HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - PCM 10-24C H U L A VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
-0 A
Item• J
Meeting Date: 06/26/13
PUBLIC HEARING: To consider approval of the Palomar Gateway
Specific Plan and related rezoning actions
Resolution PCM -10 -24 of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution certifying
Environmental Impact Report EIR -10 -05 (SCH No. 2011111077); 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 District Specific Plan (PCM- 10 -24) and related rezoning actions
SUBMITTED BY: Miguel Z. Tapia, Project Manager
REVIEWED BY: Eric Crockett, Assistant Director of Development Services
INTRODUCTION
This public hearing and resolution are for consideration of the proposed Palomar Gateway
District Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (PGDSP & EIR). The preparation
of the PGDSP is intended to implement the City's General Plan and facilitate revitalization of
Western Chula Vista, in particular the 100 -acre area located around the Palomar 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 65450- 65457) establishes the process for adopting
specific plans and requires that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed
actions and provide a written recommendation to the City Council.
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to analyze the environmental
impacts of the proposed PGDSP. CEQA Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), have been prepared that reflect the conclusions of the Final EIR.
The Final EIR also contains comments and responses to the comments received during the public
review period, which ran from April 15, 2013 to May 30, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the required public hearing and adopt:
Resolution PCM -10 -24 of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 2
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
approve the resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report EIR -10 -05
(SCH No. 201 1 1 1 1077) for the Palomar 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.
BACKGROUND
The most recent update to the City of Chula Vista General Plan occurred in 2005. 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
area. 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.
Specific Plans must also be consistent with the policies contained within the General Plan and
may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance. This differentiation allows cities to choose
whether their specific plans, or portions thereof, will be policy driven (adopted by resolution), or
regulatory (adopted by ordinance). This Specific Plan is adopted by ordinance. All zoning related
portions of this Specific Plan (i.e. land use matrix, permitted uses and development regulations)
are prepared to serve as regulatory provisions and supersede other regulations and ordinances of
the City for the control of land use and development within the Specific Plan boundaries. 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 authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 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.
Prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan, City staff undertook an extensive public
engagement strategy with the community. The community outreach effort was designed to
involve the various citizens and interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process. In
2007 -2008 the City began the "Southwest United in Action" community strengthening process,
which culminated in the Southwest Leaders' Conference in May and June of 2009. Many of the
graduates from the Leaders' Conference went on to become active participants in the first stage
of the specific planning process for the Southwest, a series of three Urban Design Workshops,
each focusing on different "Areas of Change" that had been identified by the 2005 General Plan
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 3
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
Update. The Palomar Gateway District Urban Design Workshop was held on July 11, 2009 and
included a walking tour and brainstonning session, culminating in the preliminary design
recommendations for the district contained in the Urban Design Workshop Summary Report
included as Exhibit A of the PGDSP.
From the Southwest Leaders' Conference and the Urban Design Workshops, staff identified and
reached out to a group of individuals with interest, knowledge of the area, and leadership
abilities to participate in the Southwest Working Group (SWWG). The SWWG represented a
cross - section of the southwest community, including community organizations, businesses, and
residents. This group was tasked both with providing oversight for the southwest planning
efforts, and with working to engage other members of the community with the process. SWWG
participants met monthly to review and direct the latest efforts, and have attended more targeted
workshops for individual planning areas, including the Palomar Gateway District. The finished
PGDSP document bears the mark of this extensive public outreach process. Staff and SWWG
members have worked hard to develop a plan that both allows transit - oriented development in
the Palomar Gateway District, and at the same time doesn't overburden this already- congested
area with additional auto trips.
It 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 Growth 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 draft 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 prepared in compliance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). 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 PGD 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 public input 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.
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 4
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
Location
The approximately 100 -gross acres Palomar Gateway District (PGD) is located at the
interchange of Palomar 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 Street /I -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 - family residential uses, as well as
a few commercial and industrial uses.
Interstate 5 frames the west side of the district with businesses and housing west of I -5 in the
West Fairfield district; to the north between I -5 and Industrial Boulevard is a mobilehome park;
east of Industrial Boulevard is the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency
building, Harborside Elementary School and Harborside Park. Community commercial centers
with large anchor businesses such as Target, Costco and Walmart are east of the Harborside
Park; and commercial retail and employment uses are south of Palomar Street and east of
Industrial Boulevard. South of Anita Street is primarily industrially designated employment uses.
Existing 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
are currently about 400 residential units in the PGD, including 67 rooms related to two hotels.
Land uses to the north of Palomar Street include a mix of industrial and multi - family residential
housing, with a major commercial area on the northeast corner of Palomar Street and Industrial
Boulevard that attracts shoppers and employees from surrounding communities and the state of
Baja California. Land uses south of Palomar Street include single and multi- family residential
housing, industrial, and vacant land, with the Palomar Transit Station on the southeast corner of
Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
ANALYSIS
Specific Plan Overview 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 preparation and
consistency with 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, which 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 2005 General
Plan. The General Plan objective for the PGD is to help transition the area from a low- density,
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 5
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
auto - focused interchange into a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area surrounding the Palomar Transit
Station. The vision for the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area includes 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. A mix of
retail and office uses would be located along Palomar 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, Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, Retail Commercial, and Parks /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 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 specific plan document, a market study for the PGDSP was
prepared by Gafcon, Inc. (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 area's current and future market demands in terms of residential, retail, and office
development. The market 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) level, 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 fewer residential units
than compared to the 2,000 projected by the General Plan vision.
■ Retail Development. The market study looked at the demand for retail development
generated by four different factors: 1) the primary market within 1.5 miles of the transit
station; 2) the secondary market located between 1.5 miles to 5 miles of the station; 3) area
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 areas, such as the Urban Core and Eastlake, are
planned for additional office development. However, the PGD area may capture demand to
provide office services to the surrounding community.
Overall, the General Plan land use designations anticipated far more capacity for the PGD than
the potential demand identified by the market study. Therefore, the market study prepared for the
Specific Plan was utilized in developing projected build -out scenarios for the PGDSP as
represented in the table below.
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 6
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
Palomar Gateway District
Existing and Projected(1,2) Development
20 -Year Horizon
1 Numbers are approximations.
2 Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on 2011 Market Study (GAFCON, Inc.)
Projected residential units for MU -1 Sub - District are based on the designated FAR with the
proportional commercial development indicated on note 5 below.
" Sub - Districts MU -2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the Sub - District land area.
5 Retail/Office square footages are assumed 10 %/90% split of projected buildout
between the MU -1/ MU -2 Sub - Districts, which is roughly proportional to the Sub - Districts land area.
Land Use and Development Regulations
Chapter 3 of the PGDSP establishes the appropriate distribution, mix, 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, mixed 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
SWWG, and the proposed regulations reflect their early discussion and input. The SWWG
participated in several workshops designed specifically to get input on the PGDSP. The SWWG
participants were provided with an overview of the existing conditions findings for the PGD.
They were also provided with a "SWOT" analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats) prepared by staff, and they were asked to augment the list as they saw 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 facility 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 known as the "Pumpkin Patch" could be developed
with an educational complex, if a college and the property owners so decided. The Land 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 are based on the
distance of a proposed development from the Trolley Station, thus encouraging more density and
Projected
Total
Estimated Buildout by Sub - District
Existing
Development
Additional
Estimated
MU -1
MU -2
PRV
PNRC
Development
Buildout
(3.5 ac.)
(31.5 ac.)
(43.5 ac.)
(1.5 ac.)
Residential
400
1,300
1,700
150
450t
700
(Units)
Retail (Sq. Ft.)tsl
200,000
100,000
300,000
10,000
85,000
5,000
Office (Sq. Ft.)
50,000
50,000
5,000
40,000
5,000
cs>
Industrial
30,000
(Sq. Ft.)
1 Numbers are approximations.
2 Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on 2011 Market Study (GAFCON, Inc.)
Projected residential units for MU -1 Sub - District are based on the designated FAR with the
proportional commercial development indicated on note 5 below.
" Sub - Districts MU -2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the Sub - District land area.
5 Retail/Office square footages are assumed 10 %/90% split of projected buildout
between the MU -1/ MU -2 Sub - Districts, which is roughly proportional to the Sub - Districts land area.
Land Use and Development Regulations
Chapter 3 of the PGDSP establishes the appropriate distribution, mix, 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, mixed 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
SWWG, and the proposed regulations reflect their early discussion and input. The SWWG
participated in several workshops designed specifically to get input on the PGDSP. The SWWG
participants were provided with an overview of the existing conditions findings for the PGD.
They were also provided with a "SWOT" analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats) prepared by staff, and they were asked to augment the list as they saw 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 facility 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 known as the "Pumpkin Patch" could be developed
with an educational complex, if a college and the property owners so decided. The Land 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 are based on the
distance of a proposed development from the Trolley Station, thus encouraging more density and
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 7
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
more public transit ridership. For example, the PGDSP incorporates parking requirement
currently contained in the Chula Vista Municipal Code for projects further away 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 land use categories, including multi- family residential,
public /quasi - public and institutional, commercial office, commercial - service 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 -
serving commercial area 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 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)
Desip,n Guidelines
Chapter 4 of the PGDSP contains design guidelines for future development within the PGD. The
Design Guidelines were presented to the SWWG during their monthly meetings with City staff.
Staff provided a presentation to the group and explained what 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 would
encourage an area that is economically stronger, more recognizable, and rich in sense of place
and identity. Specific design guidelines for gateway corners, major arterials, areas adjacent to the
I -5 freeway, and streetscape improvements are summarized in Table 3 -5 of the PGDSP. In
addition to the specific design guidelines provided in the PGDSP, future development within 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 following elements of project design: Neighborhood
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 8
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
Context; Site Design/Siting and Orientation; Building Design; Parking; Energy Conservation and
Landscaping; Resource Conservation; and Water Conservation. As projects are proposed for
development, urban designers, architects, and reviewers of future development projects within
the PGD would refer to the City's Design Manual, in particular the Multi- Family Residential,
Commercial, Mixed Use, and Conservation Design Guidelines, for general design guidance.
Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Chapter 5 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, parks and recreation facilities, energy and
telecommunications, and other public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and street
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 citywide
implementation strategies provide the basis for public services and utilities needed to serve the
PGD.
A Mobility Study was prepared for the PGDSP in April 2012. The Mobility Study was unique in
that instead of just focusing on moving cars, the Study was developed to analyze multi -modal
conditions (motorized and non - motorized) to accommodate expected growth in the PGD and the
City's vision for the area. 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 a well - balanced, connected, safe, and convenient multi -modal
transportation network designed to serve all users of streets, regardless of their age or ability, or
whether they are driving, walking, bicycling, or taking transit, and allows the area to thrive as an
economic center for nearby residents and the community at large. The Mobility Plan for the
PGDSP was developed using "Complete Street" 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 pedestrian and bicycle safety while
maintaining Palomar 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, Walnut 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 Palomar Trolley Station is also
proposed to be strengthened to ensure safe and convenient access for the neighborhoods it
serves. Barriers 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 nearby
Broadway.
