. Existing residential units within the PGD total approximately 400 dwelling units. Therefore, a net 10-5 AUGUST 06; 2013, Item ~~ Page 6 of 16 increase of up to 2;000 dwelling units and several acres of mixed use commercial and retail commercial space was anticipated within the PGD over the 20-year planning horizon, consistent with the General Plan. Prior to the completion of the draft speciSe plan document, a market study for the PGDSP was prepazed by Gafcon, lnc. (2011). The purpose of the market study (refer to Appendix B of the Specific Plan) was to determine whether the General Plan vision for the PGD is compatible with the areas current and future market demands in terms of residential; retaih and office development. The mazket study also looked at strategies to promote market investment in transit-oriented projects in the PGD. The market analysis was conducted at the regional level, city level, and local (district and surrounding area) leveh and included an analysis of the demand for residential, retail, and office development. The conclusions of the market study with respect to the General Plan vision for the development of the PGD are as follows: ^ Residential Development. The General Plan vision for residential development is very optimistic. The PGD is likely to generate a demand of up to 1,300 additional multiple-family residential units over the next 20 years. This is approximately a third fever residential units than compared to the 2,000 projected by the General Plan vision. ^ Retail Development. The mazket study looked at the demand for retail development generated by four different factors: 1) the primary market within IS miles of the transit station; 2) the secondary mazket located between 1.5 miles to 5 miles of the station; 3) azea workers; and 4) cross border trade. In total, these categories generate a demand for approximately 100.000 additional square-feet of retail space in the PGD over the next 20 years, which represents a development projection that is well below the General Plan vision. ^ Office Development. Based on regional employment and office market trends, the PGD has capacity to capture approximately 50;000 square-feet of additional office space by 2030. This equates to about 2;000 square-feet of annual demand. The PGD is not expected to become a notable center of office activity because other azeas, such as the Urban Core and Eastlake, are planned for additional office development. However; the PGD area may capture demand to provide office sen~ices to the surrounding community. Overall, the General Plan land use designations anticipated more capacity for the PGD than the potential demand identified by the market study. Therefore, the market study prepazed for the Specific Plan was utilized in developing projected build-out scenarios for the PGDSP as represented in the table below. 10-6 .AUGUST 06; 2013, Item ~J Page 7 of 16 Palomar Gatewac District Existing and Projectedt~'1 Development ?0 -Year Horiwn Existing Projected Total _ Estiinated~Buildoutb~~Sub=D_ tst_ricb- Develop ment Additional Development Estimated Buildout Dti7-1 (3.5 ac.) MU-2 (315 ac.) PRV (43.5 ac.) P~\'RC (15 ac.) Residential (Units 400 1.300 1,700 ISOt'% 450t ~ 700 Retail (Sq. Ft.)t5j ?00;000 100.000 300,000 10.000 85,000 5.000 Office (Sq. Fi.)t'~ 50.000 50;000 5;000 40,000 5;000 Industrial (Sq. Ft.) 30;000 - ~ Numbers aze approximations. '' Projected residential units and commercial square footaBes are based on 2011 Market Smdy (GAFCON, Inc.) ' Projected residential units for 1,4U-1 Sub-District aze based on the desi~ated FAR with the proportional commercial development indicated on note 5 below. ° Sub-Districts D4U-? and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the Sub-District land azea. s RetaiUOffice square footaoes are assumed 10%/90% split of projected buildout between the DN-1/ MlT-2 Sub-Districts; which is rouehly proportional to the Sub-Districts land area. Land Use and Development Regulations Chapter 3 of the PGDSP establishes the appropriate distribution, miz, intensity, physical form; and functional relationships of land uses within the PGD. The proposed PGDSP land use and development regulations are intended to encourage and facilitate infill development. mired uses, pedestrian scale, urban amenities; transit use; creative design, and the general revitalization of the PGD. These land use and development regulations were developed with the participation of the S\\T\\'G; and the proposed regulations reflect their early discussion and input. The S\\%\\'G participated in several workshops designed specifically to get input on the PGDSP. The S\\%\0%G participants were provided t~7th an overview of the existing conditions and findings for the PGD. They were also provided q~ith a "S\VOT° anah~sis (Strengths. \\%eaknesses; Opportunities and Threats) prepared by staff. and they were asked to augment the list as they sa~v fit. Some of their concerns related to the potential land uses that would be developed in the area. For example; the group was interested in making sure that a park and potentially an educational facilin~ be developed within or in the vicinity of the PGD. This resulted in the proposed designation of the SDG&E site for a potential. park. Also, language was included in the document to the effect that a site such as the vacant parcels commonly knowtt as the "Pumpkin Patch" could be developed ~+°ith an educational complex. if a college and the property owners so decided. The Land 10-7 AUGUST 06, 2013; Item ![;t Paee 8 of 16 Use Matrix would also allow for the use. Another concern of the group was making sure that adequate parking be provided for all future development, while considering the proximity of the Trolley Station. As a result, the document contains flexible regulations that aze based on the distance of a proposed development from the Trolley Station, thus encouraeing more densit}s and more public transit ridership. For example, the PGDSP incorporates parking requirement currently contained in the Chula Vista Municipal Code for projects further a~~say from the Trolley Station and lower parking requirements for those closer to the Trolley Station. This early input helped form the baseline conditions for the specific planning effort and the proposed document reflects their input. The PGDSP contains several ]and use categories, including multi-family residential. public/quasi-public and institutional, commercial office, commercial-sensice and retail, park and open spaces, and accessory uses. For the mixed use designations, the PGDSP development regulations and associated design guidelines utilize a "form based'' approach. This approach places primary emphasis on the physical form of the built environment, focusing on where and how the buildings are placed rather than the use occupying the buildings. This is especially important to allow flexibility in uses in order to be responsive to market demands while still ensuring a clear vision of what the built environment should look like. For areas designated for multi-family residential development, the PGDSP utilizes the City's existing R-3 (Apartment Residential Zone) zoning regulations. For the small neighborhood-sensing commercial azea located in the southeast corner of the PGD, the PGDSP utilizes the City's existing C-N (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) zoning regulations. The proposed land uses and development regulations identified in the PGDSP would replace the provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapters 19.26, 19.30, 19.36, 19.40, and 19.44; and the provisions of the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance C36 and S94 use regulations. Where the CVMC conflicts with the development standards or other provisions of the PGDSP, the PGDSP would apply; where the PGDSP is silent, the CVMC would apply. The definitions found in CVMC Chapter 19.04 would apply to the PGDSP, except where specific definitions are provided in the PGDSP..The PGD is divided into the following four sub-districts based on similar building and use types (see Attachment 1): • Palomar Transit Plaza (MU-1) • Palomar Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) • Palomar Residential Village (PRV) • Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster (PNRC) Design Guidelines Chapter 4 of the PGDSP contains design guidelines for future development within the PGD. The Design Guidelines ~~=ere presented to the SWWG during their monthly meetings with City staff. Staff provided a presentation to the group and explained what 10-8 AUGUST06_.2013.Item i~ Page 9 of 16 the guidelines represent and how they are used in evaluating proposed development projects. The PGDSP design guidelines would apply to both new development and the rehabilitation of older structures. and ~~=ould encourage an azea that is economically svonger, more recognizable; and rich in sense of place and identity. Specific design guidelines for gateway comers, major arterials, azeas adjacent to the I-~ freeway; and streetscape improvements aze summarized in Table 3-~ of the PGDSP. In addition to the specific design guidelines provided in the PGDSP, future development ~Rthin the PGD would be subject to the design guidelines identified in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual. The City`s Design Manual provides design guidelines for mixed use and single use projects; and includes guidance for the folloNing elements of project design: I~'eighborhood Context: Site Design/Siting and Orientation: Building Design: Parking: Energy Conservation and Landscaping: Resource Conservation; and Water Conservation. As projects aze proposed for development; urban designers; azchitects; and reviewers of future development projects within the PGD would refer to the City's Design Manual, in particulaz the Multi-Family Residential; Commercial; Mixed Use; and Conservation Design Guidelines. for general design guidance. Infrastructure and Public Facilities Chapter ~ of the PGDSP describes the infrastructure and public facilities applicable to future development within the PGD; including water supply, sewer; drainage, solid waste disposal law enforcement and emergency services; schools; pazks and recreation facilities; enerm= and telecommunications; and other public improvements such as streets; sidewalks, and sweet furnishings. As part of its overall facilities planning and maintenance activities; the infrastructure and public facilities related to the PGD were studied during the City`s General Plan effort. Since the PGDSP implements the General Plan; these studies and the resulting ciri'N=ide implementation strategies provide the basis for public services and utilities needed to seine the PGD. A Mobility= Study was prepazed for the PGDSP in April 201?. The Mobility Study was unique in that instead of just focusing on moving cazs; the Study was developed to analyze multi-modal conditions (motorized and non-motorized) to accommodate expected gro~~th in the PGD and the Cit}=`s vision for the azea. The Mobility Study includes a review of the current and future transportation system across all modes of travel (pedestrians, bikes,. autos and transit) and user abilities (children, elderly and disabled); and recommends a Mobility Plan for the PGD. The Mobility Plan reviews the constraints and opportunities of each travel mode and identifies recommendations in a tiered priority system. The study is included in the PGDSP as Appendix D. The Mobility Plan proposes awell-balanced, connected, safe, and convenient multi- modal transportation network designed to serve all users of sweets, regazdless of their age or abiliri~, or whether they are driving; walking; bicycling, or taking transit; and allows the azea to thrive as an economic center for neazbv residents and the communirv at lazge. The Mobility Plan for the PGDSP was developed using "Complete Sweet` design concepts. The PGDSP recommends traffic calming measures to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists such as modified traffic signals; and median and refuge islands to increase 10-9 AUGUST 06, 2013, Item ~-' Page 10 of 16 pedestrian and bicycle safety while maintaining Palomaz Street as an economic business center. The PGDSP identifies multi-modal improvements along Palomar Street; Industrial Boulevard, Frontage Road and adjacent connecting through streets (Ada; Dorothy; R'alnut and Trenton Streets) such as completing missing sidewalk segments; relocating impediments (e.g. utilities) to pedestrians in the public right of way, creating safer crosswalks with ADA accessible ramps, and adding lighting, landscaping, street furniture, and bike facilities. Access to the Palomaz Trolley Station is also proposed to be strengthened to ensure safe and convenient access for the neighborhoods it seines. Bamers to healthy lifestyle choices would be removed to allow biking, walking and improved access to business and recreational facilities, such as Harborside Park, the Family Resources Center and a wide variety of commercial uses along Palomar Street and nearb}' Broadway. Chapter 5 of the PGDSP also includes a list of commonly used mechanisms to fund public facilities. These mechanisms include, but are not limited to, Development Impact Fees, Community Development Block Grants, Business Improvement Districts, Transnet Program funds, and others. Plan Implementation and Administration -Subsequent Development Proiects Chapter 6 of the PGDSP describes plan implementation and administration strategies, including guidelines for specific plan administration, previously conforming uses; exemptions, site-specific variances, development exceptions, specific plan amendments, and specific plan review. All developments within the PGD that are not otherwise exempt would require submittal and approval of a Design Review Permit. Development projects would be required to comply with the land use and development regulations and the design guidelines identified in the PGDSP. For development projects in designated gateways that propose increased building height, the building design would be required to reflect a unique, signature azchitecture and create a positive Chula Vista landmark. Any proposed development projects would also be required to adhere to the existing CVMC regulations and processes for other discretionary review, such as those for conditional use permits; variances, and subdivisions. Conducting periodic reviews of the PGDSP is important to ensure proper functioning and implementation over time. A review every five years will offer an opportunity to make sure the PGDSP is on track, check in on the implementation process to ensure that the goals and objectives aze being achieved, and make changes in case they are not. Over the lifetime of the PGDSP; the changing landscape of the PGD may impact the effectiveness of the implementing actions. Thus, afive-year review cycle allows adjustments to be made to the PGDSP as necessary. Items of particular importance to consider during each 5ve-year review include: ^ Reviewing the total amount of development against the thresholds established in the PGDSP. ^ Evaluating the need for planned improvements based on development patterns and programs in the CIP. 10-10 AUGUST 06.2013. Item /(J Paee 11 of 16 ^ Reviewine the various incentive programs to evaluate if these elements are providing the intended results. Consistency with the General Plan The 200 General Plan lazgely -focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of the western portion of Chula Vista. Section 8.0 of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan outlines the vision for the PGD and objectives and policies to implement the vision. The PGD is identified as one of five "Areas of Chanee," which are azeas where more intensive development; revitalization and/or redevelopment is proposed to occur. The General Plan vision for the PGD includes a Transit Focus Area (TFA) on and sunoundine the Palomaz Transit Station. hiffher residential intensity. a neiehborhood pazk and retail to the south of the TFA. The goal is to provide additional housing and mixed uses (residential and commercial) that take advantage of a major transit station ~~-ithin walking distance. The PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the General Plan as an implementing regulaton~ document and thus sen-es as the priman~ source for policies; euidelines, and regulations that implement the communit`~'s vision for the PGD. A comparison of the PGDSP to the General Plan policies related to the PGD is provided in Table ~.1-3 of the EIR and attached hereto as Attachment 2. As showtt in this table. the PGDSP would be consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies for the PGD. CVA4C19.80 Controlled Residential Development Ordinance In the late 1980`s a citizen initiative, referred to as the Cummins Initiative. was passed by a majority vote of the electorate and was incorporated as CVMC Chapter 19.80 - Controlled Residential Development (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988).. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to ensure that unplanned development does not overtax facilities and destroy the quality of Chula Vista, and to better plan for and control the rate of residential gro~~th in the City in order that the sen-ices provided by the city can be properly and effectively staged in a manner which will not overextend existing facilities and that deficient sen~ices may be brought up to required standazds. Since the passage of the Cummings- Initiative; many quality of life issues aze now addressed during the City`s development review process. The City has established Quality of Life Threshold Standards via the Grovtirth A4anagement Ordinance that are regulazly evaluated through the environmental review process as projects are proposed and developed. In addition; Development Impact Fees have been put in place to require new development to provide a proportionate contribution to public sen~ices and facilities. The ordinance contains the following provisions under CVA4C 19.80.070 (A) and (D) that limit the rezoning of a property. .A. Rezoning of properh~ designated for residential development under the Cih~'s zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential 10-11 AUGUST 06.20li. Item ~/ Page 12 of 16 density category in any hvo year period according to dze following schedule: A Agricultural Zone R-E Residential Estates Zone R-1 Single Family Residential Zone R-2 One- and Two-Family Residential Zone R-3 Apartment Residential Zone D. Rezoning conmiercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is rezoned .from residential to connnercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a residential category of higher der2sity than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. This provision shall apply only to rezones approved after the effective dale of this ordinance. The proposed rezones contained in the PGDSP are (see Attachment 3): R-2 (One- and Two-Family Residence Zone) to R-3 (Apartment Residential Zone) Commercial Zones CO, CC, CT to Mixed Use Zone (Commercial/Residential) Industrial Zone to Mixed Use Zone (Commercial/Residential) The proposed PGDSP s consistency with the provisions of the Cummings Initiative was studied as part of the preparation of the EIR. Chapter 5 of the PGDSP includes an anal}psis of the infrastructure and public facilities needs to support the land uses envisioned by the PGDSP. Section 5.1 contains a description of the Cummings Initiative and an analysis of the PGDSP's proposed land use designations and zone changes, while Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities, of the EIR identifies mitigation measures to ensure that the provision of public services and facilities coincides with projected population groHnh and associated increased demand for public services and facilities. Thus, consistent with the Controlled Residential Development Ordinance, future development associated with PGDSP build-out would be required to provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with its impact. Based on this analysis, the EIR determined that the proposed land use designations and zone changes are consistent with the purpose, intent and provisions of the Cummings Initiative. Proeram Environmental Impact Report Section ?100? of the California Environmental Quality Act requires that an environmental impact report identify the significant effects of a project on the 10-12 AUGUST 06. 2013. Item /=_°7 Pase 13 of 16 environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitieate or avoid those significant effects. The PGDSP EIR contains an envirortrnental analvsis of the potential impacts associated with implementing the proposed PGDSP. The PGDSP EIR has been prepazed as a Program EIR; as defined in Title 1~; Chapter 3, Section 1 ~ 168 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (the CEQA Guidelines). A Program EIR is recommended for a series of actions that are related eeographically; as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions. or in connection ~~=ith the issuance of plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program [CCR Section 1168 (a)]. The advantases of a Program EIR include the abilit}= to provide a more exhaustive consideration of alternatives and cumulati~=e effects than might be possible in a sinele project specific EIR; to avoid duplication of basic policy considerations; and to provide the Lead Agency (City of Chula Vista) ~~=ith the ability to consider broad program-wide policies and mitigation measures that would apply.to specific projects within the overall program [CCR Section 1168 (b)]. In addition, as a Program EIR. the document is intended to be used by the City of Chula Vista as well as other Responsible Agencies when taking action on subsequent permits to allow development in accordance with the proposed PDGSP. The Program EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with implementing the proposed PGDSP. Issue areas subject to detailed analysis in Chapter ~; Environmental Impact Analysis, of the EIR include those that were identified as having potentially signifcant environmental impacts by the City of Chula Vista and in response to the City's Notice of Preparation (I~1OP) and scoping meeting; and consist of the followins: ^ Land lise. Plannine, and Zonine ^ Paleontolosical Resources ^ Landform Alteration/Aesthetics ^ Bioloeical Resources ^ Transportation, Circulation; and Access ^ Hydroloev and Drainage ^ Air Qualin= ^ Geology and Soils ^ Global Climate Chanee ^ Public Services and Utilities ^ Noise ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Cultural Resources ^ Housing and Population The EIR provides a summary of the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed PGDSP and identifies feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts, as discussed in detail in Chapter ~. Environmental Impact Analysis, of the EIR. The EIR also provides a summaz}= of the potentially significant cumulative impacts to which the proposed PGDSP may contribute; 10-13 AUGUST 06, 2013. Item /J Page 14 of 16 as discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts; of the EIR. The proposed project was determined to result in potentially significant impacts related to transportation; circulation, and access; air quality; noise; cultural resources; paleontological resources; biological resources; geology and soils; public services and utilities; and hazards and hazardous materials. As shown in Table ]-1 of the Executive Summary, mitigation measures were identified for all significant impacts. All direct impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level except impacts related to traffic level of service standards, cumulatively considerable criteria air pollutant emissions, and energy use. The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to transportation, cultural resources, paleontological resources; energy, and population and housing. Future development within the PGD, proposed in accordance with the PGDSP, will be viewed in light of the Final EIR for the PGDSP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, 15182, and 15183. Unless exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, as each new development project is proposed, a Secondary Study will be prepared to determine if the Final EIR adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. No additional environmental documentation will be required for subsequent projects if the Secondary Study determines that the potential environmental effects have been adequately addressed in the Final EIR and/or the proposed development would implement appropriate mitigation measures identified in the MMRP accompanying the Final EIR. In such cases, the Final EIR would be referenced in approving the required discretionary actions. If the Secondazy Study identifies new impacts or a substantial change in circumstances, additional environmental documentation would be required. The form of this documentation v<~ould depend upon the nature of the impacts of the proposed development being considered. Should a development project result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts that are not adequately covered in this EIR, or there is a substantial change in circumstances that would require a major revision to this EIR, or new information comes to light which was not known at the time this EIR was certified, a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR would be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15]62 and ]5163. If potential new significant impacts can be fully mitigated; a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be prepared. If some changes or additions to this EIR are necessazy, but none of the conditions described above calling for the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred, the Lead Aeenc}' or Responsible Agency would prepare an Addendum to this EIR. More detailed development-specific studies conducted as part of the subsequent environmental review process would further quantify environmental impacts and generate project-specific mitigation measures to avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts of specific development projects. 10-14 AUGUST 06; 2013, Item //1 Page 1~ of 16 Comments on the Drafr ETR The public review period for the EIR was from April 15, 20li to May 30; 20li. Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals: California State Clearing House California Department of Transportation Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association Mr. David Danciu A4r. Mario and Nancy Estolano Mr. Rodolfo P. Estolano A4r. Juan-Pablo Mariscal The letters and responses aze included in the Final EIR. All comments received concerning the EIR have been fully addressed within the Final EIR. In addition, a letter was received on June 26, 2013 prior to the Planning Commission hearing from property o~~mers on Dorothy Street. The letter is included in the agenda packet. CO\'CLUSION The prepazation of the proposed PGDSP, as mandated by the City's 200 General Plan, represents one more action by the City to implement the vision and objectives of the General Plan. The PGDSP is intended to serve as an effective tool for the planning and revitalization of the PGD. The purpose of the PGDSP is to encourage an appropriate mixture and densiri of activity adjacent to the existing San Diego Trolley Station at Palomaz Street. The PGDSP was created to promote a pedestrian, bicycle_ public transit, and pm=ate automobile-supportive development environment and integrate these mobilin~ elements with a complementary mix of land uses, all within a comfortable walking and bicycling distance from the light rail station. The PGDSP was prepared in the context of an extensive public engagement strateg~~ with the community. The communirv outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens and interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process. The finished PGDSP document beazs the mazk of this extensive public outreach process. The proposed PGDSP reflects the concerns and aspiration of the community as expressed by S~V~4'G. Staff and S~'JA'G members have worked hard to develop a plan that both alloys transit- oriented development in the PGD, and at the same time does not overburden this azea ~~~ith additional auto trips. As proposed; the PGDSP is consistent with and represents an effective tool for the implementation of the vision and objectives of the General Plan. Therefore; staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution and Ordinance certifying the EIR and adopting the PGDSP and related rezoning actions. 10-15 AUGUST 06. 2013.1tem .% Page 16 of 16 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no propem~ holdings within 500 feet of the boundazies of the property which is the subject of this action. Staff is not independently awaze, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts to the City associated with the preparation and implementation of the PGDSP and EIR. The costs of preparation have been covered by SANDAG`s Smart Grovrth Incentive Program Grant in the amount of $400;000 and funding from the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista in the amount of $150.000. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There will not be on-going fiscal impacts associated with the approval and implementation of the PGDSP. The PGDSP is a planning document that would provide land use and development regulations and design guidelines for development projects within the project area. The development projects that would result from the implementation of the PGDSP would be private development projects that would trigger the need for a variety of public improvements and infrastructure. As the PGD is undergoing reinvestment and redevelopment, the importance of.vazious improvements and the appropriateness of various funding mechanisms in a context of competing policy and financial priorities, as well as under market conditions, will evolve through the next decades. As implementation of the PGDSP occurs and as public and private development projects are proposed. additional information regarding specific fiscal impacts of future individual projects and work items will be brought to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Table 5.1-3 - PDGSP Consistency with General Plan Policies 3. Map with existing and proposed zoning Prepared by: Miguel Z Tapia, Senior Planner, Development Services Department 10-16 ATTACHMENT 1 1 ~' ~ i. ~ 'A '27 Y ~ * Ol ~ r P •~ ~~ r~~ J~ C ~ f` r . +. ~ r ~ ~ •A ' t~~ ~~ 1 1 1 I A~ ~ 9 ~~ ~ .. . t y!- ~ ~ [ ! _ -% ~ jr' ~~r~r.,~ 1 ~~ ~. ~ i `'u 1 ~ 7 ~ 1 ;"i~ 1 j f~ _ __ ^ .y ~ ~ ~~ * ~ 1 N ~~. , ~ ~(~ ~ ~ \~ ~~ . '~.~~, ~ L ~ G '~ ~ ~j Y - A '~ ~~.i i . ..~ ~' .. 1~' ` • .~ `' ~ +~ + 1 l ~ -_ _ ~~R+ ~ ~ _ ~--j ~ lt 1 ~ r ~ } ~., i ~ ~1 F . ~ i:~ -~+ 1, t I I ~ _ e ~'~ i - ` f 1 /~I '~ 1 Palomar Gateway Dis trict - SUD-DfSLf1U5: ~':~~ a ~~ Sub-BishiCts Map ^~' ~"`"""~R`40e"h°~'~"'4' PlRC: F31.~mar Negt~t~atx+od ReM~ CL9[r MORTFI 10 ~~~ ATTACfIMEI\'T 2 5 I Land Use Planning and Zoning Table 5.13 PGDSP Consistency with General Plan Policies General Plan Objective or Policy I PGDSP Consistency Objective lUT 5: Designate opportunities for mixed use areas xith higher density housing that is near shopping, jabs, and tmnsit in appropriate locations throughout the GN Policy Ulf 5 4: Developthe following areas as mixed use centers: Urban Core; Palomar TroOey Station; Eastern Urban Center, and Otay Ranch Village Cores and Town Centers Objective LU717: Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit Pcliry LUT 17 2: DireR higher intensity and mixed use developments m areas within walking distance of transit, including San Diego Trolley stations along E, H, and Palomar Streeu, and new stations ahng future transit lines, including Bus Rapid Transit Objective LIIT 19; Coordinate with the regional transportation planning agency, SAN DAG, and transit service providers such as the Metropol'nan Transit System, to develop a stateof-the-art transit system that provides excellent service to residents; workers; studenu; and the disatled, both within the City, and with inter-regional destinations Policy LUT 19 5: Plan for and promote improved access between the Palomar Street, E Street and N Street light rail stations and land uses east of those stations and to the Bayfmnt This may Invdve the construction of separate bridges or ramps wnnecting Chula Yuta streets to transit fadlities and/or a deck over Interstate 5 to the Ba)dront. Objective ED 9: Develop community-serving and neighborhood uses to serve residents and visitors alike Policy ED 9.1: Provide far community and neighborhood commercial centers in areas com~enient to residents. These centers should complement and meet the needs of the surrounding neighbodtoed through their location; size; scale; and design The neighborhood concept of providing pedestrian, bicycle, and other non-motodzed access should be encouraged Polity FD 9 4: Deveop specif c plans, which include an economic component, for areas of the GN, including, but not necessarily limited to, the West Main Street; Broadway-, South Third Avenue; North Fourth Avenue/Third Avenue "gateway°; E Street; l^test H Street; and Palomar Street areas More than one area maybe addressed in a single plan, such as the Urban Core Specific Plan Polity ED 9.5: Encourage clustered commerdal uses to prevent and discourage strip development Locate commercal uses at focal points along major arterial streets or expressways and in village core areas Polity EO 9 6: Encourage clustered, smaller scale office and professional uses along major streets and in neighborhood centers in a variety of areas dispersed throughout the community to meet the needs of nearby neighborhoods. Consistent. The PGDSP land use designations would accommodate new, higher density housing, shopping, and office development, Inciuding mixed use, surrounding the Palomar Transit Statlen The Mixed Use Corridor Sub-district would accommodate community-serving and neighhorhood uses along the major transportation facilities In the PGD, including Palomar Street and the Palomar Transit Station Consistent.The PGDSP would accommodate higher iniens'rN, mixed use development surrounding the Palomar Trolley Station The PGDSP includes a MeblliN Plan that outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvementr for the PGD to provide safe and efficient connections between the trolley station and surrounding land uses Consistent SANDAG hasbeen involved in the development of the PGDSP including the provision of funding The PGDSP provides a land use plan that promotes and improves access between the Palomar Transit Station and PGDSP land uses to the east of the station The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan that outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the PGD to provide safe and efficient connections between the trolley station and surrounding land uses No connections over I-Bare proposed as part of the PGDSP The Gty is preparing an I-5 transit study thaT add resses connections and crossings over I-5 as part of a separate effort Consistent The proposed project is a specific plan that would encourage economic development in the PGD The PGDSP proposes a land use plan that would accommodate the development of cdmmuniN-serving and neighborhood commercial uses The Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster Sub-district would specifically attommodate resident- servingcommercial uses The sub-district U located adjacent to the primary residential area In the PGD and would have reduced building heights and Intensity compared [o the proposed mixed use commercial subd'tKricts The'Mixed Use Corridor Sub-district would acz'nmmodate community- serving and neighborhood uses along the major transportation facilities in the PGD, Including Palomar Street and the Palomar7ranslt Station The highest Intensities would be clustered in the designated gateway locationu at the mterseNOns of Palomar Street and Walnut Street/Frontage Road and Palomar Street/lndusidal Boulevard The PGDSP Includes a Mobigty Plan thatoutlines pedestrian and biryde improvements for the PGD to provide safe and efficient connections between uses and encourage use ofnon-motorized modes of transportaton Pabm~ Geteway District Specific Plan PEIR SCH No 201 1 1 1 107 7 Page 51-23 10-18 City of Chula Vista npil 2013 5 I Lcntl Use ?larr,ing and Zoning Table 5.1-3 continued General Wan Objective or PoGq I PGDSP Consiuenry Objettive LUT 43: Establish a Mined Use Transit foss Area 5urr oundirg the Palomar T: olky Station PoGq LUT 43 3: The City shall prepare, or Dose to have prepared, a specific plan, master plan, or other regulatory document to guide the coordinated ertablBhment of a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway DiuriR on pr operies north and south of Palomar Street, witin walkable disance of the Pabmar Trolley Station The specifK plzn or other regulatory document shall indude guidelines and zoring- level sandardsfor the arrangement of land uses that Include plans fer adequaL- pederdan connections and sir?port services for rezidenu, as well as those using the vansi'station. Pogq lllT 43 2: Pmvide for a five-acre neighho: hood park within the Palomar GaL==way Dis'.rict Uses Poliq LUT 43.3: Strh•e for a d'istribu:ion of uses wltMn the areas designated as Mixed Use Transit Focus Area along Palemar S•,reet to include retail, offices, and rezidenffiI, as generalh shown on the fdlovdng chart: ~__ :, ~ Residential ~:~~~~ :=tnduztdal ~ ~ ~Cfices Poliq LUT 43 4: ?rovide a mp of uses with a focus on reta0 and some office uses along Pabmar Street in the Mixed Use Transit Foss Area, wtth residential uses above and/or behind the retail and offices uses Poliq LUT 435: Provide a mix ci local-serving retail and office uses near the Pziomar Trolley Station and at the gateways into the Palomar Gateway DirtA2 Intensity/Height PoGq LIfT 43.6: In Lhe Pabmar Gateway District, residential densities vrithin the Mixed Use Tra:uit Focus Area desigrsarion are bsierMed to have a diuritt=hide gross denity of 40 dweging units per aae Poliq LUT 43 7:In the Palomar Gateway DiSVic:, the comme: vial (retail and once) portion of the Mired Use Transit Fows Area designation k intended to have a focus area-wide aggregate FAR of 1 D Subsequent spedf¢ plans or zoning ordinance reguWtions vrill esbbfish parcel-spedfic FARs that may vary from the distdtt-wide aggregate lrefer to Settion 49 1, Interpreting the land Use Diagram, for a diswsion of drtdG-wide versus parcel-speck FARj Doliq LUT 43.8: Puilding heighu ir. the Palomar Gateway Dtisvict Mixed Use Transit Foots Area shall be Imv-rise, •n~rth some mid-dse buildings Pofiq LUT 439: Buiidng heighu in the Residential Figh desigrutrJ area shag below-rise bu0dings Consistent. Lie proposed projeC would implement a spe<inc plan for the PGD to guide the devebpment of a Transi[Focus Area The PGDSP indudes guidelines znd zoning-level standards for the arrangement of land uses, includes a Mobility Plan for adequate pedeudan connections, and would accommodate a variety of zuDPort services for residents, as well as :hose using Palomar Tramii Station Consistent The PGDSP benufies 5 8 acres of potential Carle areas in the PGD, induding a 4 5-aae neighbprhood park south of the Palomaz Transit Station, and a 13-ave urban park north of Palomar Sveet. Consistent Residential devebpment svouldtorKi ;ire to be the dominam land use Ln the PGD with implementation cf the PGDSP Up to 1,300 new residential units would be acwmmodated in the area, for a total of 1,700 uniu A total of 150,000 square feet of new cnmmemial and office use rnuld be developed, fw a total of 350,000 square feet M&ed use development would be corscentmred along Palomar Street, which imiudes nw gateways, and the Pzlomar Transit Station, with additional residential devebpment prrn9ded in the Palomar Residential VJizge Subdiuntt Consstent The Nixed Use Transit Focus Area designation would apply to development within approrimately 025 m8e of the Palomar Trarah S~Uon This area would have an average residential density of 40 dwelling uNU per acre The PGDSP uses an equivalenq faetor io translate dwelling uniu per ao-e to FAR Ademiry of 40 dwePung uni's per acre would result in ah area-wide aggregate FAR of 10 The FAR indudes mmmercel and residential devebpment Mzximum building tregtsu in the PGD urould range from lavrrise, up to 35 feet, in tine Pzlomar Ne a boyhood Retail Cluster Sub-disVlR, to low-dse, primarrTy 4550 feet. in the Palomar Transh Plaza and Maed Use Corridor 5ubdiztricts Some buildings with a maximum height of 60 feet would be allrnvable in gateway areas The Residential Hgh designation would apply to the Palomar Residential VRinge Sub-district, whidt urould be limited :o a maximum buildng height of 45 fee: The Retail Comme.-dal designation vr~uld apply to the Palomzr Neighborhood Retail Clutter Sub-d"¢trict. which would be limited io bvrrise, laver intensity development Pok;mcr Gcfewoy Distdcf SpeuTC Won PE7R SCH No 201 1 1 1 107 7 Pope 5 1.24 Cih of Chuk: auto April 2013 ~0-~9 5 1 Land Use Planning antl Zoning Table 5-1-3 continued General Plan Ohje¢ive or Policy PGDSP Consirtency Policy LUT 4310: In the Palomar Gateway District, permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0 5 and Icw-rise buildings in the Reail Coromerdal designated area on Indus Vial Boulevard adjacent to the area designated as Residential Ffgh. Design Consistent The PGDSP includes 5peufic design and Polity LUT 43.11: The specific plan or other regulatory landscape guidelines for Palomar Street at [he designated document for the Palomar Gateway District shall establish gateways in Chapter 4 of the PGDSP, Design Guidelines The design and landscape guidelines for the improvement of PGDSP applies urban design treatment and a streetscape Palomar Street as a gateway to the City palette that identifes and coordinates elements such az Polity LUT 4312: Provide for safe, effective, and aesthetic street trees, street furniture and lighting Guidelines for pedestrian crossings and improvements to Palomar SVeet and sidewalk design and fighting provide for safe, effecdve, and ' Industrial Boulevard routs are aesthetic pedestrian crossings Intersection bul encouraged at busy intersections, such as Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, to provide safety for pedestdans Additional guidelines include decorative sidewalk and lighting features, buffers between pedesVlanS and moving vehicles, smooth and sli p-resistant surfaces, consistent light fixtures and posts, and a combination of streetlights and pedestrian-level I fights. Amenities ~ Consistent The PGDSP encourages and indudesguldelines Policy WT4333: Community amenites to be wnsidered for the for the amenttles listed in POliry 2711n Chapter4 of the Palomar Gateway District as Dart of any incentive program PGDSP, Design Guidelines, including public plazas, water should include, but not he limited to those I'uted in features, public art, streetscape improvements, pedesVian Policy LUT 27 1 path improvements, enhanced pedestrian connections, Policy LIJT 43.14: Provide far the development of one upper-level setbacks for buildings more than 30 feet above Neighborhood Park within or near the Palomar Gateway District grade, parking concealed by Occupiable space, addkional on- slte structured parking for adjacent commercial or Policy Ll1T 43.15: Establish a communhy/cultural center near residenYwl uses, transit station access and improvements, Palomar Street and Third Avenue bicycle parking facilities, and streetfront facades/windows A neighborhood park Is proposed south ofthe Volley station The Palomar Street/Third Avenue interseRion is outside of the PGDSP; however, the proposed mixed use areas and neighborhood park would accommodate community/cultural amenities. F. City of Chula Vista Zoning Code The existing zoning for the PGD was established 30 years ago and is presently out of conformance with the adopted General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005aJ In order to comply with state law and bring zoning into conformance with the General Plan, the PGDSP proposes new zoning for the four sub-districts in the PGD The new zoning includes provisions for land uses, building intensity, form, mass, and height as recommended in the General Plan The proposed land uses and development regulations Identified in the PGDSP would replace the provisions of CVMC Chapters 19.26, 1930, 1936, 1940, and 1944, and the provisions of the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance C36 and 594 use regulations Where the CVMC conflicts with the development standards or other provisions of the PGDSP, the PGDSP would apply; where the PGDSP is silent, the NMC would apply The definitions found in CVMC Chapter 19 04 would apply to the PGDSP, except where specific definitions are provided in the PGDSP The zoning amendments that would occur as a result of PGDSP would improve consistency between City planning Palomar Gciewoy District Specific Plon PEIR Ciiy of Chula Vista SCH No 2071111077 Page 5 1-25 AGri1 2013 ~~-20 Attachment 3 MHP CTP ~.,,1 I 1 ~~ ~ CC I ~~ CCP I ~~ S94 ~, i ~, , ILP Palomar Gseaway subl7isMets MU-1 Pelomer Transit P1aze MU-2 Mixed Use Corridor PRV Palomar Residential Vlrage PNRC NeiQtiboA~ood Retail Cluster Q Farismig 2o+ting Parcels zoning Deslynatlons CC -Central Commercial CT -Thoroughfare Commercial IL- Limited Industrial R2 -Single 8 Two Family Residential R3 -Apartment Residential S - Open Space 0 2~'~ 400 N ~~~ ~ ~rw yr r ~ wr~mv mr+r SHOWING PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT FIGURE 5.1~ Feet Palomar Ga6eway District Spedtk Plan PEIR 1V ~-~ CITY COUTTCIL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-1 O-OS/SCH 201 1 1 1 1 07) FOR THE PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-10-24) AND RELATED ZONING CHANGES; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT: ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT y',%HEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution contains all properties within the boundaries of Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference, and includes approximately 100 gross acres of land generally located around the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard and is known as the Palomar Gateway District (PGD) and is located in Southwest Chula Vista: and WHEREAS, on December 13; 2005 an update to the City's General Plan was approved. which provides a contemporary vision for the PGD, as one of five "Areas of Change" '.vithin the Southwest of Chula Vista. The General Plan Vision for the PGD states that the PGD is an area where more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment are proposed to occur. The General Plan vision for PGD includes a Transit Focus Area on and surrounding the Palomar Transit Station, higher residential intensity. a neighborhood park and retail to the south of the Transit Focus Area. The goal is to provide additional housing and mixed uses (residential and commercial) that take advantage of a major transit station within walking distance; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan calls for the adoption of a specific plan or other zoning regulations to implement the new land uses, in particular mixed use and high density residential zoning districts, to ensure the systematic implementation of the 2005 Genera] Plan; and WHEREAS, City staff determined that, givenihe characteristics and conditions of the PGD, the best tool to implement the General Plan vision would be a specific plan; acid WHEREAS, the specific plan will serve as the tool to direct and guide the development of the PGD towards this goal by directly regulating land use and establishing a focused development scheme and process for the area; and .I:\Attornev\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\OS 06 13\RL'SO-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCReso-7 12 13- FINAL.doc 7/I6/2013 8:3I .M1 ~~-22 Resolution \jo. Page 2 V~'HEREAS. