Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2003-132RESOLUTION NO. 2003-132 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PLANNING AREA 12 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WATER CONSERVATION PLAN, AND NON-RENEWABLE EbERGY CONSERVATION PLAN WHEREAS, the property which is subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and commonly known as Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial, and for the purpose of general description heroin consists of approximately 132.9 acres located in the area bounded by the existing and future roadways of State Route (SR-) 125, Olympic Parkway, Eastlake Parkway, and Birch Road within the Otay Ranch Planned Community (Project Site); and WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Planning Area 12 (PA 12) - Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by the McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC (Applicant); and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Company, being joint owners of PA 12 - Freeway Commercial with the McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, is a participant in the development and implementation of the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and related documents; and WHEREAS, the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and supporting regulatory documents including Planned Community. District Regulations, Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial area of the Otay Ranch; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the project and determined that the project would result in a significant impact to the enviroument, therefore, a Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-04) has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project environmental impacts will be mitigated by adoption of the Mitigation Measures described in the Final Environmental Impact Report, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 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 Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM 99-0g) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on February 19, 2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Resolution 2003-132 Page 2 Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan, and adopting the ordinance to approve the SPA's Planned Community District Regulations for Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial, namely 6:00 p.m. March 18, 2003; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at its public hearing held on February 19, 2003, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, am hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council found that the project, as described and analyzed in the Second-Tier Final EIR 02-04 would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final EIR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)). III. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and supporting regulatory documents including Planned Community District Regulations, Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Water Conservation Plan involving approximately 132.9 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial" based upon findings contained heroin and is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council found that the Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 02-04), on file in the Office of the City Clerk reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. V. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES The City Council m-adopted and incorporated herein as conditions for this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Program FEIR 90-01 and subsequent Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 02-04). VI. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES The City Council gave notice, to the extent required by law, that this project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Otay Ranch GDP FEIR 90-01 and Resolution 2003-132 Page 3 Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 02-04) adopted thereto, adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)]. VII. SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN FINDINGS The proposed project is consistent with the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Plan for the following reasons: A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The PA 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan area of Otay Ranch that creates vehicular-oriented freeway commercial uses and accommodates a transit station and transit fight-of-way reflects the land uses, cireuiation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. B. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The PA 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan and Public Facilities Finance Plan contains provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public Facilities Finance Plan specifies the public facilities required by the Freeway Commercial in order for it to function properly and not become a public burden, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDEbYFIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan are designed with a 75-foot landscaped enhancement buffer along adjacent arterials. The project will provide a variety of vehicle-oriented freeway commercial land uses to serve nearby and regional residents and accommodates a transit station and fight-of-way, as required by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed SPA Plan follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 02-(4). D. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVERALL P-_~NNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. Resolution 2003-132 Page 4 The Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan includes freeway commemial land uses, which axe considered appropriate for the area, location, and overall planning for the area in that such uses are called for in the GDP. They have also been evaluated for their adverse land use effects on proposed surrounding development and none have been identified. The Planned District Regulations for the Freeway Commercial only allow an educational institution or recreational facility use subject to the conditional use permit process. E. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The cimulation system depicted in the SPA Plan is consistent with the Circulation system identified on the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan and contains adequate internal circulation consistent with the policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General Plan. Road improvements will be constructed per the timing and threshold requirements outlined in the Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan. F. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S). The location of the proposed vehicular-oriented freeway commercial project in the Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial is consistent with the goals and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General Plan. G. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan is consistent with the approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding areas, and therefore said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. The proposed Planning Area 12 - Freeway Commercial SPA Plan is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan, as amended. vm. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated in the Project. IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and Resolution 2003-132 Page 5 maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the fight to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of shall furore building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by developer or st~ccessor in interest by the City approval of this resolution. x. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this resolutton is dependent upon enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by ff_e court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the City so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect. Presented by Approved astoformby Robert A. Leiter Planning and Building Director Ann Moore City Attomey Resolution 2003-132 Page 6 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 1st day of April, 2003, by the following vote: ATI'IgST: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Davis, Rindone, Salas, McCann and Padilla None None Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-132 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 1st day of April, 2003. Executed this 1st day of April, 2003. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN PLANNING AREA 12 FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA?'IONS February 14, 2003 (Amended by City Council on April 1, 2003) - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 6 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................................... 9 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ................................................................... 11 LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS ............................................................................. 13 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................. 14 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................. 14 A. LAND USE, PLANNING, AND ZONING .......................................................... 19 B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS ...................................................... 20 C. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS .................................... 22 D. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 38 E. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 43 F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................. 46 G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 48 H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 50 I. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE ...................................................................... 51 XI. XII. J. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................... 56 K. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES/COMPLIANCE WITH CITY THRESHOLDS AND STANDARDS ................................................................... 59 L. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 68 CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 69 A. LAND USE, PLANNING, AND ZONING .......................................................... 70 B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS ...................................................... 71 C. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS .................................... 71 D. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 83 E. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 84 G. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 84 H. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES/COMPLIANCE WITH CITY THRESHOLDS AND STANDARDS FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................... 85 A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 88 B. ALTERNATIVE 1 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE ....................... 90 C. ALTERNATIVE 2 - OFFICE WITH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................... 92 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... 94 ii FINDINGS OF FACT INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR)~ prepared for this potential environmental effects of a proposed project for a portion of Plato the Freeway Commercial (FC) site in the Otay Ranch General Developn and the adoption of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan with associated: In addition, the EIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed prq alternative, a Reduced Intensity alternative, and an Office with Freeway These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the Ca Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the C] Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 etseq.). project addressed the ing Area 12 known as tent Plan (GDP) area, egulatory documents. ect: the No Project ,mmercial alternative. ifomia Environmental ;QA Guidelines (Cal. ~ The EIR (City of Chula Vista 02-04) incorporates previously prepared documents, including the City of Chula Vista General Plan E1R, Final Program EIR for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan EIR (90-01), City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Final Program EIR (94~03), Second Tier ErR for Otay Ranch GDP Amendment Village 11 SPA Area, Second Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch Village 6 SPA Plan, and Public Facilities Financing Plan ,for Planning Area 12 by reference. II. DEFINITIONS ADT AMSL APCD ARB Average Daily Traffic Above mean sea level Air Pollution Control District California Air Resources Board B.P. BMP BTR before present Best Manggement Practices Biological Technical Report CAAQS Caltrans CDMG CEQA cfs City CMP CNEL CO cy Califomia Ambient Air Quality Standards Califomia Department of Transportation California Division of Mines and Geology California Environmental Quality Act cubic feet per second City o f Chula Vista Congestion Management Plan Community Noise Equivalent Level carbon monoxide cubic yards dB dBA DHS decibels A-weighted sound level California Department of Health Services EIR ESA EUC Environmental Impact Report Endangered Species Act (federal) Eastern Urban Center FAR FC FEMA FM Floor area ratio Freeway Commercial Federal Emergency Management Act Final map GDP General Development Plan 2 __ GMOC Growth Management Oversight Committee gpd gallons per day H2S HPS HVAC hydrogen sulfide High-pressure sodium Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems 1-805 IODs Interstate 805 Irrevocable