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 9
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
Chapter 5 of the PGDSP also includes a list of commonly used mechanisms to fund public
facilities. Among these mechanisms are, 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 Projects
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 architecture 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 are 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, a five -year review cycle allows adjustments to be made to the PGDSP as
necessary. Items of particular importance to consider during each five -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.
■ Reviewing the various incentive programs to evaluate if these elements are providing the
intended results.
Consistency with the General Plan
The 2005 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 TFA on and surrounding the Palomar Transit Station, higher residential
intensity, a neighborhood park 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
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 10
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
EIR and attached hereto as Attachment 2. As shown in this table, the PGDSP would be
consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies for the PGD.
CVMC 19.80 Controlled Residential Development Ordinance
In the late 1980's a citizen initiative, referred to as the Cummings 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 growth in the City in order
that the services provided by the city can be properly and effectively staged in a manner which
will not overextend existing facilities and that deficient services may be brought up to required
standards.
Since the passage of the Cummings Initiative, many quality of life issues are now addressed
during the City's development review process. The City has established Quality of Life
Threshold Standards via the Growth Management Ordinance that are regularly 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 services and facilities.
The ordinance contains the following provisions under CVMC 19.80.070 (A) and (D) that limit
the rezoning of a property.
A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's
zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density
category in any two year period according to the 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 commercial 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 commercial or industrial
may not be rezoned to a residential category of higher density than that which
was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. This provision
shall apply only to rezones approved after the effective date 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)
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 11
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
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 analysis 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 growth 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.
Program Environmental Impact Report
Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act requires that an environmental
impact report identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide
measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid those significant effects. The PGDSP EIR
contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with implementing the
proposed PGDSP.
The PGDSP EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR, as defined in Title 14, Chapter 3, Section
15168 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (the CEQA Guidelines). A Program EIR is
recommended for a series of actions that are related geographically, as logical parts in a chain of
contemplated actions, or in connection with the issuance of plans that govern the conduct of a
continuing program [CCR Section 15168 (a)]. The advantages of a Program EIR include the
ability to provide a more exhaustive consideration of alternatives and cumulative effects than
might be possible in a single project specific EIR; to avoid duplication of basic policy
considerations; and to provide the Lead Agency (City of Chula Vista) with the ability to consider
broad program -wide policies and mitigation measures that would apply to specific projects
within the overall program [CCR Section 15168 (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 5,
Environmental Impact Analysis, of the EIR include those that were identified as having
potentially significant environmental impacts by the City of Chula Vista and in response to the
City's Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping meeting, and consist of the following:
■ Land Use, Planning, and Zoning ■ Paleontological Resources
■ Landform Alteration /Aesthetics ■ Biological Resources
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 12
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
■ Transportation, Circulation, and Access
■ Hydrology and Drainage
■ Air Quality
■ Geology and Soils
■ Global Climate Change
■ 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 5, Environmental
Impact Analysis, of the EIR. The EIR also provides a summary of the potentially significant
cumulative impacts to which the proposed PGDSP may contribute, 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 -1 of the
Exective 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 Secondary Study identifies new impacts or a substantial change in circumstances, additional
environmental documentation would be required. The form of this documentation would 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 15162 and 15163. 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 necessary, but none of the conditions described above calling for the preparation of a
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred, the Lead Agency or Responsible Agency would
prepare an Addendum to this EIR. Unlike a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR, an Addendum to a
PGDSP & EIR Page No. 13
Planning Commission June 26, 2013
previously certified EIR need not be circulated for public review and can be included in or attached
to the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. 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.
Comments on the Draft EIR
The public review period for the EIR was from April 15, 2013 to May 30, 2013. 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
Mr. Mario and Nancy Estolano
Mr. Rodolfo P. Estolano
Mr. Juan -Pablo Mariscal
The letters and responses are included in the Final EIR. All comments received concerning the
EIR have been fully addressed within the Final EIR.
DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS
Conflict
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found that
Commissioner Moctezuma has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
property which is the subject of this action.
CONCLUSION
The preparation of the proposed PGDSP, as mandated by the City's 2005 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 density of
activity adjacent to the existing San Diego Trolley Station at Palomar Street. The PGDSP was
created to promote a pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, an private automobile - supportive
development environment and integrate these mobility 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 strategy with the
community. The community outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens and
interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process. The finished PGDSP document bears
the mark of this extensive public outreach process. The proposed PGDSP reflects the concerns
and aspiration of the community as expressed by SWWG. Staff and SWWG members have
worked hard to develop a plan that both allows transit - oriented development in the Palomar
Gateway District, and at the same time doesn't overburden this already- congested area with
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
PGDSP & EIR
Planning Commission
Page No. 14
June 26, 2013
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that City
Council adopt the Council Resolution and Ordinance certifying the EIR and adopting the PGDSP
and related rezoning actions.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Table 5.1 -3 — PDGSP Consistency with General Plan Policies
3. Map with existing and proposed zoning
4. Draft City Council Resolution
5. Draft Ordinance
MEN. s
MAR
�x a
°T rt� ai
s y
iv
11141 71",
e tt. ��t ��°'" -E - Imo* -... r `t"' i. q`+w,y r - E`"'�?•" s'•`
NIARSA C7
_�` ----'
MY`�
FA
vY�anC.§,.
'i.Y
iT
3'.
Yt �
Ow, 3
IN
1 r r
t -
^F ... J,
ATTACHMENT 2
5 I Land Use Planning and Zoning
Table 5.1.3 PGDSP Consistency with General Plan Policies
General Plan Objective or Policy
PGDSP Consistency
Objective LUT 5: Designate opportunities for mixed use areas
The PGDSP land use designations would
with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs, and
accommodate new, higher density housing, shopping, and
transit in appropriate locations throughout the City
office development, including mixed use, surrounding the
Policy LUT 54: Develop the following areas as mixed use centers:
Palomar Transit Station The Mixed Use Corridor Sub- district
Urban Core; Palomar Trolley Station; Eastern Urban Center; and
would accommodate community- serving and neighborhood
Otay Ranch Village Cores and Town Centers
uses along the major transportation facilities in the PGD,
including Palomar Street and the Palomar Transit Station
Objective LUT 17: Plan and coordinate development to be
Consistent. The PGDSP would accommodate higher
compatible and supportive of planned transit
intensity, mixed use development surrounding the Palomar
Policy LUT 17 2: Direct higher intensity and mixed use
Trolley Station The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan that
developments to areas within walking distance of transit,
outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the PGD to
including San Diego Trolley stations along E, H, and Palomar
provide safe and efficient connections between the trolley
Streets, and new stations along future transit lines, including Bus
station and surrounding land uses
Rapid Transit.
Objective LUT 19: Coordinate with the regional transportation
Consistent SANDAG has been involved in the development
planning agency, SANDAG, and transit service providers such as
ofthe PGDSP, including the provision of funding The PGDSP
the Metropolitan Transit System, to develop a state -of- the -art
provides a land use plan that promotes and improves access
transit system that provides excellent service to residents;
between the Palomar Transit Station and PGDSP land uses to
workers; students; and the disabled, both within the City, and
the east ofthe station The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan
with inter - regional destinations
that outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the
Policy LUT 19 5• Plan for and promote improved access between
PGD to provide safe and efficient connections between the
the Palomar Street, E Street and H Street light rail stations and
trolley station and surrounding land uses No connections
land uses east of those stations and to the Bayfront This may
over 1 -5 are proposed as part of the PGDSP The City is
Involve the construction of separate bridges or ramps connecting
preparing an 1 -5 transit study that addresses connections
Chula Vista streets to transit facilities and /or a deck over
and crossings over 1 -5 as part of a separate effort
Interstate 5 to the Bayfront.
Objective ED 9: Develop community- serving and neighborhood
Consistent The proposed project is a specific plan that
uses to serve residents and visitors alike
would encourage economic development in the PGD The
Policy ED 9.1: Provide for community and neighborhood
PGDSP proposes a la nd use plan that would accommodate
commercial centers in areas convenient to residents. These
the development ofcommunity- serving and neighborhood
centers should complement and meetthe needs ofthe
commercial uses The Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster
surrounding neighborhood through their location; size; scale; and
Subdistrict would specifically accommodate resident -
design The neighborhood concept of providing pedestrian,
serving commercial uses The sub - district Is located adjacent
bicycle, and other' non - motorized access should be encouraged
to the primary residential area in the PGD and would have
Policy ED 94: Develop specific plans, which include an economic
reduced building heights and intensity compared to the
component, for areas of the City, Including, but not necessarily
proposed mixed use commercial sub - districts The Mixed
limited to, the West Main Street; Broadway; South Third Avenue;
Use Corridor Sub - district would accommodate community-
North Fourth Avenue/Third Avenue "gateway"; E Street; West H
serving and neighborhood uses along the major
Street; and Palomar Street areas More than one area maybe
transportation facilities in the PGD, including Palomar Street
addressed in a single plan, such as the Urban Core Specific Plan
and the Palomar Transit Station The highest intensities
would be clustered In the designated gateway locations at
Policy ED 9.5: Encourage clustered commercial uses to prevent
the intersections of Palomar Street and Walnut
and discourage strip development Locate commercial uses at
Street /Frontage Road and Palomar Street/lndustrial
focal points along major arterial streets or expressways and in
Boulevard The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan that outlines
village core areas
pedestrian and bicycle improvements forthe PGD to provide
Policy ED 9.6: Encourage clustered, smaller scale office and
safe and efficient connections between uses and encourage
professional uses along major streets and in neighborhood
use of non - motorized modes of transportation
centers in a variety of areas dispersed throughout the community
to meet the needs of nearby neighborhoods.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No 2D11111077 Page .5 1 -23 April 2013
5 1 Land Use Planning and Zoning
Table 5.1 -3 continued
General Plan Objective or Polity
PGDSP Consistency
Objective LUT 43: Establish a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
Consistent The proposed project would implement a
surrounding the Palomar Trolley Station
specific plan for the PGD to guide the development of a
Policy LUT 43 1: The City shall prepare, or cause to have
Transit Focus Area The PGDSP includes guidelines and
prepared, a specific plan, master plan, or other regulatory
zoning -level standards for the arrangement of land uses,
document to guide the coordinated establishment of a Mixed
includes a Mobility Plan for adequate pedestrian
Use Transit Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway District on
connections, and would accommodate a variety of support
properties north and south of Palomar Street, within walkable
services for residents, as well as those using Palomar Transit
distance of the Palomar Trolley Station The specific plan or
Station
other regulatory document shall include guidelines and zoning -
level standards for the arrangement of land uses that include
plans for adequate pedestrian connections and support services
for residents, as well as those using the transit station.
Policy LUT 43 2: Provide fora five -acre neighborhood park
Consistent The PGDSP identifies 5 8 acres of potential park
within the Palomar Gateway District
areas in the PGD, including a 4 5 -acre neighborhood park
south of the Palomar Transit Station, and a 13 -acre urban
park north of Palomar Street.