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference Sections 66460 through 66467 of the Califomia Government Code that authorizes the local legislative body to initiate the preparation of a specific plan to implement the policies of a general plan; and WHEREAS; the requirement to have zoning consistent ~~=ith the City's General Plan is established in Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 66860: and WHEREAS; prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan for the Palomar Gateway District (hereinafrer referred to as the "PGDSP'); City staff undertook an extensive public engagement strategy with the communit}= and that this communit}= outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens and interest groups of Chula Vista in the PGDSP process; and WHEREAS; from this community outreach process and other activities. Cin= staff identified and reached out to a group of individuals with interest, knowledge of the area; and leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest 14'orking Group (S~\'~VG) and the S~YAVG represented across-section of the southwest community, including community organizations; businesses; and residents: The SW~b'G was tasked both with providing oversight for the southwest planning efforts, and with working to engage other members of the communit}= ~~~th the process; and WHEREAS; the preparation of the PGDSP was facilitated- by the financial participation of the San Diego Association of Governments (SA\'DAG) and the City's Redevelopment Agency; which agencies provided a grant from SANDAG`s Smart Gro~Kh Incentive Program in the amount of 5400;000 while the Redevelopment Agency contributed matching funds in the amount of 5160;000; for the preparation of the PGDSP and EIR: and WHEREAS, City staff and the S~~'~~'G began the active preparation of the PGDSP in January 2010: and \WHEREAS. meetings of Cih= staff and the SWWG were held from Januan= 2010 through March 2012; in which meetings the SR'\VG provided input on significant planning issues such as new permitted land uses; development standards; design guidelines; and infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, the drafr of the PGDSP was completed in March 201?. presented to the SWWG.at its meeting of March 2L 2012 and thereafrer posted on the Cit}='s website for public revie«c and \0'HEREAS. the finished PGDSP document bears the mark of this extensive public outreach process and that City staff and SV~'R'G members worked hard to develop a plan that both allows transit-oriented development in the PGD; and at the same time does not overburden this area with additional auto trips; and J:Wttome~~tF1I~AL RESOS A)\'D ORD[\ANCESL01 3108 06 13\RESO-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CC_Reso-7 1? 13- FI~AL.doc - i/16/2013 8:31 AA9 10-23 Resolution No. Page 3 WHEREAS, the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the CVMC Chapter 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code; Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 6457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 65451; and WHEREAS, PGDSP Chapters 3, 4, and 5 contain the Land Use and Development Regulations, Design Guidelines; and Infrastructure and Public Facilities, respectively; and provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development; and WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report EIR-IO-OS (SCH No. 2011111077) (hereinafter referred to as the "PGDSP EIR") has been prepared for the PGDSP as a Program E1R and includes an evaluation of the growth management quality oP life thresholds at a programmatic level. The Pinal EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures that address provision of public services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to~contribute to the, provision of public services and facilities commensurate with their impact as development occurs over the course of the nest 20 years; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation for the PGDSP EIR was circulated on November 30, 2011 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, a PGDSP EIR scoping meeting was held on December I5, 2011; and WHEREAS, Draft PGDSP EIR; together with the technical appendices for the project, vas issued fora 4~ day public review period on April 15; 2013, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS; the public review period closed on May 30; 2013; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on the Draft PGDSP EIR and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15086 and pursuant to Section 15088, all comments received were responded to in writing; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing of the Planning.Commission on the proposed PGDSP and Graft PGDSP EIR for June 26, 2013 and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on June.26, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue; before the Planning Commission and said hearing vas thereafter closed; and J:\Attornev\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 13\RESO-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCReso-7 1? 13- FINAL.doc 7/16/2013 8:31 AM 10-24 Resolution No. Page 4 WHEREAS. the Plannine Commission considered all reports; evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing v,ith respect to the Public Hearing Drafr PGDSP and Final EIR: and WHEREAS; at said public hearins the Planning Commission recommended through a vote of 4-1-1-0 that the Cit}~ Council adopt the Resolution certifiing the Final EIR-10-~, making certain Findings of Fact, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the PGDSP: and WHEREAS, the Development Sen~ices Director set the time and place for a hearing of the City Council on the proposed PGDSP and Final EIR for August 6; 20li and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose. was eiven pursuant to California Government Code 6091 and 6092 at least ten days prior to the hearing; and «%HEREAS: the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised. namely on August 6; 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in the -City Council Chambers; 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Cirv Council and said heazine was thereafrer closed: and WHEREAS. the City Council considered all reports; evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the Drafr PGDSP and Final EIR; and VHEREAS. to the extent that the Findines of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration dated June 2013 (Exhibit "B' of this Resolution) conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR aze feasible and have not been modified. . superseded or withdra«n, the Cin of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement those measures. These findings aze not mereh~ information or ad~•isory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the Resolution approving the PGDSP. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Aitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Exhibit "C' of this Resolution; a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements aze referenced in the \4itigation Aonitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findines of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. NOV. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Cirv Council of the Cirv of Chula Vista does hereby determine. resolve and order as follows: I. Final EIR 10-OS CONTE\~TS That the Final EIR 10-0~ consists of the following: 1. Drafr PGDSP EIR for the Project (including technical appendices): and 2. Comments and Responses 7:\Anomev\FIt~AL RESOS ADD ORDI\.4\CES\2013\08 06 li\RESO-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCReso-7 12 13- FI\'AL.doc 7/16/2013 8:31 AD1 10-25 Resolution No. Page ~ (All hereafter collectively refereed to as "Final EIR") H. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO Final EIR 1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration -(Exhibit "B" of this Resolution); and 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "C" of this Resolution). III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT That the City Council does hereby certify that Final EIR-IO-OS,.and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit °`B") attached to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file with the office of the City Clerk, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "C") attached 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. IV. INDEPENDENT NDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the City Council finds that Final EIR-IO-OS reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. V. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Adoption of Findings of Pact The City Council does hereby approve; accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "B" of this Resolution. B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-IO-OS and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same. J:Wttomev\FINAL RESOS AND ORDI1dANCES\2013\OS 06 13\RESO-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCReso-7 12 13- FINAL.doc - 7/16/20L3 8:31 Abt ~~-26 Resolution No. Page 6 C. Infeasibilirv of Altematives As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-10-0~ and in the Findings of Fact, which is Exhibit "B' to this Resolution; the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sectio^ 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in Final EIR-]0-05, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project objectives. D. Statement of Overriding Considerations Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible altematives,. certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project or cumulative)}~ will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues and approves pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit "B;" a copy of which ~is on file in the office of the City Clerk identifi~ng the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit "D` of this Resolution. The City Council further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation. the petmittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. «. NOTICE OF DETER~•IINATION That the Director of Development Services of the City of Chula Vista~is directed after City Council approval of this Resolution to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents. along ~~Sth an}' 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") (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista certifies that Final EIR-10-O5; the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding J:Wttomev\FINAL RESOS .AND ORDiNANCES~2013\OS o6 13tRE50-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCReso-i 12 13- FIN:+L.doc i/162013 8:31 AT1 ~0-2~ Resolution No. Page 7 Considerations (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting Program,(Exhibit "C" to this Resolution) have been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 eI seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seg.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore; should be and is hereby certified. Presented by: Ap/proved as to form b ~: G G in ~`~~City Attorney Kelly G. Broughton Director of Development Sernices Exhibits to this Resolution: Exhibit "A" -Location Map Exhibit "B" -Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit "C" -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program J:\Attomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 13\RBSO-DSD-PGD-SPPHIR-CCReso-7 12 13- FINAL.doc 7/16/2013 8:31 .M1 10-28 EXHIBIT A _, ~ ~: .: t~ L . o' .~ r ~~~ ~. ~ W Il~.~ ~~~ Palomar Gateway District ~,,,,~,, Sub-Districts Map Y ~ti, fi ~~ . . p~~ MORTIi ~• .0' 2° EXHIBIT B PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-10-05) FOR THE PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-10-24) CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS JUNE 2013 10-30 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................ II. ACRONYRIS .......................................................................................... III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... IV. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .............................................................. VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ................................................. VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS .......................................................... VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............... IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................. X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 8 MITIGATION MEASURES XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................ XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ......:.................. 10-31 BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: Palomar Gateway District Specifc Plan (PCM-10-24) Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR); EIR-10-O5; SCH No. 2011111077 FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (PGDSP) addresses the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In addition, the Final PEIR evaluates three alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the following: (1) No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative; (2) Reduced Project Alternative; and (3) Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative. These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15000 et seq.). 10-32 u. ACRONYMS ADT Average Daily Trips CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CWA Clean Water Act City City of Chula Vista CVMC Chula Vista Municipal Code FTA Federal Transit Administration GMOC Growth. Management Oversight Commission HLIT Habitat Loss and Incidental Take I-5 Interstate 5 LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MTS Metropolitan Transit System MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MU-1 Palomar Transit Plaza MU-2 Palomar Mixed Use Corridor NRHP National Register of Historic Places NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOx Nitrogen Oxides NSLU Noise Sensitive Land Uses PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PGD Palomar Gateway District PGDSP Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PNRC Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster PRV Palomar Residential Village PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan RWQCD Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 2 10-33 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The PGDSP is located in the southwest corner of the City of Chula Vista (City), near the interchange of Palomar Street and Interstate 5 (I-5), within the County of San Diego, California (see PEIR Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map). The proposed PGDSP is approximately four miles north of the international border with Mexico. The boundaries of the PGDSP include approximately 100-gross acres surrounding the Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard (see PEIR Figure 3-2, Location Map). The PGDSP area includes the properties north of Palomar Street around Walnut Street, Trenton Street and Industrial Boulevard. Further east, the PGDSP also extends north from Palomar .Street to Oxford Street. South of Palomar Street, the PGDSP extends along- Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road to Anita Street. A San Diego Trolley light rail transit station, Palomar Transit Station, is located within the PGDSP at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. The PGDSP establishes the appropriate distribution, mix, intensity, physical form, and functional relationships of land uses within the Palomar Gateway District (PGD). The PGDSP land use and development regulations are intended to encourage and facilitate infill development, mixed uses, pedestrian scale, urban amenities, transit use, creative design, and the general revitalization of the PGD. The PGDSP contains several land use categories including residential, .public/quasi-public and institutional, commercial office, commercial-service oriented, commercial-retail, and accessory uses. The PGD is divided into the following four sub-districts based on similar building and use types: 1. Palomar Transit Plaza (MU-1) 2. Palomar Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) 3. Palomar Residential Village (PRV) 4. Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster (PNRC) The projected build-out of the PGD and its four sub-districts for the 20-year planning horizon is presented in Table 1, below. TABLE 1. PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FOR PGDSP BUILD-OUTl7,zt Projected Total Estimated Build-Out by Sub-District Existing Development Additional Development Estimated Build-Out MU-1 (3.5 acres) MU-2 (31.5 acres) PRV (43.5 acres) PNRC (1.5 acres) Residential (Units) 400 1,300 1,700 150t'I 450141 700 - Retail (Sq. Ft.)ISl 200,000 100,000 300,000 10,000 85,000 -- 5,000 Office (Sq. Ft.)t't - 50,000 50,000 5,000 40,000 - 5,000 Industrial (Sq. Ft.) 30,000 - - - - - -- ~'~ Numbers are approximations. rzl Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on the market study (Gafcon, Inc. 2017). 1~1 Projected residential units for MU-7 Sub-district are based on the designated FAR with the proportional commercial development indicated in Note 5, below. 1°I Sub-districts MU-2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the sub-district land area. 1st Retail/Office square foolages are assumed 70-percenV90-percent split of projected build-out between the MU-IIMU-2 Sub-disMcts, which is roughly proportional to the sub-0islrict land area. Source: PGDSP 3 10-34 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following:, ^ PGDSP Adoption ^ Related Rezoning Actions Future development proposed in accordance with the PGDSP would require discretionary approvals. Such future discretionary actions are anticipated to include (but are not be limited to) the following: Design Review Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and potentially some Demolition Permits, and Grading Permits. While future discretionary actions will require future environmental review, once certified, this PEIR can be relied upon for relevant environment analysis. The City Council will determine whether the Final PEIR is complete and in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certification process. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As specified in the Final PEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows: ^ Objective 1: Create a vibrant, safe, pedestrian friendly live/work/play environment that emphasizes the area as a southern gateway to tfi'e City of Chula Vista. ^ Objective 2: Achieve a compact pattern of development conducive to walking and bicycling. ^ Objective 3: Encourage light rail transit use and convenient access to services and jobs. ^ Objective 4: Allow for a mix of uses, designed to attract pedestrians. ^ Objective 5: Maintain an adequate level of parking and access for automobiles and integrate automobile use safely with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users. ^ Objective 6: Provide sufficient density of employees, residents, and recreational users to support transit. ^ Objective 7: Generate a relatively high percentage of trips serviceable by transit. IV. BACKGROUND The preparation of the PGDSP follows the direction provided in the City of Chula Vista.General Plan to prepare and adopt a more detailed vision, regulations, and guidelines for future development in the PGD. The PGDSP has been prepared as a neighborhood-level planning document which provides updated zoning regulations, land use and development regulations, and design guidelines to implement the planned land uses, as envisioned in the Chula Vista General Plan. In addition to being a land use regulatory document, the PGDSP also outlines the framework for the provision of urban amenities and other public improvements associated with new development. The 10-35 planning horizon far the PGDSP is year 2030, with provisions for periodic evaluation of progress in meeting plan goals. The proposed land uses and development regulations identified in the PGDSP would replace the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapters 19.26, 19.30, 19.36, 19.40, and 19.44, and the provisions of the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance C36 and S94 use regulations. Where the CVMC conflicts with the development standards or other provisions of the PGDSP, the PGDSP would apply; where the PGDSP is silent, the CVMC would apply. The definitions found in CVMC Chapter 19.04 would apply to the PGDSP, except where specifc definitions are provided in the PGDSP. ' All zoning-related portions of the PGDSP (i.e. land use matrix, permitted uses, and development regulations) would serve as regulatory provisions and supersede other City regulations and ordinances for the control of land use and development within the PGD. Other portions of the PGDSP, such as the development design guidelines, would provide direction for future planning and public improvement efforts. Future development projects, subdivisions, public improvement projects, and other implementing programs would be required to be consistent with the PGDSP, once adopted. V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the_ City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following: ^ The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; v The Draft~and Final PEIR for the project (EIR #10-OS), including appendices and technical reports; ^ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft PEIR; ^ 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 the City's actions on the project; ^ All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the PEIR for the project; ^ All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the PEIR, up through the close of the public hearing; ^ Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public meetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes. where transcripts are not available or adequate; o Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public hearings for this project; 10-36 ^ All findings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and ^ Matters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and including, but not limited to, the following: o Chula Vista General Plan; o General Plan Update Final EIR (EIR #OS-01, SCH #2004081066) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; o Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City; o City of Chula vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan; and o 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 Donna Norris, City Clerk, 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 its decision on the project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approving the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 (252 Cal. Rptr. 620]). Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the project (see Pub. Resources Code, section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Growing-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Sfanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4'" 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]). ~. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and. the.feasible.alternatives or feasible mitigatiommeasures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." 6 10-37 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 identifed 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 qr alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential Ending is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]). The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see Cify of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [~83 Cal.Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic; environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]). The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve prbjects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). For purposes of these Endings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In cohtrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant. 7 10-38 Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final SEIR. In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would othenniise occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)). With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.or afeasible environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving ...any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the Ibcal officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576). ~I. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final PEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City (or "decision makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MIv1RP) adopted concurrently with these findings and.will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the MMRP adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated both through the process of implementing the PGDSP and through the process of constructing and implementing the project. 8 10-39 vm. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these findings, also concurrently adopts a MMRP. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the document entitled Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (PCM-10-24) Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP 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. The monitoring program will serve the dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY OF EFFECTS The Final PEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts') resulting from the project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated or avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in Section XII below. This Section (IX) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the project. The project will result in direct and/or cumulative significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues: transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; noise; cultural resources; paleontological resources; biological resources; geology and soils; public services and utilities; hazards and hazardous materials; and housing and population. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in the Draft PEIR in Chapter 1, Table 1-1, and various subsections of Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis. No significant effects were identified for land use, planning and zoning; landform alterations/aesthetics; global climate change;-hydrology and drainage; agricultural and forestry resources; and mineral resources. IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the PEIR, the appendices to the PEIR, and the administrative record, finds the Project which would mitigate, 9 10-40 avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant environmental effects identified in the PEIR in the following categories: traffic, circulation, and access; noise; cultural resources; paleontological resources; biological resources; geology and soils; public services and utilities; and hazards and hazardous materials. A brief summary of each environmental topic that would be mitigated to below a level of significance is provided below. Traffic. Circulation, and Access Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to traffic hazards and emergency access within the PGDSP. Noise Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant excessive noise levels and excessive groundborne vibration. - - Cultural Resources Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Paleontological Resources Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Biological Resources Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to special-status species; sensitive natural communities; wetlands; and local policies, ordinances, and adopted conservation plans. Geology and Soils Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to soil hazards. Public Services and Utilities Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services, police services, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, and wastewater. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Absent mitigation, approval of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to hazardous materials transport, use, disposal, or release; and hazardous material sites. 10 10-41 DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION FOR IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Traffic, Circulation, and Access Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to traffic, circulation, and access if it would: 1. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 2. Result in inadequate emergency access. Impact: Traffic Hazards PGDSP build-out would generate additional pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffc along Palomar Street, which could further increase traffic hazards at existing intersections. In addition, existing conditions at the Transit Center/Palomar Street intersection would have the potential to result in traffic hazards associated with PGDSP implementation. Therefore, direct impacts associated with traffic hazards are considered to be potentially significant (Final PEIR Section 5.3.4.3). Explanation The existing condition of the PGD oontains potehtial hazards associated with.vehicle-trolley- bicycle-pedestrian conflicts. The additional growth allowable under the PGDSP would increase the potential for conflicts to occur. Multiple pedestrian and bicycle collisions have occurred along segments of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard in the PGDSP. The abundance of driveways along Palomar Street exposes pedestrians to potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Palomar StreeUlndustrial Boulevard intersection is considered a high risk location given the conflicts with vehicles, the at-grade trolley crossing, pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, the unrestricted turn movements at the Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection allow vehicles to travel across multiple lanes of traffic on Palomar Street. Further, due to the intersection offset at the Transit Center/Palomar Street intersection, the existing condition of this intersection represents a conflict with vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. PGDSP build-out would generate additional pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic along Palomar Street, which could further increase traffic conflicts at these intersections. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.3.4.3). Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street Intersection Raised Median and Walnut Avenue Reconfiguration. Prior to the approval of any construction associated with PGDSP development projects, the City shall implement a raised median across the intersection and Walnut Avenue shall be reconfigured to allow right-in/right-out movements only. This improvement is required to restrict minor street left-turn movements from Walnut Avenue across multiple lanes of traffic on Palomar Street. Pedestrians shall be prohibited from crossing Palomar Avenue at this intersection and shall be required to utilize the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection to 11 10-42 cross Palomar Street. Because left-turn movements would be restricted at the Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection, eastbound vehicles on Palomar Street intending to turn left at Walnut Avenue would need to make a u-turn at the Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection. Similarly, westbound left-turning vehicles at Walnut Avenue would be required to make alert-turn at the Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection and turn right on Ada Street. This improvement has been added to the City's CIP for 2013 and is now fully funded. 5.3-2 Grade Separation for Trolley at Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street Intersection. To improve vehicular operations, the MTS trolley rail crossing shall be grade-separated at the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection to improve vehicular operations. The proposed trolley grade-separation on Palomar Street is included on the regional priority list for rail grade-separation projects in the 2050 RTP in the Revenue Constrained Plan to be completed by year 2020. This improvement would result in no additional vehicular delay during a trolley crossing. With the grade- separation, this intersection is calculated to operate at LOS D dr better. Grade- separation would also eliminate vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle conflicts with the trolley. 5.3-3 Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street Intersection Left-Turn Lane Signal Change. The left-turn lane signal phasing at the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar.Street intersection shall be changed from permitted-protected to protected at all intersection approaches. The timing of implementation of this improvement shall be determined by the results of the annual study conducted under the City's Traffic Management Program. 5.3-4 Transit Center Place/Palomar Street Intersection. The following improvements shall be implemented to improve pedestrian access and safety at the Transit CentedPalomar Street intersection: Realign the north leg of the intersection to align with the south leg, which would eliminate intersection offset. This improvement would also benefit pedestrians by allowing shorter walking distances. ii. Install pavement markings after realignment on the north leg of the intersection showing an exclusive left-turn lane and shared through-right lanes. Finding Implementation of traffic improvements, as described in mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with traffic hazards to a less than significant level. Impact:-Emergency Access Temporary roadway closures and detours during construction of future PGDSP development projects within roadway rights-of-way could potentially impede emergency access if the appropriate authorities are not properly notified prior to construction. Therefore, direct impacts associated with emergency access are considered to be potentially significant (Final PEIR Section 5.3.4.4). 12 10-43 Explanation Construction of future PGDSP development projects within roadway rights-of-way may require temporary roadway closures and detours, which would affect local traffic circulation. Changes to the traffic circulation pattern could potentially impede emergency access if the appropriate authorities are not properly notified prior to construction. Following construction, future PGDSP development projects would be required to provide appropriate access in accordance with the California Fire Code and would not result ih inadequate emergency access during operation. Therefore, a significant impact. related to inadequate emergency access would have the potential to occur during construction of individual development projects within the PGD. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur (Finial PEIR Section 5.3.4.4). Mitigation Measure 5.3-5 Traffic Control Plans. Prior to construction of future development projects in the PGDSP that require temporary roadway closures and detours, project applicants shall submit a traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The traffic control plan shall identify the location and timing of anticipated roadway closures and the alternative routes to be utilized during project construction. Finding Implementation of traffc control plans, as described in mitigation measure 5.3-5 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with emergency access to a less than significant level. Noise Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to noise if it would: 1. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. This includes exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL in single and multi-family residences, or noise levels that violate the Chula Vista Noise Control Ordinance (CVMC Chapter 19.68). 2. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Excessive groundborne vibration is defined as groundborne vibration equal to or in excess of 0.2 inch per second PPV. Construction activities within 200 feet and pile driving within 600 feet of a vibration sensitive use would be potentially disruptive to vibration-sensitive operations. 13 10-44 Impact: Excessive Noise Levels Implementation of the proposed PGDSP would have the potential to result in exposure of noise sensitive land uses (NSLU) to excessive noise levels from operational and transportation noise sources. Therefore, direct impacts associated with excessive noise levels are considered significant (Final PEIR Section 5.6.4.1). Explanation Operational noise sources with implementation of the PGDSP would be similar to existing conditions because land uses would be similar, as described further .below; however, development intensity would increase with implementation of the PGDSP. Implementation of the PGDSP would accommodate a total of 1,300 new dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of additional retail use development, and 50,000 square feet of new office use development compared to existing conditions. Therefore, noise levels would have the potential fo increase in the PGD from the intensification of uses. _ The PGDSP proposes intensified commercial, multi-family residential, and mixed-use development along area roadways. Approximately half of the PGD is located within the roadway noise contour where noise levels would exceed 60 dBA (CNEL). Multi-family residential development and commercial development would likely be placed along major roadways, and would have the potential to be located within the roadway noise contour where noise levels would exceed 65 dBA (CNEL). This contour extends approximately 600 feet from the centerline of Palomar Street and 150 feet from the centerline of Industrial Boulevard, affecting interior noise levels and onsite exterior recreational areas. This would result in a potentially significant impact associated with exposure to traffic noise. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur in regards to excessive noise levels from operational and transportation noise sources (Final PEIR Section 5.6.4.1). Mitigation Measure 5.6-1 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis -Multi-Family Residences. Concurrent with Design Review and prior to the approval of building permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that irterior noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL: i. Multi-family residential units where the first and/or second floor exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL; ii. Multi-family outdoor usable areas (patios or balconies). where noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL; iii. R4ulti-family residential units located within the same building as commercial development; iv. Multi-family residential units located near a structure requiring a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system, or near a school, park, or community center. 14 10-45 Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior acoustical analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed. Finding Implementation of site-specific acoustic analysis for multi-family residences, as described in mitigation measure 5.6-1 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with excessive noise levels to a less than significant level. Impact: Excessive Groundborne Vibration Implementation of the proposed PGDSP would have the potential to result in the exposure of vibration sensitive land uses to excessive groundborne vibration from trolley/railroad operations and construction activities (Final PEIR Section 5.6.4.2). Explanation Vibration sensitive instruments and operations may require special consideration during construction. Vibration criteria for sensitive equipment and operations are not defined and are often case specific. In general, the_ criteria must be determined based on manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user. As a guide, major construction activity within 200 feet and pile driving within 600 feet may be potentially disruptive to vibration sensitive instruments and operations. General construction activity in the PGD in close proximity to vibration sensitive land uses would have the potential to result in a significant impact. An additional potential source of groundborne vibration is the Blue Line light rail trolley line, which bisects the eastern portion of the PGD. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides screening distances for land use categories to screen projects that may be subject to vibration impacts from a commuter railroad. For Category 1 land uses (vibration sensitive equipment), the screening distance from railroad rights-of-way is 600 feet. For_Category 2 land uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep), the screening distance from railroad rights-of-way is 200 feet. The screening distance for Category 3 land uses (institutional land uses) is 120 feet. The PGDSP would potentially accommodate Category 1 land uses in the MU-1 and MU-2 Sub-districts; Category 2 land uses in the MU-1, MU-2, and PRV Sub-districts; and Category 3 land uses in the MU-1 and MU-2 Sub-districts. Therefore, implementation of the PGDSP has the potential to locate new vibration sensitive land uses within the screening distance of the Blue Line light rail trolley line. New development that is proposed within the screening distance of the Blue Line light rail trolley line would require further analysis to determine vibration impacts. Thus, a potentially significant impact would occur. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur-. in•.regards to excessive groundborne vibration from construction and the Blue Line light rail trolley line (Final PEIR Section 5.6.4.2). Mitigation Measure 5.6-2 Site-Specific Groundborne Vibration Analysis. Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of building permits, future projects shall implement the FTA and 15 10-46 FRA guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains, construction equipment, and other sources. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-sensitive equipment) within 600 feet, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 120 feet of railroad rights-of-way or other major sources of groundborne vibration shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with FTA and FRA guidelines. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis shall be implemented by the project applicant. Finding Implementation of site-specific groundborhe measures 5.6-2 above, would reduce potential vibration to a less than significant level. vibration analysis, as described in mitigation impacts associated with excessive groundborne Cultural Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to cultural resources if it would: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Impact: Historical Resource Because three buildings that have been recommended as Historical Resources (California Historical Resource Status Code 5S3) and the six buildings that have been recommended for further evaluation (California Historical Resource Status Code 7N) were identified in the PGD, it is possible that future PGDSP development projects could cause a substantial adverse change in the signifcance of an historical resource (Final PEIR Section 5.7.4.1). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Explanation Based on the results of the comprehensive citywide historic resources survey, it was determined that of approximately 59 potential historical resources, three buildings (805 Dorothy Street, 753/765 Dorothy Street, and 755 Ada Street) are considered Historical Resources (California Historical Resource Status Code SS3 -appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation); ,six buildings require further evaluation (California Historical Resource Status Code 7N -needs to be reevaluated); and the remaining buildings are not considered Historical Resources (California Historical Resource Status Code 6Z -found ineligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California. Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or local designation through survey evaluation). If future PGDSP development projects occur on or in the vicinity of the three buildings that have been recommended as Historical Resources (California Historical Resource Status Code 5S3) or the 16 10-47 six buildings that have been recommended for further historical resources evaluation (California Historical Resource Status Code 7N), and result in demolition, alteration, or any other adverse changes in the significance of these historical resources, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.7.4.1). Mitigation Measures 5.7-1 Historical Resources Mitigation Program. Future PGDSP developmeht projects shall be required to implement the following measures to prevent potential impacts to historical resources: Impacts to any resource(s) that is/are listed in a Historical Resources Survey as being a historical resource, or that has been substantiated through completion of a DPR Form, an Expert Technical Analysis report, or by the City, to be an Eligible Historical Resource, as defined in CVMC Section 21.03.044, shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness and shall follow the requirements set forth in CVMC Sections 21.07.070 and 21.07.080. ii. Prior to any modification or alteration, as defined in CVMC Section 21.03.002, to a resource 45 years or older that may meet the findings of fact and eligibility criteria established in CVMC Section 21.04.100, or any resource that has been determined through a survey to need further evaluation (California Historical Resource Status Code 7N), an evaluation of historical significance shall be conducted pursuant to CVMC Section 21.07.020. Any resource determined to be an Eligible Historical Resource, as defined in CVMC Section 21.03.044, shall follow the procedure described in Item (i) above. Finding Implementation of a historical resources mitigation program, as described in mitigation measure 5.7-1 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with historical resources to a less than significant level. Impact: Archaeological Resources Because presently obscured or buried archaeological resources may occur within the PGD, it is possible that ground-disturbing activities associated -with construction of future PGDSP development projects could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource (Final PEIR Section 5.7.4.2). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Explanation One previously recorded historic linear feature (P-37025680, San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway) was identified within -the PGD. during the December 2011_ archaeological resources survey. A segment of the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway was recommended as eligible for listing in the City of San Diego Historic Resources Register; however, it is not anticipated that the railway line would be affected by the proposed PGDSP. While no new archaeological resources were identified within the PGD as a result of the field survey, and a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search of the Sacred 17 10-48 Lands File did not identify Native American cultural resources within ahalf-mile radius of the PGD, the extent of ground disturbance within the PGD is unknown. Thus, it is possible that presently obscured or buried archaeological resources may occur within the PGD. If unknown archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of future PGDSP development projects, thereby resulting in damage or any other adverse changes in the significance of an archaeological resource, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.7.4.2). Mitigation Measures 5.7-2 Archaeological Resources Mitigation Program. Future PGDSP development projects that involve ground disturbance beyond that previously disturbed shall be required to implement the following measures to prevent potential impacts to archaeological resources: Cultural resource significance evaluations shall be required when new resources are identified as a result of a survey, when previously recorded resources that have not been previously evaluated are relocated during a survey, and when previously recorded sites are relocated during the survey and if there is a likelihood that the resource still exists. A property shall be reevaluated if its condition or setting has either improved or deteriorated, if new information is available, or if the resource is becoming increasingly rare due to the loss of other similar resources. In such cases, an archaeological testing program shall be required, which includes evaluating the horizontal and vertical dimensions of a site, the chronological placement, site function, artifact/ecofact density and variability, presence/absence of subsurface features, and research potential. It should be noted that Tribal representatives and/or Native American monitors shall be involved in making recommendations regarding the significance of prehistoric archaeological sites during this phase of the process. The testing program may require reevaluation of the project in consultation with the Native American representative which could result in a combination of project redesign to avoid and/or preserve significant resources as well as mitigation in the form of data recovery and monitoring (as recommended by the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative). ii. If significant cultural resources are identifed within the proposed PGDSP project site, those resources may be eligible for designation for the NRHP, CRHR, or local register. If no significant resources are found, then no further action is required. Resources found to be non-significant as a result of a survey and/or assessment will require no further work beyond documentation of the resources on the appropriate DPR 523 site forms and inclusion of results in the survey and/or assessment report. If no significant resources are found but results of the initial evaluation and testing phase indicates there is still a potential for resources to be present in portions of the property that could not be tested, then mitigation monitoring shall be required. Preferred -mitigation for cultural resources is to avoid the resource through project redesign. If the resource cannot be entirely avoided, all prudent and feasible measures to minimize harm shall be taken. iii. For archaeological resources where preservation is not an option, a data recovery program shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall be 18 10-49 based on a written research design, which will outline research questions and data recovery methodology, and is subject to the provisions outlined in CEQA Section 21083.2. Archaeological monitoring may be required during building demolition and/or construction grading when significant resources are known or suspected to be present on the proposed PGDSP project site, but cannot be recovered prior to grading due to obstructions such as, but not limited to, existing development or dense vegetation. iv. A Native American observer shall be retained for all subsurface investigations, including geotechnical testing and other ground disturbing activities whenever a Native American Traditional Cultural Property or archaeological site within the proposed PGDSP project site would be impacted. The Native American monitor shall be consulted during the preparation of the written report, at which time they may express concerns about the treatment of sensitive resources. If the Native American community requests participation of an observer for subsurface investigations on private property, the request shall be honored. Finding Implementation of an archaeological resources mitigation program, as described in mitigation measure 5.7-1 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Paleontological Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to paleontological resources if it would: 1. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impact: Paleontological Resources Ground-disturbing activities during future development associated with PGDSP build-out may expose the underlying Bay Point Formation, which has a moderate paleontological sensitivity level and resource potential rating, and could potentially damage or destroy unique paleontological resources (Final PEIR, Section 5.8.4.1). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Explanation Future development associated with PGDSP build-out would involve ground-disturbing activities such as grading and excavation. Based on the moderate paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point Formation and unnamed nearshore marine sandstone underlying the PGD, exposure of this geologic formation during ground-disturbing activities has a moderate potential to unearth fossil remains. Because the specific location and significance of potential fossil remains are unknown, ground-disturbing activities could potentially damage or destroy unique paleontological resources. Since the PGD is highly developed, grading activities associated with future PGDSP development projects would typically be minimal, with the exception of sub- garages or sub-floors. The grading thresholds shown in Table 5.8-1 would be used to determine 19 10-50 whether future PGDSP development projects would potentially result in significant impacts to sensitive paleontological resources, and thus require mitigation. Due to the moderate paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point Formation underlying the PGD, future PGDSP development projects that propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic yards volume and five feet depth would represent a potentially signifcant impact to sensitive paleontological resources (Final PEIR Section 5.8.4.1). Mitigation Measures 5.8-1 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program. Future PGDSP development projects that propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic yards volume and five feet depth shall be required to implement apre-construction or construction mitigation program, or both, as a condition of approval. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who has proven experience in San Diego County paleontology and who is knowledgeable in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. Pre-construction mitigation. This method of mitigation is only applicable to instances where well-preserved and significant fossil remains, discovered in the assessment phase, would be destroyed during initial brush clearing and equipment move-on. The individual tasks of this program include: Surface prospecting for exposed fossil remains, generally involving inspection of existing bedrock outcrops but possibly also excavation of test trenches; Surface collection of discovered fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen, but possibly also plaster jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits; iii. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil- bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting; iv. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens; v. Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventdry of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database; vi. Transferral, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an accredited institution (museum or university) that maintains paleontological collections (including the 20 10-51 fossil specimens, copies of all field notes, maps, stratigraphic sections, and photographs); and vii. Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection. Construction mitigation. Under this program, mitigation occurs while excavation operations are underway. The scope and pace of excavation generally dictate the scope and pace of mitigation. The individual tasks of a construction mitigation program shall typically include: Monitoring of excavation operations to discover unearthed fossil remains, generally involving inspection of ongoing excavation exposures (e.g., sheet graded pads, cut slopes, roadcuts, basement excavations, and trench sidewalls); ii. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits; iii. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil- bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting; iv. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens; v. Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains,, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database; vi. Transferral, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an accredited institution (museum or university) that maintains paleontological collections, including the fossil specimens, copies of all field notes, maps, stratigraphic sections and photographs; and vii. Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection. Finding Implementation of a paleontological resources mitigation program, as described in mitigation measure 5.8-1 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with paleontological resources to a less than significant level. 21 10-52 Biological Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to biological resources if it would: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identifed in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 4. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Impact: Special-status Species Future PGDSP development projects would result in potentially significant impacts to special- status plant and animal species if project applicants of future PGDSP development proposals within those portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that are characterized by non-native grassland or disturbed wetland do not provide an updated, project-level biological resources survey and report to document the current conditions and biological resources impacts associated with each specifc project. In addition, implemehtation of the proposed PGDSP would result in potentially significant impacts to nesting birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.1). Explanation No special-status animal and plant species were determined to have a high potential to occur within the survey area due to lack of suitable habitat and other factors. However, limited portions of the PGD were determined to support non-native grassland or disturbed wetland habitat, which are designated under the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan as sensitive Tier III and Wetland habitat types, respectively. Wetland habitats are further regulated as jurisdictional resources under federal and state policy. Therefore, project applicants of future PGDSP development proposals within those portions of the PGD that are characterized by non-native grassland or disturbed wetland habitat may be required to provide an updated, project-level biological resources survey and report to document the current conditions and biological resources impacts associated with each specific project, and confirm that no sensitive species have the potential to occur onsite. The sub-districts within the PGD that support non-native grassland and disturbed wetland include the Palomar Mixed Use Corridor Sub-district (MU-2) and Palomar Residential Village Sub-district (PRV). Therefore, 22 10-53 future PGDSP development projects could result in potentially significant impacts to special- status plant and animal species. Although no special-status animal species would be expected to occur, the project survey area and immediate vicinity contain trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings) that provide suitable nesting habitat for common (non-sensitive) birds, including common raptors, protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Future PGDSP development projects could result in the removal or trimming of trees and shrubs during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). Direct impacts could occur as a result of removal of vegetation supporting an active nest. Indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of an active nest, such that the disturbance results in a nest failure. Therefore, PGDSP implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. Additionally, future PGDSP development projects within portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub- districts could result in the removal of non-native grassland that provides marginal foraging opportunities for raptors known to occur in the region. The potential loss of raptor foraging habitat at this location is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on the long-term survival of any raptor species due to the relatively small size and poor quality of the existing habitat and the presence of additional raptor foraging habitat in the local area. However, direct impacts to non-native grassland, which is designated under the City's MSCP Subarea Plan as sensitive Tier III habitat type, would be considered significant (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.1). Mitigation Measures 5.9-1 Project-Level Biological Resources Surveys and Reporting. During the design and environmental review phase, and prior to the construction of future PGDSP development projects that include those portions of the Palomar Mixed Use Corridor Sub-District (MU-2) and Palomar Residential Village Sub-District (PRV) characterized by non-native grassland or disturbed wetland, as depicted on Figure 5.9-1, project applicants shall retain aCity-approved biologist to conduct an updated, project-level biological resources technical study of the proposed PGDSP project site, to include an updated biological survey and report prepared in accordance with the City's MSCP'Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance. The updated biological survey shall include an inventory of the current existing condition at the proposed PGDSP project site and verify whether the project would occur on or in the immediate vicinity of sensitive natural habitat, including wetlands, in addition to habitat suitable for special-status species. The updated biological resources report shall provide documentation of the results of the updated biological survey, and shall also identify potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources and project- level measures to mitigate the potential impacts. The updated biological resources report shall be submitted to the City in support of CEQA documentation and the issuance of any subsequent discretionary actions or permits identified for the future development proposal. 5.9-2 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys. To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (January 15 to August 31). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, project applicants shall retain a 23 10-54 City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre- constri~ction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). Project applicants shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City's A4itigation Monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. Finding Implementation of a project-level biological resources surveys and reports and pre-construction nesting bird surveys, as described in mitigation measures 5.9-1 and 5.9-2 above, would reduce potential impacts associated to special status species to a less than significant level. Impact: Sensitive Natural Communities Future PGDSP development projects within portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts would have the potential to result in the loss of non-native grassland and disturbed wetland habitat (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.2). Explanation Although the majority of future PGDSP development impacts would occur on existing developed land or disturbed land, PGDSP build-out could result in impacts to the existing 8.42 acres of non-native grassland and 0.68-acre of disturbed wetland habitat within the MU-2 and PRV sub- districts, which- are designated under the City's MSCP Subarea Plan as sensitive Tier III and Wetland habitat types, respectively. Future PGDSP development projects in these areas could result in the removal of the existing non-native grassland and disturbed wetland habitat. Despite the low quality of the existing habitat, impacts resulting in the permanent loss of sensitive Tier III and Wetland habitat types would be considered significant per the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. Future PGDSP project construction could also occur immediately adjacent to non-native grassland and disturbed wetland habitat. Construction activities could result in adverse impacts due to inadvertent encroachment into adjacent habitat by construction vehicles and personnel. Therefore, PGDSP implementation would result in potentially significant direct impacts to sensitive natural communities (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.2). Mitigation Measures 5.9-3 In-Kind Habitat-Based Compensatory Mitigation. Permanent and temporary impacts to non-native grassland and disturbed wetland habitat associated with future PGDSP development projects in the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts shall be mitigated by the project applicant in-kind (i.e., the same type of habitat as that which is impacted), or an alternative type of habitat which provides equivalent or superior mitigation, through implementation of any one or combination of the following measures, as approved and/or amended by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW in 24 10-55 federal and state permits or by the City during the HLIT permit and Wetlands Protection Program processes, as applicable: i. On-site as creation of new habitat within avoided and preserved areas at the project site; ii. On-site as restoration of existing habitat within temporary impact areas and/or avoided and preserved areas at the project site; iii. On-site as enhancement of existing habitat within avoided and preserved areas at the project site; iv. Off-site as purchase of habitat credits from aCity-approved off-site mitigation bank in the region, as determined through agreements with the City. Unless otherwise required by the City, USACE, RWOCB, and/or CDFW, the mitigation shall include off-site areas located within the boundaries of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan; Off-site as acquisition of land for the purposes of habitat preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement within other properties or approved mitigation programs available at the time of grading. Unless otherwise required by the City, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, the mitigation shall include off-site areas located within the boundaries of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan; or vi. A combination of the above. In-kind habitat-based mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland shall be mitigated at a ratio of 0.5:1 (i.e., 0.5 acre of mitigation land for every 1.0 acre of habitat impacted) to 1:1. The required mitigation ratio for nori-native grassland shall be 0.5:1 if the mitigation will occur within a designated Preserve area under the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, and 1:1 if the mitigation will occur outside of a designated Preserve area, such as on-site. In-kind habitat-based mitigation for impacts to disturbed wetland shall be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 to .2:1 to ensure there is no-net-loss, as determined through agreements with the City, and if required, through the acquisition of federal and state permits from the USACE, RWOCB, and/or CDFW. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits (including clearing and grubbing or grading permits) for projects requiring on- or off-site creation, restoration, and/or enhancement mitigation, project applicants shall prepare a restoration plan for impacts to sensitive biological resources. The restoration plan shall be prepared by a City-approved biologist and to the satisfaction of the City's Development Services Director (or his designee). The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation strategy, appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring,.and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. Project applicants shall also be required to implement the restoration plan subject to the oversight and approval by the City's Development Services Director (or his designee). If required, 25 10-56 restoration plans prepared for wetland habitat mitigation shall be approved by the USACE, R~NQCB, and/or CFDG prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities. Project applicants shall be required to record a biological open space easement or conservation easement over land that is to be used as mitigation, if such an easement does not already exist, designating it as a preserve for biological conservation purposes. Mitigation proposed within the City shall be accompanied with an conservation easement'or other mechanism approved by the City, USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, as appropriate, as being sufficient to insure that lands are protected in perpetuity. In the event that a project applicant is unable to secure mitigation through an established mitigation bank approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies, the project applicant shall secure the required mitigation through the-conservation of an area containing in-kind habitat within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area in accbrdance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 53 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and subject to Wildlife Agency concurrence. 5.9-4 Construction Fencing. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, and to the satisfaction and oversight of the City's Development Services Director (or his designee), the applicant shall secure the parcel(s) that will be permanently preserved for in-kind habitat impact mitigation, prepare a long-term Management and Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the mitigation area, secure an appropriate management entity to ensure that long-term biological resource management and monitoring of the mitigation area is implemented in perpetuity, and establish along-term funding mechanism for the management and monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity. The long-term MMP shall provide management measures to be implemented to sustain the viability of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the MMP. The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future development and permanently preserved through the recordation of a conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies as being sufficient to insure that the lands are protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies shall be recorded prior to issuance of any land development permits. The project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the biological integrity of the mitigation area and shall abide by all management and monitoring measures identified in the MMP until such time as the established long-term funding mechanism has generated sufficient revenues to enable a City-approved management entity to assume the long-term maintenance and management responsibilities. Finding Implementation of a project-level biological resources surveys and reports, in-kind habitat-based compensatory mitigation program, and construction fencing, as described in mitigation measures 5.9-1, 5.93, and 5.9-4 above, would reduce potential impacts associated to sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level. 26 10-57 Impact: Wetlands Future PGDSP development projects within portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts would have the potential to result in the loss of disturbed wetland habitat (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.3). Explanation Although the majority of future PGDSP development impacts would occur on existing developed land or disturbed land, PGDSP build-out could result in impacts to the existing 0.68-acre of disturbed wetland habitat within the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts, which is designated under the City's MSCP Subarea Plan as sensitive Wetland habitat. In addition, all or portions of the existing disturbed wetland habitat could support the physical characteristics to be considered waters of the United States under the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA); waters of the State under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and/or jurisdictional streambed under the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to CFG Code Sections 1600 et seq. Temporary and permanent Ells, discharges, and dredging associated with future PGDSP project construction or operation activities in jurisdictional wetlands would be considered significant. Future PGDSP project construction could also occur immediately adjacent to existing jurisdictional wetlands. .Construction activities could result in adverse impacts due to inadvertent encroachment into adjacent wetlands by construction vehicles and personnel. Therefore, PGDSP implementation would result in potentially significant direct impacts to wetlands (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.3). Mitigation Measures 5.9-5 Project-Level Wetland Delineation Studies. Prior to construction of future PGDSP development projects within portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that could result in impacts to disturbed wetland habitat, project applicants shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a formal wetland delineation in order to qualify and quantify existing wetland resources potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the USAGE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW. Wetland delineations shall be conducted according to the methodologies and current regulatory guidance recommended by these agencies. The results of the wetland delineation shall be documented in a report to determine project impacts and avoidance, and if required, facilitate the acquisition of federal and state permits. 5.9-6 Wetland Permits. Prior tc construction of future PGDSP development projects within portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that have been confirmed to result in potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, as identified through implementation of mitigation measure 5.9-5 above, project applicants shall obtain the .required federal and state permits from the USAGE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, as specified below: An application for a Nationwide or Individual Permit, depending upon the extent of impacts, shall be submitted by the project applicant to the USAGE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. If required, the project applicant shall obtain a Nationwide or Individual Permit from the USAGE for all impacts, temporary and/or permanent, to any areas within the proposed project which are determined to qualify as waters of the United States subject to USAGE jurisdiction. 27 10-58 ii. For any future PGDSP development projects requiring a federal license or permit to construct or operate, which may result in any discharge into waters of the United States, the project applicant shall submit to the RWOCB a request for Water Quality Standards Certification pursuanf to Section 401 of the CWA to confirm that the discharge would comply with applicable water quality and discharge provisions. iii. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration shall be submitted by the project applicant to the CDFW pursuant to CFG Code Section 1602. If required, a Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from the CDFW for all impacts, temporary and/or permanent, to any areas within the project which are determined to qualify as streambed and/or riparian subject to CDFW jurisdiction. In accordance with permit requirements, project applicants shall mitigate the loss of jurisdictional wetlands through the implementation of the in-kind habitat-based compensatory mitigation proposed within mitigation measure 5.9-3 above, unless otherwise conditioned by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW in federal and state permits or by the City during the HLIT permit and Wetlands Protection Program processes. Finding Implementation of a project-level biological resources surveys and reports, in-kind habitat-based compensatory mitigation program, construction fencing, project-level wetland delineation studies, and wetland permits, as described in mitigation measures 5.9-1, 5.9-3, 5.9-4, 5.9-5, and 5.9-6 above, would reduce potential impacts associated to wetlands to a less than significant level. Impact: Local Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted Conservation Plans Prior to mitigation, future PGDSP development projects withiri those portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that are characterized by non-native grassland or disturbed wetland would have the potential to conflict with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and CVMC Chapter.17.35. (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.5). Explanation Project applicants of future PGDSP development proposals within those portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that are characterized by non-native grassland or disturbed wetland may be required to provide an updated, project-level biological resources survey and report to document the current conditions and biological resources impacts associated with each specific project. Therefore, future PGDSP development projects could result in potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and animal species. Furthermore, due to the fact that future development associated with PGDSP build-out would be located within Development Areas Outside of Covered Projects and could result in impacts to sensitive Tier III and Wetland habitat types, future PGDSP development projects within those portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that are characterized by non-native grassland or disturbed wetland would be subject to the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance (CVMC Chapter 17.35) and Wetland Protection Program (Section 5.2.4 of the City's MSCP 28 10-59 Subarea Plan) requirements. Failure of future PGDSP development projects to apply for and obtain a HLIT permit from the City, if required, would conflict with CVMC Chapter 17.35. Therefore, PGDSP implementation would result in potentially significant impacts related to local policies, ordinances, and adopted conservation plans (Final PEIR Section 5.9.4.3). Mitigation Measures 5.9-7 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit. Prior to construction of future PGDSP development projects within portions of the MU-2 and PRV sub-districts that could result in impacts to non-native grassland (Tier III) and disturbed wetland (Wetland) habitat, project applicants shall submit for approval to the City of Chula Vista an application for a HLIT permit, to include all relevant submittal requirements and required fndings in accordance with CVMC Chapter 17.35. Project applicants shall provide all necessary information to allow the City to take action on the HLIT permit application and meet the required findings for an HLIT permit to be issued. In accordance with HLIT permit requirements, project applicants shall mitigate the loss of non-native grassland (Tier III) and disturbed wetland (Wetland) habitat through the implementation of the in-kind habitat-based compensatory mitigation proposed within mitigation measure 5.9-3, unless otherwise conditioned by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW in federal and state permits through the implementation of mitigation measure 5.9-6. Finding Implementation of a project-level biological resources surveys and reports, in-kind habitat-based compensatory mitigation program, construction fencing, project-level wetland delineation studies, wetland permits, and habitat loss and incidental take permits, as described in mitigation measures 5.9-1, 5.9-3, 5.9-4, 5.9-5, 5.9-6, and 5.9-7 above, would reduce potential impacts associated to local policies, ordinances, and adopted conservations plans to a less than significant level. Geology and Soils Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to geology and soils if it would: 1. Be located oh a geologic unit or soil that is result of the project, and potentially result liquefaction, or collapse. unstable, or that would become unstable as a in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, Impact: Soil Hazards Future PGDSP development.. projects would ..potentially. be located.. on compressible and/or expansive soils, which could create substantial risks to life or property (Final PEIR Section 5.11.4.3). 29 10-60 Explanation With regard to expansive soils, the PGD may contain localized areas of compressible and/or expansive soils. Thus, future PGDSP development projects would potentially be located on compressible and/or expansive soils that could create substantial risks to life or property. This represents a potentially significant impact (Final PEIR Section 5.11.4.3). Mitigation Measures 5.11-1 Site-Specific Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to the construction of future PGDSP development projects, project applicants shall submit a site-specific geotechnical investigation to the City Engineer and/or Building Official for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer in order to evaluate the specific geologic conditions of the proposed PGDSP project site, determine whether potential geologic hazards exist, and provide recommendations for project design and construction to minimize such hazards. The investigation shall include (but not be limited to) a delineation of specific locations where compressible and expansive soils would affect structural stability. Compressible and expansive soils shall be removed from the site and replaced with compacted fill. Finding Implementation of asite-specific geotechnical investigation, as described in mitigation measure 5.11-1 above, would reduce potential impacts associated to soil hazards to a less than significant level. Public Services and Utilities Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to public services and utilities if it would: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of fire protection and emergency medical services in accordance with the adopted standards and threshold as follows: properly equipped and staffed fire and. medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80 percent of the cases. 2. Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of police services in accordance with the adopted standards and thresholds as follows: 1) properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of Priority One emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time to all Priority One emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less, and 2) properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57 percent of Priority Two urgent calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response time to all Priority Two calls of 7.5 minutes or less. 3. Result in the inability of the public school system to provide adequate school facilities in accordance with student/teacher and facilities ratios established for the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD). 30 10-61 4. Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of library facilities in accordance with the adopted standards and threshold as follows: population ratio of 500 square feet of adequately equipped and staffed library facilities per 1,000 population. 5. Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of parks and recreation areas in accordance with the adopted standards and threshold as follows: dedication of 3 acres of parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents. 6. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Impact: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services PGDSP build-out would allow for increased development densities and associated population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, which could hinder response times. If the provision of additional personnel does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for fre protection and emergency medical services, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.12.1.4). Explanation The PGDSP includes an assessment of enhancements to fire protection and emergency medical services in relation to projected build-out of the .PGDSP over the 20-year planning horizon. Through the Growth Management Program and Fire Station Master Plan, the City would continue to monitor fire protection and emergency medical services needs. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee programs would provide capital funding for additional facilities. However, if the provision of additional personnel does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, response times could be adversely affected such that they are no longer in compliance with the threshold standard. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with fire protection and emergency medical services (Final PEIR Section 5.12.1.4). Mitigation Measures 5.12-1 Adequate Level of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that adequate fire protection and emergency medical services are maintained in accordance with the adopted standards and Quality of Life Threshold Standard: Prior to approval, future PGDSP development projects shall demonstrate provision of adequate access for fire vehicles (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.1) and adequate water pressure to new buildings (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.2). As a condition of project approval, each individual developer shall pay the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 31 10-62 iii. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City shall assess the need for additional fire personnel to provide fire protection and emergency medical services consistent with established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in population. Pursuant to City of Chula Vsta Growth Management Policy GM1.11, the City of Chula Vista establishes the authority to withhold discretionary approval and subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with applicable threshold standards. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.12-1 would reduce potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services to a less than significant level by ensuring emergency access and water supply, payment of fees to support fire protection services,. and a commitment from the City to address potential fire personnel shortages. Impact: Police Services PGDSP build-out would allow for increased development densities and associated population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand for police services, v/hich could hinder response times. If the provision of additional personnel does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for police services, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.12.2.4). Explanation The PGDSP includes an assessment of enhancements to police services in relation to projected build-out of the PGDSP over the 20-year planning horizon. Through the Growth Management Program, the City would continue to monitor police services needs. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee programs would provide capital funding for additional facilities. However, if the provision of additional personnel does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for police services, response times could be adversely affected such that they are not in compliance with the Quality of Life Threshold Standards. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with police services (Final PEIR Section 5.12.2.4). Mitigation Measures 5.12-2 Adequate Level of Police Services. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that adequate police services are maintained in accordance with the adopted Quality of Life Threshold Standards: Prior to approval, future PGDSP development projects shall demonstrate provision of adequate access for police vehicles (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.1) and integration of CPTED techniques (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.3). ii. As a condition of project approval, each individual developer shall pay the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 32 10-63 iii. As part of the annual budgeting process, the City shall assess the need for additional police personnel to provide police services consistent with established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in population. Pursuant to City of Chula Vista Growth Management Policy GM1.11, the City of Chula Vista establishes the authority to withhold discretionary approval and subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with applicable threshold standards. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.12-2 would reduce potential impacts to police services to a less than significant level by ensuring payment of fees to support police services and a commitment from the City to address potential police personnel shortages. Impact: Schools PGDSP build-out would allow for increased development densities and associated population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand for schools. If the construction or expansion of school facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's student generation and associated demand for schools, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.12.3.4). Explanation The Public Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan addresses issues related to school facilities (Policy PFS 9.1 through PFS 9.5), including coordination with local school districts to identify needs, school sites, sources of funding for school expansion, new approaches to accommodate enrollment, and review of land use issues requiring discretionary approval to provide adequate school facilities. In conformance with the objectives and policies of the General Plan, the PGDSP addresses improvements to school .facilities in relation to projected build-out of the PGDSP over the 20-year planning horizon. Through the Growth Management Program and CIP process, the City would schedule and monitor public educational services improvements in coordination with local school districts. School mitigation fees would provide capital funding for needed facilities. However, if the construction or expansion of school facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's student generation and associated demand for schools, the capacities of the CVESD and SUHSD could be exceeded. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with schools (Final PEIR Section 5.12.3.4). Mitigation Measures 5.12-3 Adequate Level of School Facilities. Prior to approval of future PGDSP development projects, each individual developer shall pay the statutory school impact fees at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.12-3 would reduce potential impacts to school to a less than significant level by ensuring payment of fees to support schools. 33 10-64 Impact: Libraries PGDSP build-out would allo~a~ for increased development densities and assodiated population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand for libraries, which could contribute to the existing shortage of library space if the City's plans for additional library development continue to be unrealized. If the construction or expansion of library facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for libraries, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.12.4.4). Explanation The PGDSP addresses improvements to library facilities in relation to projected build-out of the PGDSP over the 20-year planning horizon. Through the Growth Management Program, CIP process, and Public Library Strategic Facilities Plan, the City would schedule, evaluate, arid monitor public library services improvements to coordinate timing of new facilities with new development. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee programs would provide capital funding for needed facilities. However, if the construction or expansion of library facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for libraries, the Chula Vista Public Library System would continue to be in non-compliance with the Quality of Life Threshold Standard. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with libraries (Final PEIR Section 5.12.4.4). Mitigation Measures 5.12-4 Adequate Level of Library Facilities. Prior to approval, future PGDSP development projects shall demonstrate that significant impacts to libraries resulting from the individual project have been addressed. As a condition of project approval, each individual developer shall pay the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.12-4 would reduce potential impacts to libraries to a less than significant level by ensuring payment of fees to support libraries. Impact: Parks and Recreation PGDSP build-out would allow for increased development densities and associated population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand for parks and recreation facilities. If the dedication of parkland and construction of recreation facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for parks and recreation facilities, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.12.5.4). Explanation Scarce land tends to make parkland acquisition costs (in terms of cost of land and displacement) in western Chula Vista significantly higher compared to eastern Chula Vsta. While future growth would result in the need and requirement for additional parklands and recreational facilities, there would be increased difficulty in securing appropriate park and recreation sites in western Chula Vista where land is largely built-out. Lack of vacant and underutilized land and/or competing demands for land provide challenges to increasing the parks and recreation facilities inventory in western Chula Vista. Maximizing the utility of existing 34 10-65 parks and recreation facilities through renovation and expansion and the consideration of non- active recreational uses within existing recreation areas is important in western Chula Vista; while this strategy would not provide additional park acreage, it would partially meet the recreational needs of future residents. Implementation of future .park sites along with integration of urban parks in infill areas in western Chula Vista would satisfy some future park and recreation demands resulting from new residential development. However, if the dedication of parkland and construction of recreation facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for parks and recreation facilities, the recreational needs of residents would not be met. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with parks and recreation (Final PEIR Section 5.12.5.4). Mitigation Measures 5.12-5 Adequate Level of Parks and Recreation Facilities. Prior to approval, future PGDSP development projects shall establish to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that the project. meets the City's parkland dedication requirement. As a condition of project approval, each individual developer shall provide required parkland and recreational facilities consistent with potential site locations identified in the PGDSP and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan; or shall pay the applicable parkland acquisition and parkland development fees and recreation facility development impact fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.12-5 would reduce potential impacts to parks and recreation to a less than significant level by ensuring payment of fees to support parks and recreation facilities. Impact: Wastewater PGDSP build-out would allow for increased development densities and associated population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand for sewer service. If the construction or expansion of sewer facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for sewer service, non-compliance with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standard for sewer service may result such that a potentially significant impact would occur (Final PEIR Section 5.12.7.4). Explanation The City is currently in the process of upgrading approximately 1,350 linear feet of main in Industrial Boulevard between Main Street and Anita Street. The preferred improvement alternative consists of installing a new 15-inch sewer main parallel to the existing 12-inch line between Main Street and Anita Street. This improvement alternative would also divert Industrial Boulevard flows into .the Salt Creek Interceptor and abandon portions of the existing sewer within Industrial Boulevard. This diversion would relieve existing capacity constraints in the 18- inch sewer in Hollister Street south of Main Street. If the construction or expansion of sewer facilities does not coincide with the PGDSP's projected population growth and associated demand for sewer service, non-compliance with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standard for sewer service may result. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with wastewater (Final PEIR Section 5.12.7.4). 35 10-66 Mitigation Measures 5.12-6 Sewer System Upgrades. Commensurate with population gro~a4h in the PGDSP, the City shall implement the preferred improvement alternative, Proposal 2, as identified in the PGDSP Sewer Study (Atkins 2012c). Proposal 2 consists of installing a new 15-inch sewer main parallel to the existing 12-inch line between Main Street and Anita Street, and would also divert Industrial Boulevard flows into the Salt Creek Interceptor and abandon portions of the existing sevaer within Industrial Boulevard. 5.12-7 Sewer Development Impact Fee. The City shall establish a sewer development impact fee or other similar fee structure to charge future PGDSP development projects for their portion of sewer upgrades. Prior to issuance of building permits, future PGDSP development projects shall pay the applicable sewer development impact fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. Finding Implementation of mitigation measures 5.12-6 and 5.12-7 would reduce potential impacts to sewer capacity to a less than significant level by ensuring payment of fees to support sewer development and a sewer system upgrade. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials if it would: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 2. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3. Impair implementation- of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impact: Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Disposal, or Release Demolition or renovation activities involving buildings constructed prior to the 1980s, as well as ground-disturbing activities in soils with elevated levels of lead or pesticides, would have the potential to expose construction workers to hazardous building materials, which could pose substantial health risks (Final PEIR Section 5.13.4.1). Explanation Given the age of most of the structures within the PGD (pre-dating the early 1980s), the potential for hazardous building materials such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), treated 36 10-67 wood, asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and other Universal Waste is considered likely. There is also the potential for the presence of lead and pesticides in shallow soils adjacent to and/or beneath these structures (where crawl spaces are present) from peeling paint and/or application of pesticides. Demolition or renovation activities involving buildings constructed prior to the 1980s, as well as ground-disturbing activities in soils with elevated levels of lead or pesticides, would have the potential to expose construction workers to hazardous building materials, which could pose substantial health risks. This represents a potentially significant impact (Final PEIR Section 5.13.4.1). Mitigation Measures 5.13-1 Hazardous Building Materials Surveys. Prior to demolition or renovation activities associated with future PGDSP development projects, a hazardous building materials survey shall be performed at buildings that were constructed prior to 1980. This type of survey typically addresses asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, PCBs in electrical equipment, mercury switches, and heating/cooling systems. The hazardous building materials survey shall be conducted under the direct supervision of a certified asbestos consultant and certified lead inspector/assessor. If asbestos- containing materials, lead-based paint, or other hazardous materials are identified during the hazardous building materials survey, a licensed abatement removal contractor shall remove and properly dispose of the hazardous materials in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. A certified consultant shall prepare a bid specification document, and perform abatement project planning, site and air monitoring, oversight activities, and reporting activities. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.13-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with hazardous materials transport, use, disposal, or release to a less than signifcant level by ensuring hazardous building materials surveys. Impact: Hazardous Materials Site Due to releases and/or historical uses, sites containing contaminated groundwater and/or soils have been identified in the PGD. Contaminated groundwater and/or soil may pose significant hazards to public health and safety during construction or long-term use of future PGDSP development projects on hazardous materials sites (Final PEIR Section 5.13.4.3). Explanation Based on the environmental database search and potentially hazardous materials sites do not repre environment due to their distance from the PGD case closed). Contaminated groundwater and/or health and safety during construction or long-tern on hazardous materials sites. This represents ; Section 5.13.4.3). records review, the majority of the identified sent a significant hazard to the public or the and/or case status (i.e., soil release only or soil may pose significant hazards to public use of future PGDSP development projects 3 potentially significant impact (Final PEIR 37 10-68 Mitigation Measures 5.13-2 Risk Assessments. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit of future PGDSP development projects on sites where contamination has been identified, or if contamination is discovered during construction activities, work shall be immediately suspended and a risk assessment shall be performed to address risks posed by any residual contamination and establish appropriate mitigation measures, such as natural attenuation, active remediation, and engineering controls, that would be protective of human health and the environment. All assessment and remediation activities shall be conducted in accordance with a Work Plan that has been approved by the regulatory agency with oversight. In addition, the following precautions shall be observed, as applicable: i. Pre-project activities (e.g., planning or early design) shall take into consideration site-specific environmental evaluation to address hazardous materials concerns related to worker and community health and safety, waste generation and. disposal, and regulatory requirements. ii. If a site was historically used for agricultural purposes, there is the potential for on-site soil or groundwater to be impacted with pesticides, herbicides, or other related contaminants. Prior to construction, these sites shall be evaluated for potential impacts related to the agricultural land use. iii. Cautio_ n shall be taken during excavation activities near the facilities associated with unauthorized releases because of the potential for encountering documented and undocumented releases of contaminants and hazardous materials or wastes that may have occurred within or adjacent to these sites. Excavation and soil monitoring shall be conducted by professionals trained in the identification and management of hazardous materials or veastes, such as contaminated soil or groundwater. iv. If hazardous or regulated wastes are generated during construction or demolition activities, the wastes shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. v. A human health risk assessment shall be performed, as. necessary, to evaluate if a release or releases of hazardous materials presents an unacceptable risk to human health. vi. Appropriate references regarding the potential to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater shall be included in construction specifications. vii. A Site Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented prior to initiation of construction activities to reduce potential health and safety hazards to workers and the public. viii. If dewatering is necessary in instances where groundwater is encountered during construction activities, it shall be noted that dewatering activities require obtaining a discharge permit from the state andlor city. The discharge permit 38 10-69 requirements may include sampling, treatment, and appropriate storage and disposal of groundwater. ix. During construction activities, it may be necessary to excavate existing soil, or to bring fll soils to future PGDSP project sites from off-site locations. In areas that have been documented as being contaminated or where soil contamination is suspected, sampling shall be performed. Characterization of the soil is suggested prior to any excavation or removal activity and contaminated soil not suitable for onsite reuse shall be properly disposed of at an off-site facility. Fill soils shall also be evaluated or sampled to document that imported soil does not contain unacceptable concentrations of contamination. x. Caution shall be taken during excavation activities near existing groundwater monitoring wells so that they are not damaged. Existing groundwater monitoring wells may have to be abandoned and reinstalled if they-are located in an area that is undergoing redevelopment. The locations of existing groundwater monitoring wells can be found at the following web address: httR:~~geotracker.wate rboa rd s.ca. qov. xi. Illegal dumping of potentially hazardous wastes may have occurred on sites containing vacant land. Potentially hazardous wastes shall be appropriately disposed of prior to initiating redevelopment activities. xii. Any USTs that are removed during redevelopment activities shall be removed under a permit by the DEH or other regulatory agency, as appropriate. The soil and groundwater within the vicinity of the USTs shall be adequately characterized and remediated, if necessary, to a standard that would be protective of water quality and human health, based on future site use. xiii. In the event that USTs or undocumented areas of contamination are encountered during future redevelopment activities, work shall be discontinued until appropriate health and safety procedures are implemented and appropriate notifcations are made. A contingency plan shall be prepared to address contractor procedures for such an event, to minimize the potential for costly construction delays. In addition, it shall be,determined if regulatory notification is required regarding the contamination. Each regulatory agency and program within the respective agency has its own mechanism for initiating an investigation. The appropriate program shall be selected based on the nature of the contamination identified (e.g., DEH Local Oversight. Program for tank release cases, DEH Voluntary Assistance Program for non-tank release cases, RWOCB for non-tank cases involving groundwater contamination, and Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)/APCD for landfill-related contamination issues). In general, LEA oyersighUnotification is needed for work conducted within 1,000 feet of a landfill. The contamination remediation and removal activities shall be conducted in accordance with pertinent federal, state, and local regulatory guidelines, under the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency. 39 10-70 Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.13-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level by ensuring risk assessments are performed on sites where contamination has been identified. Impact: Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans Temporary roadway closures and detours during construction of future PGDSP development projects within roadway rights-of-way could potentially interfere with emergency response and/or evacuation routes and impair the implementation of the Operational Area Emergency Plan if the appropriate authorities are not properly notified prior to construction (Final PEIR Section 5.13.4.5). Explanation The comprehensive emergency response plan for the County of San Diego and all jurisdictions within the County is the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Plan (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization 2010). In the event of a major disaster, where a large part of Chula Vista may require evacuation, the primary circulation routes serving the PGD include I-5, Palomar Street, Industrial Boulevard, Broadway, and Main Street. Construction of future PGDSP development projects within roadway rights-of-way may require temporary roadway closures and detours, which would affect local traffic circulation. Changes to the traffic circulation pattern could potentially interfere with emergency response and/or evacuation routes and impair the implementation of the Operational Area Emergency Plan if the appropriate authorities are not properly notified prior to construction. This represents a potentially significant impact (Final PEIR Section 5.13.4.5). Mitigation Measures 5.3-5 Traffic Control Plans. Prior to construction of future development projects in the PGDSP that require temporary roadway closures and detours, project applicants shall submit a traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic, Control Devices. The traffic control plan shall identify the location and timing of anticipated roadway closures and the alternative routes to be utilized during project construction. Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.3-5 (described above) which requires the submittal of a project-specific traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval, would reduce potential impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation plans to a less than significant level. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE DIRECT IMPACTS CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, 40 10-71 legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." The project will implement mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental changes to a less than significant level for all issues except the following, which would result in significant and unavoidable direct and/or cumulative impacts: transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; cultural resources; paleontological resources; public services and utilities; and housing and population. A brief summary of each environmental topic that would result in a significant and unavoidable impact is provided below. Traffic Circulation, and Access Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts along intersections and roadway segments, and significant cumulative impacts along intersections and roadway segments. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Air Quality The project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts during construction and operation of future projects in the PGD due to ozone precursor emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)~ Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Cultural Resources Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to cultural resources, the more that land is converted to developed uses, the greater the potential is for impacts to cultural resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect would be considerable when considered cumulatively. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Paleontological Resources Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to paleontological resources, the more that land is converted to developed uses, the greater the potential is for impacts to paleontological resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect would be considerable when considered cumulatively. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Public Services and Utilities (Energy Resources) While future development within the project area would be required to implement the City's Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Transit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the General Plan, there is no long-term assurance that energy supplies will be available as needed. Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts associated with energy consumption are considered significant. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. 41 10-72 Housino and Population Because growth that would occur under the General Plan would be considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable, the project's contribution to grov~th in Chula Vista is also considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE DIRECT IMPACTS The project would result in significant and unavoidable direct impacts to traffic, circulation and access and public services and utilities (energy). A discussion of the impacts and mitigation for these issues is provided below. Traffic. Circulation, and Access Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. City of Chula Vista Traffic Impact Criteria Shorf-Term Impacts (Study Horizon Year 0 to 4) Intersections: a. Project-specific (direct) impact, if both the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is level of service (LOS) E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise.5 percent or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Street Links/Segments: a. Project-specific impact if all the following criteria are met: Level of service is LOS D for more than two hours or LOS E/LOS F for one hour or more (Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) method only). ii. Project trips comprise five percent or more of segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. 42 10-73 b. Cumulative impact if only criteria (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If a segment operates at LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of intersection level of service. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant, since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If the segment LOS is LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. Impact: Increased Traffic Demands As shown on Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4 of the Draft PEIR, two intersections and three street segments are projected to result in significant direct impacts for short term impacts. These include: ^ Walnut AvenueLPalomar Street: LOS F-AM.and PM peak periods ^ Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street (at-grade trolley): LOS E-PM peak period e Palomar Street-I-5 to Walnut Avenue: LOS F ^ Palomar Street-Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley): LOS E ^ Palomar Street-Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (at-grade trolley): LOS E Explanation of Impact Short Term (Existing + Project) Impacts An Existing + Project analysis was conducted that measures the project's buildout traffic volumes added to the existing traffic volumes and roadway configuration. While the project is riot anticipated to reach full buildout until after the Year 2030, this analysis presumed the existing environment as the baseline condition to which full buildout of the project was added. Table 5.3-3 of the Draft PEIR summarizes the Existing + Project intersection operations during peak hour conditions. All study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following: ^ Walnut AvenuelPalomar Street: LOS F-AM and PM peak periods ^ Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street (at-grade trolley): LOS E-PM peak period Street segment analyses were conducted for the roadways in the PGD for the Existing + Project scenario. Table 5.3-4 of the Draft PEIR summarizes the Existing + Project street segment operations on a daily basis. All the following street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F: ^ Palomar Street-I-5 to Walnut Avenue: LOS F ^ Palomar Street-Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley): LOS E ^ Palomar Street-Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (at-grade trolley): LOS E 43 10-74 Mitigation Measures Mitigation for Short-term (Existing+ Project) Impacts Implementation of mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-2 would reduce potential short-term (Existing + Project) impacts to intersections and street segments to a less than significant level. Specifically, mitigation measure 5.3-1 would reduce impacts associated with the Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection and the segment of Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue. Mitigation measure 5.3-2 would reduce impacts associated with the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection, the segment of Palomar Street between I-5 and Walnut Avenue, the segment of Palomar Street beriveen Walnut Avenue and Industrial Boulevard, and the segment of Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Transit Center Place. 5.3-1 Walnut AvenuelPalomar Street Intersection Raised Median and Walnut Avenue Reconfiguration. Prior to the approval of any construction associated with PGDSP development projects, the City shall implement a raised median across the intersection and Walnut Avenue shall- be reconfigured to allow right-in/right-out movements only. This improvement is required to restrict minor street left-turn movements from Walnut Avenue across multiple lanes of traffic on Palomar Street. Pedestrians shall be prohibited from crossing Palomar Avenue at this intersection and shall be required to utilize the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection to cross Palomar Street. Because left-turn movements would be restricted at the Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection, eastbound vehicles on Palomar Street intending to turn left at Walnut Avenue would need to make a u-turn at the Palomar StreeUlndustrial Boulevard intersection. Similarly, westbound left-turning vehicles at Walnut Avenue would be required to make alert-turn at the Palomar StreeUlndustrial Boulevard intersection and turn right on Ada Street. This improvement has been added to the City's CIP for 2013 and is now fully funded. 5.3-2 Grade Separation for Trolley at Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street Intersection. To improve vehicular operations, the'MTS trolley rail crossing shall be grade-separated at the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection to improve vehicular operations. The proposed trolley grade-separation on Palomar Street is included on the regional priority list for rail grade-separation projects in the 2050 RTP in the Revenue Constrained Plan to be completed by year 2020. This improvement would result in no additional vehicular delay during a trolley crossing. With the grade- separation, this intersection is calculated to operate at LOS D or better. Grade- separation would also eliminate vehicle, pedestrian; and bicycle conflicts with the trolley. Finding With timely implementation of mitigation measures 5.3-1 .through 5.3-3 (See Section X), all intersections and roadways would operate at an acceptable level of service, and Existing + Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. It is wholly within the City's purview to implement mitigation measures 5.3-1 and 5.3-3 (See Section X). Implementation o1 mitigation measure 5.3-1 would ensure impacts to the following facility are reduced to below a level of significance. ^ Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection 44 10-75 White implementation of mitigation measure 5.3-3 (See Section X) would reduce impacts to the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection, it would not by itself reduce impacts to this facility to a less than significant level. In order to do so, mitigation measure 5.3-2 must also be implemented. However, mitigation measure 5.3-2 (Grade Separation for Trolley at Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street Intersection) is outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. Implementation of this improvement would require coordination with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL)/Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and a combination of local, state, and federal funding sources. Therefore, the City cannot ensure the implementation or timing of mitigation measure 5.3-2. As such, operational improvement of the following facilities cannot be guaranteed and the impacts to these facilities are not considered to be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until mitigation measure 5.3-2 is implemented by other agencies. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduceihis impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to traffic to below a level of signifcance, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until mitigation measure 5.3-2 is implemented by other agencies. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Energy Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to energy if it would: v Reduce the available supply of energy resources below a level considered sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities: Impact: Increased Energy Demands While future development would be required to implement the City's Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Transit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the City's General Plan, there are no long-term assurances that energy supplies will be available as needed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with energy consumption are considered significant (Final PEIR Section 5.12.9). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Explanation Implementation of the project would allow an increase in development potential within the PGD beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan. Tables 5.12-20 and 5.12-21 of the PEIR show the projected increases in electricity and natural gas consumption, respectively, by the project land use type. Future individual projects would be required to meet the mandatory energy standards of the City including: City of Chula Vista Energy Code (Municipal Code sections 45 10-76 15.26, et seq.); CCR Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code; Part 11 California Green Building Standards; and the City's Green Building Standards. Additionally, General Plan policies seek to reduce mobile-source energy consumption by optimizing traffic flow, directing higher-density housing within walking distance of transit facilities, promoting use of alternatives to vehicular travel, and generally reducing vehicle trip length through improved community design. Alfhough these programs and policies would. result in more efficient use of energy, they do not ensure that increased resources will be available when needed. Therefore, because there are no assurances of a long-term supply of energy in the future, the increase in energy consumption associated with the project would be significant. Mitigation Measures Compatibility with City regulations and policies alone will not reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, as identified in the General Plan, is required to be incorporated into the project. _ 5.12-8 Energy Strategy and Action Plan. The City shall implement the Energy Strategy and Action Plan, which addresses demand side management, energy efficient and renewable energy outreach programs for businesses and residents, energy acquisition, power generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, as well as the Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan, in order to lessen the extent of impacts associated with energy supply. Finding While mitigation measure 5.12-8 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR. The impact will only be reduced to less than significant when a determination is made assuring energy resources would be available to adequately serve the projected increase in population and land uses resu_ Iting from implementation of the project. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 16091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance, impacts to energy resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. 46 10-77 X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of,probable future projects' (Pub. Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (b)). These "current or probable future" development proposals can affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the project. Potentially signifcant cumulative impacts are associated with development of the project in conjunction with those projects specifically within the project area. A detailed discussion of cumulative impacts is included in Section 6.0 of the Draft PEIR. In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have been taken into consideration. Due to the programmatic nature of the analysis contained in the PEIR, most of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative impacts are the same as the "project" level mitigation measures. The project, along with other related projects, will result in irreversible cumulative environmental changes to traffic, circulatioh and access; air quality; cultural resources; paleontological resources, public services and utilities (energy); and housing and population. Traffic, Circulation, and Access Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,- but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. City of Chula Vista Traffic Impact Criteria Long-Term Impacts (Study Horizon Year 5 and Later) Intersections a. Project-specific (direct) impact, if both the following criteria are met: Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. 47 10-78 Street Links7Segments a. Project-specific (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of total segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 average daily trips (ADT) to the segment. b. Cumulative impact, if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant, since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If the segment LOS is LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. Impact: Increased Traffic Demands As shown on Tables 5.3-7 and 5.3-8 of the Draft PEIR, two intersections and four street segments are projected to result in significant cumulative impacts at build-out of the project (PEIR Section 5.3.4.1, pages 5.3-21 through 5.3-32). These include: ^ Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street: LOS F-AM and PM peak periods ^ ..Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street (at-grade trolley): LOS E-P;M and PM peak periods ^ Palomar Street-I-S to Walnut Avenue: LOS E ^ Palomar Street-Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley): LOS E ^ Palomar Street-Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (grade-separated trolley and at-grade trolley): LOS E and LOS F, respectively ^ Industrial Boulevard-North of Palomar Street (grade-separated trolley and at-grade trolley): LOS E and LOS F, respectively Explanation oflmpact Long Term (Year 2030) Impacts A Year 2030 analysis uses full build-out conditions of the project land uses. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study area intersections under Year 2030 conditions. Table 5.3-7 of the Draft PEIR summarizes the Year 2030 intersection operations during peak hour conditions. All study intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better'in Year 2030, with the exception of the following: ^ Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street: LOS F-AM and PM peak periods ^ Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street (at-grade trolley): LOS E-AM and PM peak pedods Under the grade-separated trolley altemative, the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection is calculated to operate at LOS D or better. The grade-separated alternative removes vehicle-trolley conflicts, thereby improving vehicular delay and traffic operations on Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. 48 10-79 Street segment analyses were conducted for roadways in the PGD for the Year 2030 scenario. Table 5.3-8 of the Draft PEIR summarizes Year 2030 street segment operations on a daily basis. As shown in Table 5.3-8, the following street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F in Year 2030: ^ Palomar Street-I-S to Walnut Avenue: LOS E s Palomar Street-Walnut Avenue to Industrial Boulevard (at-grade trolley): LOS E ^ Palomar Street-Industrial Boulevard to Transit Center Place (grade-separated trolley and at-grade trolley): LOS E and LOS F, respectively ^ Industrial Boulevard-North of Palomar Street (grade-separated trolley and at-grade trolley): LOS E and LOS F, respectively Mitigation Measures Mitigation for Long-term (Year 2030) Impacts Implementation of mitigation measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-2 (described above in Section IX), as well as mitigation measure 5.3-3 (described below), would reduce potential long-term (Year 2030) impacts to intersections and street segments to a less than significant level. Mitigation measure 5.3-3 would reduce impacts associated with the Industrial Boulevard/ Palomar Street intersection. 5.3-3 Industrial BoulevardlPalomar Street Intersection Left-Turn Lane Signal Change. The left-turn lane signal phasing at the Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street intersection shall be changed from permitted-protected to protected at all intersection approaches. The timing of implementation .of this improvement shall be determined by the results of the annual study conducted under the City's Traffic Management Program. Finding With timely implementation of mitigation .measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-3, all intersections and roadways would operate at an acceptable level of service, and 2030 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. It is wholly within the City's purview to implement mitigation measures 5.3-1 and 5.3-3. Implementation of mitigation measure 5.3-1 would ensure impacts to the following facility are reduced to below a level of significance. ^ Walnut Avenue/Palomar Street intersection While implementation of mitigation measure 5.3-3 would reduce impacts to the Industrial BoulevardlPalomar Street intersection, it would not by itself reduce impacts to this facility to a less than signifcant level. In order to do so, mitigation measure 5.3-2 must also be implemented. However, mitigation measure 5.3-2 (Grade Separation for Trolley at Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street Intersection) is outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. Implementation of this improvement would require coordination. with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL)/Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and a combination of local, state, and federal funding sources. Therefore, the City cannot ensure the implementation or timing of mitigation measure 5.3-2. As such, operational improvement of the following facilities cannot be guaranteed and the impacts to these facilities are not considered to be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Impacts 49 10-80 would remain significant and unavoidable until mitigation measure 5.3-2 is implemented by other agencies. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution would be cumulatively considerable. V~hile implementation of the Reduced Project altemative would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to traffic to below a level of significance, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until mitigation measure 5.3-2 is implemented by other agencies. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. - Air Quality Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would: 1. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The City uses the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds shown in Table 5.5-4 of the Draft PEIR to assess the significance of air quality impacts. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. Implementation of the project would increase operational air emissions beyond that analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, construction activities required for the development of the project will result in significant air quality impacts due to ozone precursor emissions (VOC and NOx) (Section 5.4.4.3). Explanation The region is not in compliance with the ozone standards, and the project would increase ozone precursors (VOC and NOx) emissions. As shown in Table 5.4-5 of the Draft PEIR, maximum simultaneous emissions resulting from the worst-case construction scenario for the project would exceed the significance thresholds for VOC and NOx. At this programmatic level of analysis, the exact number and timing of future development projects that could occur are unknown. Upon application for individual development projects, the City would use the SCAOMD construction thresholds to assess potential impacts. Additionally, future projects would be required to implement standard dust and emission control measures during grading operations to reduce potential impacts. Notwithstanding the regulatory requirements for reduced construction emissions, impacts could remain significant. 50 10-81 Operational source emissions would originate from traffic generated within or as a result of the project. Area source emissions would result from activities such as use of natural gas, fireplaces, and consumer products. In addition, landscaping maintenance activities associated with the proposed land uses would produce pollutant emissions. Mitigation Measures s.4-1 Construction Emissions Reduction Measures. Construction contractors for future PGDSP development projects shall implement the following measures to reduce construction emissions during all construction activities: i. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). ii. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. iii. Use electrical construction equipment. iv. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. v. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. vi. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust control agents twice daily during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering, or acceptable dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible. vii. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. viii. A 15 mile per hour speed limit on unpaved surface shall be enforced. ix. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather. x. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered. xi. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation. 5.4-2 Operational Emissions Reduction Measures. The City shall implement the following measures to reduce operational emissions by further reducing vehicle use associated with PGDSP implementation: i. Require Transportation Demand Management Plans from employers within the PGDSP, which could include ride-sharing programs, vanpools/shuttles, etc. ii. Synchronize traffic signals to minimize idling and reduce emissions due to traffic congestion. iii. Require parking fees within the PGDSP to encourage transit use. iv. Limit parking supply to encourage transit use. v. Require employers within the PGDSP to provide transit subsidies. 51 10-82 Finding Implementation of mitigation measure 5.4-1 would reduce the project's construction-related emissions of VOC and NOx, but not to a less than significant level. There are no other feasible mitigation measures that could be applied to reduce construction emissions to below a level of significance. Thus, impacts related to the project's cumulatively considerable construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. Individual development projects would be required to evaluate the potential significance of their construction-related emissions as they proceed through the permitting process with the City. Implementation of mitigation measure 5.4-2 would reduce the project's operational emissions of VOC and NOx, but not to a less than significant level. Operational emissions are mainly attributable to motor vehicles. The project already incorporates measures to reduce vehicle use, including a five percent reduction for a mix of uses and a 10 percent reduction for access to transit. In addition, future vehicle emissions may be lower than estimated due to increasingly stringent California fuel efficiency requirements. However, some mitigation measures cannot be implemented at the specific plan level, such as having employers require flexible work schedules or allow telecommuting for employees. Furthermore, there are currently,no available mitigation measures to regulate consumer product emissions without regulating the purchases of individual consumers. Thus, impacts related to the project's cumulatively considerable operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. Individual development projects would be required to evaluate the potential significance of their operational emissions as they proceed through the permitting process with the City. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, because less development would occur, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the cbntrol of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Cultural Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to cultural resources if it would: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Impact: Cultural Resources The project plus cumulative development would incrementally convert more land info developed uses, resulting. in a significant cumulative impact to historic and archaeological resources. 52 10-83 Explanation The General Plan EIR determined that the continued pressure to develop or redevelop areas would result in incremental impacts to the historical record in the San Diego region. Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to_ cultural resources, the more that land is converted to developed uses, the greater the potential is for impacts to cultural resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect would be considerable when considered cumulatively. The General Plan EIR concluded that the loss of historic or prehistoric resources from the past; present, and probable future projects in the southern California/northern Baja California, Mexico areas would contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources. As discussed in PEIR Section 5.7, Cultural Resources, implementation of the PGDSP would have the potential to result in potentially signifcant direct impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Mitigation measures 5.7-1 and 5.7-2 would reduce direct- impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures would reduce incremental cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the.PGDSP, but they would not reduce the cumulative impact to cultural resources to below a level of significance due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of cultural resources would be significant. The cumulative effect on cultural resources resulting from the adoption of the PGDSP, in conformance with the General Plan Update, is therefore significant and unmitigated. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to a less than significant level. Finding There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identifed in the Final EIR. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced td below a level of significance. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Paleontological Resources Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to paleontological resources if it would: 1. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 53 10-84 Impact: Paleontological Resources The project plus cumulative development would incrementally convert more land into developed uses, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to paleontological resources. Explanation The General Plan EIR determined that, as with archaeological and historic resources, the continued pressure to develop undeveloped areas would result in incremental impacts to the paleontological record in the San Diego region. Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to these resources, the more that land is converted to developed uses, the greater the potential is for adverse impacts to paleontological resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a specific resource, the effect is considerable when considered cumulatively. As discussed in PEIR Section 5.8, Paleontological Resources, the PGD overlies geologic formations assigned a moderate sensitivity rating.. Since the PGD is highly developed, grading activities associated with future PGDSP development projects would typically be minimal, with the exception of sub-garages or sub-floors. However, future PGDSP development projects that propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic yards volume and five feet depth would represent a potentially significant impact to sensitive paleontological resources. Mitigation measure 5.8-1 would reduce incremental cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the PGDSP, but would not reduce the cumulative impact to paleontological resources to below a level of significance due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that.any loss of paleontological resources would be significant. The cumulative effect on paleontological resources resulting from the adoption of the PGDSP, in conformance with the General Plan Update, is therefore significant and unmitigated. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to a,less than significant level. Finding There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce. this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to paleontological resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. 54 10-85 Public Services and Utilities (Energy) Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to energy resources if it would: Result in the available supply of energy to fall below a level considered sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities. Impact: Energy The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase energy use, resulting in an increase in energy demand for which the future supply cannot be assured, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to energy. Explanation The General Plan EIR determined that, as population increases, demand for energy also increases. Because the development and management of energy resources are not presently within the control of the City, there is no assurance that an adequate supply of energy would be available. While it is anticipated that an adequate supply of energy would be available, history has shown that shortages in energy supply can occur. Although the City has taken steps to limit the expanding need for energy through its Energy Strategy and Action Plan and COZ Reduction Plan, the potential increase in development represented by the proposed General Plen Update has the potential to add incrementally to this demand and represents a significant cumulative impact. Build-out of the PGDSP would increase the demand for gas and electricity. Although development in the PGD would continue to implement the City's plans and ordinances to reduce energy use, and the proposed mixed use development would reduce vehicle miles traveled, implementation of the proposed land uses identified in the PGDSP has the potential to result in impacts to energy resources as a result of anticipated growth. Mitigation measure 5.12-8 identified in PEIR Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities, would reduce significant direct energy impacts. While this mitigation measure would incrementally reduce the cumulative gas and electricity impact associated with implementation of the PGDSP, the measure would not reduce the cumulative energy impact to below a level of significance because future energy supplies cannot be assured. Therefore, the proposed project. would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative-impact to energy. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. Finding There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below signifcance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of 55 10-86 signifcance. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures v/ithin the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to energy would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Housing and Population Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact to housing and population if it would: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing ne~v homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) Impact: Housing and Population Because growth that would occur under the General Plan would be considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable, the PGDSP's contribution to growth in Chula Vista would result in a significant cumulative impact: Explanation The General Plan EIR states that the General Plan would result in a substantial increase in the Chula Vista population. Because the General Plan would induce growth it would have a significant impact with respect to population growth. The growth projection for buildout of the project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the project would not generate unplanned growth. However, because growth that would occur under the General Plan would be considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable, the proposed project's contribution . to growth in Chula Vista is also considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. Finding - There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or' other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the Reduced Project alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be reduced to below a level of significance. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below/. 56 10-87 Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to housing and population would remain signifcant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined .above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the decision makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. If project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environmental effects, even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126). The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible' pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible' as it applies to the fndings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors' (Pub. Resources Code, section 21061.1). The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor' (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.410]). 57 10-88 Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that ~a~ould occur if the project "is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: "Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1)). "Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(2)). "Specific ecoromic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities.for.highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR° (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)). The concept of "feasibility° also encompasses the question of ~a~hether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). " '[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4'~ 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]). These findings contrast and compare the alternatives-where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet objectives. The decision makers believe that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental impact. The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but six significant environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or. avoided through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by .the adoption of additional, formal mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the following: ^ Transportation, Circulation and Access (direct and cumulative impacts -mitigation measure 5.3-2, Grade Separation for Trolley at Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street Intersection, is outside of the jurisdiction of the City) ^ Air Quality (cumulative impact -construction and operation-related emissions) ^ Cultural Resources (cumulative impact -any loss of cultural resources is significant) 58 10-89 s Paleontological Resources (cumulative impact -any loss of paleontological resources is significant) ^ Energy (direct and cumulative impacts -absence of long term assurance of energy supplies) o Housing and Population (cumulative impact -population growth) To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts -even though such a (ar- ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The findings will also assess whether each alternative is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the project. The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce potential impacts associated with.the project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the project. Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in Section III. The City evaluated three alternatives to the project, which are discussed below (No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative, Reduced Project Alternative, and Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative). Table 11-3 in the PEIR provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. NO PROJECT (EXISTING PLAN) ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)(3)(A) states that when a project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would continue to implement the current adopted Chula Vista Municipal Code Zoning and General Plan land use designations in the PGD. The existing zoning designations include single and multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, and utility corridor designations. No mixed use and only limited high-density residential development would be accommodated in the PGD based on the existing zoning designations, and existing zoning would not accommodate the development of a Transit Focus Area surrounding the Palomar Transit Center. A comparison of the potential build-out of this alternative compared to the project is provided in Table 11-1 in the PEIR. Potential residentia build-out in the PGD would be higher under the existing General Plan designations a: compared to the project. However, under this alternative, the Mobility Plan component of the project would not be implemented to improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility in the PGD. Impacts Transportation, Circulation, and Access The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would result in additional impacts"related to traffic and level of service standards compared to the project because this alternative would result in a 59 10-90 higher density residential build-out (2,400 units) compared to the project (1,700 units) and would not implement the Mobility Plan component of the project to encourage non-vehicular trips. Because the Mobility Plan would not be implemented, this alternative would also result in greater impacts related to alternative transportation facilities. Similar to the project, mitigation measure 5.3-2 is outside the control of the City and its implementation and timing cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, some intersection and segment impacts under this alternative are likely to be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Air Quality The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would result in greater direct and significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions as compared to the project because more residential construction and development would occur under this alternative, and the project Mobility Plan. would not be implemented to reduce vehicular trips. Cumulative impacts related to the emission of criteria air pollutants_would be significant and unmitigated. Cultural Resources The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to cultural resources due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of cultural resources would be significant. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be significant and unmitigated. Paleontological Resources The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would fesult in similar significant impacts related to paleontological resources due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of paleontological resources would be significant. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be significant and unmitigated. Energy The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would result in increased impacts to energy compared to the project because more residential development would occur under this alternative. Because there is no assurance of a long-term supply of energy in the future, the increased projected energy demand associated with this alternative could potentially result in the available supply of energy to fall below a level considered sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities. Therefore, energy impacts would be increased as comparedi to the project, and impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Housing and Population The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would result in greater population growth in the PGD than the project because more residential development would be accommodated. The project's cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact related to population growth would also occur under this alternative because the population in the PGD would increase, similar to the project. 60 10-91 Findings The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would increase the project's signifcant impacts associated with applicable land use plans, policy, or regulation; visual character; alternative transportation facilities; cumulatively considerable emissions; direct and indirect generations of GHGs; applicable GHG emissions reduction plan, policy, or regulations; excessive noise levels; excessive groundborne vibration; permanent increases in ambient noise levels; fire and emergency medical services; police services; schools; libraries; parks and recreation; water; wastewater; solid waste; and energy. All other environmental impacts would be similar to the project. This alternative would not lessen any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; energy; cumulative loss of cultural and paleontological resources; and cumulative population growth. The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would not fully meet any of the seven project objectives. It would partially meet four of the project objectives and would not meet the remaining three objectives. The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would not implement the Mobility Plan; therefore is would not create a pedestrian friendly mixed-use environment (Objective 1), achieve compact development conducive to walking and bicycling (Objective 2), or maintain adequate parking and integrate ndn-motorized transportation (Objective 5). This alternative would provide similar land uses to the proposed project with a higher residential build-out; however, it would not accommodate the development of a Transit Focus Area or mixed use development. Therefore, it would only partially result in growth that would encourage light rail transit use (Objective 3), provide a mix of uses to attract pedestrians (Objective 4), provide sufficient density to support transit (Objective 6), and provide for additional trips serviceable by transit (Objective 7). However, development under this alternative would not be subject to the land use regulations and design guidelines propdsed in the project to ensure organized and compatible development across the PGD. In addition, it limits the objective of de emphasizing the automobile, and placing greater reliance on transit and pedestrian circulation. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce build-out in the PGD by 25 percent compared to the projected build-out that would be accommodated under the project. The 25 percent reduction would be applied evenly across the PGD so that overall development intensity would be reduced. A total of 1,275 residences would be accommodated under this alternative, as compared to 1,700 under the proposed project, for a net increase in residential units under this alternative of 875 new homes. Commercial development would be reduced to 225,000 square feet, compared to 300,000 square feet under the project, for a total net increase in commercial development of 25,000 square feet. Office development under this alternative would be reduced to 37,500 square feet of new development, compared to 50,000 square feet of new development under the proposed PGDSP. Similar to the project, this alternative does not propose any new industrial development. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the PGDSP Mobility Plan to enhance the use of transit, reduce vehicular trips and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities that enhance connectivity in the PGD would be implemented. 61 10-92 Impacts Transportation, Circulation, and Access The Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to traffic and level of service standards as compared to the project because this alternative ~a~ould result in fewer average daily trips than the project and would also implement the Mobility Plan component of the project to encourage non-vehicular trips. However, due to the amount of development that would still occur, impacts ~a~ould likely still be significant and mitigation would still be required under this alternative. Similar to the project, mitigation measure 5.3-2 is outside the control of the City and its implementation and timing cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, some intersection and segment impacts under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Air Quality The Reduced Project Alternative would result in approximately 25 percent fewer criteria air pollutant emissions than the project because overall development would be reduced by approximately 25 percent, and the project Mobility Plan would still be implemented to reduce vehicular trips and associated criteria air pollutant emissions. However, the 25 percent reduction would not likely reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative VOC and NOx construction and operation impacts identified for the proposed project to a less than significant level. Cultural Resources The Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to cultural resources. Mitigation measures 5.7-1 and 5.7-2 would reduce incremental cumulative impacts, but they would not reduce the cumulative impact to cultural resources to below a level of significance due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of cultural resources would be significant. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be significant and unmitigated. Paleontological Resources The Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to paleontological resources. Mitigation measure 5.8-1 would- reduce incremental cumulative impacts, but would not reduce the cumulative impact to paleontological resources to below a level of significance due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of paleontological resources would be significant. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be significant and unmitigated Energy The Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to energy because there is no assurance of a long-term supply of energy in the future, the increased projected energy demand associated with this alternative could potentially result in the available supply of energy to fall below a level considered sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities. Therefore, while reduced as compared to the project, energy impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. 62 10-93 Housing and Population The Reduced Project Alternative would result in approximately 25 percent less population growth in the PGD compared to the project because 25 percent less residential development would be accommodated. The cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact related to population growth identified for the project would also occur under this alternative because the population in the PGD would increase. Findings The Reduced Project Alternative would lessen the project's significant impacts associated with traffic and level of service standards; cumulatively considerable emissions; excessive noise levels; excessive groundborne vibration; fre and emergency medical services; police services; schools; libraries; parks and recreation; wastewater; energy; hazardous materials transport, use, disposal, or release; and hazardous materials sites. All other environmental impacts.would be similar to the project. This alternative would also lessen but not avoid any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; energy; cumulative loss of cultural and paleontological resources; and cumulative population growth.' The Reduced Project Alternative would meet two of the seven project objectives and would partially meet the remaining five objectives. The Reduced Project Alternative would implement a specific plan for the PGD, including a Mobility Plan to increase alternative transportation modes; therefore, it would encourage use of light rail transit (Objective 3) and maintain adequate parking and integrate non-motorized transportation (Objective 5). This alternative would provide a mix of land uses. However, development intensity would be reduced across the PGD as compared to the proposed project; therefore, this alternative would only partially create a pedestrian friendly mixed-use environment (Objective 1), achieve compact development conducive to walking and bicycling (Objective 2), provide a mix of uses to attract pedestrians (Objective 4), provide sufficient density to support transit (Objective 6), and provide for additional trips serviceable by transit (Objective 7). The Reduced Project Alternative results in a less dense development compared to the project. In addition, by reducing density, the Reduced Project Alternative does not fulfill the objectives associated with building a high density community providing interactive opportunities including economics, pedestrian mobility, and university support. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. MODIFIED LAND USE ARRANGEMENT ALTERNATIVE The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would accommodate the same total projected number of residential units in the PGD as would be accommodated under the project (1,700 units). However, the development density would be increased in the Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) Sub-district and decreased in the Palomar Residential Village (PRV) Sub-district. Under the Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative, the residential density in the PRV would be reduced from approximately 16 units per acre to 10 units per acre. The residential density in the MU-2 Sub-district would be increased from an average of approximately 14 dwelling units per acre to approximately 23 dwelling units per acre. This would be accomplished by increasing the allowable building height to 60 feet across the entire MU-2 Sub-district, rather than just in the 63 10-94 designated gateway areas. This alternative would accommodate an additional 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and does not propose any nev/ industrial development, similar to the project. This alternative ~a~ould implement the PGDSP Mobility Plan to increase transit use, reduce vehicle trips, and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities that enhance connectivity in the PGD. Impacts Land Use, Planning, and Zoning The t<Aodified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in a conflict with the General Plan because the land use intensity for the PRV sub-district of 10 units per acre is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation for this area of Residential High (18-27 units per acre). Therefore, the hodified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in an increased land use impact compared to the project. Transportation, Circulation, and Access The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to traffic and level of service standards as were identified for the project because this alternative would generate the same number of vehicle trips due to the same amount of overall development proposed for the PGD. This alternative would also implement the Mobility Plan component of the PGDSP to encourage the use of transit and reduce vehicular trips. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts, although they may be slightly different than those identified for the project due to the change in intensity of land uses in the PRV and MU-2 Sub-districts. Due to the current at-grade trolley crossing at the intersection of Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street, it is likely that this alternative would have similar impacts to this intersection as proposed project. As discussed for the project, mitigation measure 5.3-2 to grade-separate the trolley crossing is outside the control of the City and its implementation and timing cannot be guaranteed. Similar to the project, some intersection and segment impacts under this alternative are likely to be significant and unmitigated. Air Quality The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in the same criteria air pollutant emissions as were identified for the project because total build-out would be the same as the project. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts related to the emission of criteria air pollutants (VOC and.NOX) would be significant and unmitigated. Cultural Resources The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to cultural resources. Mitigation measures 5.7-1 and 5.7-2 would reduce incremental cumulative impacts, but they would not reduce the cumulative impact to cultural resources to below a level of significance due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of cultural resources would be significant. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be significant and unmitigated. Paleontological Resources The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to paleontological resources. Mitigation measure 5.8-1 would reduce incremental b4 10-95 cumulative impacts, but would not reduce the cumulative impact to paleontological resources to below a level of significance due to the General Plan EIR's conclusion that any loss of paleontological resources would be significant. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be significant and unmitigated. Energy The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to energy. The General Plan EIR determined that, as population increases, demand for energy also increases. Because the development and management of energy resources are not presently within the control of the City, there is no assurance that an adequate supply of energy would be available. While it is anticipated that an adequate supply of energy would be available, history has shown that shortages in energy supply can occur. Although the City has taken steps to limit the expanding need for energy through its Energy Strategy and Action Plan and CO2 Reduction Plan, the potential increase in development represented by the proposed General Plan Update has the potential to add incrementally to this demand and represents a significant cumulative impact. Mitigation measure 5.12-8 would reduce significant direct energy impacts. While this mitigation measure would incrementally reduce the cumulative gas and electricity impact, the measure would not reduce the cumulative energy impact to below a level of significance because future energy supplies cannot be assured. Similar to the project, cumulative impacts on energy would be significant and unmitigated. Housing and Population The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would result in similar significant impacts related to housing and population. The General Plan EIR states that the General Plan would result in a substantial increase in the Chula Vista population. Because the General Plan would ihduce growth it would have a significant impact with respect to population growth. No mitigation is available to avoid this effect, and the General Plan EIR concludes that cumulative population growth would be significant and unavoidable. The growth projection for buildout of the Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would be consistent with the General Plan. However, because growth that would occur under the General Plan would be considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable, the Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative's contribution to growth in Chula Vista is also considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Findings The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would increase the project's significant impacts associated with applicable land use plans, policy, or regulation. All other environmental impacts would be similar to the project. This alternative would not lessen any of the project's sighifcant and unavoidable impacts associated with transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; energy; cumulative loss of cultural and paleontological resources; and cumulative population growth. The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would meet five of the seven project objectives and partially fulfill the remaining two objectives. The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would implement the PGDSP, including the Mobility Plan component to increase transit use and decrease vehicle trips; therefore is would create a pedestrian friendly mixed-use environment (Objective 1), achieve compact development conducive to walking and bicycling (Objective 2), encourage use of light rail transit (Objective 3), provide a mix of uses to attract pedestrians (Objective 4), maintain adequate parking and integrate non-motorized transportation (Objective 65 10-96 5). This alternative would increase density compared to existing conditions, but not to the extent planned for the Transit Focus Area. Therefore, it ~a~ould only partially provide sufficient density to support transit (Objective 6) and provide for additional trips serviceable by transit (Objective 7). The Modified Land Use Arrangement Alternative would not result in the lessening of any potentially significant impacts. While most project objectives would be met under this alternative, it fails to yield reduced impacts. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the project. If any No Project alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, as it would lessen the project's significant impacts associated with transportation, circulation, and access; air quality, noise, public services and utilities, and hazards and hazardous materials. This alternative would also lessen but not avoid any of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; energy; cumulative loss of cultural and paleontological resources; and cumulative population growth. This alternative would meet two of the proposed project objectives, but would only partially meet the project objectives to create a pedestrian friendly mixed-use environment (Objective 1), achieve compact development conducive to walking and bicycling (Objective 2), provide a mix of uses to attract pedestrians (Objective 4), provide sufficient density to support transit (Objective 6), and provide for additional trips serviceable by transit (Objective 7). The findings as to the infeasibility of the Reduced Project Alternative are provided above. XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact: ^ Transportation; Circulation and Access ^ Air Quality ^ Cultural Resources ^ Paleontological Resources ^ Energy ^ Housing and Population The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts. 66 10-97 Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project. As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations' pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This provision allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the Final PEIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose more stringent standards or measures. CEQA does not require lead agencies .to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (Pub. Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed (See, Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377]). Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The City finds that the project would have the following substantial benefits. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV. The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefts of the project, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities, determines and finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations. The primary goal of the PGDSP is to stimulate reinvestment in older and underutilized properties to provide housing and commercial uses that would result in there-creation of a dynamic southern gateway area to the City. The PGDSP would be used as a tool to guide and direct new redevelopment, economic development, streetscape and traffic improvements, parking, pedestrian amenities, and mixed land uses in the specific plan area. The project would develop four sub-district planning areas, each of which provides specific types of development opportunities. A total of 1,300 new dwelling units and 150,000 additional square feet (SF) of retail and office development is proposed for the PGDSP, compared to the existing condition.. 67 10-98 PROJECT BENEFITS Through implementation of the project, the following benefits would be provided to the specific plan area, and the City as a whole: 1) Community Revitalization Benefits a) Dynamic Southern Gateway Area. The primary goal of the PGDSP is to stimulate reinvestment in older and underutilized properties to provide housing and commercial uses that would result in the re-creation of a dynamic southern gateway area to the City, consistent with the City's General Plan. b) Smart-Growth Community. The PGDSP would enhance the southern gatev,~ay area and renew interest and activity in the area by creating a place where residents can live, work, shop, and play. The revitalization proposed by the _PGDSP would allow residents in the specific plan area to shop and work in their community by providing attractive amenities close to home. c) Commercial Destination. Visitors from the surrounding areas would be encouraged to visit the PGDSP because it would provide a variety of commercial, retail, and housing opportunities in one area. The PGDSP would create new shopping destinations. Specifically, the PGDSP would create higher intensity residential uses, as well as mixed use developments that offer a combination of pedestrian-friendly residential, office, and retail uses with strong linkages to the Palomar Transit Station. 2) Economic Benefits a) Employment Opportunities. The PGDSP would help grow the local economy in several ways. It will create new employment opportunities in the City with the provision of new proposes retail, office, service-oriented commercial and institutional uses that would create a variety of employment opportunities. The construction of development under the PGDSP would generate substantial revenue to the local economy. and provide a significant number of construction-related jobs over a 20+ year construction period. Those that would benefit from employment from development under the PGDSP would range from students and adults filling part-time and full-time positions, skilled tradesmen filling certain industrial and commercial positions, and professionals filling commercial, office, and institutional positions. Persons that -live in the residential portion of the specific plan area could be prime candidates for employment opportunities created by the redevelopment of the PGDSP. b) Benefits to Local Businesses. The existing businesses in neighboring areas are expected to benefit from the increased residential activity accommodated by the proposed project, and from the visitors generated from the revitalization of the area as a commercial/retail destination. c) New Property and Sales Tax Revenue. Development of vacant parcels and potential redevelopment of underutilized parcels will result in an increase of property tax revenues over the 20+ year build-out period. In addition, it is anticipated that the PGDSP area 68 10-99 could generate an additional 150,000 square feet of commercial retail and office space which would generate significant sales tax dollars. 3) Aesthetic Benefits a) Land Use and Development Regulations. The specific land uses and development regulations proposed in the PGDSP would enhance the visual character and quality of the PGD. The general development regulations that would create cohesive and enhanced visual quality in the PGD include the following: Land Use Regulations ii) Large-Scale Commercial iii) Streets and Sidewalks iv) Sign Regulations v) Parking and Loading Regulation vi) Vehicular Access . vii) Loading, Service and Refuse Area Screening viii) Design Guidelines Typical design guidelines include requirements for strong architectural design standards, streetscape amenities, building orientation, vehicle access and avoidance of features that would create pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. Landscape requirements are also included to soften the appearance of building facades and hard surfaces, and provide shade for residents and visitors. 