Offers of Dedication KOP key observation point Leq LLG LOS Day-night noise level Average noise level over a period of time Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Level of Service McMillin MGD MH MHPA MND MIVlRP MSCP mph MRZ MSCP MSL MTDB McMillin Otay Ranch Company million gallons per day Metal halide Multi Habitat Planning Area Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Multiple Species Conservation Program miles per hour Mineral Resource Zone Multiple Species Conservation Program mean sea level Metropolitan Transit Development Board NAAQS NCCP NO2 NOx NPDES National Ambient Air Quality Standards Natural Communities Conservation Plan Negative Declaration nitrogen dioxide oxides of nitrogen National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 ozone Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan 3 OWD Otay Water District Pb PC PFFP PMm PM2.5 ppm PRD psi QS0 QIO0 lead Planned Community zone Public Facilities Financing Plan particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter parts per million Planned Residential Development Pounds per square inch 50-year peak discharge 100-year peak discharge RMP ROG RPO Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (Phase 1 and Phase 2) reactive organic gas County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance SAMP SANDAG SDHS SCAQMD SCH SCIC SDAB SDAPCD SDG&E SF SIP SMARA SO2 SO4 SOx SPA SR SR 125 SRP SWPPP ' SWRCB Subarea Water Master Plan San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Herpetological Society South Coast Air Quality Management District State Clearinghouse South Coastal Information Center San Diego Air Basin San Diego Air Pollution Control District San Diego Gas & Electric single family State Implementation Plan Surface Mining and Reclamation Act sulfur dioxide sulfates oxides of sulfur Sectional Planning Area State Route State Route 125 Subregional Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board TAC TM TMP Toxic Air Contaminant Tentative Map Traffic Monitoring Program UBC USACOE USDA USEPA Uniform Building Code U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency V/C V0C vpd volume to capacity ratio volatile organic compounds vehicles per day 5 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves the implementation of the Planning Area 12 SPA Plan within the Otay Ranch GDP for the development of the FC parcel. It also includes the implementation of a Phase One Tentative Map (TM) on the southern portion of the 132.9-acre parcel. The project would allow for the development of approximately 120.5 acres of the site for FC use, and 12.4 acres for circulation. A total of 1,215,000 square feet of commercial uses would be allowed in the SPA area. The SPA area would also include a light rail alignment or transit way and a station site for the San Diego Trolley, with a park-and-ride component. Each phase is anticipated to be a balanced grading operation, with about 1,620,000 cubic yards of grading over the entire property. There is a chance that some fill may need to be placed off- site due to project phasing. Fill may be placed on the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) parcel to the south (see the Conceptual TM in Section 5.1 of the EIR), and would consist of a total of 570,000 cubic yards of material. This off-site grading may not be necessary, but the EIR addresses the impact of the off-site fill component of the project for full disclosure. A conceptual TM has been prepared by McMillin Company, LLC (McMillin) for the southern portion of the property. As presently envisioned, a total of 38 lots would be created for future commercial users, with lot sizes ranging from 0.63 acres to 17.176 acres. The conceptual TM submitted concurrently with this EIR provides the relevant details as to the design of the lots. A spine road, roughly in a north-south direction, is proposed in the center of the property to connect Olympic Parkway to Birch Road. This road is called Street "A" (Spine Road) as is shown on the various plans in Section 5.1 of the EIR. The spine road would provide public access to the site and would assist internal site traffic circulation patterns. The spine road would also allow commercial users convenient access, both internally and externally, to the site. Grading has already occurred in the northern portion of the lot under a previously approved discretionary action related to the Village 6 property immediately to the west and for construction of Olympic Parkway. As a part of the approval of that project, a borrow/storage site was identified in the Village 6 EIR within the FC site. In addition, grading for the extension of Olympic Parkway along the northern border of the property was approved and has occurred, further altering the landform on the FC site. The southern portion of the FC site has not been graded. 6 Discretionary Actions The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (City) include the adoption of a SPA Plan for the FC portion of Planning Area 12 and the approval of a Conceptual Tentative Map. The City Council will also determine whether the final EIR is complete and in compliance with CEQA as part of the certification process. With the adoption of a SPA Plan, specific development can occur only after the approval of a variety of permits and maps. Subsequent environmental review will be required for the tentative maps and conditional use permits. The actions to which the final EIR applies are the adoption of the SPA Plan for the Planning Area 12 FC site and a Conceptual TM for th: McMillin property. The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency and has discretionary power of approval for all the actions sought by the applicant for the proposed project. The final EIR is intended to satisfy CEQA requirements for environmental review of those actions. Future discretionary approvals may be required. Right-of-way coordination may be needed with Caltrans and MTDB, but otherwise no other actions by other agencies or jurisdictions have been identified that would be required to accomplish the project as proposed. Project Goals and Objectives As specified in the Planning Area 12 SPA Plan, the objectives of this project include: · Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch GDP. Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Program to ensure that public facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements. · Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl · Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the City of Chula Vista and surrounding neighborhoods. Establish a subregional freeway-oriented commercial center that also reserves a public transit right-of-way, station site, and park-and-ride facility for extension of the San Diego Trolley or other regional public transit system to reduce reliance on the automobile to access uses within the center and destinations served by the transit system. Promote uses between the commercial center and adjacent development areas to balance activities, services, and facilities. Contribute to the unique Otay Ranch image and identity that differentiates Otay Ranch ~om other communities. Implement development consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch Resource Conservation Plan and Resource Management Plan (RMP). Establish a land use and facility plan that ensures project viability in consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. BACKGROUND The initial 23,000-acre Otay Ranch GDP/Submgional Plan (SRP)/Program EIR (PEIR) included plans for 11 urban villages (Villages 1 through 11), a resort village (Village 13), an EUC (Planning Area 12), 2 industrial planning areas, and 2 rural estate-planning areas. One additional rural estate area was created and was known as the Jamul Rural Estate Area. These equate to a total of 14 villages and 5 planning areas in the GDP/SRP area. With the exception of Planning Area 12, each village within Otay Ranch is residentially based. The heart of each village is the village core, which is strategically located within each village. The village cores are mixed use areas designed to contain essential facilities and services, such as schools, shops, civic facilities, child-care centers, local parks, and high-density housing. An overall design plan was also approved with the Otay Ranch GDP to ensure conformity within the context of the entire development area. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego adopted the Otay Ranch GDP in October 1993. Both agencies were involved in the development and approval of the plan because the planning area included land falling within the jurisdiction of both agencies. The Otay Ranch GDP established goals and objectives for the development of the area. As part of the review and approval process for the GDP, a PE1R was prepared. 8 Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP, SPA plans are required to be approved before final development entitlements can be considered. The proposed SPA Plan will further refine the development standards, land plans, goals, objectives, ar.d policies for the FC portion of Planning Area 12. The proposed project hacludes the FC site only; it does not include the EUC property to the south. The EUC property will undergo its own separate environmental review and planning process at a later date. 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 mad Final E1R for the project (EIR #02-04), including appendices and technical reports; All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project applicant, the environmental consultant, McMillin Companies, the Otay Ranch Company, and the City, that are before the decision makers as determined by the City Clerk; 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 EIR for the project; All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with this project, up through the close of the public hearing; Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public heatings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not available or adequate, with respect to this project or the EIR for the project; 9 · Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public heatings for this project; · 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: Chula Vista General Plan; Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City; Final PEIR for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP EIR (90-01); City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Final Program EIR (94-03) Planning Area 12 FC SPA Plan; Public Facilities Financing Plan for Planning Area 12 FC site; and Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, Califomia 91910 The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Planning Area 12 SPA Plan, 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 Planning Area 12 FC Plan. 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 Planning Area 12 FC SPA Plan (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 10 form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the Planning Area 12 FC SPA Plan (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 Cai.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]). VI. FINDINGS REOUIRED UNDER CEOA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies shou d 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 s:ate 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 s-~ite of one or more significant effects." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Cod~ section 21002 are | implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which ErRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an ErR 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 po:ential 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 ErR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). 11 Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner Within a reasonable per/od 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 LaurelHills 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. 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. 12 Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially sign/ficant," these f'mdings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final ESR (FEIR). In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures! or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impact~ that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, w~ere such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies wi~h some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)). With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15(,93, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, sub& (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 l¢cal 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). VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR 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 ad~pts the resolution(s) approving the project. 13 The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the mitigation monitoring, reporting program adopted concurrently with these findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l), the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the document entitled Otay-Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided. The project will result in significant irreversible environmental changes with regard to the following issues: land use, planning, and zoning; landform alteration and aesthetics; transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; noise; paleontological resources; biological resources; agricultural resources; hydrology and drainage; geology and soils; public services and utilities/compliance with Citythresholds and standards; and hazards and hazardous materials. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in the EIR 02-04 in Table 1-1 and in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. 