Uses
Consistent Residential development would continue to be
Policy L.UT 43.3: Strive for a distribution of uses within the areas
the dominant land use in the PGD with implementation of
designated as Mixed Use Transit Focus Area along Palomar
the PGDSP Up to 1,300 new resldential units would be
Street to include retail, offices, and residential, as generally
accommodated in the area, for a total of 1,700 units A total
shown on the following chart:
of 150,000 square feet of new commercial and office use
could be developed, for a total of 350,000 square feet
^= ! !M Residential
u: =`=
Mixed use development would be concentrated along
0�ss industrial
i� o _11
Palomar Street, which includes two gateways, and the
Palomar Transit Station, with additional residential
11 a Offices
development provided in the Palomar Residential village
Sub - district
Policy LUT 43 4: Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and
some office uses along Palomar Street In the Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area, with residential uses above and /or behind the retail
and offices uses
Policy LUT 43.5: Provide a mix of Iecal- serving retail and office
uses near the Palomar Trolley Station and at the gateways into
the Palomar Gateway District.
Intensity /Height
Consistent The Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation
Policy LU7 43.6: In the Palomar Gateway District, residential
would apply to development within approximately 0 25 mile
densities within the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation
of the Palomar Transit Station This area would have an
are intended to have a district -wide gross density of 40 dwelling
average residential density of 40 dwelling units per acre The
units per acre
PGDSP uses an equivalency factor to translate dwelling units
Policy LUT 43 7: In the Palomar Gateway District, the
per acre to FAR A density of 40 dwelling units per acre
commercial (retail and office) portion ofthe Mixed Use Transit
would result in an area -wide aggregate FAR of 10 The FAR
Focus Area designation is intended to have a focus area -wide
includes commercial and residential development
aggregate FAR of 10 Subsequent specific plans or zoning
Maximum building heights in the PGD would range from
ordinance regulations will establish parcel - specific FARs that
low -rise, up to 35 feet, in the Palomar Neighborhood Retail
may vary from the district -wide aggregate (referto
Cluster Sub - district, to low -rise, primarily 45 -•50 feet, in the
Section 4.9 1, Interpreting the Land Use Diagram, for a
PalomarTransit Plaza and Mixed Use Corridor Sub.-districts
discussion of district-wide versus parcel-specific FAR)
Some buildings with a maximum height of 60 feet would be
allowable in gateway areas The Residential High designation
Policy LUT 43..8: Building heights in the Palomar Gateway
would apply to the Palomar Residential Village Sub - district, I
District Mixed Use Transit Focus Area shall below -rise, with
which would be limited to a maximum building height of
some mid -rise buildings
45 feet The Retail Commercial designation would apply to
Policy LUT 43.9: Building heights in the Residential High
the Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster Sub - district, which
designated area shall be low -rise buildings
would be limited to low -rise, lower intensity development
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No 2011111077 Page 5 1 -24 April 2013
5 1 Land Use Planning and Zoning
Table 5 -1 -3 continued
General Plan Objective or Policy
PGDSP Consistency
y
Policy LUT 43 10: in the Palomar Gateway District, permit a
maximum floor area ratio of 0 5 and low -rise buildings in the
Retail Commercial designated area on Industrial Boulevard
adjacent to the area designated as Residential High.
Design
Consistent. The PGDSP includes specific design and
Polity LUT 43.11: The specific plan or other regulatory
landscape guidelines for Palomar Street at the 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 identifies and coordinates elements such as
Policy LUT 43 12: Provide for safe, effective, and aesthetic
street trees, street furniture and lighting Guidelines for
pedestrian crossings and improvements to Palomar Street and
sidewalk design and lighting provide for safe, effective, and
Industrial Boulevard
aesthetic pedestrian crossings Intersection bulb -outs are
encouraged at busy intersections, such as Palomar Street
and Industrial Boulevard, to provide safety for pedestrians
Additional guidelines include decorative sidewalk and
lighting features, buffers between pedestrians and moving
vehicles, smooth and slip - resistant surfaces, consistent light
fixtures and posts, and a combination of streetlights and
pedestrian -level lights. _
Amenities
Consistent The PGDSP encourages and includes guidelines
Policy LUT 4313; Community amenities to be considered for the
for the amenities listed in Policy 271 in Chapter 4 ofthe
Palomar Gateway District as part of any incentive program
PGDSP, Design Guidelines, including public plazas, water
should include, but not be limited to those listed in
features, public art, streetscape improvements, pedestrian
Policy LUT 27 1
path improvements, enhanced pedestrian connections,
Policy LUT 43 14: Provide for 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, additional on-
site structured parking for adjacent commercial or
Policy LUT 43.15: Establish acommunity /cultural center near
residential 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 trolley station
The Palomar Street /Third Avenue intersection 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 2005a) 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, 19 30, 19 36, 19 40, and 19 44, 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 CVMC would apply The definitions found in CVMC Chapter 19 04 would
apply to the PGDSP, except where specific definitions are provided in the PGD5P The zoning
amendments that would occur as a result of PGDSP would improve consistency between City planning
Palomar Gateway District Specific Pion PE1R City of Chula Vista
SCH No 2011111077 Page 5 1 -25 April 2013
Attachment 3
Source: CASIL 2011; SanGIS 2011; Chula vista 2012 EXISTING CITY ZONING MAP
0 200 400 N SHOWING PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT
~N= FIGURE 5.1-3
Feet
Palomar Gateway District Speck Plan PER
Attachment 4
DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR- 10- 05 /SCH 201111107) 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
WHEREAS, 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" 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 PGD includes a
Transit Focused 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 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, City staff 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
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
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference
Sections 65450 through 65457 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 City's General
Plan is established in CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860;
and
WHEREAS, prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan for the
Palomar Gateway District (hereinafter referred to as the "PGDSP "), City staff undertook
an extensive public engagement strategy with the community and that this community
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, City staff
identified and reached out to a group of individuals with interest, knowledge of the area,
and leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest Working Group (SWWG) and the
SWWG represented a cross - section of the southwest community, including community
organizations, businesses, and residents. This group 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
WHEREAS, the preparation of the PGDSP was facilitated by the financial
participation of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the City's
Redevelopment Agency, which agencies provided a grant from SANDAG's Smart
Growth Incentive Program in the amount of $400,000 while the Redevelopment Agency
contributed matching funds in the amount of $150,000, for the preparation of the PGDSP
and EIR; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the SWWG began the active preparation of the
PGDSP in January 2010; and
WHEREAS, meetings of City staff and the SWWG were held from January 2010
through March 2012, in which meetings the SWWG 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 SWWG at its meeting of March 21, 2012 and thereafter posted on the City's website
for public review; and
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
doesn't overburden this already- congested area with additional auto trips; and
WHEREAS, the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in
the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 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, 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 -10 -05 (SCH No. 2011111077)
(hereinafter 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
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 15, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Draft PGDSP EIR, together with the technical appendices for the
Project, was issued for a 45 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 draft 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 was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the Public Hearing draft PGDSP
and final EIR; and
WHEREAS, as said public hearing the Planning Commission recommended
through a vote of that the City Council adopt the resolution certifying the final
EIR -10 -5, making certain findings of fact, adopting a statement of overriding
considerations, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and report program for the PGDSP;
and
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a
hearing of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the proposed PGDSP and draft
EIR for July 23, 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
July 23, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all reports, evidence, and testimony
presented at the public hearing with respect to the draft PGDSP and final EIR; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Consideration dated , 2013 (Exhibit `B" of this Resolution) conclude that
proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR are feasible and have not been
modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to
implement those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council
adopts the resolution approving the PGDSP. The adopted mitigation measures contained
within the Mitigation 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 are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated
through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. Final EIR 10 -05 CONTENTS
That the final EIR 10 -05 consists of the following:
1. Draft EIR for the Project (including technical appendices); and
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "Final EIR ")
II. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO Final EIR
1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration (Exhibit "B" of
this Resolution); and
2.
3. 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 EIR- 10 -05, and the Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit `B ") attached to this
Resolution, a copy 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 requirement of CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs.
Title 14 § 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the EIR -10 -05 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 Fact
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 EIR -10 -05 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.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in EIR -10 -05 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 Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were
identified in EIR- 10 -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 alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant
environmental effects caused by the Project or cumulatively will remain.
Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues 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 identifying 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 the 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 Council further finds that
the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the
permittee /project applicant and any other responsible parties implement
the project components and comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
VI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Director of Development Services of the City of Chula Vista is directed
after City Council approval resolution to ensure that a Notice of Determination is
filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along
with any documents submitted to the decision - makers, including documents
specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall
comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista certifies that EIR- 10 -05, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit "C" to this Resolution) have been prepared in accordance
with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines
(California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, should be certified.
Presented by:
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Development Services
Exhibits to this Resolution:
Approved as to form by:
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
Exhibit "A" — Location Map
Exhibit `B" — Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit "C" — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR- 10 -05)
FOR THE
PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM- 10 -24)
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
F-11 Z El
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
JUNE 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................ ..............................1
II. ACRONYMS .......................................................................................... ..............................2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... ..............................3
IV. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... ..............................4
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .............................................................. ..............................5
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ................................................. ..............................6
VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS .......................................................... ..............................8
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............... ..............................9
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................... ..............................9
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES ............................47
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................ .............................57
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ......................... .............................66
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan (PCM- 10 -24) Program Environmental Impact
Report (PEIR); EIR- 10 -05; SCH No. 2011111077
FINDINGS OF FACT
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.).
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
1 -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
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 (1 -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-OUT(' 2)
(') Numbers are approximations.
(2� Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on the market study (Gafcon, Inc. 2011).
(3) Projected residential units for MU -1 Sub - district are based on the designated FAR with the proportional commercial development
indicated in Note 5, below.
(4) Sub - districts MU -2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the sub - district land area.
(5) Retail /Office square footages are assumed 10- percent/90- percent split of projected build -out between the MU- 1 /MU -2 Sub - districts,
which is roughly proportional to the sub - district land area.
Source: PGDSP
3
Existing
Development
Projected
Additional
Development
Total
Estimated
Build -Out
Estimated Build -Out by Sub - District
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
150131
450141
700
--
Retail (Sq. Ft.)(5)
200,000
100,000
300,000
10,000
85,000
--
5,000
Office (Sq. Ft.)(51
--
50,000
50,000
5,000
40,000
--
5,000
Industrial (Sq. Ft.)
30,000
--
--
--
--
--
--
(') Numbers are approximations.
(2� Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on the market study (Gafcon, Inc. 2011).
(3) Projected residential units for MU -1 Sub - district are based on the designated FAR with the proportional commercial development
indicated in Note 5, below.
(4) Sub - districts MU -2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the sub - district land area.
(5) Retail /Office square footages are assumed 10- percent/90- percent split of projected build -out between the MU- 1 /MU -2 Sub - districts,
which is roughly proportional to the sub - district land area.
Source: PGDSP
3
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 the 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.
I1VA
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
4
planning horizon for 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 specific
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;
• The Draft and Final PER for the project (EIR #10 -05), 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 PER for
the project;
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the PER, 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;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings for this project;
5
■ 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;
• General Plan Update Final EIR (EIR #05 -01, SCH #2004081066) and associated
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
• City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan; and
• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is 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); Browing- Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.