4) Recreational/Public Space Benefits a) Public Space Development Requirements. The PGDSP identifies the following potential locations within or adjacent to the PGD that may be improved with parks, plazas, or open spaces: i) The 4.5-acre site located within the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way south of the Palomar Transit Station provides an opportunity for a neighborhood park and would serve to fulfill the General Plan vision for a park in the vicinity of the PGD. ii) The 1.3-acre Metropolitan Transit Service site located between Palomar Street and Oxford Street just east of the railroad tracks would be suitable for an urban park. iii) The PGD provides opportunities to provide plazas within private properties. Some of the sites that offer opportunities for plazas are the Palomar Transit Station and the former "Pumpkin Patch" site along Palomar Street west of Industrial Boulevard, as well as the large private parcels located between Palomar, Street and Oxford Street east of Industrial Boulevard. iv) The existing drainage that runs east-west from Industrial Boulevard to Frontage Road along the rear of private properties located south of Ada Street and north of 69 10-100 Dorothy Street represents an opportunity for a private greenvday that could be preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of the contiguous property ovdners. v) The standards for mixed-use projects require outdoor space to be a minimum of 200 square feet. b) Commercial/Retail Uses. The proposed project would provide approximately 150,000 square feet of new commercial/retail space that would include commercial centers, retail shops, restaurants and other entertainment, and offices. 5) Housing Benefits a) Regional Need for Housing. The project will help meet a projected long term regional need for housing through the provision of future additional housing. SANDAG housing capacity studies indicate a shortage of housing will occur in the-region within the next 20 years. Over the 20+year anticipated build out, the project could increase the housing stock in the City by approximately 1,300 dwelling units. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for housing. b) Reduce Reoional Cost of Housing. The PGDSP may additionally help to reduce the regional cost of housing because the project will increase the spatial extent and density of land designated for residential development by providing for mixed use zoning that allows residential uses to co-occupy blocks or parcels previously confined to just commercial and office uses. Thus, the PGDSP will result in additional housing that will promote affordability, sustainability and socioeconomic diversity, features the City finds both important and desirable. The City finds that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record of benefits to community revitalization, employment, economic effects, aesthetics, recreational/public space, and housing which would directly result from approval and implementation of the project. The City finds that the heed for these benefits specifically overrides the impacts of the project on transportation, circulation and access; air quality; cultural resources; paleontological resources; energy; and housing and population. Thus, the adverse effects of the project are considered acceptable. 70 10-101 E~IIBIT C PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-10-24) PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-IO-OS) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Introduction This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (PGDSP) (PCM-10-24) to comply with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, 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. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081,6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the Development Services Director and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following: • Monitor qualifications • Specific monitoring activities • Reporting system • Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures The PGDSP is located in the southwest corner of the City of Chula Vista (City), near the interchange of Palomar Street and Interstate S (I-5), within the County of-San Diego, California (see PEIR Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map). The proposed PGDSP is approximately four miles north of the international border with Mexico. The boundaries of the PGDSP include approximately 100-gross acres surrounding the Palomar Transit Station at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard (see PEIR Figure 3-2, Location Map). The PGDSP area includes the properties north of Palomar Street around Walnut Street, Trenton Street and Industrial Boulevard. Further east, the PGDSP also.extends north from Palomar Street to Oxford Street. South of Palomar Street, the PGDSP extends along Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road to Anita Street. A San Diego Trolley light rail transit station, Palomar Transit Station, is located within the PGDSP at the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. The PGDSP establishes the appropriate distribution, mix, intensity, physical form, and functional relationships of land uses within the Palomar Gateway District (PGD). The PGDSP land use and development regulations are intended to encourage and facilitate infill development, mixed uses, pedestrian scale, urban amenities, transit use, creative design, and the general revitalization of the PGD. The PGDSP contains several land use categories including residential, public/quasi-public and institutional, commercial office, commercial-service oriented, commercial-retail, and accessory uses. Palomar Gateway Disfricf Specific Plan PEIR Ciy of Chula Ysia SC4 No. 2011111077 Page 1 June 2013 10-102 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The PGD is divided into the following four sub-districts based on similar building and use types: 1. Palomar Transit Plaza (MU-1) 2. Palomar Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) 3. Palomar Residential Village (PRV) 4. Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster (PNRC) The projected build-out of the PGD and its four sub-districts for the 20-year planning horizon is presented in Table 1, below. TABLE 1 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FOR PGDSP BUILD-OUTli,zl Projected Total Estimated Build-Out by Sub-District Existing Development Additional Development Estimated Build-Out MU-1 (3.S acres) MU-2 (31.5 acres) PRV (43.5 acres) PNRC (1.5 acres) Residential (Units) 400 1,300 1,700 150131 450101 700 -- Retail (Sq. Ft.)1s1 200,000 100,000 300,000 10,000 85,000 -- 5,000 Office (Sq. FL)Isl -- 50,000 50,000 5,000 40,000 -- ~ 5,000 Industrial (Sq. Ft.) 30,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- Ire Numbers are approximations. 1~1 Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on the Market Study for the PGD prepared by Gafcon, Inc. in July 2011. 1'1 Projected residential units for MU-1 Sub-district are based on the designated Floor Area Ratio with the proportional commercial development indicated in Note 5, below. 1°1 Sub-districts MU-2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the sub-district larid area. lsl Retail/Office square footages are assumed 10-percent/90-percent split of projected huild-out between the MU-1/MU-2 Sub-districts, which is roughly proportional to the sub-district land area. Source: PGDSP The Proposed Project is described in the PEIR text. The PEIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City. The issues addressed in the PEIR include land use, planning, and zoning; landform alteration/aesthetics; transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; global climate change; noise; cultural resources; paleontological resources; biological resources; hydrology and drainage; geology and soils; public services and utilities; hazards and hazardous materials; and housing/population. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified for transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; noise; cultural resources; paleontological resources; biological resources; geology and soils; public services and utilities; and hazards and hazardous materials. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Proposed Project therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above. Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista SCH No. 2011111077 - Page 2 June 2013 10-103 Miiigaiion Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Team The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP table. ~Nhile specific qualifications should be determined by the City, 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 ofenvironmental-impacts associated with construction of cost-effective mitigation options; and Excellent communication skills. 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 infollow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects. In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the Mitigation Monitor following the monitoring activity. The Mitigation Monitor will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City. 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 Environmental Monitor or Environmental Specialist will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project. Actions in Case of Noncompliance There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted conditions of approval: • Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment; • Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action, but does not result in work or task delay; and • Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay. There are a number of options the City may use to enforce this program should noncompliance coritinue. 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 Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR Cify o. Chala Ysta SCH No. 207 7111077 - Page 3 ~ June 2013 10-104 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, the City will further refine the mitigation measures during various stages of implementation, as necessary. Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Visfa SCH No. 201 1 7 11077 Page 4 June 2013 10-105 Q C t7 5 o_ Z F- C O a W Z Q C7 Z K O H Z O z Q F Q H _-- c - ~ (7 - m ~ - ~ _ c ~ H _ m o > _O C1 Q o= c > .O ~ _-_ O ~ ~ p U~ L O ~ U l o ~' ` ~' = ~= u , u n E y E o C u c " c a E u c o U =-~ U V> ~ F- ~ U~ of U C y~ ^ O - N U _ ° ^ V +L' J F 4~, V° L ~ U C a O .~y'µ~' ~ O i O C r o U N ° _y ooc a'i c~~aFE ~ E ~~.. ~ o a v T 'o `o ~~ a' u c u r F- ~ :~u. ~ ~ c v . H F ~ $ ~ ~'~ u ~ ~' c E c = .. ° ~ c T a v E a u' V ~ F y~ > o ff> E .N c ~ N a v co '^ v°° `T' ~ o c~ o r ''t': ° o ~ c c a v? V 3_ ° v o o f° L a o L n c o .. p '`"° ° 3 a =~ ~ 3 N Y ~ ~ - °~ o a o a ° u ~ c n vi ~ ` N E d ~ i ai ° ~ L u c E o N u '^ E n in i. n~ ~ o>"~ c u c u > v ~ a n u ~ ' ~ ~ ° ~ v° E ~ N cr ° 0 ~ O 9~> m ' ^ ~ n N o E a c ~ o ~ ' - ~ o c ~ o f ~ N~ g v~ 3 ~, a m ~ _ ~ c o u ° ~ ~ a ~ u ~ ° ~ v+ ~ a ~ w 2 ~ ~ c ~ ~ o ° v. ~ u ° ° - ~ v u u u op o E j v~ E 2 H °0 3 c E ` E °- ~~ °- `~ °~ '^ j v a c U ~ _ O a O b. =.z v°i C :J Li0 .+ U 2 > Q ° O .. J y O `~ ° u ~ u ° `~ > L .- U C ~ °` N vl ~ ~ UI U~ N o0 R C N ° N N ` d ~ O ° c J ~: c ` j ~ S F w vi co `u ~ <~~ ~ p a c 2~ ~ n ~~ a v ~ ~ ° a c u n n v- c ° E o Q ~ . ~a :: - = ~ >o ;- ' u u n m ° ~? v r o v n °° ° a c o o .n o - o ~ a E .. , c n .. ° ~3 - ~ V m 9 m ` . ` ' ° . ,~ .. n p o Y c ~ E O Y ~ m - c . .. c 6 ~ n n ~ 3-i U ._ ~ .S] a ° U' n c 7 : I O= a u U N i~ O ~ 2> c U 00 a C > V, . U ~> U a C a ~J U - ¢~ j ~:`~ O C vi l] .~ v in ~ ~ o ,. o ~ ° ° m O v > " ~ N 'o u G ° [ c7 o O " m ~ E v -~ _ Q c u ra s v> c Q ` .+ ~ ~ a ~ a~ ~ u F~ c . . .N o c o N` n a _ n N ` o v a C O D_ U .~ v O O t j ~: u L Cl ~ ,O° F '° u ~ m° C) u p U CJ ~ 3 n ~ ° c ? ~ ' u ~ ~ ~ i ° c a > 3~ i v ° cci e ~ > ~ a ~ v t c ~ l7 0 - 3 t i n G a _ = m Ea' E °c=v ac ~ n ~ E E> 3 _ oNOO Q r y V , Y ~ i c ~ Y N ~7 ° ` '-' N ° N - . i C o J > v~ . u o a ° > ` o a n a a o ~ n p N C) U o N = - =~ c~ ; r~ r ; ,~ o u c n o> n `o. °o ° O E v°¢ 3 o ` N ~ u o a u p o `c m M o n c ~ i z a 3 E~ o° E ° 3~ E ° a v i ~ i~ r ° i F N ~ n .- v ° i c v V v i v ~~ ° n - ~ w E - ; FV= j = j 1' J zu_ CQ' y 0 ,, m N c ~ p d C .. ~Ov Q ` n O n o ~Z~ G 4 ° ~ u _ c . E k, ~ .''Z N G u r. ? n N .. a .. V c AC ~ E ~ n ° v O j1-e. - r. ~ o a i 2 - ; 5€ ~o ~ N .C - ~]~ ~ n o • ' U N yp y S~F > N ,C ~ ~u` ~ '° .. ~n c O n o ~~ ~Zi: o .n a o ~~ ? a ~ ~ ~ o U 'ELF y V N C ~ > e .r U iF_. ; ~ ` v o 6 0 ; z . a . n (~ N o ;:d n- y U 6 0 tiN, v ~ E? c - O _ r~_ r ~ _, ~ 10-1 06 ~ N - a~ > _ -o ~: =m ~: ~~ C - O" O ~ U L U L U O O _ O ¢ z O Y .T. - `' ' ~ > _> U V V %, _ U C Q (7 a _Z ~" n. W ~ ~ Z 3 Q C V Z_ () O' .Vi O H Z cO C Z O Q O ~ u ~ 0 C O ~ u i " o ~ c o v G c y a ,_ ''{ ' ` s= . u `o v > . _ 0 ~ 1O • t 2 y . C N m C¢ v 0 I ~,• Y E ~E a`° 0 3 ~ 9 v is ° o ' v N v v o ~ w g ~ E o v v~ ~^~x'+ m v ~~ v a ` -'`~ ~` ~ E N o a o > m m . - ~• . ~ a N c 0 m V E C U .C c .°: n m 3 O > N n ~ c J c o 0 3 - L ¢ '^ .. u ~ - a y C ~ N C m ¢ F- CO !' W N N v i ~ L C O ~ v ~ ~ m 0 0 v ~ y - O L ~ ~ N ~ ~ ° c y J C ~ a o v ~ 3 3 $ m v u m O ~ C O L .. m rv E O j O O ° c o EL ~? ~' p O - C m ' ~ E = v d a N ~ v W N v .. O ~ m N :: a v C '^ C > O N N V ~° m d Y ~ N m ` _ m ° C E w c o Y ra c o m ° o ~ r~ ° v v +' 3 E o a i v t ~ .: E m v ~ N w v E ~ v > ' a o c .. m a= E ~ m c .3 = x ~ ~ E o d :% v C _ N A N O U .- _ ~ V N C '^ o v ~.. E o ¢ . c .~. c ~ ~ rv O W C\ C 1 a V o ~ ° ~ a ~ ~ 3 3 ~ .o ~ ~ L. y. a J i '~ ~+ N v i O O ~ O r,~ a w " v m ~ 'V V U C L O J > F ~ L V L m v a . d a ; c ~ N ~ u O a v y O O S ~ u u .~ N O 'O _p N . o ~~ O H O v ~ ~ C v x c° s m ¢ E „u- ~ " E n~ .` v E in ~ H m v E c c_ ° E $~ c_ r O N 'u C d C - C ~ ~ O O N v N c c O C O ~° ¢ m C ¢ ~ ~ _O V c " = a `~ a ~ ~ U v a ¢ ~+ N N ~' N O V L y W N U F - - _ > O _ L O _ ~ n o 3 a a v N m _ o _ J J n c v ° m r~ ~ v a ~ c o a c o ~ O ° C a ~ V ¢ o ~ 3 ° o ~. v c ~ ~ ` C N C .. J ~ ~ v O O D ~ V o ~ ~ .m w m C O ~ N v ~ O Y 3 ~ ~'~ O a m L N C T C F- p N O W y ~ .l ~ C O V N ~ U ~ > H y o v v v o ¢ y U O V E o - o v m >, m ~ c > 3 u v m a o a m V J O d V O o- ~+ ~ m w '° ¢ ~ ., c F a v c o c o~ F`- q L V 6 6 ' ¢ ~ v -E u N N ~ ~ O C a~ O y N d (O C ° N rv h~ 0 u N v ¢ ~^ 3 v ~ a ~ ~ o,~ v w - O ~ N _ ~ - ~- V W ^ m N p C T U >' fJ J 3 ~ ~ V > m - ~ V O O a C O C ~ 0 m m ~ O' O E'~ c E c O ` S p) 41 ° ~ F 3 a v O u ~ v ¢ v ' c ,~ m v E 0 ' C ~ O > ° L w+ j V ~ s - n ~ - .. ' : a m c ~ m c T c o v v E 0 .v. `-' ~ m v o ¢ `a ° ~ a v ~ o E -~ v J ¢ :o o ¢ w n a u ~O-~ I v ~ a J ~ " C ° L c j m ¢ O u ~ a.N ~ w v ~ a a J " ¢ a~ O -° c J v J a J a ., v ~ - O a c o c m v v c o v ~. 3 c w E r a a v O~ ¢ O v m j J „' J ~ o o ~ ci a ~ E ° °' v io ~ O ' u c v E >_ 3 :-'^ o v 2 E n ' y a° °-' c v ¢ '~ Q ~3 m m °1 >o ° o ~_ o E o- v .° p n v u pl w m W a W > O C N O U 6 ~ Q v pl W C -N a ¢ ~ c v w 3 c o ,~ o p v° ~ c 3 o v m~ ~E ¢ ., ~ ~ E 4 ~ ° ° n .. ~ v ~ o u v n v - j +' ~ a °- " c~ i E w c v a N a v J _ ~ C J O ~ v - N ry V C ti ¢ O 0' v ry m O ~ UI J¢ C V N tO N ry E m e a O `ma ~ .~ '^ m ¢ .O m S O O m C T ry> a ~ V E v 5 ~ 'E w L co ~ ~ O p a p a c w o a v ' v ~ v a ~ c a E . .~ u m c ~ m u .. d E ~ .; c c a.E E o o ~ u o ~ 3 0 c r v ~- a J c o v u a u = u i °0 ° o '~ p N c to v c m L u v o E J'. o v ° ~~ ¢ o o s -O . .~ c ° c ~ .. " - ~ v v v v R ~ D ~ L O C a v ° o J V ~ v~l O C -°'~ 3 ' v v 6 d m - . yl C - C ~ N ~ C O l7 ~ ^. ° 6 N O N N a ~ C V a Z WC O ~ ~ O v o O ~ a a u l'I c m a>,p '° `a v w z ~ a «'-. ,~ o c o ~ o ° E '~ o E ~ u a' > ry V U1 C j ~ m ¢ J U ~ ° ` r N ~ W V o ,~ v E'o c o c J E v o u m 0 a C u V N Q N U ~ ~ >^ 3r m ao N Z E ~ o- ~U d h N 7 c .S O T C tr U r ~^ .n. v~ C C . ~ ~ O ¢ n C _ O ~ ~ U L U ¢ o O U > T u u c N o p ~ ~ c o _ .~ O p ~ v ~ ° ., v 2 c " 3 ~ >~~ U > n a ` ~ „ O ,_, - c . U C n a V ~ n U E ° -° ~ ~ E ° .° ° i > N O O ~ O U U D C C ° ~ '- O O U E ~ U `o_ >'o ~ U C o > o ~ c~ ~~ i- a n ¢ a` a ~n ° >. L O 2 S_ ~ > ~ U '.' n a p = ~ ^~ U E L ~ a d -. ~ C _ 2 ~ O 9 D~- N n C n T i O U U C U¢ CJ V C " ' O Y C a u u _ L m _- y _ ~ 3 n j ~' 6 n> of ti N O O°~ ~ O v ~' ~ E c ~ h E n i. ~ ~ c o n a°i O u v ~ v = z L o > E UD E ~ a o~ 3 o v w U= 3 ' v n v o v c ,. L o a • L •` 3 O== O N J C ° N V p ~ U ` CJ C °~ ` ~ T N C O a :, n _ N U ~ •- O o L ° O ~ V n ° O N a .. C C L ~~ N N m E ~, _ n C ~ ". _ C U ~ E ~ O ~ V n a ~ O' U N C ° c ~ c JO ~ n C O _ ^' C K 3? 2 ~ ` ~ voi d Y = ° v n- - i c m c u > 3 ~ v L ~ u n ~ ~ n n o v c f __ ~ u E ~ o n ~ o ~ ~ v° " ° ` . >n o v'i '? j o u ~[ .~ c ~ o U' n a c o. `O < ;` ~ c n en a .°. o U ~. v ~° ~ ~ o " ' v' L a ~ V O. .` n n a > n n c v c n ~ - ^ .. in ~n > m ~ a» ~> o 0 0 ~ a .E u U p c~ o L o o °_' 'w ~ a ~ n~ ` ° E a n y w '^ ° E n v c o° r ° c o ~ = L ~ c - ~ u 'n w u 'v 6 v U p ci ~ u s u-> ~ ~ E n o~ n v e a o v v n .'" ~ °. c a ~ _ 3 0 -~ ~ = n o v ~ °- H H . c ° ° N C = v O ` n > ~~ o ~ y U U L A N 6 ra c ~ l"J n" C r~ °n C O N Q . T " .. U L C U C q v~ Y v ` _ e.r N C u Y OO n ,~ C ~ a n >~ $ o n e ~~ L-o N c `- c E = sv c~ c o w ~LV n a U n ~' F O O n Y U , ~°~ U U U a _ C = u ~ E L u ~~ O L O U ¢ . ~ C O O 6 N aV CD U 7 6 7 O U O E O m 3 - > ° - E 5 ¢ a c o °~ ¢ °° 3 0 o rv 3 v i - m o. ~ y v o° o~ y cnr s a c°i ~> x ~x Vf n .- ._ _ ._ > > of a ~ !- n 2 O. o O C1 ~ O n .~ ° C n C U ~ ° E ° o ° ~ n o u c ~ . N` n V E ~ o U > ^ .~ _ n u ~ ~ V N ~ y C a i C l j U n n y o > c . 3 ._ E ` c U 0 c ~ .n. o v ^ c y J U. O u ~ ~ n > U N ° o N x 0 0 ~ o n ~ n_~ O~ u .- x ~ n u o v ~ '-^ O ~ N ~ ~J = C U O T U m G7 O d w d a V ~V ° a N U p n >^ o°_ m- O- (~ ~ O O Ez O - OU d N L Gl 7 C C O > ?=_ ~ c =_ c 4 GS;._P. ° m _;n 4' c ~ o ~~I, ~ o n -- d ;'ice m J u 0 > U m o L u 0 > U C ° - - c oo C oo ' - m c ?n c m e _ ~ ~ d ~° O - O O ° ~ o l a ~ ~ p a ~ o ';E.'~; L n ~ '3 `o t '3 `a E jy _.,r . C 9 O p C~ O * d N- d ry- ~ .~ .i; l ):~S-tr . ~ 3 > ~ ~ 3 > v ..,; t, i;~x'` _ c>¢ E c> a E E ~={~. u° ~ °" o. u° ~ rna c ..nkEr ~~~ c a rt%' ~ ~ DD y i d ~ tO d r4 N C c 0 ^'s ~ o v c ° NL. = 3 3 Y E Z' o o m ` ~ ~ v v ~ d a m c ~ a v m ° a " - 3 ~ z ~ °1 v ~ v ~ ~. _ ' v o u ' c E ` 3 . - a v `~°~~.:;yii• '~ 0 .. v J o C i v > d v r0 :-n d c m v J ~ ~ o d O U m a a 00 N o •'/.~{L L#"~+ ' J i m d W ~ vi d A C d w ~ d a N L a EO = C y J 3 ~ O . ~I ~ ~ ~ 'Ja z u -° v > v E c ~ v v> v v J Y E s ° u oa ~ LL o m a N u ~ ¢ ~ c 'a-G,'~ c 3 :n ° E ~ c m N . ~ 3 ' ~ J V~ Y v LL ' o 9g. u g> m v h o s " ~" . o u ~ m ~ o Y`~ ~, ~ o v J 'o h v ~ o 0 o~ c '^ c ~ 3 ~- v L ¢ Z' o ~ - m ~ E:ea~ v v o e ~ m 'E a v - e e °- > vi N o N v u ' ` E '--_~ i.'.?_ d o v v a d -° . E E a w c° = u >. `° ~" ~ LL J a G a ?" o= p 3 'g ~ o v c Y m> c n~ d o p U E ~p y :a'~ ' K o .c ~ a v " ~ ~ E w ° ELL J o ~ w ' = : .;a,,. ~, E w w a d v `o A c a y o m u o 3 v - c v ~o L ._ d -• ~ y c d O ° J Y m LL d d 0 'n !O O= N A~ O A V u d' N ,: ~ ~ n~ .o ~ ° m ~ ° ~ 3 ~ N m v ~. ~~ ~ o °~' o a m ~ d ~ ~ -' ~~ LL DD C Y z ~ (O S] i n d E ~ d ~ ~ ' Ip ~ L ~ .° d > > a p O ` > U ~ . ~ , ~' ~` i = = - i o N > o c , d v d o C a p d p Q m 3 c a ~ O v ~ c >; v o _ o N ° v n ~ :'AT ~ ~ v°i ~ ~ w o ~ m L w c .f O- m °' o o. '° c ~O 0 1] m # r ~ `o oci E $ ~ 3 c v°i a '~ ~ v J an m c Y rv m 'an m E E_ m~ .Y ~ on v ~ m ..L,"'.F N- o f ~ n a a ~ ~ v o w c L ~o N n$ 3 m o - n` ~ o a r'' ' ~ - ° ° v p; m ° L b o n 1O w ° o ~ ° ~ ~3 > n `a ; _-- d = >o a u v '^ m m y r E c c - n Q v m .~ - m v -a fz~ d c `a E m 3 ~' o o c 0 9 v ? o. u a a x a v i~ v :`- ' o c h v ~- ¢ m O a w H '^ ° a w w `o ~` . _ c o o ~E ~ o o~>= w E> ~ ,"-, v '~ ~ m .c n ~E 'c E °-' o z n L c a s `v c '~ n m .E n o v a ~ k V o m o ° .°: c ~ :- ° u ono ~c a v ~ '~ E '.~ : a .~ O O 0 m 7 fp -r a N - j d Q O d m J m LL X" Q : C d - O O Q a~ a v w ° w w e '>° ~ `L° ~ a v l7 ~ ac s o>= w `0 ~ ~ E ,.°- 'a ~ a a ~ o a . a a 'c a m p vt N fv v . ~' E w a H o o w n ~~~~~~ - ° .. = o o N ' ° E }'z:'w ° ~~ a n v¢ ~ o .. v .. c v 'o ~ m N c o a v a ti v o LL .E ~ o- a n c - -° E o Tom: v i m 2 ~ >• - >• w > v > c = _ N c 3 c v i ~ v .' ~ v c ~ c c v n ° o z m. c ° ., -fir c o ~' d v . m~ y o ' n m ^ m _ o o o ' N o . ti m N ~ d ~ ~o ~ a ~ v « '` ' ~ ` ` ° L~ O _ ~ N d o o E o - v v a `~ ~ a m ~ O = ~ C O ~ ' > ~. .~. `N ^ V1 ~ . t~ C .- .- .- 9 V N O V N 6 Q t0 J ~ - 0 ~ n ~3v' * `~ ~ E v o d ~ a ` ~~» .: - o ~ v ~ ~ o o _Y i~ o ~ > v ~ 3 ~ ~ ° ° d ° . m °,4 y, y m 0 a N ~ y ` ' ~~;= ss v n c o c n v x d g cam ' E '° = ° ~ ~ c 60 - m`- W"~ x ~ - L d > o ~,. J F N 1'.~ ° m~ O n d O. . V C d~ a C ~ c ~ 3 N ~ a o m~ '~ o d --.V~. , d H z a C C 4 d :' 1r1 'p S O N 0 O d . d i+~ Z a v~ C d l7 f0 ° h c : _`•' -~.ei_ ~ d J 0 n c a o c O > . w . '^ o ~ w~ U r = ~ a o v = c m O M j O `~ c ~ ~ c T U d C O U V ° Q N U ~ n c n 4 O N O Z o = aU a ~ :rt_-,. V ~ > =fR C .O. r J > O m u c ~_ ~ ~ '^ ~ ' " ~ p N G ~ ' o -_ r m ~.'-~. ~ _ m J - J J U ~ _ .~ ~ -_ _ n .,``° O o 0 e ? ~ ~ ~ U c cr y ,, O :~~. a n , ~ C U O V n ' u . ~ O o C J O a 3 ? a _ ° v 0' ~ F ~ ` O a O . a U . C l1 ~n ~ .l c n U C O ~ C C E O O C O ~ c O , ~ ` V >, O ~ J N E O r u c m _ ~ F- CTr C .. O- 6 m V 6 .C 'O C -O -O T .>. S'~ H , L ~ C ~= C ~ y0 O m F C y0 ~ O ~= y O ` N U [c`` C 1 ~o a s ~ ^ 3 n a a U O v E ° ~ c o ... ~- v ~ V C y ~ o ° a n u n s a 'jti'~ ~ n" _ ~ v u ° . .. .c E 3 ... ~° E a m V v ~ - m> J n c n y o ~ m o ' :..: n o ~ u o rv o° '^ n o 0- o ~ ~ J L' ~° E ~ ~ °: ° ° o ~ > > n . v 0 m o . Y v E m ~ a .~ N ,n g~ ° y c o n n a -v u u n y ~ v ~ , , ~ (7 o ~ u . N - ~ ° o 3 ° o- v ~ ~ c ~a v v .. O V a v N _ t a r y a n ,- ... v ~ _ o ~ il`.y. CI O 6 N W O -O - `~ O u~ C J L u L m O C 4_ §y • C a o n¢ o n t" -o =~ a a ~ r~ 3 m ~ h y ~ N y o o ~ ° ° a E ~ -ps ~ C J ° ° " a r Z j ~ m ~ v~ .. .-i . ~ ~ '~ ~ n N V ~~ V e t ~n ~ v .°-° y ^ o E J . - N O v°i ° -vo i m m - G~ U v w > :` .c ' ' y O 'O ~ t~ ~ w ° J u_ Y O I _ . . " Q ~ 5' ~ U O . n ~a _ i ~ 1 U V c J u c L ~ O j ' " . W 3 ~ y _. z ' a ° ~~ ~ G ~ n o o o ° ` ' ° c ~ E $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ N c O v 'C W N ^ 4i N r U V~ Q 0 _ ~ C d U L r m CJ O J' ~ (~ N a - C ' ~ j C „ . [C ~ n ~., -, a'- ° m E ° n 'E s r . `o c ~- > U o 3 - ° .o ~ n =~ °.' v c o -° v ~ E m p v s Q" ~ o ~ U c o _ ~ u c U u. c n - N fJ a a s ~°~- ° u ~ > .``' ~' a P Z c } ^ :_f`'' o f C c-I m~ ~ n N t . O C~ a o~ c c C o o> > J ~ m ` ~ N v a ~- =~ O V m~> m v ~ ~ L ~~ ` c Y ' ~ - E " ° J ~ ' % n ~ ~ m ..+ ~ y ~ -- ~ ~ '~ g v o ~ °° m C n 'a a n ra 4 c m ~ a ~ d Z o ~ ~_ .m ~'~ t j ° n s a u v v o o' n v u ~ v c d y o n s n>° n ~. 3° ~ v u c o ~ c o C O ~ ~~ n o ~ i C ra v ~ n . ~ o - a n ~ E ` ° ~~ ~' n ~ > = ° c E ~ t o 'mo m - y a r~ v u n i ~ ti . v o ~ m i d O N L n V~ v c i > N o v - c~ w n ~ O U O - o o f5 y O C ., . fi i V> i U " ~> .. LL J ai V o 4 N ° o a v c .o v E z a ~ n m ~= V u '" J o- c c ~_ u ~ a ~ c - O G K c n v .v. ~ s o o - ~ u v~ E _ 3° E J m n= v O CC 4 - °1 v o> o .. O V1 C ' J C = c a ~C O J O n Q - ~ F J ~ o Z Y_ . : U H e N` 0 o n- ° C ` o u ~ a u _ ~° 3 > -O ~ 3 N ~ .. ~ ai U ~ ~ ;.. , z o ' v v° ~ o . ° > ~ > c o v ~ J ' ` m c F ~ ,~ E .. .. u - O ~ u > o 8 ~ U 0 °0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ u° ` ~ m v o. L O .x Q u 0 > O U O z N j~ O v ~ ? ° _, u ~ n n ° ° y U ` l7 ' _ -° ~ . c o ni ~ E> c m c r> v o v > o N ~ . ~ ~ o o ~ o ._ o f - F.~'~ o v n a= o ~ m ` >m n° u + ~ n ~ c o ° v n - c c 5 F o '^ J m :~ .-i o ^' E c v "r , .~ c Z N. " .. ,.. c ~ ~ ~ a> t` U r ~ v ~ . s a ~±- S c 'n :n ~ o v °~ s o~ ._ m r c a ~' a - v v C ` : n ~~ ` E E c ~ •~ v V m ~ p ti ~ E " _ n .:; i E 2 ~= o y = u o u ` ~ t o G a> > 9 v~ .x ~ L o ~ z "f N p c u ~ O CJ N u u s C N U V1 a n N u E u ._ ~ 'm U a n U O _ e _ O ~ ~ vi ~ - -_ ._ in n ~~ :~'^, s.. ~ H u J -~ oL' ~ E ~ .. ~ ~ w r ~ o O¢ ~ m O ¢ c ~ O ~ D~ y .t w ~` . a •_v O C 1^ C.l' ~ J u C J L CJ ~ + g u ro u c ~ o n o~ ~E y . e's = E~ U O ~ V ~ O- U~ V . ` O n V C N ~ O J J V' 3 J^ V O C a j O `^ N C ~ 'm y 3 O i u h ~y.~ ;:wc v .° ~= l7 - o © c=- m u y c ~- h a s ~ E p n o u p r °_ 'K ° 7 ~ V c~ v ~ ~-' ~ J ~ a l7 ~ v v o ~ o ~ 5~~ ~ c = ~ c 3 ~ ~ ~ ¢ v y ~ ~ „' ~w _ c ` s y -~~ N_ ~ r ,.. n o _~ O U r. u u v c G N n u m o ._ n om- m O (~ ON aJ- +- S_ .. ~n C u ~ 0-~ Q o o~ n =~ o r; > „o C « « 1 N DO W ~ m h J ~n ~ vi ~ N_ 7 W ~ a p N t6 N L c J ° J ° U o~ u u U U p O O O O >~ v z > > > > U u u u u o `o `o r - c c v .. ;~ o o E m v o m m~ m O ~ ~ c ~ `-' o v E t 4 c u c c J o v \ v m V~ G a C ~ C p N N C V V C V p d ry~ n ' ~ J ' m m N O O C J O ~ ~ ~ ~ E m O ~ L ~~ E 5 0 > > > ~- i= o v m LL m m ~ u o 5 0 3 3 c Y C .V.. v N m v n c A c m n c m 0 6 N 00 -~ J N C D• « O O v' v ~ c v o a E °' v E m v -o n E `o ¢ c v m ~ m`~c~° O C ~ y n V ry O W pp V ~ m a v E 0 ~,a ~« v W O 9 .>-, N M t ' H ~ m o Z ,~ z ' E -o v v ~ W L V 0 V y O L ~ N ~n a ,. «. m N 3 W ~ O L. O p v c ~O o ¢ p V ~ « O (o N C m ~ L ~ O "'6 n p ~ E w u c '•_ L. E a m m - J m ~ E w o- c v o 3 v J ,o ~ .L. m U `n C ~ v v m « ~ ~ v _ ~ N O O O C V C N N m o -° E ~ c E o _ ° ~ o a ~± p fo m ~ :`_ v u N C N ~ 3 ~ C ~ ~ y L O +~ O N w O .W d = N .. V ~ L C„ O N V O C O y ~~ L a 9~ OC~O ~E W m w ¢~ p ~ u ~ p) ~ .~ _E .o = .c ~ 3 ~ `o cL. ~ ~ ~ o m p m n ~~ v m ~ h 'O L L N Y O~ O V o N c> j m c a c -a °' a C7 .~ ~- o a v~ °- v o .~ 2 W~ u tpi O O n C O J n N ~ N O n O m N v c `' J E n o v o Q E n=~ v o v o` .y - m L C p m v nL. .D n iv s _ - W Z V - O. ~~ N N Wj d Y v o a 3 p c ~? n Y ~ c o ~~ c .°: >. c a m° ~ ~ m w E~ Z w o o v `° -O ~ J~~~ N~ V C w U w m o c n y o E a o c o '^ n ~ ~ .~ m~ .« m m c ~- o c o 0- o > _ w .~ ~ m~ s v ° m m ~ ~ V ~ "O u v ry YO .Q ~ C O O =~ ~ d W O O S O v J +' _ -O '° v '^ ~ w V ~ y E v o w ~ = p Z~ o c c v~ m ` '~ O C~ O O O O" O N J p v v v v ~~ v n a v om - m m~~ p u C 'W 'u Y J W c .', V c o c v o v~ ~', o« o °' °- E v `w ° o ~ a ~ J :- m O m ~ C N_ N 0 N C C~ C U C V v u ~ n v v m y o~ ~ N mo ~'o '~ urn '~ `-' °^ o E O m O N m~ ` =L.a m' ate' S$ E ms ~~-~~~ C T L Y ~ ~_ O m N `' O O'O 3 v ~ ~ a v o u m a c p c ~ 'oo m n O v O~ 0 y_ m~ E o o n E " « vWi ~ !a V v u m fv v ~ .J.. .L. a ~ a > o ~ ~ m Q c o $ O C- `~ V C W C o rv« m v J o .. N m 'o p ~ o ~ v ~ rv C~ -O N C n~ W O C C (O N` M m O O C L W ~° ~ ~°° o v - T ~~, ~n~ p w W v v ~ E V ° ~ ° > J v v `o o Q w n n `o V w` E E~ '^ E v ~ ~ v w « v ~-O_ a > E N J O p O~ N C D 3~ 0 `1 L W a• GO p N J C d > L~ E O J Y -O ~ 3 v~ c a v o m u~ 0 0~ m C C v - ~_ m m ~' c E 3 o J"~ O a L a O J J O n '~ W d 0 ~ 0 _ E 3« a m v a U_ N O T '= W 2] C C N ~+ OO pp N O o~ u E~ v E O N N W ~._ ~ ~ L C o ~ O z E L N' m a c E `~ E «° a ~ ~ O vgWi C O L ~~ LL n ~' ~a E 3 a m m c C_ V v ~ W N N J N O Y C Q n m 0 y W 6 C 1] ~ VI o ? o ~ N ~n 2 O ~' Z ~ v J m p v 1° u v Q v" .. c v v o ~ > ° > v 6 C > ° v > W v n us v n E `o ;« y~ v E c N j ~ O O E T m i+ N ° z > E cm o ~ ~+ N 3 ° ' ~ .. m~ v c O m Y v m a~ O m N W a a m ~ E v > ~ ~ V ~ Y 1 E C w 00 V t~ N O a W S Z O v~ W E 3 m J C~ Q N y D ~ V ~. u. ~ Y N m V ~+ N W O Z n u O L w p v J N ~ L O v F O u N ~ V v n v c o 'o v .. v v 0 m_ u 3 ~ , o c c E~ ¢ ,. y- c o t u J .- E Y c N v v o `v ~ v o ~ E ~ w~ c o o~ Q .C N ~ C u'~ a o ~ ~ E v N ry n... Z o~ v d v ~ c Q m F '~, n u n ~' V d a! w d c O a U U d U O N >~ O 3 v O - Ur O O O Ez O Z oU d h ~: T: " v u - c m ~~~ - m j v U' _ Q ~ ~ = U E E r o ~ ?_~ u p ~ c o >- - ~ U u C P~-' 9 n ci ~ .~ ~ L. ~ ~ _ ~ H '~ ~ O V C ~ c 1~-- G Es... ~. - O '..O m T > U ~i°}' C i i a U E _ ~ o m a°i ~ ~'~ ~ o m ~ o v . „ , "r 5 o E o o E t u A= E t ' en o ~ O rv ~¢ .- m t>a a` m¢o _ ~v v 3 C .¢ 0 ~~.~ v L T O ~^ L ~ _h C O U C U u J o L V 3 Y u .° v N i n =~ ~~~ a E ~ ° c ° o ° > .. v ~ N = E == o~ o T° T Q a c ~ E ~6 r~ '" v `w ° ~° E -" E o ^~', l7 u n~ a o t C v _~? N c~ _ ., c m~ x °i o ° m = c ~•~ D o E '^. o~ a u r v c c v > o o ° o c T c ~~ LL> c~~ u c~ F N T J ~ T E m T o v a c v m u o 0 o N o v o E =' o c - ~ o o .. o° m ,~ ~ s?~ 6 v" a o a c_ c ~° N n c o c m .: ~ a _ -_ o y O~ j ~~ O O` 'OO O !~ ~ O W C~ V n N O x~°> C`¢! .U.. O ~ O v°i ~. 'r O` d N N O Q U 3 O E~ O O N T~ Q a L ~~ s U ~ Q n ~ v~ ~~ o~ a `v' e c h o E ~, c u r 4 0 'Q m~ ° ~ ~ m ~c o ~ >. c ~ o o c '~ ~" ~ u¢ v~ c G o v o a u¢ v a~ o p= c° o a ~~ °~ "- N v -° m o° o u o a n~ c m g o N m c c c ~_' E c ~_ ¢ „~ _ _ u v o v v_ d k` `-' m v n ° a .` ~Fa u u `° c ~ c~ ~ `o E m E c ~ ~ [ o ~ c ^"i .~ .o y E> o> o o- ~ _, °,° ~ E c '~ `o ~ 2 c o :~ n s -vo a o ~t c o E a c°i a°° o° .E c .S o ° n E~ N ~ o w o u a o 5 T°a c u mci m9 `o ~¢ ¢E ~ ~ c c u¢ 'O ~ d t U l] ~ j O~ S ~ O 7 0 b O ~ U O T vV. O p0 ~ O `o ~ a c v~° `o. ° u ~ E c `o m y c n~ ~.^TC G n U c n L f° .u. ~ ''` i` 9 4 u Y m n m v a) .. c c '~ '~ ~ .v. o c 3 m" ° o .. N a ~ r4 0 ,Y, x E> ~ y E E '_ " o ° ~'~-._ ._ o a o c 3 ~ y u E .. .. v ..~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ M ~ u Q a ~ ^' c .O- T o n E E o v o J n u~ u o~> o r u c ,y u c~ 0 3 o v ~ v_ ,~ m .n a ~n c E a S~ u~ v ~~, °° o u~° v c u x 3~ ~ v v° _ u.. ~ o ~~~ ~ ':#~~. ~ !~ U y V -~. „ o ~ ° ~ E vi i~3yzc:~: h ~ ~ u ° -moo ~ n ~". ~ n u~ v T ~ E ~r~*3 ~ c ~ E y ~ o N~ c ~ '~ n n c C iWr• O n O v~ _U - r, t~~3 O C1 ~ _U' ¢ op _~ > T V a O t0.0 ~~_ u ~ n ~ .~ ~ O 'v = ~ ~ u E 3 .y ov ~ C _U C~ 9 L N~ d o -0~ ° _~ ~ F '~ c °1 z "- ~ =Ji C' J .. O ~m L Q -0- O ~ H LL O C p; ° _, l9 o c C T 0 `r _ __ ~~-~~2 U m O C w 0 U V U Q N U On T~ O ~ 3- m- o- Ur O O Z O - d N v v 7 C G O T c m v O m p ¢ ~ m m C = C O C L V O ` ¢ o v rc T u c 0 m ~ o o T v E ~ x m v o m v E ~ ~ a r o 0 E n - ~ E J ,ri v c ui v v .n ~ J~ v v °' « O a o o' o m N ~ c °' « ~, E Q m ~ w ~ w o . c ,~ ~ o u ~~ ~ ° A ~ E - J v c a m a c o o c v N c ~ J m _- o J N~ ¢ m E m m E o - c ~. o;: y m a T ~ m c o . L .. n . '~ c ~~ ° _ o m t '~ ' ~ u v '" . ' E Y L v N °~ Ea o m oa « m a C ~ °- o > U v ~ L ~ N v ~ > L a ~ ~ v m ~ o ' c- 19 E °' c « v ~ E t m v v . . o m v` o ' « E = ~ v v 'm m o = = ~ c m o a ~o a - L ~ x l] Y _ ~ c a o ~~ O n m ` v ~ 1 O L ~ W w u ~ u p E ' v r tp ru ` ~ L ° o O o a m o. ~~ c N O o o ~ n c u ~ o ~ - - 1° E L v ~= n v m 3 E o != ~ U O V C v AT, m m c¢ a N C ° N c '-' `w u a c aj v ' N a o ~o r v o E ~; N m ~~ m `v ° C N a> 0= O N O m m¢ N D¢ U C~ C a> d O C N pU C A N C i~ t > d a ~ N py N w d T ~ O O C ~ ~ m N C N O 'O N O W m J J~ O m j O m 'w O L N v C N O 'O m .O - .. ~ N n N ~_ ~ O v > m 0 c Q O m U m e Y ` E .D - v m . ' v E~ N ~° m E > a« o O r ~ o N ~ . E° N ~ ~ °; ~ v ~ °x' c w v v o ~ ~ «° E o o ~ - m= m=~ ~~ s o n u u « p m O O N C ry ~ C ? ° Y a C> v~ d O N O p~ _ ~ m ~ ~ O m ~ N ~ (O N w ` x N C y > O 1 V T t~ 0 0 bo - E m~ L O m =~ v a ~ n E o n ~ ~ ~o ' !°.c m ._ m S « ~ a n o m a c '.. rv¢ o~ Y ~ 0 0 o o v a E v e m o a m o~ a n y o v vim E m '" ~ . v , . :° n ~ ~' v m x E~° ° ° w c= c m~ o c c~ Y o. ~ N« N¢ U y m O ¢~ N ~ 6 a 'O O m ~ m C D C O ~ ¢ .. a C m o ~ E W a ¢ y n O m c c ~-,~ O O m m c n v N O vi ~ C m ° ~ O E y n ~ u a v c 0 N .. m ' u - ` ~ °. v m w v f c - m a c~ ;a o E ` ~ o r 3 u m c c c `-' E c w ~ ~ n m m ~ ~ - " o N T m n- y v ` o v v ~ w - ~ m m y ` c '~ E o ~= c o. > > c m v 'O x " ~ ~ a« m o~ c w~ ~ E o ~ o c ~ o o a o L L ~+ v m~ -o ~- m v¢ o c _ . N N A 'O ~ `~ O '.' m> X .V `n O ~ O i 6 t 0 2' C O D C d j L a O O C N m -O ~ f ' O . i' N O J u ~ L C 6 J v U W O al a p ? t W m C l] D• V D 0 ~ N V ~ O n O T C ' p C N O« ~ T A ` a 1 C . - O` m ~. L O F C m O ~, ~ C O m a O ~ ` ~ ~ a n L i~ ~ o c o a _ 'u ~ . o m ~~ E o o v c Z' c ~ v a ~~ m `~ o v ~ c m °> O m a v v o ~> J ° a c '~ o v ~ F O V .. 2 N V .. N J m ~ C - vt N 5 i E a J C op U~ N F O V ,.. d N V C W .= O n n E c n ~c m H m c. v 0 y 7 n_ 1 7 7 o~ =o ~ N O N L ~ U C T U d w 0 a V u N a ~ ~ >.^ a O• ~ o O O ~ Z O = oU 6 N V-IIJ > T>>' _- ~ o c ca C'',-~-'c~'. n ~ n Yr` c -:f a m ~ ~ O ~ }~: U L V ~ o n `o `o U Y{...° T T K - -: .. r =iS U V O :iii >, - FY tif~`. n O v O n~ C ~~ ~ f_ U F ~ O N "" n > ~ O ' ~ O O G O ~~ _ C O o O O .n .y 'i v '~ c y n o n c N~~ `~ n o E v~ >~. -. ~ n O r v fO V N' 7 ~ ~ ~- ~ 3 a 2 ° ~ a S E E c w c" a c o ~ °i o~ v j= p ~ ~ a k a H N o v 3 c C .V.. S_~__ 9 T C U 4 v ~ a v ~ c u~ c `^ ~- ~ ~ i n p:l ~ i V U N ~ E vl O f.'. O u N 00 ] b>~ ~ V E 0 0 ~~ p of C i~` O O ... _ a n " gi p V' c= O N n n 6 ~ .^Oi O E m n oc 6 O O tp C !~ 2 N ~' ~ C ~'^ m~ 9 cL„ v n o oa ~n „~ N ~ c~ c G y y o~ y ~~~ O~ O- ~ n J ` V~ C V O` J n ~~r~y}`y+~~ 6.` N v V O~ U a~ ~ N L.U. ~ .. m O P~ ~ ° V ~ ~' 2] ~ V ~ Q ~u m ° CJ 7 y0 V ~ O u .~, ~ c~ cp w n n o n c n~ n Ti'4 ~ ~ G L N d Q V fJ 6 9 ` O ~ 'y aC'1 'O E v N ., g -i°L u y a "" m n~ a° o r N u U ,°,~ U n n rs"- O° V N 'O - O C ''-~ C N 9 O. O' vOi O '._O Y_ ,i' O "' N O n O _~ O CO ~O "~ V` E N~ n U O O O 17 V _T u ~> -~ U o c ~ D o~ c~ ~ iJ n c o o `n a= `o ° E 111 ,c, ~~ d .° ~ .. ~- ~ ~ c ~ o ~ o O h 6= YUi J ~Li U U O O aN. n o V>> r. R• d 6 l 0 9 t°i n U- v 0~ ¢ m 'O O D U m n v v n$ D n c v 3 c .tom .O m~ J 'j 'O L a ..i l'J a n U~ U CJ N_., C ~~ ~ ~ c O r 9 E> E u n U u- c u~ ~ 'O u~ y E n O u 0 'c~ cL. y 2 N V O O n~ O> O o 0 ~~ C y, O U V' `n y-~ C y C V u tni ~ U ~1~ e1 ~ U~_ `p L 6- C v~ O O O J J ~c ~G^ p~ ~ O ~ h d" N? .C V O O O p ~ U ykLL^., vi o n a v o o n c n 3 5 n a~ o a c o c L` O N D~ C m N E C U ,T, O O. ~^ J ~ a= O V ~+ C ~ n v' ° a '3 ~° v a c u i~ n o 'm ~ v ~ .. _~ t '.. o nni .' o o~~ v u n N ~ o~_ V > ~ n ~ ~. N~ p ~ m O U7 V i .. V O n .n vUi~ C j V p T :: y E L O " U r. E v L a° cci Y~~ ~> N~~ u pVl U ~ 6 .L] vOj `~ L c 41 .T U >' O ~ .J n L p1 C C _ C O O- f C vVi N N O p. C -fi C ._ a cO0 L u c c n E n o r y a m~¢ o ~~ o~ v c ~~ m o v o_ U .. ._ ` .U v n o „ a ~' ~~ n n ~ n E E ra ' y J^ O N V L m ~u U a~ U a ~, ~ c c~ y -vo v .~' N N c V f~ O D. v 6 .~ 3 m D. i = ~`. O. O m O' A N C Y C O n~ C m c .. '' o f o~ E o E c$ c i 0 a~> v n n v v v ~' E ~ L'o' Z ~° '~ ~ a F v> c Z ~ v`o n N? `~ E y~ °z O- 9 E 0 O U F n c ' -O n c c Y~ a n -c _ a O~ 7 >O n O N y N p O p .O a i r `~ N~ N`~ yo n c v n n~ ;. C~ V- C C O N> > > ~ C N ~ O` V U O toi m~ m°~ `n n c a .v, ~ ., a~ o _ v v ~ a_ ~> n= n n~~~ n ~ a~ a a: ~ ~ y V 0 .D V y Cl C `O n N~ H O C -OO n C U U y d ry U '~ C T A U O U d 0> U U> O U vl n n N ~ OV :^. u = ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ r o~ o > N O ^~ U , O _T V n 6 C Fy~ N U J n -' t7 `o a> E c o o f ~ ° N = ~ v .: l7 m c n u c _ .. o E v a ~~ .. _° a v n o v a n ° ° vvi m ~ a n nw au o~o co E n F~ N c n o y ~ c n o n c o c n ~ r~ o n v := a v N i y u C ~~ O L.. c .U. J'J n _n L_ u U J •' ~ V v~ EO nw_ LL N U t0 ~ N L O ~p d in %u : 3 u n ~ c v N n c v 5i U :+ O N C C C LO`: U O .m. 6 6> °c O Oi O m U O .. v „N ao v~ oz >a~a.. E nc sw- 'n ~ r, .N a a y 3 c n v , O o5c. n U ... V~ 0 0 0 -u a y -~ U n £J_ O ~ C C C U C` V O 'O eu° c c n E N a n' ~0. n O V r' 0~ o o p V 0 '4 ° U .u v .c F v .. -- a s a ... ~ -``-c° H~~ r a~ v 3~ E~ 3 r' n -.~.= 10-1 14 N c~ a C o! w O V u O Q H U ~ 1 T N " 6 - Vo FZ O - L vUi v v 7 !_ .~ > ~ ~ - v ~ ~_ o m Q I c a j 'm _> a`o ~ p m - c ~ f0 v C C ..~. J v N T o C ._ o v= .L _ J y N .O u~ w0 ' E- ~ o ¢ _ ` a ° v o `o c w o~~ v a ~ v >" m m = n a ¢ .. c o c3 °uo U u ~ U w C 6 O ~/1 O Q R m C n O _ ~ U C w `o ~ N E `v v E c n a o o ~ v ~ y O > v u v ~ a v E °->o c H a m a ~> N +~ W a v C it w U ¢ ~ ri Y a c 0 to .~ ___ 3 p ~' > ro c c o ' o ~ r9 v v E a ` 1° c ~ v~ ti y J ~ O m a d ~ m ° ' c~ ~ c n v p .y m " nw wQo >,°:3 E v ~ v o _ o ~ °- mUt m ~a 3 u ~ ¢ v p r o o ° E ~ a c~ a 3 i . c m h , O ~ > v E a E n ca E o c~-x .n v ~ o v ~., ~ as .. _ ai 0 O c_ C N l] ~^ O 0 ~~ fp d N U N O~ O N C v u ~ 3 c o= L .•• v~ 3 a ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ry Z n J h . l 1] a m' o o E 19 3 o v 0 m~ v E ~ ~~ v ` v `° ~, o o In r ~ E u N c L ~~ m ` w ~ v a ~ U o ~ o n m y ~ v v v N r .i ~ ~ o ` o v 3~ ~~ In ..t ¢ m n LL a o c m '_' y c O c . ~ o n o v o v ~ n L y .~ v ~- m v o m~ 'O ~ . ~ t a ~ p ~ 3 ~ ¢ ~ , 2 L m ~ L p ~ O > ~ „ N v 0 `^ c '" a p n a a .. 0 o m E m .. .. v ' ' ¢ . z o o v " ,u ~ -o ~ °-0 m o m - m m .. a °' c 3 E i a„ a v a ~ -> a v° o E n y .m a l a 1O f° ` ' -vp c r L, u~ v~ c ° a ~ ° w v c>~ v `w o v ~ s m . . - m >3aL ~ C m~ ¢ " o ~. ~ 3 y m y ~ c c 0~0= c N y ° o~ v c I J ~ ~ n c oaa o ` m 3 ° E E3 ~ , no ~ ~ m o m`v ¢ o . acv a o apxN N ~ O¢ O C c L Y . . ._ L Y ow Q w v Nn c J~ avaa ~ C C O m > C N O¢ O O ~ CJ Y Y O O L m U ¢ y a C O ~ O O Y J Y • M y y C O y m ~ ° ` ~ c a ¢ ~ ~ ~ m z ° ° M - N W ~L. v N O m ' ~ 3 L ¢ C N t0 E o c w m u o ' ° ~ E E a >= .` v a E a .- ~ m w c .- m o a o _ v . ' m° O0 '~ o `° ~ v N ~ v `° + o ~ -° o °° c ~ a m v C u ~ o s -¢ v v ,~ v E E N a ~ _ ~ , , a c L n Y c ~ o o f v m= ,~ . r o °' ~ u E 3 v Y ° m v u 9 !~ m v~ 'o ~° ' ` c o c L c 3 o L ° a m ~ a m N v V ~ v ~~ v ~ L ` .. `° c ~ ° . ~ .. .~ 3 ~ y ~ ' . o `-i m ~ ~o a .., o '^ , ~ °° c a > -O m> o c '" o E. v E ~ o ~ v a p ,~ co v m ~ v o v v L. ~ .. w ~E c c' o vi ' a ~ °- Y p c u a n ~ ° m y ~ u Y °~ h e n v a N~ c v=~ c L ° E O a o ~ o '° m ~ -va N w .~ Y ~ ° ~ o ° m J o `o O~ c ~ ° m ~ c ~ o Q m o' m v ~ E .. N a N ~ ° c c ° m o V d " v > v v J~~ . ¢ L . a a o c >m c ' ~ ai - ~ a o ~ ' - , E °: n L v 'x o o ~ Y ~~ v ._ o m ~ °' m N ~ _ _ m o .- 3 .n N ~ o m w ~ c . y- m .~ a ~~ o a n - v n v v ^' v u « 'v v v a v p m u U ~ m~~ ~ c c a ~ o 1^.2 G" Ea o ~~ " c °' ca c o ": y> `°' ~ L ~ ° 3'0 "- 1 °u- a`o v 3 I^ v E v c ~ `-° m m ^ v 6 v C a L.. rn~ 6 0 ' O N O m O n O .. s o O 0 ¢ m a ¢ c m Y~ N U u O v N O ?~ ~ 1 /1 C rJ ~ v C C ¢ u N ry a ~ ~ C ~ O 6 v C d ~ r E ~ ° 13- 'u r~ C vi O > N ° V v ¢ ~ v r ~ L > G L a O ' C ^ u_ J " E~ 3 ~ h a E ~ o n - m o c u v v L c ~ o a . m o v ~ . o ~ °v o ° io c a v 3 2 v N Y a ~ 6 ~/ C U1 u O C L _ m 2 v J c > a a v c v '^ In a m 'o 1 n - 1 1 G ~~ >° 6 ~ ~ ~ U C > U d K d C 2 U U N Q H U D n 3 r a `o ~ o C Z O = a vUi V 1 I J v G! 7 C .~ O >. v U V ~ O ~ c o ` ~ o n C C O f. ~ c G O U r U E n ~y U 0 UI p O a n .~ ~ = ~ ° y a ~ v y o ~- "i ~ nci y v a o 3 ~ 3 u ° u~ v> u>_ E ~_ = a ~_ o 'E amn ~v ~ ~ o >`o o c ~ E E c ' ' no3 " c ~ ~v~ ~E ° a v c i a i o .~ ~ n ' a ` a E E n i m = r ° uo ° 9 ° ~ a = > E c ~ r a Q c p c - ,.. v n -- n° E ~ o n° ai n a v v~ m ~ = n~ U °. °~ ° o a~ u c ~ m a ~ -~ o~ :' E ~ s ~ ~~ ai 3 0 ~ y c y ~ c~ o ~~ c °~ o o m u . ~ ' v v , c c ~' ' a t .~ ~~ c N n u o + ¢ ~ „ v~ o c .` c ~~ ~ n ~ o ° ` N c " ~ u o a ~ E c ~ 0 ~° m v o i s o v T„ p n ~ ~ v v 9 ~ ° ci c ~ u m Q n m y a E a ' n a a ~ _ ~ ~, v ~ n n ~ U ~. LL a U o c " U ~+ °~ U v n ~ c o~ ~ oa n c° v N ~ , ~ _ ~ v o a o v n ~ ~ 6 o ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ N ~ v al iv = v ~ - ai E ° ~ - ~ c E '' u °' ¢ v c g " N _ u c> n ~ ... E .~ n c o E '~ °a '^ a n d a ~n m a ~ vUi ~ ° m h m v ` '' ~ ~ n o c cr ,L o n v ~ ._ a ~ Q c~~ a .,"~~ ~ V~~ ° u o ~ ' o L o ~ n o n¢ w « ~ u¢ 0 3 ~ n n o o p vi v _ ~ u ~ ~ N U d ~ p '.. c ~n C C! L c 6 n C :. 'O a O 1] Gl n~~ W~° O U V 9 ~ ° y ~ m ~ ~ o m n c v n c~ E ~ v E U .V c `~' n v~ v n j v c a a `° ' ¢ c I n c n p o v° U m .c w t v a ~ ~ '_^ ~ v ra ~ ` c. ~ L m ~'+ ~ E~ ~ n~ E n v ~' c o. y ~ ~ ° .o '° ~~ c p ` a N N y> m v vl 0 o ° ° ~ v " ° o ° °1 ` ~ '" N `>' v n U ~ ~ n > a c C .r:. U n C v L - o a v 9 ~ V L D _ N n d _ o ~ E O. i ~ a o n U« a V 41 ~ to n o E3 0 ou °c°3 c v o~ o 'o na c ~' v ms> ci 'Q us >~ ~ ~ -¢a cc~ o f n a m w ' -- o i ~' o - N G n ~ ~ n n N y c ~. ~ o c n i = m ~ c w .~ o. >. o U ~ n ~ 'n ~+ a u c ` .~ j 'm ~ y ~ N U ~ n v ~~ o v o ~ E u o o ~ ~ > ~ ~ an ~ ~ m p m o . o y ° ~ ~ o u a ~ '° °' 'o J° ° ~ n c ° c v a° v a E a ~ o n~ v v ~~ _ a . N a . U $ c o ci m v ~ ~ .-~ ~ n ~ u ~ _` a E ~ `" ~ a ~ ~ N n o f ~' :: o. ~' y ' _. - a o ~ irv , o N .~ E oa o v ~ c - ~ n c n C! _~, n y „~ ' n ~e c o. ' > u O n_ c .3 ,~ ~ Y O_ U a U -~ u O E v° c O b F L r~ '° C a ~ n u V - o C ._.. X O r > o i E ` T C ~... ~~ E C u ~ '^ ~= c ' n" ~~ ~ v E n m c~ .:. n o = o° c~ v a a a '.. . y a c v n ~ c u. c ci 4 o S -' o _ "" - n v v .. v. .-, o :5 °> ~.°- v E > o~ 3 0 '° `o y i a o w ° c ~' m c o ° E° n 5 " u - n Q m n u n s n DJ - p C° V U 'O n 'v~ O m ~ V ',p` o iJ C0 ~ fJ _p n m= i .'-J' J ~ ~ ~ ' O U y Y p Q O ` ~ D_ V d .: 0 C _ ~ D. . .~ p d = E r o E ~ E~~ 2` ~ v a v n -~ o E u n v c~ o .. ~ E L E 3 V n a E c n V . C ea H n .C v 0 a 1 A _. 1 1 C ~~ ~. s ~ N V ~ J ~ U ~ 0 _> U N U a a w d C d V u Q V ~ n > ~ O 3- ~- 0 0 N 6 O EZ 0- oU ~ N V - 1 1 U 'O v 3 G .~ 0 c E v fO - E v m m h w ' + - ° -" > a ~ w o E o v > 4 c v < v ~ v'm ~ ~ v'm o c - v o m v ~ w~ o m v= ~ 3 w ° ' C~ O ~' L Q U « U N _ (J U E~ ~ U N ~ p ~ a o ~= o v o o~~ `m 3 o v o v q o v -o ~ v ` ~ v 5 ~ u 3 c o o u~ u z c1 m o m • c o • u~ u~ c ., a o m C ~ N m ~+ O n ° L c0 ~ Y m U O U . ~ ° C v na u ~ ~ E c V c v ~ c=' '° 2 c -o c ~ ' " v ? o i Y 3 c Y L o =o ~ a~ c . ° 3 E ~ w v N a u ~ « O ~ « U V 6 ' ~ N ` ~ L ` E o D o_ o~ N o_ o a m F- a T a `o. n°~ a o. mL+ - v n LV E m~ c o n a « ~ ~ v . ~ v c ~ m ~ c ~ ~ E ~ a c r a v a v m « l 7 H~ o o w v ' ° c w ~ oD a~ v ° « :: N a o_ a ~ t v m v v o c> o ' m - m m .- ' 0 ' v c .. c a N v o o v a E . ~_ °' o E o o ~ a a 0 3 ~E ~ c= o ~ `c° o~> c> v v m > y v ~ 'o a v a w o w~ n v o -vo ~ v o v v ` m v ` ~ E o ~ E o f E- o ~ o ~ m v ° °- ~ '" ~ w a o ~ ~~ 6 n a~ Q~ v c v m E p c c v ~ ~ E ' =o ~ c r~ ~« v t . y n v c o. v o~ c 0 0 ~ o ° m E n. m> E ~° m° ~~ L m o m v o c a «. N c ~- c « m ~ ~~ ~~ ` E P- ~ 'E g E Y a v . > a c o v ~ v '~ Z v o Y ~ o c m o ~ G c z .n v >. m v ' L ~ a E f a .y _ v~ _ m c -L ~ v m v o - > - o .. ~ c ~ v v~ w_ ° o m c . m o~- o o a ~ . n o m °' . ° ~° L ° o ° m °' N m E N E N ° . v m o m m ~ v ~ a .o m m m o c v ;° m o ~ a~~ ~ v D m N ~ c c E S a ~~ N~ ~ E~ Y m m t C C O O N m N ~ _ `° w v . w d ° °- v m v ° ~ v m~ o~ v c E « c ~~ rv n~ a ~~ w v m o .. c ,~ ~ ~°~~ A m v E E N is m E m . fO v m `O h °~ n$ B o a i s ` Y + ~~ o c ' c am- c c E y m . c '« ~ N N v - o E E c o E v vi ~ v m e ~ ~ w >, o a ' ~ ° _ , ~ H ~ 1 o N o 3 v E ~ o ' m~~ ~ ~y E o m a ~ o v v a o o c ~ o- a D n = a O ~ d v o m C N v c v N o L > O Y , , v « p o m C L a o o .. 'O m ~ ' ~' c ~ o a c ~ ~ o `n S v ° v v o m~- ~ ° ` ' N o E .d v ~ Q c . E- a i ~ u m m g a m E m~~ v v a m «° ° ~ ~~ m o o s o E c .~ -« a 3 0 L ~ v n o. ~~ n ~ ., ° , m° a v v c o. >. °' u Y d a m m e i o a Q . o ° m m o n n° m ` w m ~ a ~o ~,. o .> « 's 3 0 o w~ v Y '° c r a o m v o 0 m _. n L c o U ~~ v« .o a ~ ai '~ m o> y L t n° r E o c . ° n v v a w a '° v v vi c~ v .. M w V m v a N u a° m ~° v m .o o n s L v F = rv m m w .; °1 ~ ` ° °' m ~ E ~ j v '° 0 ~ c h " v n ~ _ - a ~ 3 - 3 i c E~ c> 3 o n a~ N . N ° ~ m E w 'c° o 3= i a v -a o~ ~ m v m v m .E n v~ ` E v 00 v ° v « , ,~ ~ v a > w~ mat v ~. v 3 0 0~ 'u « a _ ~E ` °~ ~ o ~ ` ' c v ~ o ~ m ° ' c N ~ '° ~ a . a °- ~ " a m m m a n E v ¢ ~ 6 ` ° u~ o m a y v° m a y c c E m ,u `° m v c E a` v a o a '" « ° m ~ ~ 3 °' E E ` '° " E m ~ ~ c ~ o v E `^ a¢ v o a ,. m 1O V m a co E « v °- Q o ~ o ~ m ? E a m' ' o a 'c o a" n ~« a °' m~ .~ _ r m ~n w o o ° v c w 1p s v m ai v v a v o o a' ° v a v o- v '~_ v '~ 'm a w a ~« ~> v ~- a v ~ .. vi «« r ~ a n E F> n m E n 3 F E$ h E o E n °' o m ~ vi - a m ~ - in 3 n E V V ~, O N O ~ O y 6 D ~ a E C ~ Y E ~ c n a ,. O a ~ C ~ v C w > m - N N O a 0 = m ~ a + N h ~ v ~ a ~? r O L C D O ? o n a v .n W !9 O LL c Y 6 O v v 3 ' ~ o.r m c a a L ~ 3 3 3v ~~ ~o G ~ = C U U d LV d O U V N a N V ^ n T ~ L' L N O O Ez o- d N ~~-~~7 Q K C7 O C n. l7 Z C O n. w o: ~ ~ Z 3 Q C I^ Y Z O C O F Z c~ G Z Q F- C >' V L _ ~ V ~ w n ~ .O ~ ° p O i ~ ~- C l u c ° ~ ~ O ~'.. O vu E ~ ~ ~ a ,, ~ = 3 o u n ea a a > C m° o ~ u c 0 ~ ~ c a ' o m u a ~.; y c J N _ > c p W 'J ~ C = C t~ v~j •" ~ - u c~ o a- .. $ ~ o m r~ u c c c ~ N o C 3 L n ~, _ o 0 3 j a ~ -o E n G o > N "' a o ~~ ~ ~ a = vv va v r ~.~ w F ° G ~ d o n s E S L 3 u . _ • c n w ~_ y c o -° c 3 O _ T y U-. a 3 T O - 2" V ~~ n o ~ ~ O O ~ - ~ O fJ ~ ~' ` U C VI ~ V C ~ O F 9 O O a J o• a C ~ 3 O U ~ ~ ~ u E o ` C9 n a u 3 N `o c~ ° E ~ `^ v° 3 t ~ ~ ~ ~ m a i ~ ~ x ° o c _ o ~ u a g E o CI '" ~ ~" ~ : i~ ° O$ m `c E ~ c c E J a u o c ° > c~ u 3 a; . ;° - E v ~ ° _ `^ •° v. a° ~ u '^ ~ ~ ~ a vl E 'o m o v o c o c n a u yc ~ V n ~UUV7 a oy 0 3 aj Ong m~ ~ nO D ~n - N Gw EN o n ~ n 3 - ..ua J a E i °i ~ a ~ N3 a~ ~ ~`o c~na s °o°yo Eu~ a =c _ c • ~a ~ Na a~+? E y ~ ~ ... E. c u a E . :x m N c o ~ ° Q ~ N ~ "~ u Q y u u .. 3 o p t ` ° ~ N ~ v ~ _ ~ y - ~ ~' o f n a o~ c n u `n ~ u o ~ m c h ~ u ° ° ~ n o> - ° o `~ u ~ a c d a u N ~ y u - >i E c 'n- u a 3> ' ~ n c~ v =o ~ z o u . = o n c y a E m 4 a v !' m > w ` ' ^ "~ < m ' ' ` n n ° n ~ c c ' n ° o u v ¢ - c n ~ ~ - +au3 c m ~ r n o w ~ c o ~ . ~ vi m . ~ ~ .: u u u ~ `? c vl - n „ ~ a w ` ~ > ~ u ra c o a c -~ m o ,., ro c 'E c rv - ~ o E ~ = o ~E L O O '6 L O< ~ V f1 = i U O O U C ' ' 3 O a ?. ~ a U~ 'O . ° u o E o _ a vi . ._ _ >- °' 3 c o. ~ o '.- y o n " :_ °' e ~ a u E a u ci u ~~ u °' ~ n E E u a o u o n$ n~ .y >• ~' ~ m Q ~ ' d N u c u" ~ vi Y = z °° '^ u p 1. n o _ a a n 1 ° .C ~ a ' ~ E " ° p; c E u -~ ° ' u as c a E m E o Q ° En E E c~ u E u u a m e m ° vi ~ x ~ E c° ~'n ' ~ > . - ~ c 3 z „ -- - ' ° ~ ~ yam ° ~ t ' u oCY .= '^ a u - a o ~ n ,n a 3 - L ~ , v - E a „ ~r °. ~ O 'y" C~ f ~J 0 ~ ~ 3 ° p a Q V n ~ o C N ~ C N~ n n` ~ O . ' J in . L~ . S a c .. ~ d a ~ N ~¢ n~U~ "y o~ccn ~~~>= E~ oQ" °i n3m°vmoE U . ' ~ . ` ` J u C1 ~' N N an ~^ ~+ J C c -= ° ° o L ~ ~ m n U w - - ~ ° Q n ~ o°a ~ ° o u > E _ o c° 3 c- `o ° ~ o n n n c= a o - " .o o J v" G a ~ m ° u a v E u 'L ° cL . ? ` ~ o `^ E a ' _ 3 °1 ~ E N r .°. n S-~ n v .~ ° a N ~ ° c . c o . o U u o .3 ~ r° ~ u y 3 - >~ w ` ~ u a o n ~ t Y ~ V C C y - o n O N U :C ~ u o O ' O m E ~? O .