App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects."
(emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid
or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to
state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects."
101
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd.
(a)(1)). The second 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 finding 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 City 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 projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002).
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or
measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect
to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 -527
[147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation
to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures,
not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
7
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 otherwise
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 a feasible environmentally
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated
that, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d
553, 576).
lVl II
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 (MMRP) 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.
t
VIII.
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,
avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant
environmental effects identified in the PER 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
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 traffic 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 contains potential 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 Street/Industrial 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
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 a left -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 or 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
Center /Palomar 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
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 in 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 (Final PER 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 traffic 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
excess of 0.2 inch per second PPV. Construction activities
driving within 600 feet of a vibration sensitive use would be
vibration - sensitive operations.
13
vibration equal to or in
within 200 feet and pile
potentially disruptive to
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 to 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 interior 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;
Multi- family outdoor usable areas (patios or balconies) where noise levels
exceed 65 dBA CNEL;
iii. Multi- 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
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 PER 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 PER 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
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 groundborne vibration analysis, as described in mitigation
measures 5.6 -2 above, would reduce potential impacts associated with excessive groundborne
vibration to a less than significant level.
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 significance 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 5S3 — 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
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 development 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.
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
surrey, and a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search of the Sacred
17
Lands File did not identify Native American cultural resources within a half -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 PEI 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).
If significant cultural resources are identified 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
f .*]
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
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 significant 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 a pre- 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:
i. 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, 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
20
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
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 identified 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 specific project. In addition, implementation 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
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 a City- 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
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 -
construction 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 Mitigation 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 PER 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 PER 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
federal and state permits or by the City during the HLIT permit and Wetlands
Protection Program processes, as applicable:
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 a City- approved off -site mitigation
bank in the region, as determined through agreements with the City. 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;
v. 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 non - 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, RWQCB, 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
restoration plans prepared for wetland habitat mitigation shall be approved by the
USACE, RWQCB, 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 accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 5 -3 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 a long -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, 5.9 -3, and 5.9 -4 above, would reduce potential impacts associated to sensitive
natural communities to a less than significant level.
26
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 (USACE) 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
fills, 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 USACE, 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 to 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 USACE, 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 USACE pursuant to
Section 404 of the CWA. If required, the project applicant shall obtain a
Nationwide or Individual Permit from the USACE 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 USACE
jurisdiction.
27
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 RWQCB a request for
Water Quality Standards Certification pursuant 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 within 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 PER 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
Subarea Plan) requirements. Failure of future PGDSP development projects to apply for and
obtain a HUT 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 PER 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 findings 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 on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
liquefaction, or collapse.
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 PER
Section 5.11.4.3).
29
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 PER 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 a site - 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
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 fire
protection and emergency medical services, a potentially significant impact would occur (Final
PER 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).
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.
31
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 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 -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, 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 police services, a potentially significant
impact would occur (Final PER 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
PER 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:
i. 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
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 PER 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 PER
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
Impact: Libraries
PGDSP build -out would allow for increased development densities and associated 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, and
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 Vista.
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
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
Mitigation Measures
5.12 -6 Sewer System Upgrades. Commensurate with population growth 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 sewer 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
sewer capacity to a less than significant level
development and a sewer system upgrade.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Thresholds of Significance
and 5.12 -7 would reduce potential impacts to
by ensuring payment of fees to support sewer
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.
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
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 PER 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
hazardous materials transport, use, disposal,
ensuring hazardous building materials surveys.
Impact: Hazardous Materials Site
would reduce potential impacts associated with
or release to a less than significant level by
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 PER Section 5.13.4.3).
Explanation
Based on the environmental database search and records review, the majority of the identified
potentially hazardous materials sites do not represent a significant hazard to the public or the
environment due to their distance from the PGD and /or case status (i.e., soil release only or
case closed). 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. This represents a potentially significant impact (Final PER
Section 5.13.4.3).
37
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:
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. Caution 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 wastes, 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 and /or city. The discharge permit
M;
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 fill 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:
http : / /geotracker.waterboards.ca ov€ ..
A. 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
notifications 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, RWQCB
for non -tank cases involving groundwater contamination, and Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA) /APCD for landfill - related contamination issues). In general, LEA
oversight/notification 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.
4011
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 1 -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 PER 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
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
Housing and Population
Because growth that would occur under the General Plan would be considered cumulatively
considerable and unavoidable, the project's contribution to growth 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:
1. 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
Short -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:
i. 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
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 PER, two intersections and three street
segments are projected to result in significant direct impacts for short term impacts. These
include:
• Walnut Avenue /Palomar Street: LOS F —AM and PM peak periods
• Industrial Boulevard /Palomar Street (at -grade trolley): LOS E —PM peak period
■ Palomar Street -1-5 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
not 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 PER 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 Avenue /Palomar 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 PER 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 -1-5 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
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 1 -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 1 -5 and Walnut
Avenue, the segment of Palomar Street between Walnut Avenue and Industrial Boulevard, and
the segment of Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Transit Center Place.
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
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 a left -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 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 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
44
While 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 (SANDAG) /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 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.
Ener iy Resources
Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to energy if it would:
■ 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
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. Although
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 resulting 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 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 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
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 significant 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, circulation 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:
1. 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:
i. 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
Street Links /Segments
a. Project- specific (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met:
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 PER, 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 —AM and PM peak periods
■ Palomar Street -1-5 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 of Impact
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 PER 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 periods
Under the grade- separated trolley alternative, 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.
ER
Street segment analyses were conducted for roadways in the PGD for the Year 2030 scenario.
Table 5.3 -8 of the Draft PER 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 -1-5 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
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 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.
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
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 (SANDAG) /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
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.
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 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:
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
SCAQMD 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
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
5.4 -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
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 control 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 into developed
uses, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to historic and archaeological resources.
52
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 significant 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, 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 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
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
Public Services and Utilities (Energy)
Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to energy resources if it would:
1. 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 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.
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 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
55
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 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.
Housinq and Population
Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to housing and population if it would:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
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
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 significant 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 findings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors" (Pub. Resources Code, section 21061.1). The CEQA Guidelines
provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal' factors. CEQA
Guidelines section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an
alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental,
social, or technological factor" (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.410]).
57
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 would 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 economic, 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 whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). " '[F]easibility' under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the 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)
W.
• Paleontological Resources (cumulative impact — any loss of paleontological resources is
significant)
• Energy (direct and cumulative impacts — absence of long term assurance of energy
supplies)
■ 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 far -
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 residential
build -out in the PGD would be higher under the existing General Plan designations as
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
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 result 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 compared 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.
W
Findings
The No Project (Existing Plan) Alternative would increase the project's significant 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 non - 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 proposed 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
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 would 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 would 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
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; fire 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
designated gateway areas. This alternative would accommodate an additional 100,000 square
feet of commercial land uses and does not propose any new industrial development, similar to
the project. This alternative would 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 Modified 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 Modified 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
64
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
induce 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 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 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
5). This alternative would increase density compared to existing conditions, but not to the extent
planned for the Transit Focus Area. Therefore, it would 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.
..
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 benefits 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 the re- 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.
M.
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 gateway 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
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:
i) 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
we
Dorothy Street represents an opportunity for a private greenway that could be
preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of the contiguous property owners.
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 Regional 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 need 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
PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM- 10 -24)
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR- 10 -05)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Intrnrh ortinn
Exhibit C
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 5 (1 -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 District Specific Plan PER City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 1 June 2013
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-OUT (1,2)
( 1) Numbers are approximations.
(2) Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on the Market Study for the PGD prepared by
Gafcon, Inc. in July 2011.
(3) 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.
(4) Sub- districts MU -2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the sub - district land area.
(5) Retail /Office square footages are assumed 10- percent /90- percent split of projected build -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
Existing
Development
Projected
Additional
Development
Total
Estimated
Build -Out
Estimated Build -Out by Sub- District
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
150 (3)
450 14)
700
Retail (Sq. Ft.)(5)
200,000
100,000
300,000
10,000
85,000
5,000
Office (Sq. Ft. )(5)
50,000
50,000
5,000
40,000
5,000
Industrial (Sq. Ft.)
30,000
( 1) Numbers are approximations.
(2) Projected residential units and commercial square footages are based on the Market Study for the PGD prepared by
Gafcon, Inc. in July 2011.
(3) 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.
(4) Sub- districts MU -2 and PRV residential units were estimated proportional to the sub - district land area.
(5) Retail /Office square footages are assumed 10- percent /90- percent split of projected build -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
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring Team
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP table.
While 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 of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost - effective
mitigation options; and
• Excellent communication skills.
Proeram Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to
initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants.
Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project
approvals in follow -up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects.
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
continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders, fines and
penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 3 June 2013
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 Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 4 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Traffic and Level of Service Standards. Analysis of
5.3 -1 Walnut Avenue /Palomar Street Intersection Raised Median and Walnut Avenue
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
the study intersections and street segments under
Reconfiguration. Prior to the approval of any construction associated with PGDSP
any development
Existing + Project, Year 2020, and Year 2030
development projects, the City shall implement a raised median across the intersection and
projects under the PGDSP
scenarios revealed significant impacts at several
Walnut Avenue shall be reconfigured to allow right -in /right -out movements only. This
facilities operating at LOS E or LOS F.
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 Street /Industrial Boulevard intersection. Similarly,
westbound left- turning vehicles at Walnut Avenue would be required to make a left -turn at
the Palomar Street /Industrial Boulevard intersection and turn right on Ada Street. This
improvement has been added to the City's Capital Improvement Program for 2013 and is
now fully funded.
5.3 -2 Grade Separation for Trolley at Industrial Boulevard/ Palomar Street
Prior to Year 2020
City of Chula
Intersection. To improve vehicular operations, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS)
Vista /California
trolley rail crossing shall be grade- separated at the Industrial Boulevard /Palomar Street
Department of
intersection to improve vehicular operations. The proposed trolley grade- separation on
Transportation/ San
Palomar Street is included on the regional priority list for rail grade- separation projects in
Diego Association of
the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan in the Revenue Constrained Plan to be completed by
Governments/
year 2020. This improvement would result in no additional vehicular delay during a trolley
Metropolitan Transit
crossing. With the grade- separation, this intersection is calculated to operate at Level of
System
Service D or 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.
To be determined by the
City of Chula Vista
The left -turn lane signal phasing at the Industrial Boulevard /Palomar Street intersection
results of the annual
shall be changed from permitted - protected to protected at all intersection approaches. The
study conducted under
timing of implementation of this improvement shall be determined by the results of the
the City's Traffic
annual study conducted under the City's Traffic Management Program.
Management Program
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 5 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 6 June 2013
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Reporting Agency
Traffic Hazards. PGDSP build -out would generate
Mitigation measures 5.3 -1 through 5.3 -3 (described above), in addition to the following:
City of Chula Vista
additional pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic
5.3 -4 Transit Center Place /Palomar Street Intersection. The following improvements
As determined necessary
along Palomar Street, which could further increase
shall be implemented to improve pedestrian access and safety at the Transit
by future development
traffic hazards at existing intersections. In addition,
Center /Palomar Street intersection:
projects' traffic
existing conditions at the Transit Center /Palomar
i. Realign the north leg of the intersection to align with the south leg, which would
assessment.
Street intersection would have the potential to
eliminate intersection offset. This improvement would also benefit pedestrians by
result in traffic hazards associated with PGDSP
implementation.
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.
Emergency Access. Temporary roadway closures
5.3 -5 Traffic Control Plans. Prior to construction of future development projects in the
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
and detours during construction of future PGDSP
PGDSP that require temporary roadway closures and detours, project applicants shall submit
any development project
development projects within roadway rights -of -way
a traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The traffic control plan
that requires a temporary
could potentially impede emergency access if the
shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer in accordance with the California Manual on
road closure or detour
appropriate authorities are not properly notified
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The traffic control plan shall identify the location and timing
prior to construction.
of anticipated roadway closures and the alternative routes to be utilized during project
construction.
AIR', QUALITY
Cumulatively Considerable Emissions.
5.4 -1 Construction Emissions Reduction Measures. Construction contractors for future
During construction
City of Chula Vista
Implementation of the proposed PGDSP would
PGDSP development projects shall implement the following measures to reduce
generate a cumulatively considerable net increase
construction emissions during all construction activities:
of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) related to both
i. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units (i.e., phase
construction emissions and operational emissions.
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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 6 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
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.
A. 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
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
following measures to reduce operational emissions by further reducing vehicle use
any development
associated with PGDSP implementation:
projects under the PGDSP
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.
Sensitive Receptors. Implementation of the
5.4 -3 Siting Sensitive Receptors near Gas Stations or Dry Cleaning Facilities. A Health
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
proposed PGDSP would have the potential to
Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for
developments within
expose new sensitive receptors to on -site sources
development of new sensitive receptors proposed in the PGD within 500 feet of a dry
500 feet of a dry
of toxic air contaminants.
cleaning facility that uses perch loroethlyene, or within 50 feet of an auto service station.
cleaning facility or 50
The project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been completed and
feet of auto service
approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental
station
Health Hazard Assessment and San Diego Air Pollution Control District guidelines for the
preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall
identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level,
or the sensitive receptor shall be sited in another location.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 7 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time frame of Mitigation Reporting Agency
NOISE
Excessive Noise Levels. Implementation of the
5.6 -1 Site - Specific Acoustic Analysis — Multi - Family Residences. Concurrent with
Concurrent with Design
City of Chula Vista
proposed PGDSP would have the potential to result
Design Review and prior to the approval of building permits for the following uses, an
Review and prior to
in exposure of NSLU to excessive noise levels from
acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that interior noise levels due to exterior
approval of any building
operational and transportation noise sources.
noise sources shall be below 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL):
permits for listed uses
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. Multi- 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.
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.
Excessive Groundborne Vibration.
5.6 -2 Site - Specific Groundborne Vibration Analysis. Concurrent with design review and
Concurrent with Design
City of Chula Vista
Implementation of the proposed PGDSP would
prior to issuance of building permits, future projects shall implement the Federal Transit
Review and prior to
have the potential to result in the exposure of
Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where
approval of any building
vibration sensitive land uses to excessive
appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne
permits
groundborne vibration from trolley /railroad
vibration from trains, construction equipment, and other sources. Specifically, Category 1
operations and construction activities.
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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 8 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time frame of Mitigation Reporting Agency
Historic Resources. Because three buildings that
5.7 -1 Historical Resources Mitigation Program. Future PGDSP development projects
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
have been recommended as Historical Resources
shall be required to implement the following measures to prevent potential impacts to
any development
(California Historical Resource Status Code 5S3) and
historical resources:
projects underthe PGDSP
the six buildings that have been recommended for
i. Impacts to any resource(s) that is /are listed in a Historical Resources Survey as being a
further evaluation (California Historical Resource
historical resource, or that has been substantiated through completion of a Department
Status Code 7N) were identified in the PGD, it is
of Parks and Recreation Form, an Expert Technical Analysis report, or by the City, to be
possible that future PGDSP development projects
an Eligible Historical Resource, as defined in Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC)
could cause a substantial adverse change in the
Section 21.03.044, shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness and shall follow the
significance of an historical resource.
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
Prior to modification or
City of Chula Vista
resource 45 years or older that may meet the findings of fact and eligibility criteria
alteration to a resources
established in CVMC Section 21.04.100, or any resource that has been determined
45 years or older
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.
Archaeological Resources. Because presently
5.7 -2 Archaeological Resources Mitigation Program. Future PGDSP development
Prior to approval of any
City of Chula Vista
obscured or buried archaeological resources may
projects that involve ground disturbance beyond that previously disturbed shall be required
construction that would
occur within the PGD, it is possible that ground-
to implement the following measures to prevent potential impacts to archaeological
involve ground
disturbing activities associated with construction of
resources:
disturbance beyond that
future PGDSP development projects could cause a
i. Cultural resource significance evaluations shall be required when new resources are
previously disturbed
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
identified as a result of a survey, when previously recorded resources that have not
archaeological resource.
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
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 9 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
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 identified within the proposed PGDSP project site,
Following identification of
City of Chula Vista
those resources may be eligible for designation for the National Register of Historic
a significant cultural
Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or local register. If no significant
resource
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 Department of Parks and Recreation
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 betaken.
iii. For archaeological resources where preservation is not an option, a data recovery
Following identification of
City of Chula Vista
program shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall be based on a written
a significant
research design, which will outline research questions and data recovery methodology,
archaeological resource;
and is subject to the provisions outlined in CEQA Section 21083.2. Archaeological
During building
monitoring may be required during building demolition and /or construction grading
construction/ grading
City of Chula Vista
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
During all subsurface
City of Chula Vista
geotechnical testing and other ground disturbing activities whenever a Native American
investigations
Traditional Cultural Property or archaeological site within the proposed PGDSP project
During preparation of the
site would be impacted. The Native American monitor shall be consulted during the
written report
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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 10 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Paleontological Resources. Ground - disturbing
5.8 -1 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program. Future PGDSP development
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
activities during future development associated
projects that propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic yards volume and five feet depth shall
grading for projects that
with PGDSP build -out may expose the underlying
be required to implement a pre- construction or construction mitigation program, or both, as
propose grading in excess
Bay Point Formation, which has a moderate
a condition of approval. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified
of 21000 cubic yards
paleontological sensitivity level and resources
professional paleontologist, defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or
volume and five feet
potential rating, and could potentially damage or
geology who has proven experience in San Diego County paleontology and who is
depth
destroy unique paleontological resources.
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:
i. Surface prospecting for exposed fossil remains, generally involving inspection of existing
bedrock outcrops but possibly also excavation of test trenches;
ii. 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, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and
entry of data into an inventory database;
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 11 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
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.
Construction mitigation. Under this program, mitigation occurs while excavation operations
During excavation
City of Chula Vista
are underway. The scope and pace of excavation generally dictate the scope and pace of
operations
mitigation. The individual tasks of a construction mitigation program shall typically include:
i. 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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 12 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time frame of Mitigation Reporting Agency
Special- Status Species. Future PGDSP
5.9 -1 Project -Level Biological Resources Surveys and Reporting. During the design and
development projects would result in potentially
environmental review phase, and prior to the construction of future PGDSP development
significant impacts to special- status plant and
projects that include those portions of the Palomar Mixed Use Corridor Sub - District (MU -2)
animal species if project applicants of future PGDSP
and Palomar Residential Village Sub- District (PRV) characterized by non - native grassland or
development proposals within those portions of
disturbed wetland, as depicted on Figure 5.9 -1, project applicants shall retain a City -
the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts that are
approved biologist to conduct an updated, project -level biological resources technical study
characterized by non - native grassland or disturbed
of the proposed PGDSP project site, to include an updated biological survey and report
wetland do not provide an updated, project -level
prepared in accordance with the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
biological resources survey and report to document
and Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance. The updated biological survey shall include
the current conditions and biological resources
an inventory of the current existing condition at the proposed PGDSP project site and verify
impacts associated with each specific project. In
whether the project would occur on or in the immediate vicinity of sensitive natural habitat,
addition, implementation of the proposed PGDSP
including wetlands, in addition to habitat suitable for special- status species. The updated
would result in potentially significant impacts to
biological resources report shall provide documentation of the results of the updated
nesting birds that are protected under the MBTA
biological survey, and shall also identify potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive
and CFG Code.
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 CECA
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 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 - construction 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 Mitigation
Monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan
are in place prior to and /or during construction.
During design and
review phase and prior
to approval of
construction
Prior to approval of any
construction outside of
breeding season (January
1 to January 14, and
September 1 to
December 31)
City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 13 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
Sensitive Natural Communities. Future PGDSP
Mitigation measure 5.9 -1 (described above), in addition to the following:
Priorto construction of
City of Chula Vista/
development projects within portions of the MU -2
5.9 -3 In -Kind Habitat -Based Compensatory Mitigation. Permanent and temporary
any development
United States Army
and PRV sub - districts would have the potential to
impacts to non - native grassland and disturbed wetland habitat associated with future
projects under the PDGSP
Corps of
result in the loss of non - native grassland and
PGDSP development projects in the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts shall be mitigated by the
Engineers /Regional
disturbed wetland habitat.
project applicant in -kind (i.e., the same type of habitat as that which is impacted), or an
Water Quality
Control Board/
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
California
amended by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Regional Water Quality
Department of Fish
Control Board (RWQCB), and /or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in federal
and Wildlife
and state permits or by the City during the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take 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 a City- approved off -site mitigation bank in
the region, as determined through agreements with the City. 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 Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan;
v. 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 non - native grassland shall be 05:1 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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 14 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
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 non - 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, RWQCB, 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, restoration plans prepared for wetland habitat
mitigation shall be approved by the USACE, RWQCB, 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 accordance with the
mitigation ratios contained in Table 5 -3 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and subject to
Wildlife Agency concurrence.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 15 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
5.9 -4 Construction Fencing. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, and to
Prior to issuance of any
City of Chula Vista/
the satisfaction and oversight of the City's Development Services Director (or his designee),
land development permit
Wildlife Agencies
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 a long -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
Wetlands. Future PGDSP development projects
Mitigation measures 5.9 -1, 5.9 -3, and 5.9 -4 (described above), in addition to the following:
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista/
within portions of the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts
5.9 -5 Project -Level Wetland Delineation Studies. Prior to construction of future PGDSP
projects within MU -2 and
PRV sub - districts that
United States Army
Corps of Engineers/
would have the potential to result in the loss of
development projects within portions of the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts that could result in
could result in impacts to
Regional Water
disturbed wetland habitat.
impacts to disturbed wetland habitat, project applicants shall retain a qualified biologist to
disturbed wetland habitat
Quality Control
perform a formal wetland delineation in order to qualify and quantify existing wetland
Board/ California
resources potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps
Department of Fish
of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and /or California Department of Fish
and Wildlife
and Wildlife. 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 to construction of future PGDSP development projects
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista/
within portions of the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts that have been confirmed to result in
projects within MU -2
United States Army
potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, as identified through implementation of
and PRV sub - districts
Corps of Engineers/
mitigation measure 5.9 -5 above, project applicants shall obtain the required federal and
that have been
Regional Water
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 16 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
state permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), Regional Water
confirmed to result in
Quality Control
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and /or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
potential impacts to
Board/ California
as specified below:
jurisdictional wetlands
Department of Fish
i. An application for a Nationwide or Individual Permit, depending upon the extent of
and Wildlife
impacts, shall be submitted by the project applicant to the USACE pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If required, the project applicant shall obtain
a Nationwide or Individual Permit from the USACE 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 USACE jurisdiction.