` d ° y a - v~ u C N ~ .. n U U C x U p y 'O V O i Q ~ U U ~ y r n L G' Z ;, ` O O J J a Z 9 C O i v°i ~ C N C : > L . i C = C E W v n < N° a 3 O O y m w y v y O . y C U < a O U N L 0p a 'v ° -° U . . . O y V . u ~ 3 r u a l . - ~ m ._ 5 ~ i E c~ ~... E L u r 3~> n a u ~ N U r~ ~ _ - c o ° ° ~ n ~ .. v ° vi ~ = ~ a ~3 E c a ° U L r '. _ 3 o J . n y ;~ u u a = ~ ' r o ° n . . o ~ V ~ `~ a n E n O ._ ~ ~ ~ n «° V a ~ ~ N - - m a c a _ 3_ L ~ ° y ~ ~ J N „ ~ U ~ ~ ~ U a > d d ep ~ ~ p ~ in c ~ y ~ c` n c n C > c ° j u a ~ c u a c>° !' E a >='^ c a n c~au n vi ° O n a m N U V O U N U ~ U - 3 ~ U i ~ r t '. c a G >' 6 ` 'V V C .Un m n V a ~ y ° u° i `o ~ 3 = u ~n_t~o c~ '= O > N _~ ~ ~ O l _> U ril (P 0 c !L O V u Q N V ~ n as O N -_ O O Z O o-_ 6U IV-110 v v 3 C .C O ~ °° v c m o m -~ c C O" p, ° 5 ~ 7: = > m O ~ U O w l ~': ~; > m J L U O i > m ~ L V O u o~ > ° N ~ c ~~ U -~ ~ T U c o ~: wt a n o '.~ m o ~ o . o v ~ ~ ~ a v V O y 2 t Y., ~. xf - O > a J ~ ~ v 7.Zt 0 y r= o a c- ° k~ °- v ~ E u °.' o ' s°o E c m - ~ J x ± ° o E r '~: u ,~ o o ~ ' s ~' v ° m y c ' - ~ > a n ' > ` } 0 2 j ~ V a a 0 ~; N ° c °' a ~ ° ' o j NO L U rJ ~ -2~+ -. a C ~ v N L m C~ a) ~ y O C ._ c v O a v V O. c O 3 C UI Y L m ^ v t 3 1 : r ~i J L- ? v m=" H m ._ `ELI ~{ ° p.0 N J m m > a - m a c O a c '~' Y E ._ a `- E z, ~ ~- ~ i ~> w v on a -o v ., ni U F E ° m a -° m h o . L m m~ Q o c ~ o o L J Y o ~ ~ a w o °.; ~ v -E ~ J o 9 ~°~ V n« 3 a ~° ~' ~ a 'O °1 •~ ^t ~ w c o ° o n o E ~o 1 v m a n (3 E i e ~~ v~ Op C N O ~ r S'r` N o C O T? _ v E a k, N O W m- °. ` ~ `s{ « v O. N Q ~ ~ 3 w -~ - I w r ;° v E !_' ~ N ` y v o o m ~ e4 N 0 ~ v a~ ~ N a ° N N ~ s eo " ~~ ~ =~ E c , ,.,,t ~ ' B o a a a ~ „s ~ E ~ -a v E ~.- -~z,1' O d d .m ~' O- a ~' a -sP, ~ a :: m e~ °. N C O ' ~ w o. v o m E m 2 V m ~..~~ . :n m v a c a m p m t o m s k' yxlc: v w m m v ;a ~ v v v w a m ~ 3 N ~ v v a c 9y, ti .c o m " w ` °' v ~ `v °« v ~o w e v H c ' n c i~ a v~ v O~ 4 V °. E m a E p °° ~~ c r~2'„1v E v z n C9 7 c v y ° m m - W ~ E O m n- E a -o v i-S rr- a E . C t] ~ w N O O o o o v v v h F t ~ w -O a m 3 t "' O O c >~ m U N O v m c a 3 ° o o w c m =v an d v c a> . . M~F~ m m ~ E c c c v L- a w °_ ca w ym m .~? m ~.Eaa-°o 'v E~~ o " qs;:p r: c$ c m nN' ~L. ~a E ~ m ~ v v~ - J E k '-. ~ m N ~+ L m ~ . ° v o c E t d -.° ', E r n ~ o n ~~ t } J o w° o F v x i V :~x~S u~ o >~~ n w 1O p c o b «N L O« .+. ~ ~ ~ 'D L -° V ° F Xlfl '~ O m a ¢ N N O- O a i =.m'+- ` '9 C . ` Y) m d ~ O~ ~ ~ V_ 6 T O E l0 v L ~kr~. ` 6 O C V~ U m ~ 0« d C v O N ~ L - k'..;5 ~ N W N a% t c L 1+ 1 ^ t A ~ a L a R ` 'E •O = j N ~ "` V. C a :n L O .A ° s$ : " LL N N d W ~ O. E OD O. > a a - c? U ~ ~`- -d .v, w .m ~ o v N~ _ tg t:j c~ v i a ~ v m c m ~~ a? v w w o 'o -° a s +.r' w E c o w m v c ~o - f- F. m e ,,, ,# l7 n y N m y E v~# ., > v~ a w c v ` v ~ a 2 Y ui 3 a t - ~~ ~ ' _ ~~ u v a ~ E •~ O u c ~ ." J n E `m a E _~ o ~ °' o. c> N ° ~ ' v- m >.' m o L c 'u v v a n xT m w v ~ o o ~ ~ o « ~ ° die, _ o ~~ ~ E ¢ o '° m o ~ > v a `° ' "' 3 . '^ u ' n ~ . ~+ a ;~ s" ~ a m "' N o u L ° .m v ~ o N N ' ' o N m O o o a ° ; " ;{ ~ ~ c. ~ a m v :«. o . - a V m v E cc 4~. ~+ « C C c ° C°~ o w .. Y `~ ~ a N> O v n a ° O v L c v =• m o o in v o 0 c s.; Q r o n ' o L c -'^ O« E O N W o m m m N` C` J « a Y~~ u v_ W `O ry~ n 'U j O. O N w c °°° ~ ti a w m c ~~, u a` m 3 ¢ si h ¢ a m ~ n m O ~ ~r R ~ . . c °' ~ , o. ti v w w c c E E w~ in ~ L vi a ~ ~ n •• °1 tn: i ui E E C ._ '_ .r.''B , ,_ 's 3: n"1K U c ~, ( N . N C W .v v a .. ~. o v ut. k°, v v a > c o i E a ki m v ° : ° v •_ c c '~ ~ . a ~" ° o E _ o c ~ E ..0 o . v u E : -. a O? T ~ v m~ . 3 T N V O u 0 ` ~ gT v o$ w V ~° o v v E ° ~0 0~ ° m n 3 c 'c ri~ V zn r m ~ o v m Q~ 3 ~ . ~v v Eoa°= ~ w' u N -.f :' ~ 0 O 'n W ~,, O:I m W~ ma_o 2a J :n y~ 2 - . N L a N C O w vOi Oy J~ O° N` 3 C - O v A V U O O O! 0 i m' s u' m U' c o 'o a O O ~Y c a E v o 3 0 6 : Z„ s y N d L_ . N a i ->' -~ o x" ` w v o E c ° J n v " c w _ l7 n H% v ~ v i _ U: o L g O O O S O . J i; a O G V1 v a v L V1 i m ~± V r- _ Z E ~ ~' ' ° 7' ~ ° r 1O ~ ~ E m a C7_ c ~ o 3 ; O: ~ v u a `o 3 `o U _ vs ~ . S: . s m w d m v ~ N G Q C l7 a C7 Z F K O a W K O -6 Z 3 Q c Y Z O K 0 '..' Z O Z O a U' F V D ~ U f! h ~^ ~n ~ . ~ m ~ 1 ~ J O ^ a ~ .. C ~ - n ~ r j - c ._ o ~ v u u u ~ o ` o ` c o o o u _> _> _> U U V V c ~ m c m N V O v D L r V U ~ V O v - O O - O - O 0 0 u a c ~ a c °1 a c u E ~ c c c ° E a a n ` ¢ ° r+ .n n ° ° o m ~ o o F ~ > o ~ > ~ > F ~ ~ ~ n ~ -uo c` ~ D '~ ~ u U n C ` U -' ~ o ~ E __ ~ u E~ a« > a u~ ° c ~ v c u > ~ " a :° o u > m o c o ~~ o D a o° ~ ? m o C ° - ° E O ' J C L U ~ f ~ j . ._ G'l. ` ' L J 6 « >~ u? u a~ o ¢ ~ 5 v v a ~ E u ? m E fO i ~ N n E ~- ' u v D i O L '- U r ~ ¢ a T O 1] a. _ N O - t ra = o . c u ~~ t0 m ~~n J C1 J rn . . °~ >' c ~ ~z . o E~ n Da = Y ~ ` > °' to u °' ~ - N ~ °'- G J D r ¢ ... c ~L. u v D u c~ ~'~ y 3 C V L O. C) U n ~ ? U m L Cl -. n v o '- ~ - E c °' l Cl ~ 2 J ... o U ~ ~ f: N ` ° C y :J .~ O c - I t ti ~ D N ~ U D C ~ OJ N y ~ u ~ N J ~ ~ W CJ ~ J a ~ ~ 3 ~ u o ~- ~ ~ p vt. ¢ o~ "~ ~L. `~a ~ n 3 u m > u ~ ~ r E > > u w o c~ _ ~ E D N- ° D tV V o 'D t o f0 T > CJ c i u n N y 3 V > d D '_ ' O n c U c V - o C N Q O_ ~ ~ a o ¢ o a ~ E " a -`w u o . ° a° a o° h c a m o= u c E - t o c ~ c . ~ ' o u n u ~" O u u E o ~~ o a o v u .~ -, U c° c o o u~ N y o LL o m ~o ~ E ra ` - o m E m `o u~ ` u ~ o V' C °° ° L 'n F U t~ c ' E -O c D, t O N C m o d D_ W c a 6 - o E , r n y. N cui ¢ 'o C u -° o. a E ~ E C U u U O J m L - _C U _ U m O ~ ~ 1O L ~~ n >¢ O U° J ° ~ vUi L ~ 9~ U u m O v i U ~ 3? -O `u' ~ c a u i~ ¢ =' u 9 -O LL D ° o O U .. U ` ' O ._ .~ 3 ~ P a c O • i -p u U N L O U « V C O C_ _ D O t o L > O m.O b L ~ ~ u v i ` O O ~ l.7 > C 6 6 2 ' UlJ j L n ~ u ... t u ~ U O > d a. a N V O U ` > L O a u~ ~ °' a s ° ~ n 3 m ~ ~ u m e' n> i y~ ~ o ° o n i n E ~~° m> ~~ ~ : -a S, ~ u 2 p N D ;, J J L E u - ._ 2 c fi ~ D~ ~~ ~ u J LL ~~ J U ~ o- "" u` 0 0 0 ~ a J v L v .u, D o c ~ y ~ o w i t ° ~ `o o> u c c ° n o y o u ~ ~ E D ~ c u ~ E v J `° u o a ~~ o v E u~ E i c y a~ u E y o u $ v o ¢ °~ E E o ~~ C a ° ~ D Q u J ¢ N n ~ a L '~ ~ U O Q m U Q V V C L~~ Q p L T C y y n O C u _u O- ~ J a ~~ ~ Y .. ~ ~ c ~ c= a m 5 t7 ¢ u~..'~9 ¢ n m ° ~ ~ m~ u u L o u u¢ - ~ ~ '~ a n .~i u ~ ~ u ° u n u n .~ o o„ .~ n n v ¢ .~ vi ~ CY ._ ._ .= c a ~ vi 4 n a vi L u o O~ C ~ J U N` U U O' U " ~T C c o~ u u~ u~ _c o a ~ ° ' ~ a n~ u~~ E E r ~ z = n ~ c ' - " u ; . $ 3 ° ~ ~ D n "o L ° u .n ~~ ° ~ D o ~ m ~ ~ m c~ a « " ~ D c- _ ~ m ~ o N o X 0 3 D .~ o w a o. o __ o ~> ~ n Q 7 ~ - 'O _N N ~ 9 U c N v U . U j - C O d O U ~ -_ ~ v O~ N C u U V p C u j C p ~ o ~~~ - g ° E ._ `-' ~ o H~ "E E ._ z o o- j E ._ ° is ~ V' ¢L ¢ O~ O L a- U V 1] O.L Yi 0 U 0 6-' .O. C = u D 3 c~ ~ a o 3 ~~ o h o 3 o ° c ~~ o o ~ u a o D ~ N~ o o H ~~ o o '_ a ° u m . ~ E? D c as ~ u m.D N s o°~ V u m~ ~~ c D c ~. '.. n o o a~ c c ~ i o ~ 9 c c c D U 'D O fi U U~ ~ 'O O N~ ~ O ~ L u~ c c ~ E~ ~ v o D v a ° n o u~ ~ c n~~ i ~ a w ~ a¢ a E - v"i ~ n ~ u ~ ~ 3 .~ ~ a~ ~ ~. ~n inn ~~ -o ~ N ~ O ~ ~ U 0 _T U P m m O a a O U U n N U O^ O ~ ai - O o U' cn E O Z 0- a~ LV v 3 G .~ O u T V m V a ~ V ~ ~ ~ h c m a _ > _ > ~ _ > O m ~ m J N tp J J N J G O ~ L V L L U U L U ~ o n o 0 0 0 ° z _T _T _T _T U U U U C N O y fJ m ~^ V C N V O d L O 3 O v ~ - 0 m y 3 v « - o 0 > 6 0 O V `~ c E > 6 ° v ~ ¢ m b y c n a N c a E c o ~_ n ~ E o n o v~ o m E c o n o E `o_ > E n o o a _ o v > r- v ~ LL~ ~ o o t~ ~ ~ u na a a ~ v n-o 6 - vl O N C W C (g 0 0~ ~ n a h~ c0 Y~ d T. a a 'u rv m V -° ~ =~ O 'u N '^ m ~ 3 o ~ ~ ~' w c ~ v .x ~ w ~7 ~ E a ;~ o ;~ ; J m o u v~ a a v c -o n o- . N Y - U wf v ~> O n ~ C v v ~ 'O N N O a n d l7 m v N T J 3 ¢ ~m m v Q ~L h ti ~~ m c v n v- c~ ~ m au ~ ~, .u ~ .. > 3 = N m m a v a v m o m 1° o E v o c .: a c c °' v ~ ~ - c J u v in j c v ~' w 'u m c v n m '° v E y n c ~ n u '° 0 0 m:9 c h o w a N ~~ v ;~ o - > i J v ~ .'^ o _ o n « a o L~ E " w ~° v °' ~ p v v v~ v a v w w ~ m v '- E c v~ a C J t0 U J a i~ ¢ ° ° 6 ~ a~ o v c~ o ' c o o c° v °: l7 °° c E n v . n « c w n~ a v v a ~ LL u~ O` ~ O- a ~ V G H T ,ti O a y C N V u ~ o ~° ~ 6~~ ¢ a+ m E rv c m -o U °° °' N u E v~ c n m o ~ ~ v N v ~n v c v c J~ _ y ~ H v~ o V> a > ~ L v - 3 o ` ~ ~ w v m a v m n v N a V a c A a° a ~ t ~ ~ ° y u - a u n ¢ a o~ N ~ E o c~ T o r m o -> o o v >' Y E E a v c m° LL v o o. = a~° m v ~ ~ ~ aa~ o9'u-' - Y,~ nm cv cE a Y~s-o ~ a ~ a y vo ~ a ~ E °r «_ ~ my c IG a .n J C N~ n `0 ~ in N 'O U ~ pl T E a '°^ O T C o °~ a~-j 'a' ~ N v d a Y m j C .YI w t` ~' 6 f0 ~ L ~ 2 '^ N c « N c m° v o V LL > in a N ~° a a J L O -O u a a` v 3 w +~" N ~ s h O 3 T C ~ O a , a m a , j p a 6 a T O O p K E ~~ ~c~°~~c~ ~nv~~ w`o~~v v ~aa ¢ Q v¢~ c a a . ~^ '^ v o v Y '^ N LL m C w c v ~ o n ' E ° o E a n n . ~n m a x m r E ~, o m O n o a v p h m - u ~ > v g ¢~ 6 ° N v~ v v v 'a. ~ N u n u H m v G ' O ° rv Q v v~ .y ~~ O ~ v v a i - o a ~ .y a s ' a s .` m ei i $L E g o E« - w e-1 C C O m C i E' v a .~ s a v .. in o v n u v m c~ ~ c v a °- ~ E o~ m u .C L mL1O o v m v m m a~~ o '° ~ m o _o ., 'a v~~ 3 s . u ~ 'o a v ~ 3 v ~' a c J ~ 3 o a ,.. o o c~ u is v c L = ~, u aL. '_° :C 'u ~- u P V C n Y~ + m w o J y l7 O C C m 0~ N J -~ o c ~ p v T c J L 3 m u m ° o i o m ` o ~ LL a o a m ~~ J fO ,a ° c o .. o a ° ' E c '3 ~ -° a v~ ~~ v n m ~ - ~ c v v ~ O J -° ' c w Y v o °_ vim- .= `" °s mY w V o o mL N o ~ ~'' ~ > >!_° =a 0 ' a 3 a 4 i~ ~ u L O 6 d V O C R ° 1O ` ` ¢ 3 .C ~ pj' W O j~ w E u ~ ~p ~~ d ~ o N '... ' 'a a c .~ ¢ n o p v 0 o c l7 = ~ -a : a o a~ ~ c ' ~ c ~ p u 3 p ~ `° c c N a l7 0 O ' LL d °~ ~ _ a N '^ ~ n a 9 a ~ > a ~ v ~ Y ~ ~ ? VI d V ~ W C m N O m O 'O y -O °- C ~ V ~ i E ~~ u Y v D c a U Z ~- C C T ) `l' __ U -O p m ° _ C N O o ~ m ~ E 3 3 n . c V v o a ~ a m a s n a Y ~ m v i L. i 9 c o« :' ~ -° ? '° u d m ~ ~ ~ ~ y ° .'_ l7 -° 3 ~ ~ ~ '° v 3 w N w yo >. v n ° o a ' - " ° V 'a" m ~ c ~ v [ ' o v E m a o r - a m= n ~ ~ . c t ' a b o. L C c o- O~ 'O J 3 w m ~ 'O ~ O C7 9 a O V ~ o ~ 9 N T N C O 'O a '~ ° o 3 a~ gy m- 3 c c u c c n a u ? p1 ~ m n J v o ` ~ «: v a m~ n E v~ v s ~° O '_° 3 v° E c v ~ r ?~ o c >' °1 m a a m w E¢ s 3 p m= ~~ 3 v 5 oc v v i a xo' Y 'o H - i - ~ v v n = c ~ ~ °~ a s E - a m~ ~~°° m v 3 ~ n 3 ~ n ~ `o 3 m ~°, ~n o. ~ n ~ w ~' `o. a 6~ ° O ~ O ~ C L J U C U a U u Q N V ~~ >^ o " 3 6 ~ N O z o= oU d N IV-ILI t C/ 7 c .~ O > V CJ C U m < ° m ? c o " O. _ -~= _=1 _- Tj - _- ~~ :-.<.: ~~' ~'`'~ ~?_> J r J u p u o y .c. n n ~ E L U C ~ ~ u u ~ ~ O L U ~u>ux c ~ ° _ _ = m '^ v m m = t=* o n ~ ~ m c ' ~ _ '~ u °- > _ _ o ° ° ~ 3 ~ -i-i = c v+ ... a u c ~ C ' c ~ p N° J L ~~ O H O ~ ~ o ~¢~ 3 c~ ~ c ~ E ~ ~~. « ~ ~ o c « c o n`- > o n u s o `^ ~ r a ... .n ~ > .. u c o - c `0 0 t= a° ° ~ d m a o ~'% ~ ~~ ~S N T . ` m > O Y C r " .` ° C OCO O ~ O J ~ ~ u a C T U y c>i v ~ a y c n~~ v 3 = a ~ ~ ¢ °1 a E N '^ `>- a F c n. ` E Loq . ~ E~ c~ c° 3 o '^ v~ o E r« .. -~: o o h° °_ c v n a c N o E o l~7 c 0 ~ o a o u p ° cci -~ ~ o ~ E ~~ ° ~ ~ °1 0 > a c o v c~ c ~ E c$ ~ ~ . o n= n m o ~ ' -4,e~.-'n ~~ `" ~ E v m? m ~ a n ~ `- ' v 5 ~ o a° ~ ~ v n c g ~ 9 0 ¢ m o¢ ~ -0 m 3 ~. c_ N =, - .. c a a o " S h o a ` -- a O p '^ o. ~ o o '~ o ~~. ^ -`~ ~ ° o a L o ._ ~ ra v 't- a o o a - o o a v c c > ° m~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ ._ v. - ~_ c v a _ n i o 0 0« ~ o o '-" n 5 N a u v n n u m« v c L L Y n c o ~ a r. n E E a « -° n v° u i ~ v a . m e E N E f ~+ ~ ~ c E ~• ` U a ~ ° m ~ `~ O U ¢ 2] ~ ~- ~ L n Cl O n T j J J > L 0 ~ C b ~> n a ~ «"tL- o n.°a n~ u E v= ", ~__~ -- a L c nvi~ o ~~ . ti 6 t m ~ ai ~ t v c E ~ ~~ c v o "' o m i m 3 a -va L m ¢ '~ ~ m o ° ~¢ ~° ~ ° ° 3~'~ ° i i ai a - o. . c ~ u', . aN ~E mn ~ ~v~ a btu ~~ ~ .~ Via' ~ u u E~= v H ~ n o v '"-' c~ '^ u n ~ > p n ~ '3 ~ x o c r. N i c E u ~ ~' v y v v° « v m~ °' ~ ° E c~ fO o i~ 9 ~ ~ c n ~ ~ y 2 -~ ~ a o u n° N ^' ° ~ °; a 3 o a 3 ,; a? ~ N E' N n ~~ v ~ r o a v ° ~ °° o n n c ,.; v n~ ~ __ E n L m ~ v v a u n C N U C S W a n m' van v n °' i~ `o ~ E ~ E° o o E o E ~~ ~~° u o ~ - m c a ~ n :~ E o E " v o ~,.. N v n e~ u « o o ~ «" m a v v ~A N ' ~ v n op ~ ~ ~ J a y o m v ° ~ n c a m o a v o ~ ? E ~ o o ~- r a ~ v y '- v - -# x= .~ N ? u o a E ¢ a o' = a < n . a- . ,6 n v c > `i v ~ ~ c o ~ - R N t ~ v? a - O d N "~ ~- O a c U n~ o c ' C w n N a C U u n o O ~ j J u J n ? c~ a v ` 0 a ~' o ° n h n u ' ° v p u C t V n v o _ p u~ ~c c ~ Fk ~-i a = a ¢ n N ~ r~ ~ ~ a-O c ~ ~ 2 E c o E u v c c N o ~ a'c x ~ a ` _ « u J ° :u « v -'- > o a ~ o o n . o E H m . a ' „ ° c n $ o a n .+. ~- c -a v ~ ~ ¢ E ~. N o N w _ n r o ~ ¢ n- o o v 3 ~ ~~ ~.i o= u t N '; « n N u o> a m ~ N N a ~ n 3 E a N _ ~.:. ' ti N a a n n V L c .`~' O u '~ u a N c -_ v I ~ _ ._ ~~ E U1 n H r 2] S E [p `n a [O 1!1 a ~^ n~ n E u C 'T ~?I~ nJ ~~ Fa. O O ° G- a O ~ii = m 3>° v ~ 9 ~° o a° - ~ n v~ t vi O 7~ C) L O S ° n i3. ' n '~. i 0 '-J y a i n a n v U l u ~~ N> C O O J ' ~ n= u C L J L E ~ ¢~ 3 3 o ~$ v E a n v o ¢ _Ka u m o c L ~ ~ « ' ° ~ « " E ~~~ c °_ _ v o v ~' n o ~ ~ ~: - ~ 3 +• m a G o v ;~ v a o 0 0 v _-i > o n -• ~ N o c> ~ n ~ .~ ~7~ ~ v ~ n a? ~~ =~~ ~ ~<~ N n o E `n " o ~ C N~, r _ c~ ~ O N ~ CJ x m` .. ~ n ~\ ~ c ... ~ _ a c U 9 C? ~ ° O p U 2 j n _.5p p a v i n n= u ~ a c V ¢ > ~ ~~ < N > v u n n o~ o. v n n y: sx_: n v x 5 S ~ o~ _ x r i L E ,n„ ~ E n • n n ~~ ~N ~ O J V -' 0 T U p rn O 2 b d u U Q U D n >~ ~ ~ O . a - N O O Ez 0- oV d N V 3 >_ .~ O T C m C l ~ m 4 0 ,, m ~ c o ~ a v z c 0 m `o v E m v E r v c `o v m a c ~ c ° 3 N m ° ~ E " ~ c m a E E i m a; > w m ~ v ° ° n m ..+ v - o ~ .c m m ~ .o v m~ ._ ° n c 3 v E t O p .a. G C C y v N U L m °- O v° C 9 O 'u C~ ° ~ C p 0 '" O m j 0 E p` C O E c o a+ • m ' N` w v 0_ _ ° `~ •' C ._ m o t p T c cr.. ~ ~e y 3 3 v v ~ ~ - _ o ' ° ~ ~° .°: E E C 3 v ,_ o .E ° ~ ' ~ ~° v° o -o °~ w ~ E E o n d m u o v u ~ ~ v o v c . v o w v E- ~ o -~ 2 ° ~ v v '~ c y c . ~ ra ~~ m a~ c > m W '_^ ~, n m ... to p °~ v . a m p o -O N oa ~ -. E ° « '. ~ o E m .° v ~ -° ~ '° v v rv a o m `~ c ~ ~ u w a -3 o '°' ~ .N m m ~ w° «' c 3 L n c c 3 . ~ w ° a v o ~. a o , o ° c m o ~- °° .a ~ ° c 3 v m c ' _ m °1 u o m c c a w ~ o m w~ nco m m o ~ v = o ~ N ` Y v m o c E ~ ~° o a o m c m ~ E a m' u m ~~ ° ~ m m ~ ~- = v v m i5 v- m A • ~ o o ° ~ ~ N m w o v o E w v a E s r 3 v .° v c z o a ' w "-' w . ~ ' 3 a y c- c °- o a o i v s .n c E m ,v, LL 3 m i x c v 3 ~ c o -o 3 a F v v o c° v ~n U O 0 0 a °- ~ N L N~>~ ~~ O O C T O O m - O O p o m ~ c N m 41 L ~ ~¢ m~ V ( p E v ~ s ~O -o H a ' ~ w !~ ~ E' v~ m "~ ° ~ - m 1° ' m v L. c ~_ m a ~ v m c ~ m o ,.. v\ o. er c v c° .~ c o .. x a .'°. ~ ~ , „ N m° ;g ' o~ E ~ °-' ~ ~ m -O ° v o E o a n v ~ ~ v v v v o c ~ v r r `° ~ E ° o c v° m~ o ~ m ~ v o 3 Y m e ¢ - E_ v ` ° - c~ v v~ ~ m= v o vrm v o ~ a~ av~ ~>a. ouTO~o ~`m Lm ~w y a a F a ~ Y c E ' '°^ ~~ m n m N ~ u '~ m y v N~^ c ~ o a m y 2 ° w t ~a " 3 ,v. a a 1D ~ m m ~' m ~ H a E L o a . . . m E m ~' :: ~ v m 0 n a v ~ N ~ ° i = . Y Y ~ r w~ `o v° x o v~ a m« o y >> ,~ v> v E ~ c o o v °c° v ' . v~ n O ° = D m~- ~ W 3 n m o 3 m i m n N °~' u `v u 'E c o° o. u ~ ~ a h =~ v -v° v E~ m a ` ' ~ a v .L. ° ' ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ m s ~ ° P' ~ 0 3 o v. E c'o E N ~ 2 w ~ m ° m •- : . ~ v ~+ r ~~ c o a 3 in u a u m ''" ~ m o v E F o f> o a v c c o? m ._ °' m m c N a s a~ v '~- Y o ~.= a° ~ a$ E u o m m ~ ° c o > c ~~ . v_ ~ ~ m c L ~ ~ v E a-O c ~ ° c o ~ a L o i ` ~ O o m r ° E n °' a m s m ... ° o. ._ ° =0 5 ~ .n ~ v ~ ° ° E E ~ a ~ ° .a '~ Ui 4 ~. oC~ Vii; 'h V 6 E C n V 'C m m C v 0 a ~ n inn 6 M o O ~ t ~ U O T U U d K w a c d U U N Q N U ~ n T ~ O r 3 N ~o N O O Ez 0 6U n ~ _ _ I1L I GJ _ _ _ 9 v C C O V ^-~ U ~ Q 1 O L t~ ~~ c ~ L O ~ V ~ O a o U C ~ u = o N.° .~ o ° ~ ~ _~ c O ° o v V c G V ~ ~ !i _ O S ~ ~ -'r E o ~ ~ ° 0 0 ~ o u ` ~ E o >v ~ _ n n n o t o " ° c ~ ~ y ai o = ~ °° c ~ ~ ~ ~ m .- c° E c~- N ~ ~ > m ~e o -' o ~ E x y n °' m° ~ ~ E - c 'm c E m n y C O O °. L N W fi "' u W a ~'U V j, > v 3 ° a n ~ ~ " o c ~ 0 ° a 0 ~ ° ° ~ ~ 4 a a 3 n _ - ~ E •r'• c~ ."' n° o ~ ~ E m E n p u ~ . . n~ a d= c c c m ...F a 3 a m m ~, a° ~ ° a o c c~~ ' O ... o 'o ~ a ~ a o ... °..n m° r~ c a a ~n a n ~ w° n~ r~ a c a _ w 3 n a m_ j v m n ra " c ` v , m° °~ ~ °` o ° E 0 n _ .a , ' n .^ o n _ m `m a o a c E c~ o y~ ~~ p ~ ~ ~ - o `' n ° c v° V F- o a o oVfl a L i E O o Oj ~ O p `I 2 r~ O r~ > ' ~ _ _ i ~ o i ° ~°~ y ~ m m ;; J ~ , ,~ r u m ' c x E n o " o v ~L ~? V U ~ u ~ p ~ ' c a ~ o ~ E y io ... E E ~ u n- o_ c n ° ~ ~ `~ 3 n c ~_~~ ° ~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~ n- u m~ m "J o 9 V g n u r O ~ E V j Q o> p c O L u L C O U ~ ` V W 0 O -p A N C! j W i ~ 0 ~ O ra ~ m CV,p ~ v ~ V L L _ N -o ° ~ ~ E? ~ ~~ y y o o c m E j o u m vi fi ~ o m ¢ ~ u u , o n _ c a = „ c ~ u ~ ~ w o ~ ~ ui _ JNtto ~ ~c a eo~~h=c.,3N m H ~ a~° r n ° - m s ~° -F o Y „ U o .E I m ° o E e i ~ w ~~ u '"ice E n v . .o. m~ a ~~ > °- m ' ~ O . . . ~ ` I ry V ~ o ' = o a c a ~ - - ° m d ~ O U L_ C L _ a .J O C ~ N c ° E o a w C T a o n n c n n c g- E ° a d? u= ~ o C n 3 a > J C N O ~ U c L U V W ` a p 3 d F U ` Ur ~ o > u ;a E H n ~ o ~ ~ CJ V - p i :J ~n J fJ c ~ ° 4 . n 0 a n . . m ~ ~' -~ 0 w E U ~ L u i o u - 0 t ~ a ~ o 3 o ~ '~ ° > > °a u c '3 c ~.. ° C (~ V O W~ n !~ V U O` " O n O v n .. = ` 7 U O ` u E ~- v o ~ s -~ 24 W ~ °° 3 _ ~ ° o ° °. p n = O 1 N 6 'V = C U -' O T U r ° U7 6 E C O U V N Q N U ~ n >~ O ~ 30 - o- ~o Z O - aU d N ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTII~IG THE PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-10-24) AND RELATED REZONINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN' Recitals. A. Specific Plan Boundaries WHEREAS, the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (referred to hereinafrer as "PGDSP'), which is the subject of this Ordinance, is represented in Exhibit "A;" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and includes approximately 100 gross acres of land generally located east of Interstate 5, south of Oxford Street, west of Industrial Boulevard and north of Anita Street; and is known as the Palomar Gateway District (PGD) and is located in Southwest Chula Vista; and WHEREAS,.the new land use and zoning regulations and design guidelines of the PGDSP would only apply to an the area of approximately 100 gross acres; referred to as the Subdistricts Area as depicted in Exhibit "A,' and outside of the Subdistricts Area, existing zoning would not be changed; and B. Preparation of the Specific Plan \\~HEREAS, on December 13, 2005 an update to the City's General Plan was approved, which provides a contemporazy vision for the PGD, as one of five "Areas of Change" within the Southwest of Chula Vista. The General Plan Vision for the PGD states that the PGD is an area where more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment are proposed to occur. The General Plan vision for the PGD includes a Transit Focus Area on and surrounding the Palomar Transit Station; higher residential intensity, a neighborhood park and retail to the south of the Transit Focus Area. The goal is to provide additional housing and mixed uses (residential and commercial) that take advantage of a major transit station within walking distance; and WHEREAS, the Land LJse and Transportation Element of the General Plan calls for the adoption of a specific plan or other zoning regulations to implement the new land uses, in particular mixed use and high density residential zoning districts, to ensure the systematic implementation of the 2005 General Plan; and WHEREAS; it was determined that, given the characteristics and conditions of the PGD, the best tool to implement the General Plan vision would be a specific plan; and J:\AUOrnev\FINAL RESOS AND GRDIIQANCL'S\2013\08 06 13\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-7 I2 13- FINAL.doc 7/16YZ013 8:43 AM 10-125 Resolution I~'o. Page 2 \\'HEREAS, the specific plan will sense as the tool to direct and guide the development of the PGD towards this coal by directl• regulating land use and establishing a focused development scheme and process for the azea; and \\%IIEREAS; Chula Vista A•funicipal Code (CVMC) Section ]9.07.010 adopts b~' reference Sections 6450 through 6~4~7 of the California Government Code that authorizes the local legislative body to initiate the preparation of a specific plan to implement the policies of a general plan: and WHEREAS, the requirement to have zoning consistent with the Cit}•`s General Plan is established in CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 6560; and C. Public Outreach and Participation Process \\'HEREAS; prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan for the PGD; City staff undertook an extensive public engagement strateg~• with the community and that this community outreach effort was designed to involve the vazious citizens and interest groups of Chula Vista in the PGDSP process; and \\'HEREAS, from this community outreach process and other activities; City staff identified and reached out to a group of individtials with interest, knowledge of the azea; and leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest \\%orking Group (S\\'\\'G) and the S\4'\\'G represented across-section of the south~~•est community; including communitti• organizations; businesses: and residents. The S\VR%G was tasked both with providing oversight for the southwest planning efforts; and with working to engage other members of the community with the process; and V \\%HEREAS; the prepazation of the PGDSP was facilitated by the financial participation of the San Diego Association of Go~'ernments (SANDAG) and the Cit\•'s Redevelopment Agency; which agencies provided a grant from SAI~rDAG's Smart Gro~ti~th Incentive Program in the amount of 5400,000 while the Redevelopment Agency contributed matching funds in the amount of S 150;000; for the preparation of the PGDSP and Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and R%HEREAS, City staff and the S\\%\\%G began the- active preparation of_ the PGDSP in January 2010; and \l'F-IEREAS, meetings of Cin• staff and the SW\VG were held from January 2010 through Mazch 2012; in which meetings the S\1%\\%G provided input on significant planning issues such as new permitted land uses; development standards. design guidelines; and infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, the draft of the PGDSP was completed in March 2012; presented to the S\V\\'G at its meeting of?\4arch 21, 2012 and thereafter posted on the Cit~•'s website for public review; and l:Wnomev\FIN'AL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\08 06 13\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-i 12 13- FINAL.doc 7/16/2013 8:43 AD1 10-126 Resolution No. Pale 3 WHEREAS. the finished PGDSP document bears the mark of this extensive public outreach process and that City staff and SWWG members worked hard to develop a plan that both allows transit-oriented development in the PGD; and at the same time does not overburden this area with additional auto trips; and WHEREAS; the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in CVMC Chapter 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7; Division 1; Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 65451; and WHEREAS. PGDSP Chapters 3, 4, and 5 contain the Land Use and Development Regulations; Design Guidelines. and Infrastructure and Public Facilities, respectively; and provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development; and - D. Preparation of Environmental Impact Report WHEREAS, Enviromnental Impact Report EIR-IO-OS (SCH No. 2011111077) (hereinafrer referred to as the "PGDSP EIR'') has been prepared for the PGDSP as a Program EIR and includes an evaluation of the growth management quality of life thresholds at a programmatic level. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures that address provision of public services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to contribute to the provision of public services and facilities commensurate with their impact as development occurs over the course of the next 20 . years; and \\~HEREAS, a Notice of Preparation for the PGDSP EIR was circulated on November 30, 2011 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS; a PGDSP EIR scoping meeting was held on December l~; 2011; and WHEREAS, Drafi PGDSP EIR, together with the technical, appendices for the project, was issued fora 45 day pubic review period on April 15, 2013; and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the public review period closed on May 30, 2013; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on the Drafi PGDSP EIR and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section's 15086 and 15088; all comments received were responded to in writing; and J:\Attornev\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\?013\OS 06 13\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-7 12 13- FINAL.doc 7/16/2013 8:43 AM 10-127 Resolution No. Paee 4 E. Plannine Commission Record WHEREAS= the Development Sen~ices Director set the time and place for a hearine of the Planning Commission on the proposed Draft PGDSP and Final EIR for June 26; 2013 and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose; was eiven pursuant to California Government Code 6091 and 6092 at least ten days prior to the hearine_ and \\%HEREAS; the heazine was held at the time and place as advertised; namely on June 26; 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers; 276 Fourth Avenue; before the Plaruiins Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and \\'HEREAS; the Planning Commission considered all reports; evidence; and testimony presented at the public hearing ~~~ith respect to the Public Hearing Drafr PGDSP and Final EIR: and WHEREAS; at said public hearing the Planning Commission recommended through a vote of 4-1-1-0 that the City Council adopt the Resolution certifying the Final EIR-10-0~; makine certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. and adopting a Aitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the PGDSP: and F. City Council Record A'HEREAS; the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing of the Cit_v Council on the proposed Drafr PGDSP and Final EIR for August 6; 20li and notice of said hearing; together with its purpose, was eiven pursuant to California Government Code 6091 and 6092 at least ten days prior to the hearing; and \\'HEREAS. the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised; namely on August 6; 20li at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers; 276 Fourth Avenue; before the Cih~ Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS; the City Council considered all reports, evidence; and testimom~ presented at the public hearing with respect to the Draft PGDSP and Final EIR; and G. Environmental Determination \WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration dated June 20li (Exhibit "B" of the Citti~ Council Resolution) conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR aze feasible and have not been modified; superseded or withdraw; the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement those measures. These findings aze not merely information or advisory; but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the ordinance approving the PGDSP. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Exhibit "C" of the Ciq- L~Attomev\FI1dAL RESOS A1~'D ORDI;\ANCES\2013\08 06 li\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-7 12 13- FI'~AL.doc 7/16/2013 8:43 Al\1 10-128 Resolution No. Paae ~ Council Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follo~~s: 1. That the PGDSP is in conformance with the City's 2005 General Plan based on the following: The proposed PGDSP is in conformance with and implements the 2005 General Plan. The PGDSP is based on the vision and objectives of the General Plan for the PGD. The General Plan largely focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of the western portion of Chula Vista. Section 8.0 of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan outlines the vision for the PGD and objectives and policies to implement the vision. The PGD is identified as one of five "Areas of Change," which are areas where more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment is proposed to occur. The General Plan vision for PGD includes a Transit Focus Area (TFA) on and surrounding the Palomar Transit Station, higher residential intensity, a neighborhood pazk and retail to the south of the TFA. The goal is to provide additional housing and mixed uses (residential and commercial) that take advantage of a major transit station within walking distance. The PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the General Plan as an implementing regulatory document and thus serves as the primary source for policies; guidelines,. and regulations that implement the community's vision for the PGD. A comparison of the PGDSP to the General Plan policies related to the PGD is provided in Table 5.1-3 of the EIR and attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. As shown in this table. the PGDSP would be consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies for the PGD. Based on the above, the City Council does hereby find that the proposed PGDSP is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support its approvaband implementation. 2. That the PGDSP has been prepared in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and the California Government Code provision governing specific plans based on the following findings of fact. Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.07 (Specific Plans) and California Government Code Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 3 Article 8 Sections 65450 through 65457 establish the statutory authority for specific plans. As provided in CVMC Chapter 19:07, specific plans may be implemented through the adoption of standard zoning ordinances, the planned community zone as provided in this title or by plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan. The method of implementing an individual specific plan shall be established and expressed by its adopting Resolution or Ordinance. J:\.Attornev\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\OS 06 13\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-7 12 13- FINAL.doc 7/16/2013 8:43 AM 10-129 Resolution No. Page 6 The~PGDSP is adopted by Ordinance. All zoning related portions of the PGDSP (i.e. land use matrix; permitted uses and development regulations) are prepared to seine as regulator= provisions and supersede other regulations and Ordinances of the City for the control of land use and development ~~=ithin the PGDSP boundaries. Other portions, such as the development design guidelines provide direction for furore planning and public improvement efforts. Future development projects; subdivisions; public improvement projects and other implementing programs shall be consistent with the adopted PGDSP. The PGDSP has been prepared as an implementing document for future land uses; public improvements and programs as provided for in the 200 General Plan. The new zoning regulations proposed in the PGDSP (see Exhibit "C" of this Ordinance) would replace existing CVMC zoning classifications for the PGDSP Subdistricts and introduce new zoning classifications for mixed use (commerciaUresidential) high density residential and retail commercial as required by the 200 General Plan. . The City Council does hereby find that the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in CVMC Chapter 19.07 Specific Plans and California Government Code Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 3 Article 8 Sections 6450 through 6>4~7 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code Section 6~4~1. 3 That the associated demands on public facilities and sen•ices due to development allo~red by the specific plan are identified prior to development and «•ill be mitigated prior to or concurrent with the development and in conformance ~~~ith the Cih• s Growth il4anagement Ordinance, CV:11C Chapter 19.09, based on the fotlott~ing findings of fact; and A That a financing program has been prepared which identities the methods for funding for those facilities and sen•ices and insures that the funds are spent on said facilities pursuant to the phasing schedule based on the follo~ring findings of fact. The General Plan was updated in December 200 and created a new vision for the city. A large part of that vision focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of \vestern Chula Vista. New gro~~th is planned around smart gro~~Kh principles such as mixed use and transit oriented development that concentrates infill and redevelopment to select focus areas and corridors to protect stable single family neighborhoods; better utilize land resources. reduce environmental effects and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The General Plan calls for the preparation and adoption of specific plans to carry out the vision of the General Plan in an organized and orderly fashion. The PGDSP implements the policies and objectives of the General Plan to direct a portion of the gro~ti4h expected to occur in the City over the next 20 years to the PGD area by providing zone changes; development regulations and design guidelines to accommodate future gro~~nh. The PGDSP includes an assessment of the proposed distribution; location and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities that would be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. In addition; the PGDSP includes a program of implementation _ 7:V+aornev\FINAL RESOS A,\'D ORDINANCESL013\OS 06 I3\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrdJ 12 13- FIN`AL.doc 7/16/2013 8:43 M1 10-130 Resolution No. Page 7 measures including regulations, programs, public works projects; and financing measures necessary to carry out the plan. Specifically, Chapters 3; 4; and ~ and Appendices "C" and "D" of the PGDSP and the PGDSP EIR-10-O5; including the MMRP, provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development. As described in the PGDSP and Final EIR-10-O5, subsequent new development. would be required to provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with their impact. The City Council having reviewed and considered the information in, the Public Hearing Drafr PGDSP (PCM-10-24) Final EIR-]0-05; and all reports evidence and testimony presented at the Public Hearing hereby finds, determines and orders that PGDSP Chapters 3, 4, and ~ and Appendix "C" and "D" of the PGDSP and the Final EIR-10-0~, including the MMRP, provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure. public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent development and is in confornance with the City's Grov<~th Management Ordinance (CVMC Chapter 19.09). BE TT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the PGDSP (PCM-10-24) based upon the determinations and findings contained herein. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by CVMC Section 19.18.010 to rezone properties within the PGDSP Subdistricts Area as depicted in Exhibit "C." Areas outside of the boundaries of Exhibit "A" are not rezoned as part of this action. IL Severability The City Council declares that should any provision section paragraph sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation the remaining provisions sections paragraphs sentences or words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. III. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading. The provisions of the PGDSP shall be applied to new development applications submitted after the effective date of the Ordinance adopting the PGDSP. The provisions of the PGDSP do not apply to projects which have been legally constructed or are under construction in conformance with all City required permits or to projects which have received required discretionary permit approvals but are not yet under construction. On a J:Wttorner\FIN'AL RESOS AND ORDINANCES~013\08 06 13\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-7 12 13- PINAL.doc 7/16/2013 8:43 AM 10-131 Resolution No. Pase S case by case basis; the Zoning Administrator may, as requested by the project applicant and pursuant to the provisions of CVMC Section 19.07.030 C; afford pipeline status to those projects which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning prior to PGDSP adoption but which have not vet received discretionary approvals. Presented by: Approved as to form Kelh G. Broughton ~p\~i en oog Director of Development Services City Attorney Exhibits to this Ordinance: Exhibit "A" -Location D4ap Exhibit "B" -Table ~.1-3 - PDGSP Consistency with General Plan Policies Exhibit "C" -Map with existing and proposed zoning 1:Wttornev\FTNAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013108 06 13\ORD-DSD-PGD-SPFEIR-CCOrd-7 12 13- FINAL.doc 7/16!2013 8:43 AA4 10-132 EXHIBIT A 1U-~3~ EXHIBIT B 5 I Land Use Planr~ing and 2oninq Table 5.1-3 PGDSP Consistency with General PIa^ Policies General Plan Objective or Policy ~ PGDSP Consistency Objective LUT 5: Designate opportunities (or mixed use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs, and tonsil in appropriate locations throughout the Cty Polity LUT 5 4: Developthe following areas as mixed use centers: Urban Core; Palomar Trolley Station; Eastern Urban Center; and Otay Ranch Village Cores and To•.vn Centers Objecive LUT 17: Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of pia nned transit Polity LUT 17 2: Direct higher intensity and mixed use developments to areas within walking distance of transit, including San Diego Trolley stations along E, H, and Palomar Streets, and new stations along future transit lines, including Dus Rapid Transit Ohjective LUT 19: Coordinate with the regional transportation planning agency, SAN DAG, and transit service providers such zs the Metropolitan Transit System, todevelop astate-of-the-art transit system that provides excellent servire to residents; workers; students; and the disabled, both within the City, and with inter-regional destlnaUons Policy LUT 19 S: Plan for and promote improved access between the Palomar Street, E Street and H Street light rail stations and land uses east of those stations and to the eayfront This may invdve the construction of separate bridges or ramps connectlng Chula Vista streets to transit facilities and/or a deck aver Interstate 5 to the eayfront. Objecive ED 9: Develop community-serving and neighborhood uses to serve residents and visitors alike PoEiry ED 9.1: Provide for community and neighborhood commercial centers in areas conven lent to residents. These centers should complement and meet the needs of the surrounding neighborhood through their location; size; scale; and design The neighborhood concept of providing pedestrian, hicyde, and other non-motorized access should he encouraged Policy ED 9 4: Develop specific plans, which include an economic component, for areas of the Gty, including, but not necessarlly limited to, the West Main Street; Broadway, South Thtrd Avenue; North Fourth Avenue/Third Avenue "gateway"; E Street; West H Street; and Palomar Street areas More than one area may 6e addressed in a single plan, such as the Urban Care Specific Plan Polity ED 95: Encourage clustered commerdal uses to prevent and discourage strip development Locate commercial uses at focal pointr along ma}or arterial streets or expressways and in viNage core areas _ Polity ED 9.6: Encourage duY.ered, smaller scale office and professional uses along major rtreets and in neighhorhood anterz in a variety of areas dispersed throughout the community to meet the needs of nearby neighborhoods. Consirtent. The PGDSP land use designations would accommodate new, higher density housing, shopping, and office development Including mixed use, surrounding the Palomar Transit Station The Mixed Use Corridor Sub-district would accommodaiecommunity-serving and neighhorhood uses along the major transportation facilities In the PGD, including Palomar Street and the Palomar Transit Siaticn Consistent The PGDSP would accommodate higher intensity, mixed use development surrounding the Palomar Trolley Station The PGDSP includes a Mohility Plan that outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the PGD to provide safe and efficient connectons between the trolley station and surrounding land uses Consistent SANDAG figs been involved in the development afthe PGDSP, including the provision of funding The PGDSP provides a land use plan that promotes and improves access between the Palomar Transit Station and PGDSP land uses to the eas[ofthe station ThePGDSP includesa Mobility Plan that outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the PGD to provide safe and efficient connections between the trolley station and surrounding land uses No connections over I-5 are proposed as part of the PGDSP The City is preparing an I.9 [ra nslt study that addresses connections and crossings over I-5 as part of a separate effort Consistent The proposed project is a specific plan that would encourage economic development in the PGD The PGDSP proposes a land use plan [hat would accommodate the development of community-serving and neighborhood commercial uses The Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster Sub-district would specifically a<commoda to residen[- servingcommercial uses The sub-district Ls located adjacent to the primary residential area in the PGD andwould have reduced building heights and Intensity compared to the proposed mixed use cominercia(sub-districts The Mixed Use Corridor Sub-district would accommodate community- serving and neighborhood uses along the major [ansportation facilities in the PGD, including Palomar Street and the Palomar Transit Station The highest intensities would be clustered In the designated gateway locations at the intersections of Palomar Street and Walnut Street/Frontage Road and Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard The PGDSP includesa Mohility Plan thatoutlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements forthe PGD to provide safe and efficient connections behveen uses and encourage use ofnon-motorized modes of transportation Pobma Getewey District Specific Plan PE1R SCH No 2011 111077 Page 5 1-23 Cry of Chula Vista Apol 2013 10-134 5 I Lcnd Use Planning and Toning 7ahle 5.?-3 continued General Plan 06jec:ive or Policy ~ PGDSP Consistenry Objective LUT C3: Establish a Mixed Use T2nzit Focus Area surrounding the Palomar Trolley Station Policy LUT 43 3: The Ciry shall prepare, or came to have prepared, a specific plan, master plan, or other regulatory document to guide ;he coordinated establishment of a M&ed Use Tra,^sit Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway District on properies north and south of Palomar Street, zvi;hin wafxable distance of the Palomar Troley Station ThespedfK plan or other regulatory document shall include guidelines and zoring- !e•+el z;andardsfor the arrangement of land uses that include puns for adequate pedestrian connections and support services fw residents,azwell as those using n'te transit sta:icr,. - Policy LUT 43 2: Ptwide for afive-acre neighborhood park within the Palomar Gateway District Uses Policy LUi 43.3: Str&e for a dis:rihuticn of uses w11Mn the areas designated as Mixed Use Tor nsit Focus Area along Palomar Street to include retail, offices, and residential, a generally shovm or. the follovring chart: Residential ~~„ - _•='-h~~'L~ '=industrial i;`~r ~ •~ aOfiices Policy LUT43 a; ?rovide a mtt of uses vrith a fetus on retail and seine oYce uses along Palomar Street In the Mired Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or behind the retail and ch'ices uses + Policy LUi 435: Provide a mix cf Ic<al-serving retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley Station and atthe gateways into the Palomar Gateway District Intensity/Height Paltry LILT 43.6: In the Palomar Gateway Dis;dcq residentia I densities within the Mixed Use Tra.