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 RWQCB a request for Water Quality Standards
Certification pursuant 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 California Fish and Game 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 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take permit and Wetlands Protection Program
processes.
Local Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted
Mitigation measures 5.9 -1, 5.9 -3, 5.9 -4, 5.9 -5, and 5.9 -6 (described above), in addition to the
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
Conservation Plans. Prior to mitigation, future
following:
projects within MU -2
PGDSP development projects within those portions
5.9 -7 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit. Prior to construction of future PGDSP
and PRV sub - districts
of the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts that are
development projects within portions of the MU -2 and PRV sub - districts that could result in
that could result in
characterized by non - native grassland or disturbed
impacts to non - native grassland (Tier III) and disturbed wetland (Wetland) habitat, project
impacts to non - native
wetland would have the potential to conflict with
applicants shall submit for approval to the City of Chula Vista an application for a HLIT
grassland (Tier III) and
the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and CVMC
permit, to include all relevant submittal requirements and required findings in accordance
disturbed wetland
Chapter 17.35.
with CVMC Chapter 17.35. Project applicants shall provide all necessary information to allow
(Wetland) habitat
the City to take action on the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) permit application and
meet the required findings for an HLIT permit to be issued.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 17 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
DI IRI Ir GFRVir" ANn 11TII ITIFS
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services.
5.12 -1 Adequate Level of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. The following
Prior to approval of
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Reporting Agency
development densities and associated population
In accordance with HLIT permit requirements, project applicants shall mitigate the loss of
growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand
non - native grassland (Tier III) and disturbed wetland (Wetland) habitat through the
for fire protection and emergency medical services,
implementation of the in -kind habitat -based compensatory mitigation proposed within
which could hinder response times. If the provision
mitigation measure 5.9 -3, unless otherwise conditioned by the United States Army Corps of
of additional personnel does not coincide with the
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and
PGDSP's projected population growth and
associated demand for fire protection and
Wildlife in federal and state permits through the implementation of mitigation measure
During annual budgeting
City of Chula Vista
emergency medical services, a potentially
5.9 -6.
process
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
issued.
Soil Hazards. Future PGDSP development projects
5.11 -1 Site - Specific Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to the construction of future PGDSP
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
would potentially be located on compressible
development projects, project applicants shall submit a site - specific geotechnical
any future development
personnel to provide fire protection and emergency medical services consistent with
and /or expansive soils, which could create
investigation to the City Engineer and /or Building Official for review and approval. The
projects under the PGDSP
established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in population.
substantial risks to life or property.
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.
DI IRI Ir GFRVir" ANn 11TII ITIFS
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services.
5.12 -1 Adequate Level of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. The following
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
PGDSP build -out would allow for increased
measures shall be implemented to ensure that adequate fire protection and emergency
development projects
development densities and associated population
medical services are maintained in accordance with the adopted standards and Quality of
growth in the PGD, thereby increasing the demand
Life Threshold Standard:
for fire protection and emergency medical services,
i. Prior to approval, future PGDSP development projects shall demonstrate provision of
which could hinder response times. If the provision
adequate access for fire vehicles (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.1) and adequate
of additional personnel does not coincide with the
water pressure to new buildings (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.2).
PGDSP's projected population growth and
associated demand for fire protection and
ii. As a condition of project approval, each individual developer shall pay the Public
During annual budgeting
City of Chula Vista
emergency medical services, a potentially
Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is
process
significant impact would occur.
issued.
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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 18 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 19 June 2013
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Reporting Agency
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.
Police Services. PGDSP build -out would allow for
5.12 -2 Adequate Level of Police Services. The following measures shall be implemented
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
increased development densities and associated
to ensure that adequate police services are maintained in accordance with the adopted
development projects
population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing
Quality of Life Threshold Standards:
the demand for police services, which could hinder
i. Prior to approval, future PGDSP development projects shall demonstrate provision of
response times. If the provision of additional
adequate access for police vehicles (pursuant to General Plan Policy PFS 6.1) and
personnel does not coincide with the PGDSP's
integration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design techniques (pursuant to
projected population growth and associated
General Plan Policy PFS 6.3).
During annual budgeting
demand for police services, a potentially significant
ii. As a condition of project approval, each individual developer shall pay the Public
process
City of Chula Vista
impact would occur.
Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is
issued.
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.
Schools. PGDSP build -out would allow for
5.12 -3 Adequate Level of School Facilities. Prior to approval of future PGDSP
Prior to approval
City of Chula Vista
increased development densities and associated
development projects, each individual developer shall pay the statutory school impact fees
development projects
population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing
at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued.
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.
Libraries. PGDSP build -out would allow for
5.12 -4 Adequate Level of Library Facilities. Prior to approval, future PGDSP development
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
increased development densities and associated
projects shall demonstrate that significant impacts to libraries resulting from the individual
development projects
population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing
project have been addressed. As a condition of project approval, each individual developer
the demand for libraries, which could contribute to
shall pay the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the
the existing shortage of library space if the City's
building permit is issued.
plans for additional library development continue
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 19 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 20 June 2013
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Reporting Agency
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.
Parks and Recreation. PGDSP build -out would
5.12 -5 Adequate Level of Parks and Recreation Facilities. Prior to approval, future PGDSP
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
allow for increased development densities and
development projects shall establish to the satisfaction of the Development Services
development projects
associated population growth in the PGD, thereby
Director that the project meets the City's parkland dedication requirement. As a condition of
increasing the demand for parks and recreation
project approval, each individual developer shall provide required parkland and recreational
facilities. If the dedication of parkland and
facilities consistent with potential site locations identified in the PGDSP and the Parks and
construction of recreation facilities does not
Recreation Master Plan; or shall pay the applicable parkland acquisition and parkland
coincide with the PGDSP's projected population
development fees and recreation facility development impact fees at the rate in effect at
growth and associated demand for parks and
the time building permits are issued.
recreation facilities, a potentially significant impact
would occur.
Wastewater. PGDSP build -out would allow for
5.12 -6 Sewer System Upgrades. Commensurate with population growth in the PGDSP,
Commensurate with
City of Chula Vista
increased development densities and associated
the City shall implement the preferred improvement alternative, Proposal 2, as identified in
population growth in the
population growth in the PGD, thereby increasing
the PGDSP Sewer Study (Atkins 2012c). Proposal 2 consists of installing a new 15 -inch sewer
PGD
the demand for sewer service. If the construction
main parallel to the existing 12 -inch line between Main Street and Anita Street, and would
or expansion of sewer facilities does not coincide
also divert Industrial Boulevard flows into the Salt Creek Interceptor and abandon portions
with the PGDSP's projected population growth and
of the existing sewer within Industrial Boulevard.
associated demand for sewer service, non
5.12 -7 Sewer Development Impact Fee. The City shall establish a sewer development
Prior to issuance of
City of Chula Vista
compliance with the City's Quality of Life Threshold
impact fee or other similar fee structure to charge future PGDSP development projects for
building permits
Standard for sewer service may result such that a
their portion of sewer upgrades. Prior to issuance of building permits, future PGDSP
potentially significant impact would occur.
development projects shall pay the applicable sewer development impact fee at the rate in
effect at the time building permits are issued.
Energy. Because there is no assurance of a long-
5.12 -8 Energy Strategy and Action Plan. The City shall implement the Energy Strategy
Prior to approval of
City of Chula Vista
term supply of energy in the future, the increase
and Action Plan, which addresses demand side management, energy efficient and
development projects
projected energy demand associated with the
renewable energy outreach programs for businesses and residents, energy acquisition,
PGDSP could potentially result in the available
power generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, as well as the
supply of energy to fall below a level considered
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan, in order to lessen the extent of impacts associated with
sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need
energy supply.
for new and expanded facilities.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 20 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time frame of Mitigation Reporting Agency
Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Disposal, or
5.13 -1 Hazardous Building Materials Surveys. Prior to demolition or renovation activities
Prior to demolition or
City of Chula Vista
Release. Demolition or renovation activities
associated with future PGDSP development projects, a hazardous building materials survey
renovation activities
involving buildings constructed prior to the 1980s,
shall be performed at buildings that were constructed prior to 1980. This type of survey
as well as ground- disturbing activities in soils with
typically addresses asbestos - containing materials, lead -based paint, polychlorinated
elevated levels of lead or pesticides, would have
biphenyls in electrical equipment, mercury switches, and heating /cooling systems. The
the potential to expose construction workers to
hazardous building materials survey shall be conducted under the direct supervision of a
hazardous building materials, which could pose
certified asbestos consultant and certified lead inspector /assessor. If asbestos - containing
substantial health risks.
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.
Hazardous Material Sites. Due to releases and /or
5.13 -2 Risk Assessments. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit of future PGDSP
Prior to issuance of a
City of Chula
historical uses, sites containing contaminated
development projects on sites where contamination has been identified, or if contamination
grading permit for
Vista /Department of
groundwater and /or soils have been identified in
is discovered during construction activities, work shall be immediately suspended and a risk
development projects
Environmental
the PGD. Contaminated groundwater and /or soil
assessment shall be performed to address risks posed by any residual contamination and
on sites where
Health
may pose significant hazards to public health and
establish appropriate mitigation measures, such as natural attenuation, active remediation,
contamination has been
safety during construction or long -term use of
and engineering controls, that would be protective of human health and the environment.
identified/ following
future PGDSP development projects on hazardous
All assessment and remediation activities shall be conducted in accordance with a Work Plan
discovery of
materials sites.
that has been approved by the regulatory agency with oversight. In addition, the following
contamination during
precautions shall be observed as may be applicable:
construction
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. Caution 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
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 21 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
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 wastes, 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.
A 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 and /or city. The discharge permit 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
fill 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: http:/ /geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.
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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 22 June 2013
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time frame of Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Agency
xii. Any underground storage tanks (USTs) that are removed during redevelopment
activities shall be removed under a permit by the Department of Environmental Health
(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 notifications 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, Regional
Water Quality Control Board for non -tank cases involving groundwater contamination,
and Local Enforcement Agency) /Air Pollution Control District for landfill - related
contamination issues). In general, LEA oversight /notification 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.
Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans.
Mitigation measure 5.3 -5 (described above).
Prior to construction of
City of Chula Vista
Temporary roadway closures and detours during
any project that requires
construction of future PGDSP development projects
a temporary road closure
within roadway rights -of -way could potentially
or detour
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.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 23 June 2013
Attachment 5
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING 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 hereinafter
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
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" 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 PGD includes a
Transit Focused 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 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
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
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference
Sections 65450 through 65457 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 City's General
Plan is established in CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860;
and
C. Public Outreach and Participation Process
WHEREAS, prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan for the
Palomar Gateway District (hereinafter referred to as the "PGDSP "), City staff undertook
an extensive public engagement strategy with the community and that this community
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, City staff
identified and reached out to a group of individuals with interest, knowledge of the area,
and leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest Working Group (SWWG) and the
SWWG represented a cross - section of the southwest community, including community
organizations, businesses, and residents. This group 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
WHEREAS, the preparation of the PGDSP was facilitated by the financial
participation of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the City's
Redevelopment Agency, which agencies provided a grant from SANDAG's Smart
Growth Incentive Program in the amount of $400,000 while the Redevelopment Agency
contributed matching funds in the amount of $150,000, for the preparation of the PGDSP
and EIR; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the SWWG began the active preparation of the
PGDSP in January 2010; and
WHEREAS, meetings of City staff and the SWWG were held from January 2010
through March 2012, in which meetings the SWWG 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 SWWG at its meeting of March 21, 2012 and thereafter posted on the City's website
for public review; and
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
doesn't overburden this already- congested area with additional auto trips; and
WHEREAS, the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in
the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 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, 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, Environmental Impact Report EIR -10 -05 (SCH No. 2011111077)
(hereinafter 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
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 15, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Draft PGDSP EIR, together with the technical appendices for the
Project, was issued for a 45 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
E. Planning Commission Record
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a
hearing of the Planning Commission on the proposed PGDSP and draft 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 was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the Public Hearing draft PGDSP
and Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, as said public hearing the Planning Commission recommended
through a vote of that the City Council adopt the resolution certifying the Final
EIR- 10 -05, making certain findings of fact, adopting a statement of overriding
considerations, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and report program for the PGDSP;
and
F. City Council Record
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a
hearing of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the proposed PGDSP and draft
EIR for July 23, 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
July 23, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all reports, evidence, and testimony
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 , 2013 (Exhibit `B" of the City Council Resolution)
conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR are feasible and have
not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself
to implement those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council
adopts the ordinance approving the PGDSP. The adopted mitigation measures contained
within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "C" of the City
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, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows:
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 TFA on and surrounding the Palomar Transit
Station, higher residential intensity, a neighborhood park 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 the public necessity conveniences general
welfare and good planning and zoning practice support its approval and 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 Section 19.07 (Specific Plans) and the 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
and 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.
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 serve as
regulatory provisions and supersede other regulations and ordinances of the City for the
control of land use and development within the PGDSP boundaries. 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 has been prepared as an implementing document for future land uses,
public improvements and programs as provided for in the 2005 General Plan. The new
zoning regulations proposed in the PGDSP (see Exhibit "C" of this Ordinance) would
replace existing Municipal Code zoning classifications for the PGDSP Subdistricts and
introduce new zoning classifications for mixed use (commercial /residential) high density
residential and retail commercial as required by the 2005 General Plan.
The City Council does hereby find that the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the
authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 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.
3 That the associated demands on public facilities and services due to development
allowed by the specific plan are identified prior to development and will be
mitigated prior to or concurrent with the development and in conformance with the
City s Growth Management Ordinance CVMC 19.09 based on the following
findings of fact; and
4 That a financing program has been prepared which identifies the methods for
funding for those facilities and services and insures that the funds are spent on said
facilities pursuant to the phasing schedule based on the following findings of fact.
The General Plan was updated in December 2005 and created a new vision for the city. A
large part of that vision focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of western Chula
Vista. New growth is planned around smart growth 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 growth 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 growth. 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
measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures
necessary to carry the plan.
Specifically, Chapters 3, 4, and 5 and Appendices "C" and "D" of the PGDSP and the
PGDSP EIR- 10 -05, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(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 -
10-05, 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
Draft PGDSP (PCM- 10 -24) Final EIR- 10 -05, and all reports evidence and testimony
presented at the public hearing find determine and order that the PGDSP Chapters 3, 4,
and 5 and Appendix "C" and "D" of the PGDSP and the UCSP Final EIR- 10 -05,
including the MMRP, provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and
services occur commensurate with subsequent development and is in conformance with
the City's Growth Management Ordinance (CVMC 19.09).
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows:
The City Council does hereby amend the City of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by
Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone properties within the
PGDSP Subdistricts Area as depicted in Exhibit "C." Areas outside of the boundaries of
Exhibit A would not be rezone as part of this action.
II. 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
case by case basis the zoning administrator may, as requested by the project applicant and
pursuant to the provisions of CVMC 19.07.030 C, afford pipeline status to those projects
which have been substantially processed consistent with existing zoning prior to the
PGDSP adoption but which have not yet received discretionary approvals.
Presented by:
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Development Services
Exhibits to this Resolution:
Approved as to form by:
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
Exhibit "A" — Location Map
Exhibit `B" — Table 5.1 -3 — PDGSP Consistency with General Plan Policies
Exhibit "C" - Map with existing and proposed zoning
s,
r
YI n
tj
RAlt
� § ➢! Y n � K �'. � A 3� 1. ,� �"+
a r
R »..m �• •: —•., \w 2�Y :,.� k,<p. il. � �L �..BT^.. J` ,}ys�y`� .: `i".F
�C
.
r r i
MXRSAT
C7' w 7
t zx Sj
iii ST t
iJ
tiffs S �'�
i
,. � tee✓ .. _ �. y F > $ Y3
Exhibit B
5.1 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Table 5.1 -3 PGDSP Consistency with General Plan Policies
General Plan Objective or Policy
PGDSP Consistency
Objective LUT 5: Designate opportunities for mixed use areas
Consistent. The PGDSP land use designations would
with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs, and
accommodate new, higher density housing, shopping, and
transit in appropriate locations throughout the City.
office development, including mixed use, surrounding the
Policy LUT 5.4: Develop the following areas as mixed use centers:
Palomar Transit Station. The Mixed Use Corridor Sub - district
Urban Core; Palomar Trolley Station; Eastern Urban Center; and
would accommodate community- serving and neighborhood
Otay Ranch Village Cores and Town Centers.
uses along the major transportation facilities in the PGD,
including Palomar Street and the Palomar Transit Station.
Objective LUT 17: Plan and coordinate development to be
Consistent. The PGDSP would accommodate higher
compatible and supportive of planned transit.
intensity, mixed use development surrounding the Palomar
Policy LUT 17.2: Direct higher intensity and mixed use
Trolley Station. The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan that
developments to areas within walking distance of transit,
outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the PGD to
including San Diego Trolley stations along E, H, and Palomar
provide safe and efficient connections between the trolley
Streets, and new stations along future transit lines, including Bus
station and surrounding land uses.
Rapid Transit.
Objective LUT 19: Coordinate with the regional transportation
Consistent. SANDAG has been involved in the development
planning agency, SANDAG, and transit service providers such as
of the PGDSP, including the provision of funding. The PGDSP
the Metropolitan Transit System, to develop a state -of- the -art
provides a land use plan that promotes and improves access
transit system that provides excellent service to residents;
between the Palomar Transit Station and PGDSP land uses to
workers; students; and the disabled, both within the City, and
the east of the station. The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan
with inter - regional destinations.
that outlines pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the
Policy LUT 19.5: Plan for and promote improved access between
PGD to provide safe and efficient connections between the
the Palomar Street, E Street and H Street light rail stations and
trolley station and surrounding land uses. No connections
land uses east of those stations and to the Bayfront. This may
over 1 -5 are proposed as part of the PGDSP. The City is
involve the construction of separate bridges or ramps connecting
preparing an 1 -5 transit study that addresses connections
Chula Vista streets to transit facilities and /or a deck over
and crossings over 1 -5 as part of a separate effort.
Interstate 5 to the Bayfront.
Objective ED 9: Develop community - serving and neighborhood
Consistent. The proposed project is a specific plan that
uses to serve residents and visitors alike.
would encourage economic development in the PGD. The
Policy ED 9.1: Provide for community and neighborhood
PGDSP proposes a land use plan that would accommodate
commercial centers in areas convenient to residents. These
the development of community- serving and neighborhood
centers should complement and meet the needs of the
commercial uses. The Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster
surrounding neighborhood through their location; size; scale; and
Sub - district would specifically accommodate resident -
design. The neighborhood concept of providing pedestrian,
serving commercial uses. The sub - district is located adjacent
bicycle, and other non - motorized access should be encouraged.
to the primary residential area in the PGD and would have
Policy ED 9.4: Develop specific plans, which include an economic
reduced building heights and intensity compared to the
component, for areas of the City, including, but not necessarily
proposed mixed use commercial sub - districts. The Mixed
limited to, the West Main Street; Broadway; South Third Avenue;
Use Corridor Sub - district would accommodate community -
North Fourth Avenue /Third Avenue "gateway'; E Street; West H
serving and neighborhood uses along the major
Street; and Palomar Street areas. More than one area may be
transportation facilities in the PGD, including Palomar Street
addressed in a single plan, such as the Urban Core Specific Plan.
and the Palomar Transit Station. The highest intensities
Policy ED 9.5: Encourage clustered commercial uses to prevent
would be clustered in the designated gateway locations at
and discourage strip development. Locate commercial uses at
the intersections of Palomar Street and Walnut
focal points along major arterial streets or expressways and in
Street /Frontage Road and Palomar Street /Industrial
village core areas.
Boulevard. The PGDSP includes a Mobility Plan that outlines
pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the PGD to provide
Policy ED 9.6: Encourage clustered, smaller scale office and
safe and efficient connections between uses and encourage
professional uses along major streets and in neighborhood
use of non - motorized modes of transportation.
centers in a variety of areas dispersed throughout the community
to meet the needs of nearby neighborhoods.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 5.1 -23 June 2013
5.1 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Table 5.1 -3 continued
General Plan Objective or Policy
PGDSP Consistency
Objective LUT 43: Establish a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
Consistent. The proposed project would implement a
surrounding the Palomar Trolley Station.
specific plan for the PGD to guide the development of a
Policy LUT 43.1: The City shall prepare, or cause to have
Transit Focus Area. The PGDSP includes guidelines and
prepared, a specific plan, master plan, or other regulatory
zoning -level standards for the arrangement of land uses,
document to guide the coordinated establishment of a Mixed
includes a Mobility Plan for adequate pedestrian
Use Transit Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway District on
connections, and would accommodate a variety of support
properties north and south of Palomar Street, within walkable
services for residents, as well as those using Palomar Transit
distance of the Palomar Trolley Station. The specific plan or
Station.
other regulatory document shall include guidelines and zoning -
level standards for the arrangement of land uses that include
plans for adequate pedestrian connections and support services
for residents, as well as those using the transit station.