•wit Foctts.4rea designation are attended to have a district-wide grow deasit}• cr a0 dweging units per acre Policy LUT 43 7: In the Palomar Gateway District, the commerdai (retail and o`Fce) portion of the Meted Use 7far¢it Focus h-ea designation }s Intended to have a fortis area•vdde aggregate fAR of 7 0 Sobzequent spedfic plans o: inning ordinance regulations swill es~6Fish panel-specifx: FARz that may cry tom the disVid-w5de aggregate (refer to Section 4.9 i, Interpreting the land Use Diagam, for a disas<ien of distdd-wide versus parcel-spec'mc FAR) Polity LUT 43.6: Building heights in tike Palomar Gateway Distict Mixed Use Transit Foaz Area shalt below-rise, with score mid-dse buildings Policy LlJi 439: Building heights in the Residential High designated area shall be low-rise bindings Consistent. The proposed project would implement a specific plan for the PGD to guide the development of a transit Focus Area The PGDS?includes guidelines and zoning-level standards far the arrangement of land uses, includes a A4obility Plan fn adequate pedestdan connections, and would accommodate a variety of support services for residens, az well as those using Palomar Transit Station Consistent The PGDSP identiiez 5 B acres of potential Dark areas in the PGD, including a 4 S-sore neighborhOCd park south of the Palomat TrznsitSiaUon, and a 1 3-a Qe urban park north of Palomar Scree:. Consistent P.esidential deveL~pment would continue to he the dominant land use L~ the PGD with implementation cf the PGDSP Up m 1,300 new resldeneal units would be accommodated in ffie area, for a total of 1,700 units Ato;al of 150,000 square Eeet of new commerclal and ofFlce use could be developed, for a total of 350,000 square feel h4aed use development would be concentrated along Palomar Street, which in<ivdes nvo gatev+ayz, and the Palomar Transit Station, rrith addhional residential development provided in ;he Pziomar Residential Vukge Sub~stdct Cons}stent The Mixed Uze Transit Focus Area designation would appty to development within appro>dmatety 075 mAe of the Palomar TrasuR 5 anon ThIs area vrould have an average residential dersity c: a0 dwelling units pet acre The PGDSP uses an equivalenry f=_ror to :mnsla;e dwelgrg units peraae to FAR Adensiry of SO dvielBng units per ave would result in an area-wide aggregate fAR of 7 0 Yne FAR . includes commercial and residential development Maximum building a°ightz in the PGD would : ange from low-rise, up io 35 feet, in Lie Palomar Neighborhood Retail Clus;e: Sub-0isticq :o low-dse, pri ;parity 45-50 feet, in the Paiamar Transit Plata and Mbced Use Corridor Sub-drs:dcb Some buildings wi$t a maximum fieight of o0 fee: v:ould be allowaSie in gatevva-y arezs The Residential High designation wouldappl}• to the Pa lomar Residential VRlage Sub-da:dr., which would be limited ;o a maximum building heght of 45 feet The Retail Cornmetial designation would appty to :he Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster Sub-0a tic[, which vrauld be limited ;o Im•+-rise, laver intensity developrnen: Pabm~ Gciev+oy Disidct SoeciTr Plen PB2 >CH No 20111 i 1077 Pcge 5 1-24 lily of Chin auto AFn12013 10-135 5 I Land Use Planning and Zoning Tah'le 5.1-3 continued General Plan Ohjective or Policy PGDSP Consistency Polity LUT 43 10: In the Palomar Gateway District, permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0 5 and low-tire buildings in the RetailCommerual designated area on Industrial Boulevard adjacent to the area designated as Residential High. Design Consistent. The PGDSP includes specific design and Polity LUT 43.liahe specific plan or other regulatory landscape guidelines for Palomar5treet at the dzsignated document forthe Palomar Gateway District shall estahlish gateways in Chapter4 of the PGDSP, Design Guidelines The design and landscape guidelines (or the improvement of PGDSP applies urban design treatment and a streeiscape Palomar Street as a gateway to the City palette that identif es a nd coordinates elements such as Polity tUT 43 32: Provide for safe, effeCive, and aesthetic street trees, street furniture and lighting Guidelines for pedestrian crossings and improvemens to Palomar Street and sidewalk design and lighting provide for safe, effective, and Industrial 0oulevard aesthetic pedestrian crossi ngs Intersection bu lb-outs are encouraged at busy intersections,such as Paomar Street and industrial Boulevard, to provide safety for pedestrians Additional guidelines include decorative sidewalkand lighting features, buffers between pedestrians and moving vehiNes, smooth and sli p-resistant surfaces, consistent light tix:ures and posts, and a comhination of streetlights and pedestrian-level lights. Amenities Consistent The PGDSP encourages and includes guidelines Policy LUT'4333: Community amenities to be considered forthe for the amenities listed in Policy 2711n Chapter4 ofthe Palomar Gateway District as Dart of any incendw program PGDSP, Design Gudelines, including public plazas, water should include, but no; be limited to those listed in features, pu611c art, streetscape im pravements, pedestrian Policy LUT 27 1 path improvements, enhanced pedestrian connections, Policy tUT 43.14: Provide for the development of one upper-level setbacks for buildings more than 30 feet above Cteigfihorhoed Park wiffiin or near the Palomar Gateway District grade, parking concealed by ottupiable space,additionalon- Polity LUT 43.15: Estahlish a community/cultural center near site structured parking for adjacent commercial or residential uses, transit station access and improvements, Palomar Street and Tnird Avenue hicyde parking facilities, and streetfront facades/windows A - neighborhood park is propcsed south ofthe trolley station The Palomar Street/Third Avenue intersection is outside of [he PGDSP; however, the proposed mixed use areas and neighborhood park would accommodate ' community/culturalamenities. f. City of Chula Vista Zoning Code The existing zoning for the PGD was established 30 years ago and is presently out of conformance with the adopted General Plan (City of Chula Vista 20DSa~ In order to comply with state law and bring zoning into conformance with the General Plan, the PGDSP proposes newzoning forthe foursub-disUids in the PGD The new zoning includes provisions for land uses, building intensity, form, mass, and height as recommended in the General Plan The proposed land uses and development regulations .Identified in the PGDSP would replace the provisions of CVMC Chapters 19.26, 1930, 1936, 1940, and 1944, and the provisions of the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance C36 and S94 use regulations Where the NMC conflicts with the development standards or other provisions of the PGDSP, the PGDSP would apply; where the PGDSP is silent, the CVMC would apply The definitions found in CVMC Chapter 19 04 would apply to the PGDSP, except where specific definitions are provided in the PGDSP The zoning amendments that would occur as a result of PGDSP would improve consistency between City planning Palomar Gctewoy District Specific Plon PEIR City of Chula Vista SCH No 2011111077 Poge51-25 Apri12073 10-136 EXHIBIT C MHP `1111 \ `, 1 CC Palomar Gateway Subl)istriets MU-1 Palomar Tr8nsil P12xa MU-2 Mixed Use Corridor PRV Palomar Residential Village PNRC Neighborhood Retail Cluster Exialing Zorrng Paroeis ,Anita 5t Zoning Designations ~ CC -Central Commercial CT -Thoroughfare Commercial IL - Limited Industrial R2 -Single 8 Two Fam~y Residential R3 -Apartment Residential S - Open Space +~ 0 20o aoo N Feet LJ\1~7111~IV VI1 T LVI~III~IV lyl/1r SHOWING PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT FIGURE 5.1-3 Palomar Gateway District Sped6c Plan PEIR ~U -131 ~(Qr~laha,l (~rm~an ~~<~ No. l O Council Information Items August 2, 2013 MEMO Development Services Department DATE: July 31, 2013 T0: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Jim Sandoval, City Manager t yy FROM: Kelly G. Broughton, Devel meat Selvices Director ~ff ~~II/ . r~i. an of CHULA VISfA SUBJECT: Response to Public Correspondence on the Palomar Gateway Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report This Memorandum is to inform the City Council of certain correspondence received by City staff on the Paloma<• Gateway District Specific Plan (PGDSP) & Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being presented to the City Council at its meeting of August 6, 2013. The correspondence was received after the 45 day public review period for the Draft EIR which ended on May 30, 2013. The correspondence received includes one letter from two resideuts of the Palomar Gateway District submitted to the City on June 26, 2013, the day of the Planning Com!nission public hearing; and one a-mail from a participaut of the Southwest ~lrorlcing Group sent on July 1, 2013 (see attached copies of correspondence). Following is a desc!•iption of the contents of the letter and e-mail followed by a response from City staff. Residents' Lefter • The ]cite!' indicates that the subject EIR is incomplete because it fails to address issues presented in a letter from the Southwest Chula Vista Civic Associations during the subject EIR public review period. Resporue: The issues presented in that letter have been responded to and addressed in dre Resporues to Continents, u+hich crre inchtded in the Final EIR being presented to the City Council fa• consideration. Tl!e letter nrdicates that t!a(T!c is an increasing problem on Palomar and that Industrial Boulevard has not been upgraded. Response: The letter nrukes reference to existing conditiars and problems in the area, a+hich are also described in the proposed PGDSP, mrd u+hich m•e proposed to be addressed as the PGDSP is implemented mtd crs funding is available for improvements. The PGDSP and the .Yfobili!)+ Plan contained (herein include a variety of sheet improvements intended to reduce the level oflraj~c and provide missing irJ•ash•uchrre irhiclr will iurprove safety. Response to Public Correspondence on PGDSP & EIIt Page 2 • The letter makes reference to the drainage creek that runs in an east-west direction along the rear of the properties on Ada and Doroth}~ Streets as a problem for years and as an issue that must be mitigated. Response: The PGDSP describes this drainage creek as a neighborhood featw•e Thal could be improved by properl)~ owners/developers as a biological resource and utilized as private open space when and if properties are redeveloped. Prior to the redevelopment of the adjacent properties, o+vners/developers will be required to conduct studies to address any drainage, water quality and biological Issues. • The letter indicates that better control of the two nearby parks is needed rather than to add one more within the area and they describe some of the problems related to the existing parks. Response: The 2005 General Plan 1'ision identifres a »eighborhood park within or in the vicinity of the PGD. The PGDSP proposes a variety of park spaces, including a neighborhood parlr; plazas and private greenways, to be implemented by various means as new development occtu•s over the 20-year planning horizon. • The letter makes reference to the relationship between population gro~~~th and schools. They indicate that more schools will be needed with the added population; that schools should be built before development is added; Harborside School is already impacted; and that busing will be required because of the trolley crossing. Response: TJre EIR analyzed Housing arrd Population and Public Services (schools) in the area. The EIR concluded that tvilh mitigation, the negative impacts to schools tivo:dd be below a level of significance. The conclusions of this analysis are contained in the Final EIR. • The letter makes reference to the hnpor4ance of the envirotunent and natural habitats and makes a general statement about building heights and over-developmerrt w}uch should be reviewed by EIR's. Response: The EIR considered and analyzed the areas of interest indicated in the comment, including biological resources and land use planning and zoning (building heights). The EIR concluded drat all direct impacts related to these areas of interest ivordd Ge ntitigaled to a less than signifrcant level. The restrhs oflhe analysis are contained in the Final EIR • The letter makes reference to existing noises generated by trolley and freight trains at night and indicates that vibration can be very intense. Response: The letter makes reference to existing conditions in the urea, wlrich are not related to die adeq:rcrcy of the EIR preparafion. The EIR considered and analyzed the potential noise and groundbonre vibration impacts that cotrld result ji•om/lo neiv development proposed under the PGDSP. The EIR concluded thnt nll direct inrpaGs related Response to Public Con•espondence on PGDSP &EIR Page 3 to noise +vould be mitigated to n less than signifrcanl level. The results of the analysis are contained in the Final EIR. l;auail from Sonthwest R'orking Group Participant: The letter states that the S~'~'Vy'G was not sent confirmation of the Planning Commission public hearing of Jwre 26, 2013; that the last communication sent makes reference to a tentative date. Response: In addition to the a-mail sem by City staff with the tentative date of the Planning Commission hearing, there were sereral other notices provided, including a public hearing notice sent to all property o+vners and residents within the PGD and 500 feet from all botmdaries. A public hearing notice ivas also published in the local paper on June 14, 2013. An e-mail notification with dre agenda of June 26, 2013 Planning Convnission meeting +vas sent on June 21, 2013 to e-mail subscribers for Planning Commission meetings, including this Si3~NrGpnrticipunt. • The letter indicates responses to comments on the EIR were not received. Response: The writer submitted conanertts on The EIR to the City on May 28, 2013 on behalf of the Soudnrest Chulu Vista Civic Association. The connnent period on tyre EIR ended on May 3Q 2013. At that time, all connnenls were for+vnrded to dre environmental consultmnt for draft response. The responses were finalized GyJ:rne 17, 2013 and incorporated.into the Final E!R for presentation to the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 26, 2013. On June 28, 2013, City staff fmlvm•ded letters +vidr copies of the responses to the State Clearinghouse, Caltrans and the Southwest Ch«la Yista Civic Association. CEQA requires the City send written responses to commenting agencies 10 days prior to certifrcation of the EIR lvhiclr is anticipated to occur at the City Council hearing scheduled for• August 6, 2013; therefore the written r•esporrses to comments were sent well in advance of the 10 day requirement. The letter indicates they were not allowed to meet with the environmental consultant to discuss the residents' concerns. The writer suggests that the residents' concern should be listened to and resolved. Response: The preparation of the draft PGDSP included an extensive commm~ity ouh•each process as summarized in the PGDSP Section 1.4 and briefly summarized in tyre stuff report for the PGDSP. Once the PGDSP ivas refined through that public process, the preparation of the EIR tivlrich evaluates the project (i. e. the PGDSP) proceeded through the internal adminish•atire process. The preparation of the EIR is a highly complex and technical task geared totivm•d the analysis of the potential impacts that new fir[ure land uses and activities of die PGDSP Wright hove on the enviromnent; and is not intended to resolve existing problems. The EIR preparation process includes specific opportunities for public input. A Notice of Preparation (A'OP), which inchrdes a preliminary scope of issues to be analyzed in the EIR, was distributed fora 30 day public input period connnencing on Norenrber 22, 2011. The dote and lime for n public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. The public scoping Response to Public Con~espondence on PGDSP &EIR Page 4 meeting was held on December I5, 2011. Three members of'the SWWG attended the public scoping meeting. Based on the scope o:ztlined in the NOP and input received at the scoping meeting, the City is required to take responsibility for the adequacy arrd objectivity of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(e)). To achieve this, CEQA professionals experienced with the nuances of CEQA (including City staff and consultants) worked together to develop independent and objective anal}~ses, conclusions and findings for the EIR. Once t)re administrative draft EIR was completed, the Draft EIR ivas distributed fora 95 public review period. The continents received fi•on: members of the Sou!lnvest Working Grozrp during the public review period were considered by staff and responses to each individual comment here provided. • The letter suggests that no development be allowed to take place until existing problems are taken care of. Response: The 2005 General Plan mandates the preparation of a specifrc plan or other zoning mechanisms for the area in order to iurplernerrt the vision contemplated therein. The proposed PGDSP ivrrs prepared and it is being proposed for adoption in order to implement the General Plan vision. The PGDSP is intended to serve as an efj-ective zoning tool for the planning and revitalization of the PGD. The propose of the PGDSP is to encourage an appropriate mixture and density of development activity adjacent to the San Diego Trolley Station at Palomar Street F:rhu•e development projects ivo:dd be req:rn•ed ro implement project related mitigation measures and contribute development unpacts fees to help mitigate their impacts. • The letter states that the SW WG was not allowed input in the preparation of the PGDSP & EIR. Response: The preparation of the PGDSP and the EIR are hvo separate processes. As indicated in the PGDSP document and in the staff report to the Planning Cmnmission and Ciry Council, prior to the preparation of the PGDSP Ciry staff undertook an extensive public oub•each and engagement effort with the Cmnunority. This effort involved a variety of activities that included the Southwest United in Action process, the Southwest Leaders' Conference, the Urban Design {Iror•ks/rop for the PGD, and ultinrntely the organization of the SA'IYG. The S{Ir{{rG worked intensively with City staff for a period of over hvo years on the preparation of the PGDSP. Staff held approximately 29 monthly meetings behveen December 2009 and March 2012 and corresponded through about 95 e-mails through which City staff provided information about the meetings and the agenda activities, acrd kept the SLA'N'G informed of the process undprogress. Throughout This time, stnffpr•esented a variety of documents, which were incorporated into and became part of the PGDSP doctunent, to the SIV{d'G for their review and consideration, including the PGD Existing Conditions report, presentation on what is a specifrc plan and its legal requirements and components, the Land Use Mah•ix, Subdistrict A1ap and proposed zoning, Design Guidelines, infi•asn•uctnre and public facilities, etc. All of these documents were presented and discussed with the SWN'G, and at ull times staff asked fw• their final opinion. The complete and final rb•aft of the PGDSP ryas presented to the S1T~WG at the meeting of Mcn•ch 21, 2012. Subsequent to the meeting the document was placed on dye City's website to allow for eontinued review by the Response to Public Correspondence on PGDSP &EIR Page 5 +, SWAG and the public Staff did not receive any comurents. The preparation of the EIR started ivilh the disn•ibution of the NOP on Arovember 22, 2011 and a public Scoping Meeting held on December I S, 2011 pursuant to CEQA reguirements. Subseguent to the March 2012 meeting, staff continued to send occasional eanalls to the St3'N'G to keep them it formed of the preparation of the EIR and inguire as to the need for new agenda items for upcoming meetings. A'o reguests for additional agenda items lucre for-+varded to staff. Based on tyre scope outlined in the RrOP rrnd input received at the scoping meeting, the Cttp is reguired to take responsibility for the adequacy and objeclrvity ojthe EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e)). To achieve this, CEQA professionals experienced with the nuances of CEQA (including City staff and consultants) worked together to develop independent and objective analyses, conclusions acrd frndings for the EIR. Once the adnritristr•ative draft EIR eras completed, the Draft EIR ivas disb•ibrrted fora 95 public revle+v period. The conutrents received from nreurbers of the Sozrthwest lf'orkirtg Group during the public revie+v period were considered by staff and responses to each individual comment were provided. e The letter suggests that there was no Scoping Meeting as put of the preparation of the EIR. Response: As indicated previously, the EIR Scoping Meeting was held on December I5, 2011. The SIf>>T'G November 16, 2011 meeting agenda contained a report on the status of the EIR: Project Description, Notice of Preparation, and reminder of dte upcoming Scaping Meeting. At this r»eetirrg, staff explained tltis process and activities in detail. On December 8, 2011 staff sent att a-mail to the SWWG indicating that the regularly scheduled meeting in December would be postponed to the meeting of January 2012 and that the Scoping Meeting on the EIR would be held instead of the regular S!f'l3!G meeting. The SWld'G pa•Ncipants here enco:rr•aged to attend fhe Scoping Meeting. TIvee SWlf'G participants attended the Scoping Meeting. The e-mail writer ivas not present at t)re Scoping Meeting. Attaclunents: Letter from PDG Residents E-mail from S~V~VG Puticipant ity of Chula Vista Development Services Dept 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: EIR for Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan ~~~~~~ !Uti 2 6 2013 DEVEt.OPtAENT SERVICES OEPAR'ffiEtiT We believe this EIR is incomplete failing to address issues as presented by Teresa Acerro president SWCVCA dated May 20, 2013. However other problems are evident. Traffic is an increasing problem on Palomar as evidenced in the deaths of a bicyclist and a motorcyclist in the past 2 months with detours through Frontage and our side streets which are already over used. Jndustrial south of Palomar has not been up-graded for handicapped since the Wheelchair accident resulting In death and lawsuit. Actuallywork on improvements stopped just north of the site as doe's the bike lane. Water drainage remains a problem into unsanitary ditch off Industrial between Ada and Dorothy. This has been a problem for years. Water and sewage must be a mitigated Issue. As for parks, we do not agree adding a park is as much needed as is the control of the 2 closest parks . They are over-run by homeless and drug dealers that It is both unsanitary around the tables and unsafe for children also near schools. Resolution of this problem is priority. With so many more habitats, more school classrooms will be needed 'and should be funded before adding any developmeni. Population studies are necessary. Harborside School is already impacted and very old, Bussing will be required because of trolley ad Palomar crossing Environment is very important to us. We have over 20 trees proving fruit and shade. But just as important is the nature in this area as we have seasonal dove nesting, native American parrot, owls, hawks and many other varieties of birds as the area is part of the federal wildlife flight pattern. Federal regulations on height and over-development should be reviewed in any EIR. Think green, but protect the blue as water must be conserved. The noise level of trolley and train passage is addressed by Acerro's letter, but emphases must be placed on the after midnight trains as they unload across tracks in commercial area. Vibrations can be very intense. Being residents for over 40 years, we really request preservation of our quality of lifie in this vital neighborhood as promised when we voted to annex to the city. Many residents are seniors with long- time ties to this community. We urge you to not adopt this incomplete report..... St Russell and Nidia Rorabau h 717 Dorothy St MargaretLaFayette 721 Dorothy St ~~~~~~ ~ age 1 of 4 Miguel Tapia From: THERESAACERRO[thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:13 PM To: tviiguel Tapia Cc: Cheryl Cox; Pamela Bensoussan; Rudy Ramirez; Patricia Aguilar; Mary Salas SubJect: Fw: Availability of EIR for Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan Attachments: ATT508420.hfm; image001.Jpg I am disappointed how this matter has been handled again. This was the only communication we received about the EIR. This says tentatively June 26. It also says comments will be responded to immediately. I have yet to receive any response to my comments, nor did I receive any indication that the Planning commission date had been confirmed. This just is another example of how the city continues to play games with the community preteriding to want involvement and participation but consistently refusing to agree to allow us to meet with or talk to the people who wrote the EIR even though this was requested a number of times. Also none of them ever bothered to talk to the residents who are quite upset about no one listening to their concerns, which I believe are very valid concerns. Enough money has been wasted on meetings, consultants, trips to other states, a report that specifically laid out what was needed to win back community trust, etc. How about actually listening to the residents and not allowing anything to be built until the obvious problems are concurrently or previously taken care of? What has already happened in Palomar area is allowing those condos to be built which has created parking and other problems and not benefited the city or the community at all just increased the need for services. What has happened in the east is a beautiful property that could have been a resort is now apartments, and the developers were allowed to build so close to the land designated for a transit corridor that using it for that purpose will destroy property values and impinge upon the quality of life of residents. To say that anyone was really allowed any input through the , southwest working group is laughable. I have worked on other ~t- 07/31/2013 Page 2 of 4 things with city staff and they notified me continually about important dates and times and provided information, but they wanted my input. This has never been the case with matters in the southwest. At the very least a meting could have been held to discuss the draft EIR with the community before May 30. Other EIR's have had scoping meetings and many projects have had community meetings. Theresa ----- For~~u~ded Message ----- From: Miguel Tapia <mtapia@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> To: Miguel Tapia <mtapia@ci.chula-vista.ca.us> Cc: Mary Ladiana <mladiana@ci.chula-vista.ca.us>; Ben Guerrero <BGuerrero@chulavistaca.gov>; "Eary, Chrisline° <Christine.Eary@sandag.org>; "Mukherjee, Suchitra" <Suchitra.tAukherjee@sandag.org> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: FW: Availability of EIR for Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan Good afternoon Southwest Working Group (SWWG) Participants, I want to follow up to the e-mail below regarding the processing of the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan and Enviromnental Impact Report (PGD SP &EIR) and want to provide you with some additional dates for this process. First, as I indicated in the message below, the EIR public review period closes on May 30th. _City staff will resmond to all of the written comments rcccived on the I;IR immediateh~. After that, the will proceed tentatively to present the SP and EIR to the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 26d' (tentatively but not confirmed, stay timed). At that meeting, the Cotrimission will formulate a recommendation on the documents for the City Council, who will consider the documents and make a final decision at its public meeting of July 23rd (again tentatively). I also want to let you know that we are about to stat•t working on the preparation of the Streetscape Master Plan for the Main Street . The Streetscape Master Plan will be a document to improve and beautify the Main Street Corridor. It will contain the elements to provide the infrastructure that is needed to turn it into a "complete street" that will properly accodomodate motorized traffic, public transit, bicycles, and pedeshians. As you recall, we scatted working on this plan several months ago, but we had to put it on hold because we did not have the necessary finding. We were only able to do some preliminary work. Recently, the City applied for and successfully obtained a grant fi'om SANDAG to develop a Streetscape concept plan. We want to thank the Southwest Working Group for working with City staff on this project, especially those participants who gave us letters of recommendation for the grant application. Your letters were in great patl the reason why SANDAG gave us the funds for the Main Street project. City staffwill soon bring more information to the SWWG as to the next steps we are going to be taking as part of this project. The SWWG will continue to be the valuable participating partner working with City staff to improve the Southwest of Chula Vista, and we look forward to continue working with all of you. Let me know if you have any questions on the dates for the PGD SP & EIR or on the Main Street Streetscape project. Cordially, Miguel Z. Tapia, AICP Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista, California (619) 691-5291 m taniaCa~cF.ch ula-vista. ca. us m/z t inn i z Page 3 of 4 From: Miguel Tapia Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 7:99 PM To: Miguel Tapla Cc: Mary Ladiana; Ben Guerrero; 'Eary, Christine'; 'Mukherjee, Suchitra' Subject: Availability of EIR for Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan Good afternoon Southwest Working Group Padicipants, It has been a while since my last cormnunication with the Group regarding the Palomar Gateway DishicdSoutliwest Chula Vista planning process. I am very happy to Ue in contact with all of you to invite you to continue working on the next stages of the plamting of the Palomar Gateway Dishict. The last a-mails I sent to the Group last year prot~ded a brief description of the tasks City staff and consultants were going to be working on during the following months, specifically the preparation of the Environmental hnpact Report for the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan. As you might recall, City staffpresented the Draft Specific Plan document to the Group at the Group's meeting of March 21, 2012. Since then, the document has been in the City's Web page; you might have already seen it. Ifyou have not seen it, please continue to read below. The preparation of the EIR has been a very intense work task. The EIR is a document that analyses the potential negative impacts to the enviromnent resulting from the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. The EIR document has to be prepared very carefully by expert consultants and it has to be reviewed at various stages by City staff to make sure that the document meets al( the requirements of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA). This is normally an internal process. Once the draft document is prepared, it is released to the public for review and comment on the adequacy of the document. Today, I inform you that the Draft EIR has finally been completed, and it has been released fa• the required 45- day publid review period. The document has been mail out to a list ofpublic agencies and organizations. And t}uough this e-mail I am letting the Group know that the document is available. Also, a legal notice on the availability of the EIR has been posted in the SLaNews, which appeared in today's edition. As of Monday, the Internet link shown below will take you to the City's web page where you will be able to see the Draft EIR, as well as fhe Draft Specific Plan and the required Notice of Availability. The Draft Specific Plan document and the Notice of Availability are already there. However, because of the size of the Draft EIR docwnent, we were not able to set the document in the web page yet. It should be available on the link as of Monday, April 15, 2013. Ifyou click on the lurk now, you will orily be able to see the Notice of Availability and the Draft Specific Plan. http://wvnv.chulavistaca.gov/City Services/Development Services/Plannine Buildine/reoorts.as Once the Draft EIR goes through the 45-day public review period (starting April 15 and closing May 30), the draft EIR, along with all comments received from the publiq and the draft Specific Plant will be presented to the City's Planning Conunission and City Council for their consideration and approval. We are expecting to hold the required public hearings in June and July 2013. We will continue to update the Group on this process. Ifyou have any questions on the Draft EIR or if you are have problems accessing the document, please contact Senior Environmental Planner Benjamin Guerrero at (619) 476-5311 or at beuenero(a,ci.chula-~~sta.ca.us. Ifyou have any questions on the Draft Specific Plan document contact me at (6] 9) 691-5291 nttapia(r~ci.chula- vista.c~a.us or Mary Ladiana at (619) 404-5432. Cordially, Miguel Z. Tapia, AICP Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista, California (619) 691-5291 m/3I /2n t 3 Page 4 of 4 m tapia@ci. chuia-vista. ca. us 07/31/2013 Cheryl Cox Wri-#cv\ COWtW'Ut1;~fOtt5 I~:l:l:-\o From: Sent: To: Subject: Mayra Swanson [mayra@moneyrealty.com] Tuesday, August 06, 2013 3:42 PM Cheryl Cox FW: Palomar specific plan- support Mayor Cox, My aunt asked me to forward you this ernail as she is out of town and will not be able to make this meeting. She owns the property of 750, 754-60 Anita street and would lie to make sure you support this plan as it would be ideal to keep it at high density as there is the trolley that is just down the block from her properties. Thank you. Mayra Mayra Swanson Money Property Management & Realty Broker CA DRE License #01501431 355 Third Avenue, Suite 101 Chula Vista, CA 91910 o 619.422.0177 F 619.422.8161 C 619.507.8287 -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Estolano (rnailto:nancy@leather.com] Sent, Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9,29 AM To: ccox@ci.chulavista.ca.us Cc: Mayra Swanson Subject: Palomar specific plan- support Cheryl. Please support this plan. Went to many meetings and all agreed on the density. It makes spence that there be density by the trolley. My parcels are 40,000 Sq ft and would be easy construction for apts. I am a property owner at 750 and 754-60 Anita Sent from my iPhone Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8653 (20130805) The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http.//www.eset.com Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8657 (20130806) The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http.//www.eset.com 1 R L-f)r-tA1< CA-rEuJlr( 5Pccunc. R-bJ WrHtc,(\ CoWlVYlUI'\J'C4Iicn\ l-km ~lo I;6trz Cry {;)()/Jc/L.+ hit/of<..: .r ;T-M 1lt~ OtdAJEl<. {)r 751- 7~o A-,(//~ S;./ UtvLA LiS/A- Ci. 9/9/ I . f'l-fltv€ i3EW WltiTT;JG f/JR. 1117.5 puhJ 77J BE ItffAJtIE:P FOR ~EvefVr-z- YWS', ~ T SU?fO,er 7lie PRO~cr;. ~ I fhc1 [.ouu7TAlc; O.;J yeu/{ voTE /N F,4-Vo~ ()F ,4vOf,-i",I./{o 5;p6:,F'R-c.. Pi-A:7Jt .- f7-1C r IfOpt. J/fE c, S,])6'''{E''f uIJLf~~ M";ifB WfU- fBE i AfCJJ/D fH).. - ~ . Ko?::/) zg;:-... 6 TV t-4--J.-.r'O 3703 BtJf2b.J 5'r 5'1,..; -V;-t:-6a/ (). 9'J-11.5 .' ~ LO 1-1!tR GA 78<11176 <;'f'[ L, yr (. RkxJ r :J)8H2. C- ry {00I.1CiI.. .d rJ.1t10R. T 11M -!fI~ Ou.JIJb?. eF 750 IlIJ/77'r 91 UvLA - ViSTA (4. Q/1/1.- I ___ '" d J" Hl1v~ 3t:VJ uJltlflJJG pOR 77-/-75 PiA,u rO t3C /lfflCDl,/&'.J) fOR. ~EVH.th- fE1l-F5. -- -- .L 5JffOr=:r I~ pR!JUr:-~ .l /f,<-t (OU)Jl7tJ~ ON 100-'<- Vo IE i 0 PA \for.?:. 0 r lI-:Do.p-r/W6 (HG 5PECiFic.. R~.- --- J.- HofE /lft 5vCE <.Jt-.J{)~cD~VjJJ.> ulfES Wr4- BIE .DJ CW Dt?-P. - ,- ~~ CX~w C [;~/l)LJW'D 3703 Bo {2bJ 5'T' 5 fbJ j) c-C-&; (.4. q fJ-( { 5 I , " Through the following I would like to state that I support the Palomar Gateway District Pacific Plan that will improve the zoning in the areas near the streets of Industrial Anita Street. The Plan will bring good things for the city of (hula Vista and its residents, such as new housing near the trolley station, new business zoning to welcome new business and revenue to (hula Vista and a Park for recreation and families to bring their children to play. This Plan will improve the progress and image of the city of (hula Vista and for the city's economy. Name: . , Signature: Address: .~,~.l ~I 11- ,,,:j1;;. /V7 - , , -::;;Zz. ~'" '"7-0/" -- J f , "'- V A/OI1~ " ,fh"..//".t.A/1. ) // L~O ,.%/ ,LT7. > tr ~.1'<,"U/1/) Lv .rn.A \<ll.-' .11 'rJ L vLrUU \'=rz:z. \) . r.+ v . II-I-,e . '-\- , . -f"I. .~ Ii-. n. 1--r, N:/. ,- ,- . /.1/ _,.h' I) " :;';LJV t:;; :71. N.li..- n ' , A 1 . , , h",." AA.-. ~ , J -" ?f ~ v// h."" ~ f'-,- .A n K2-L-/ V0",,,,- L If' (/ V 1l,() LA /01'\0 c: I1="J ~. 'IT i 7 . 0-' f - ,1)y" C. FT(JE ' .~ \(P+'-c J "5+. N,.Q... \-L--. \-v. --r>-. 'Q\ a..l- Q.... V - r- &Gc\ l .< L \ u:;..x-d [~ (1 /he-. L 1\ , Ct !.....' n , ~oU/ _. ~) ,~...,..' ~ I ILl'S\/' -I.", . t.e.. r-d(. <:Lv v ~_"'--(\ I.~C \ p...n ()7 7.:;- LI~'l.trL -;;:., ~- \ bh. >'\ "'1 e"^-r A ..\-- - 'Bls- D rd. AI./ . D vv' <2.0 rc.., \ \ G<.. '<-'-1 _ I \ 'l- '3Q ~.~\ ~ . -A-v. \" r-" ~ ~ 'I VCL""-Za:'-^t:: Tr. . . nv<-\,' . 7_ U I I ,!- " .-..\- <!>-'\A . 1-~fl1'" . _ , . 0 ,J fA" n d. P. '.h C/'- f' .1 Q.... V' , ' It'Tolh n"-j---';"~ . I,. ~J /'1'r" W-""-r'\ \' t6lA l1"[k. " V, /10./11.; VV/J. . ~' - :S5 't.<, Kh Ln~urJ , l)) dOJ''-'i.~ 4<- 'L " Vl.A-l.o-1 I n A I ~O\. A- \.'.l-~ ~ -' W__ lj /7J/~ .../1. I , L-/ '3 79, (; ~ ~~ n!X. fo~.9-- A dYfl ~v~ "!:",d 1+'-1" ~ A..ec.. ! Cic;>."'i "- ""3 ,..1\ ..4.-./. e..r ") B ra..uO' ~ '~~n'l J . Q.... y. -r ,,,A MI. ,~. .g ) oS 21 '3"'~ Q.J. -- .. .Ul ,~,. nA,- \I~ ~. , .IJ. I. ,~ .z LJ c) T .-vt--. ~ {. V...t:..'ou j{1- ',J I " L -ztF, ~ lot it oJ . ~ ',A..r J I/. ~)"" " .,. In~ .1 .bo <=-. \,f. K / j.oO~ f. bf _~ ;__, y -r.C::Z II.I,p4l..c1(b~.J . I I I ". Through the following I would like to state that I support the Palomar Gateway District Pacific Plan that will improve the zoning in the areas near the streets of Industrial Anita Street. The Plan will bring good things for the city of (hula Vista and its residents, such as new housing near the trolley station, new business zoning to welcome new business and revenue to Chula Vista and a Park for recreation and families to bring their children to play. This Plan will improve the progress and image of the city of (hula Vista and for the city's economy. Name: Signature: Address: c9v A.e"\) \ r'Jl--\b". """E: --;S)v y,'...Ay . ^ -" ~ -Gc- ~ . qoo \ />" ~~ ;4 " . CA e.. Lo'j G u\"-~o.-.iE > ~"...\'...-f (~, 7. .r," ~~ , V A \'""2.~ A::5 ~ -A 1 \>\.b \. ,., "~F~ J/~. ~~ 'N.c.., L ~Q. EN.<::\:: .l.\ "c.. \f-~ _ ..c.. \ ~ Ma.c..e. - I I I I I . I I - , " \~~\O Page 1 of I Miguel Tapia From: Bree Stephenson [bree@margroup.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 06,20131 :37 PM To: Miguel Tapia Cc: Juan-Pablo Mariscal Subject: Letters of Support Attachments: Letters of Support.PDF Good afternoon Mr. Tapia, Please find attached 8 letters of support for the adoption of the specific plan. Best Regards, Bree Stephenson . Mar Group ~~. . 0 ~ ~ 'I E l Q i !o\f- N t - . 858-794-2600 office 858-724-1409 fax 08/06/2013 0810512013 Dear Mayor 8. City Council MCinbers, We reside ai 7Tf Ada SI ~2 Chll/a Vista, CA 91911 and supPOrt II'll) f:lcfop\lon ollhe":city Patomar Ava pmjaCl. We lOOk fDIWil~ 10 see the Impr(tV!lmen.l~ Ihlll ar~ 10 comtl from lh!s. SIncerely . ~~". S;M, E. C_,.R",,,.. R,bm J. C,m,,,,, ftlq)401-0S'lS S\t\ilfl, ((I \ (1 -r-;y?J I ((/'S':'j. 08lgSf2013 Deor Mayor & City Council Members, We r!:SId.:: ill 777 Ad!! StfP,arlI9.Chula Vista, ell. 91911 and support the Moptlen a: {he city Patomar Ave project 'rV-,j look forward 10 sae the Improvements thet ;lfC 10 cOllie frollllhls.' ~~;llrnQt~(t l[~~F{j\it TaQuan Briant, 'Tarnclka Bryant :<ag ~crD' 53h3 0810512013 Dear Mayor & Clly Council Mell1bel~. We rsaide at '((7 AdaSireel fi1 Chura Vista, CA 91911 ilnd sUPpol1lhe'lldcpllon 0" the oily PalOllla{Ave projcel. liVe lcio~ forward to Eee tile improvemeni9 lr>lll are to come frem thr.;. Sinr.~; aty, Marla Rojas, Andres ~ruz, Yolanda Lujan, Osvaldo RoTilS' ra(/C'-I6I~[j //,/,,_ C):5t/__Z.";1?-1 J,..:> ~ /,""':J T I...~ J ..", t,., 'OfJI05/'lOfi ~' . ."- .~.. : Q(iir_Mayor~a.:Gily:CounClI Mem~ers, ~ ~ . . We.r~si~~,al.7:7J A$:S~:#lp::h~!fYJ~Ia;~~i\.;91911 aiii(S\tp'''Ji~JIJ~e;~IlIo~ncillii~'ciIY,. , P~a"Aveprojeet. 'A'e,took fOI\'I8l'dto 5Ce the lmprovBme/llS lhalarc.locoma rtOmlhi$~ ' -- .. - . . _.. .,-_:x_~ '. .--"'-___.,;__~. ..~__..... __-._ . ~~~\"~~~O~ ,I...? .~\ Jo~~~~ 0rilz.! C:Yf'!.lhla ~o.sadjl'Oriiz . ., \ . "'. '1"'1 \. 5- lb. C\ .uqo - ,'7-' "-f' '. os/osiiM:3, " I),ear Mayo't&:.C;l\y'COl:llici1 Members, .~. - . ..... - -. .' ... -.-., d~'. ....,.. ....,-..,._-.._. ~ I~~_.. '''" ",t-.:"_ 'We;rqsld~llr777.Ada:.S~~\#;;G.h,~!\l Vista; CA91911lifltli>uppon-theadopIIo119'.l11e:Clly, . P;-ikll1111l AVEJProleCi. we'look forward to sea the ImprO:~~,1enl~'lhat ,~i~!~'~g,m.~ I"'.:'; Ihi~,l . Sln!;er~iy. 5~~ Jeneil G.uil~rrez .~'G',_. ll4 '';):0 ~C}. . '08/06/:!OH -~. .... - -r- . - " De!!! Mayor &o(:l1y 9.ouncif MEir;ib'er-5. -.--.,-~.._: _...-....__.~-,_. t~\-.__-:". .. ._ __._"_",,_ .'____ _'_ _' . /,: W:,:resldeol.77TAdaSlTee\#10 Churn. VllIla, (;~:!1;!9! 1 and.SUP/)OIt!he adopl/Ql1ilf lhe'(llly Pal0i11ar .I\vaptojecl. v~iel9Ol\ fOI\'I.3!d {~:6eelliol"iprovemel1!$'l!\aiere'lo r.6im:from thIS.. . -' ':;.' -" -. '. ..... --. . - ~ -- - ..--'. - . . Si~cetely; ~(j$.;\ '~\l)pi f.\lex A. Huezo, besHmy i'1. HueZ9 '.... . .- ~'\g) CfI:6) ~\--S ~- -;>:0::>' (,;. b.~ ~ S~~~'i;'"'>~5? _~ 1 OB1Q5f2g.13i Oeadviayor&.'-CilY cpunci, ~.enjll.erS; . Wlf~l~e,al ;i1; /;\da srifj'dltiraVis~~i<;r~9i 91 r IDlQ liiJii~.rt -tn~-'a~f,liO~ oltii!ICl!y.._ :Palilfliai-Ave,iirojecl..VVeJ~kfol\"ilr~ IO':~'uil: 111l/i~i!1~ritSJh9rE!ill' to col!W !~m l/liS; . .. . ... . . ~ .. . '. - .'9i~:rue.::I.."". .~~).'\~"l....'. . .r,' . I ..~ _'. ~ --_.~: " '/-~.-1."~ .~ -... t:~f;;rSl <?T~~ $:~.>5'~ ~_. . ; 1 ~ " I ! . Dear QtyS9IJn:2J.!. ~rid MaYor -- j." "'am'theo\'mer'of 7S'l,760 Alillil,5tfeel Ctl!il.iVhta'GA91950: . -- - -........-...'...< - - _..-- -"_..--- . .. .. o. , '. ;1~'{av~Tb~en waltlng.iorihispian 10 be. approve!! @ ~,!v~ra!,y,e3-r~; . . i supportil;e pro)et\ am tounilng on youivoteln f~vorotadoPtjl1frhespetliiC;._ I~06C th~SDGE;unil<l(lirou'ld line~ \;11II ~ lncJ~ding.. -" '. . . , -.' &", Nanc'{'Es_tOI<l..~ G19_-477~2~OO, ~larity@lealher.tom . I~m =*"10 ~\~ Unland Industries 964 Fillh Avenue Suite 314 San Diego. CA 9210' (BI9) 54....58 FAX (619) 544.1411 August 6, 2013 Mayor Cheryl Cox & Honorable Members of the City Council Cha!a Vista Mayor and Council Office 276 Fourth Avenue Chula. Vista, CA 91910 RE: PALOMAR GATEWAY ErR Dear Mayor Cox and Honorable Members of the Chula Vista City Council: ., We have been property owners in Chula Vista for !1early sixty years and would like to register our strong support for the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palomar Gateway District. It makes good plannir.g sense to increase housing deI-,sity around transportation hubs like the Palomar Trolley Station. This enables a sustaiI:3ble living environment near public transportation, and reduces traffic and pollut;c:-.. City Services also becomE more economic on a per citizen .metric with this density increase. Thank you for attention to this matter. Sincerely, "UO!SS!UJUJOJ sa!l!l!ln )!lqnd P!UJol!lE'J at/I JO Sa)rdsnE' at/! JaPUnlil]'9~aSAQPaJaIS!U!UJPPPUE'SJaUJO!SnJAlrl!!nE'!UJOJH(>JAqPapunj aJE'sUJE'JtlOJd "paMaSaJ SIt/tip ljJE'UJapE'Jl PUP It/tlpAdoJ lilt "AUPdUJOJ JPlJaF:3 'Y SE'~ obara UE'S OLOZ@ SdU 6UIAeS-A6JilUil ilJOW JO) A6JilUililAes/wOJoil6ps USIA "WJa4l Jad ens }O alE'J E' uo paSE'Q aJE' SalE'Wnsa SE'b IE'JnlE'N "4M)j Jad OE'OS }O alE'J E' pauaJ salE'W!lSa lSOJ Jppala "asn-40!H.. "4M)f Jad SrDS }O alE'J E' palJaJ salE'Wnsa lSOJ Jppa/a "asn-MOl.. . "MOPUIM a4l U! SlUnowE' alU aJedwoJ PUE' E'aJE' lE'lH JO} aJuE'!IddE' UE' lEI MOJJE' las 'slSOJ aJnpaJ ol a}j!l PlnoM nOA aJallM asnoll alll}o E'aJE' UE' pU!..:f ("Sf31I:J/wOJ'f3tJps l!S!^ Sf3lE'J paJaU lnoQE' UO!l -E'WJO}UI aJOW JO.:l) 'SJOpE'} Jf34l0 pUE' Sf3lE'J paJan UO bUIPuadap AJE'A ;.ew AE'd nOA aJpd a41 'II!Q lUaJaJ lSOW Jno;. UO asn AbJaua 100;' lE' bU!}joo/ ;'Q asn 4b!1l JO MOl S! PIOllasnoll JnOA I! aU!WJalaa :sUo!pnJ~SUI s.6 SOOl ilJeldaJ!j_ sell 'leallleJlUaJ I ,0UileilH _ bU!I!aJ I ll~uow Jad - AqpUels uo uej - -Xej 51 H33S 'J!E' jE'J1UaJ U01-E I I OU!UOljIPUOJ J!1t -.... -JOjIUOV'/ pue JiljndwoJ DN/100J/DNIl'O'3H I SE' '018 OOO'OOP JiljeilH lood OUIWW!MS_ salnu!w DE JOJ sn18 OOO'9E 'sell I IIJl~ JOOpjnO_ 3a/Slno E"S H33S 'U01-Z!1 ':l/Jpala JilUOillPUOJ Jilt WOO~_ OaJiljS J xoqX - SilWe~ OilP!^ i ^l ewseld uVS 1 ^l JOIOJ _ woo~ DNIII/1 I ll/Dpdn '"U "nJ 51 'aaJHSOll I JilZilaJj eJjX3_ l/luow lad - J!Jpala I ,JiljeaH JajeM jOH- 3D'O'~'O'D Jn04 Jad nL ,asO I/6!H 3Qln9 3Sn A9H3N3 ~ uel amJJn~ J!I?-PinJOj ou!pnpu! ( fJOprOljasnolj'AE>p/lPbssuopaSE'Qz asU!JP/O)'ljSE'MWJeM I :S:UON apA:l alnu!w OE _ SE'lI -JaAJO I JalE'all Ja~e..... see ;::,Ja4seM ).~aNn'O', SHeM EI -ljJ I sHe.....09 -juaJsapueJUI DNIlHD/1 sHe..... 0051 az!s PJE'PUE'lS -aAeMOJJIV'/ I ~HYlS A~3N3 'o3p!s-Aq.aPlS '"lI m zz -JOjeJaOJlja~ I Alp paleallllH..... Jaleal/ JaleM seD -Ja4SeM4S!O , bUPIOO:l :ljJpala -UaAO I bUlUas l/D!lI 'JauJnq news ':l!Jpaja -dOl aoue~ N3HJ1/}/ Jn04 Jad J9€ I ,asO MOl .-'limn A.1l1<lUJ eldw<lS ~ It ( toos uesday, August 6, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: South Bay Substation Relocation Project To Honorable Mayor and City Council members: As a resident of (hula Vista, I urge you to hold SDG&E accountable to the promises they have made and to the Bayfront plan our community worked so hard for decades to accomplish. I am stunned to learn that over the past year the City Council has been giving support to a proposed power substation that includes new overhead power lines, supporting poles and tall power towers next to businesses and residences in southwest Chula Vista. I understand the City Council established an undergrounding district for the Bayfront in 2006 and that our Bayfront plan calls for utilities serving the Bayfront to be placed underground. Back in 2004, SDG&E agreed to only propose facilities that include undergrounded lines. What they are proposing now is a blatant violation of that agreement. Please make SDG&E keep their promise and require a state-of-the-art, low profile substation that complies with our plan and honors their agreement with the voters and residents of Chula Vista! Enforce our plans and make SDG&E honor their word! Sincerely, ~~ ~00o_ - \L\O~/~~\~.~ ~0-- \J \' ~~ QJl\ ql q l \