Policy LUT 43.2: Provide for a five -acre neighborhood park
Consistent. The PGDSP identifies 5.8 acres of potential park
within the Palomar Gateway District.
areas in the PGD, including a 4.5 -acre neighborhood park
south of the Palomar Transit Station, and a 1.3 -acre urban
park north of Palomar Street.
Uses
Consistent. Residential development would continue to be
Policy LUT 43.3: Strive for a distribution of uses within the areas
the dominant land use in the PGD with implementation of
designated as Mixed Use Transit Focus Area along Palomar
the PGDSP. Up to 1,300 new residential units would be
Street to include retail, offices, and residential, as generally
accommodated in the area, for a total of 1,700 units. A total
shown on the following chart:
of 150,000 square feet of new commercial and office use
could be developed, for a total of 350,000 square feet.
Residential
Mixed use development would be concentrated along
Palomar Street, which includes two gateways, and the
Industrial
Palomar Transit Station, with additional residential
Offices
development provided in the Palomar Residential Village
Sub - district.
Policy LUT 43.4: Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and
some office uses along Palomar Street in the Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area, with residential uses above and /or behind the retail
and offices uses.
Policy LUT 43.5: Provide a mix of local- serving retail and office
uses near the Palomar Trolley Station and at the gateways into
the Palomar Gateway District.
Intensity /Height
Consistent. The Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation
Policy LUT 43.6: In the Palomar Gateway District, residential
would apply to development within approximately 0.25 mile
densities within the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation
of the Palomar Transit Station. This area would have an
are intended to have a district -wide gross density of 40 dwelling
average residential density of 40 dwelling units per acre. The
units per acre.
PGDSP uses an equivalency factor to translate dwelling units
Policy LUT 43.7: In the Palomar Gateway District, the
per acre to FAR. A density of 40 dwelling units per acre
commercial (retail and office) portion of the Mixed Use Transit
would result in an area -wide aggregate FAR of 1.0. The FAR
Focus Area designation is intended to have a focus area -wide
includes commercial and residential development.
aggregate FAR of 1.0. Subsequent specific plans or zoning
Maximum building heights in the PGD would range from
ordinance regulations will establish parcel- specific FARs that
low -rise, up to 35 feet, in the Palomar Neighborhood Retail
may vary from the district -wide aggregate (refer to
Cluster Sub - district, to low -rise, primarily 45 -50 feet, in the
Section 4.9.1, Interpreting the Land Use Diagram, for a
Palomar Transit Plaza and Mixed Use Corridor Sub - districts.
discussion of district -wide versus parcel- specific FAR).
Some buildings with a maximum height of 60 feet would be
Policy LUT 43.8: Building heights in the Palomar Gateway
allowable in gateway areas. The Residential High designation
District Mixed Use Transit Focus Area shall be low rise, with
would apply to the Palomar Residential Village Sub-district,
some mid rise buildings.
which would be limited to a maximum building height of
45 feet. The Retail Commercial designation would apply to
Policy LUT 43.9: Building heights in the Residential High
the Palomar Neighborhood Retail Cluster Sub - district, which
designated area shall be low -rise buildings.
would be limited to low -rise, lower intensity development.
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 5.1 -24 June 2013
5.1 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Table 5.1 -3 continued
General Plan Objective or Policy
PGDSP Consistency
Policy LUT 43.10: In the Palomar Gateway District, permit a
maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 and low -rise buildings in the
Retail Commercial designated area on Industrial Boulevard
adjacent to the area designated as Residential High.
Design
Consistent. The PGDSP includes specific design and
Policy LUT 43.11: The specific plan or other regulatory
landscape guidelines for Palomar Street at the 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 identifies and coordinates elements such as
Policy LUT 43.12: Provide for safe, effective, and aesthetic
street trees, street furniture and lighting. Guidelines for
pedestrian crossings and improvements to Palomar Street and
sidewalk design and lighting provide for safe, effective, and
Industrial Boulevard.
aesthetic pedestrian crossings. Intersection bulb -outs are
encouraged at busy intersections, such as Palomar Street
and Industrial Boulevard, to provide safety for pedestrians.
Additional guidelines include decorative sidewalk and
lighting features, buffers between pedestrians and moving
vehicles, smooth and slip- resistant surfaces, consistent light
fixtures and posts, and a combination of streetlights and
pedestrian -level lights.
Amenities
Consistent. The PGDSP encourages and includes guidelines
Policy LUT 43.13: Community amenities to be considered for the
for the amenities listed in Policy 27.1 in Chapter 4 of the
Palomar Gateway District as part of any incentive program
PGDSP, Design Guidelines, including public plazas, water
should include, but not be limited to those listed in
features, public art, streetscape improvements, pedestrian
Policy LUT 27.1.
path improvements, enhanced pedestrian connections,
Policy LUT 43.14: Provide for 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, additional on-
Policy LUT 43.15: Establish acommunity /cultural center near
site structured parking for adjacent commercial or
Palomar Street and Third Avenue.
residential uses, transit station access and improvements,
bicycle parking facilities, and streetfront facades /windows. A
neighborhood park is proposed south of the trolley station.
The Palomar Street /Third Avenue intersection 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 2005a). 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, 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 zoning
amendments that would occur as a result of PGDSP would improve consistency between City planning
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR City of Chula Vista
SCH No. 2011111077 Page 5.1 -25 June 2013
Exhibit C
, qz"v I
o�
R2P}
IL
a
Dorothy St
?Elise St
Msz
C� Palomar Gateway SubDistricts
-- MU -1 Palomar Transit Plaza
MU -2 Mixed Use Corridor
PRV Palomar Residential Village
PNRC Neighborhood Retail Cluster
® Existing Zoning
Parcels
Source: CAS1L 2011: SanGIS 2011: Chula Vista 2012
0 200 400 N
Peet A
®
I®
Zoning Designations
CC - Central Commercial
CT - Thoroughfare Commercial
IL - Limited Industrial
R2 - Single & Two Family Residential
R3 - Apartment Residential
S - Open Space
EXISTING CITY ZONING MAP
SHOWING PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT
FIGURE 5.1 -3
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PER
RESOLUTION PCM -10 -24
RESOLUTION PCM -10 -24 OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT EIR -10 -5 (SCH NO. 2011111077); 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 DISTRICT
SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM- 10 -24) AND RELATED REZONING
ACTIONS
WHEREAS, 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" 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 PGD includes a Transit Focused 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 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, City staff 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
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
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference
Sections 65450 through 65457 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
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM -10 -24
Page 2
WHEREAS, the requirement to have zoning consistent with the City's General Plan is
established in CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860; and
WHEREAS, prior to engaging in the preparation of the Specific Plan for the Palomar
Gateway District (hereinafter referred to as the "PGDSP "), City staff undertook an extensive
public engagement strategy with the community and that this community 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, City staff
identified and reached out to a group of individuals with interest, knowledge of the area, and
leadership abilities to participate in the Southwest Working Group (SWWG) and the SWWG
represented a cross - section of the southwest community, including community organizations,
businesses, and residents. This group 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
WHEREAS, the preparation of the PGDSP was facilitated by the financial participation
of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the City's Redevelopment
Agency, which agencies provided a grant from SANDAG's Smart Growth Incentive Program in
the amount of $400,000 while the Redevelopment Agency contributed matching funds in the
amount of $150,000, for the preparation of the PGDSP and EIR; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the SWWG began the active preparation of the PGDSP in
January 2010; and
WHEREAS, meetings of City staff and the SWWG were held from January 2010 through
March 2012, in which meetings the SWWG 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
SWWG at its meeting of March 21, 2012 and thereafter posted on the City's website for public
review; and
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 doesn't overburden
this already- congested area with additional auto trips; and
WHEREAS, the PGDSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Section 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
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM -10 -24
Page 3
WHEREAS, 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, the PGDSP Environmental Impact Report EIR -10 -5 (SCH No. 2011111077)
(hereinafter referred to as the "PGDSP EIR ") has been prepared 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
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 15, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Draft PGDSP EIR, together with the technical appendices for the Project,
was issued for a 45 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 draft 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 was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony
presented at the public hearing with respect to the Public Hearing draft PGDSP and Final EIR;
and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Consideration dated June 2013 (Exhibit `B" of the City Council Resolution, conclude that
proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM -10 -24
Page 4
superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement those
measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the resolution approving the
PGDSP. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Exhibit "C" of the City 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, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of
the City of Chula Vista, having independently reviewed and considered the information in the
Public Hearing draft PGDSP (PCM- 10 -24), Draft and Final EIR (EIR- 10 -05) and all reports,
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing recommends that the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the PGDSP has been prepared
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter's 19.07 and Government Code Sections 65450-
65457; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of
Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing draft PGDSP
(PCM- 10 -24) recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find, determine,
resolve and order that pursuant to Government Code Section 65854 - 65855 the PGDSP is
consistent with the 2005 General Plan as supported by the Public Hearing draft PGDSP (PCM -
10-24), Final EIR and analysis including attachments to the staff report to the Planning
Commission for the June 26, 2013 and is supported by public necessity, convenience, general
welfare, and good zoning practice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of
Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing draft PGDSP
(PCM- 10 -24), Draft and Final EIR- 10 -05, and all reports, evidence and testimony presented at
the public hearing recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find, determine,
resolve and order that the PGDSP is in keeping with Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.80,
as it requires subsequent new development to provide adequate public services and facilities
commensurate with their impact; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving
Public Hearing draft PGDSP (PCM- 10 -24). The zoning regulations contained in the Public
Hearing draft PGDSP (PCM- 10 -24), specifically Chapter 3, will replace existing Municipal
Code zoning classifications for the properties within the PGDSP Subdistricts Area (Exhibit `B"
of this resolution) and will introduce new zoning classifications for Palomar Transit Plaza (MU-
1), Palomar Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2), Palomar Residential Village (PRV), and Palomar
Neighborhood Retail Cluster (PNRC), as more generally identified by the 2005 General Plan and
provide consistency between the 2005 General Plan and zoning as required by CVMC 19.06.030.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of June, 2013 by the following vote, to -wit:
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM -10 -24
Page 5
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Pat Laughlin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Exhibits to this Resolution:
Yolanda Calvo, Vice Chair
Exhibit A — Location Map
Exhibit B — Map with existing zoning and proposed zoning districts
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
I
M52
` � t
j Palomar Gateway SubDistrictsy Y
MU -1 Palomar Transit Plaza
MU -2 Mixed Use Corridor
PRV Palomar Residential Mitage
PNRC Neighborhood Retail Cluster
Q Existing Zoning
Parcels
Source: CASIL 2011; SanGIS 2011: Chula Vista 2012
W
Zoning Designations
CC - Central Commercial
CT- Thoroughfare Commercial
IL - Limited Industrial
R2 - Single & Two Family Residential
R3 - Apartment Residential
S - Open Space
ffi 0 ME
i
0 200 400 N EXISTING CITY ZONING MAP
A SHOWING PALOMAR GATEWAY DISTRICT
Feet FIGURE 5.1 -3
Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan PEIR