14 Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Development of the property would result in a significant change in the character of the site from rural open space to an urban use. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics There would be an overall change from existing Otay Ranch area topography and landscape from predominantly rural to more urban/developed character. The existing visual character of open space would be degraded. Light and glare impacts would increase with the development of the FC site and nighttime illumination impacts would also increase. Transportation, Circulation, and Access Direct impacts would occur to traffic at the following driveways: Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway, Eastlake Parkway/Village 11 Access/Project Driveway, and Birch Road/EUC Access/Project Driveway. Cumulative impacts would result to the following street segments and intersections: East "H" Street from Interstate 805 (I-805) to Hidden Vista Drive; Telegraph ~Canyon Road/Pasco Ranchero intersection; Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road intersection; East "H" Street/Pasco Ranchero intersection; Eastlake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road intersection; Otay Lakes Road north of "H" Street; and Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Paseo del Rey. Cumulative impacts would also occur at freeway segments on 1-805. Internal circulation conflicts would occur to the following intersections:, Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 intersection; Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 6 intersection; and Street "A" (Spine Road)/Street "B" intersection. The Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) analysis indicates that impacts would occur to the following segments: Street "A" (Spine Road), Olympic Parkway to Birch Road; Eastlake Parkway, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road; Birch Road, La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway; and La Media Road, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road. 15 Air Quality Construction of the project would result in construction emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) that would exceed the threshold. Estimated operations emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and NOx would exceed the guideline thresholds in both 2005 and 2010. Noise If persons using the properties would be exposed to noise in excess of 70 decibels A-weighted sound level (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), there would be a significant noise impact. There would be a significant noise impact ifa school use is included in the project, and noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL would impact the facility. Impacts from noise generated on the project site would be significant if stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, trucking, loading, and trash disposal activities generated noise in the excess of the limits of the Chula Vista noise ordinance. Project-generated traffic noise would be significant to homes and schools adjacent to Eastlake Parkway south and Clubhouse Drive. Paleontological Resources Potentially significant impacts to buried paleontological resources in the Otay Formation could occur from the development of the site. If fossils are found during the grading process, a long- term direct impact could result. Biological Resources Direct impacts to biological resources would occur because burrowing owl and northern harrier were identified on the project site. Implementation of the FC site would eliminate 133 acres of agricultural fields, which could be used as foraging areas for raptor species. The PEIR 90-1 identified loss of raptor habitat as significant and development of the FC site would cumulatively contribute to this significant impact. Agricultural Resources The proposed project would create a significant loss of agricultural grazing land and land suitable for the production of crops. These impacts were addressed in the PEIR 90-01 and were 16 determined to be significant and not fully mitigated. The loss of over 132 acres of land would incrementally contribute to the less of agricultural land in this region. Additionally, impacts associated with continued agricultural use of the land adjacent to the FC site could also have a significant impact. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural operations would result in indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between agricultural uses and the adjacent developing urban uses. Hvdroloev and Drainage Project implementation would result in increased off-site runoff, which would have long-term, direct and indirect, significant impacts. Project implementation may also result in uncontrolled discharge of pollutants with "first flush" events, which would have a long-term, indirect, significant impact. Potential contamination of surface water could result from the mishandling of fuel and other hazardous materials used in construction of the project. Construction activities and equipment would utilize fuels and other hazardous substances that could be carried by runoff. - Geology and Soils Exposure to ground acceleration generated from potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-term, significant impact associated with implementation of the proposed project. The site is characterized by compressible soils. Development on these soils could potentially settle under increased loads, or due to an increase in moisture content fi.om site irrigation or change in drainage conditions. This settlement could result in damage to structure, roads, and property. Additionally, several locally continuous claystone beds were observed, which may intersect the proposed cut slopes around the perimeter of the site. Daylighting or exposure of these claystone layers could potentially result in surficial slope failures. Public Services and Utilities/Compliance with City Thresholds and Standards Potable Water Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and would place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of facilities does not coincide with the anticipated growth associated with the FC site. 17 Recycled Water Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the need for recycled water and would place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. Sewer The existing sewage disposal system does not currently have sufficient capacity to accommodate flows from the FC site, which would result in a near-term significant impact until upgrades to the system, currently underway, are completed. Law Enforcement Development of the FC site would result in a significant impact to law enforcement because the Chula Vista Police Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for the response time for the City. However, a new facility is under construction at Fourth and F Streets in Chula Vista to meet law enforcement requirements as population growth in the service area warrants. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Development of the FC site would result in a significant impact to fire protection because the Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for the response time for the City. However, as population growth in the service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed within Villages 2 and 9 of the Otay Valley parcel and within Village 13 of the Proctor Valley Parcel. Schools Schools are not required for implementation of the FC site since the development would be for commercial purposes. However, payment of school fees is still required per the PFFP. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially significant impacts relate to the transport of hazardous materials could result from the implementation of the FC site. 18 A. LAND USE Standards of Significance: A significant land use impact is identified if the project could: · Physically divide an established community. · Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. · Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Impact: · Development of the property would result in a significant change in the character of the site from rural open space to an urban use (EIR, Subchapter 5.1, pages 5.1-8 through 5.1-19). Finding: The only mitigation available for this imPact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Development of the property would result in a significant change in the character of the site fi'om rural open space to an urban use, as identified in the PEII~ 90-01 and in EIR 02-04. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. 19 Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/VISUAL QUALITY Standards of Significance: A significant landform alteration/visual quality impact is identified if the project could: · Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. · Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock, outcroppings, or historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway. · Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. · Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Impact: · Development of the FC site would result in a significant change in the character of the site from predominantly rural to a more urban/developed character. The existing visual character of open space would be degraded (EIR, Subchapter 5.2, pages 5.2-22 through 5.2-28). Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make this altemative infeasible. Explanation: Implementation of the FC site would result in an overall change in topography and landscape, and the conversion of the site from predominantly rural to intensive urban uses, as identified in the Program EIR 90-01 and in EIR 02-04. 20 Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the impacts to landform alteration/visual impacts to a less than sigrdficant level. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. Impact: · Significant impacts resulting from light and glare would occur and nighttime illumination impacts would increase with development of the FC site (EIR, Subchapter 5.2, pages 5.2- 22 through 5.2-28). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. Explanation: Light and glare impacts would increase with the development of the site, and there would be a significant increase in nighttime illumination. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.2, pages 5.2-28 to 5.2-29). 5.2-1 All street lighting shall conform to City standards. The design of poles and fixtures shall be consistent with those adopted for the Otay Ranch community. 5.2-2 Parking areas, access, drives, and internal vehicular circulation areas shall have sufficient illumination for safety and security. Lighting fixtures shall be a zero cutoff at the project 21 edges. The parking lot illumination level shall achieve a uniformity ratio of 3:1 (average to minimum) with a minimum of i.0 foot candles. 5.2-3 Light standards shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 5.2-4 Unless otherwise specifically approved in the Design Review process, exterior pole lighting shall be either High Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Metal Halide (MH). 5.2-5 Lighting shall be indirect, except for parking areas. Overhead pole mounted downward lighting shall be implemented. Light fixtures shall not be placed more than 35 feet above grade. 5.2-6 Lighting levels shall emphasize walking areas so as to clearly identify the pedestrian walkway and direction of travel. 5.2-7 Outdoor pedestrian use areas, such as courtyards, entryways, and walkways, shall have sufficient illumination for safety and security. Primary pedestrian use area lighting shall achieve a uniformity ratio of 3:1, with a minimum average illumination of 1.0-foot candles. 5.2-8 Service area lighting shall be contained within the service yard boundaries and enclosure walls. No light spillover shall be permitted. 5.2-9 Earthen berms, walls, or dense landscaping shall be provided as appropriate throughout the site to minimize off-site spill lighting from vehicular headlights in parking lots. Significance After Mitigation: Light and glare impacts would not be significant. C. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS Standards of Significance: Project impacts are defined as either project specific impacts or cumulative impacts. Project specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition of project trips result in an identifiable degradation in level of service on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections, triggering the need for specific pro3ect-related improvement strategies. Cumulative impacts are those in which the project trips contribute to a poor level of service at a nominal level. 22 Cr/teria for determining whether the project results in either project-specific or cumulative impacts on 15eeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections are as follows. Short-Term (0 to 4 Years) For purposes of the short-term analysis, roadway sections may be defined as either links or segments. A link is typically that section of roadway between two adjacent Cimulation Element intersections, and a segment is defined as that combination of contiguous links used in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Plan (TMP). Analysis of roadway links under short-term conditions may require a more detailed analysis using the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) methodology if the typical planning analysis using volume to capacity ratios on an individual link indicates a potential impact to that link. The GMOC analysis uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology of average travel speed based on actual measurements on the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan TMP. Intersections Project specific impact if both of the following criteria are met: i. Level of service (LOS) is LOS E orLOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or mom of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Street Links/Seements If the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio indicates LOS C or better, there is no impact. If the planning analysis indicates LOS D, E, or F, the GMOC method should be utilized. The following criteria would then be utilized: Project-specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F for 1 hour ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to the segment. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. 23 Freeways Project-specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Freeway segment LOS is E or F. ii. Project comprises 5 percent or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Long-Term (Study Horizon Year 5 Year and Later) Intersections Project-specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Street Segments Use the planning analysis employing the volume to capacity ratio methodology only. The GMOC analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D, E, or F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of total segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along an 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 is LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above occurs at study horizon year 10 or later and is off-site and not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered cumulative. Study horizon year 10 may be that typical San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) model year, which is between 8 and 13 years in the future. 24 In this case of a traffic study being performed in the period of 2000 to 2002, because the typical model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e., 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020), study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year 2010 and would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than 7 years in the future, study horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future. In the event a direct, identified, project-specific impact in paragraph a. above occurs at study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is off-site and not adjacent to this project, but the property immediately adjacent to the identified project-specific impact is also proposed to be developed in approximately the same time flame, an additional analysis may be required to determine whether or not the identified project specific impact would still occur if the development of the adjacent property does not take place. If the additional analysis concludes that the identified project specific impact is no longer a direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative. Freeways a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Freeway segment LOS is E or F. ii. Project comprises 5 percent or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment. b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. Impact: Direct impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur to the following driveways (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-3) · Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway · Eastlake Parkway/Village 11 Access/Project Driveway · Birch Road/EUC Access/Project Driveway Significant impacts associated with the internal cimulation of the project would occur at the following intersections (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31 ]: · Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 Intersection 25 · Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 6 Intersection · Street "A" (Spine Road)/Street "B" Intersection Significant impacts associated with the PFFP would occur at the following roadways (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31]: · Street "A" (Spine Road), Olympic Parkway to Birch Road · Eastlake Parkway, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road · Birch Road, La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway · La Media Road, Olympic Parkway to Birch Road The traffic analysis evaluated forecast volumes for nine study scenarios, including the following: · Existing + Project · Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 square feet of development · Year 2005 without SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet of development · Year 2005 with SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet of development · Year 2010 with SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet of development · Year 2015 with SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet of development · Year 2020 with SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet of development · Buildout at 1,215,000 square feet of development · Freeway Analysis Thus, some of the mitigation measures that follow are repetitive because improvements may occur at different time frames. For example, the Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/ 26 _ Project Driveway improvement is recommended both under the Existing + Project Scenario and the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 square feet Scenario. Impact: Direct impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Direct Imoacts Existing + Project Scenario 5.3-1 Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway intersection: Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvement, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including intemounect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 on 27 opening day. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide tum lane storage lengths'as indicated in Table 20 of the Freeway Commercial Traffic Report (hereinafter referred to as Traffic Report). Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 Square Feet 5.3-3 Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Parkway/Project Driveway Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvement, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Olympic Parkway/Eastlake Commercial/Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 on opening day. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide tum lane storage leCgths as indicated in Table 20 of the Freeway Commercial Traffic Report. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Direct impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Village 11/Eastlake Parkway Access/Project Driveway intersection (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. 28 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Direct Imoacts Existing + Project Scenario 5.3-2 Village 11/Eastlake Parkway Access/Proj ect Driveway intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Eastlake Parkway/Village 11 Access/Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 on opening day. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide turn lane storage lengths as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report. Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 Square Feet 5.3-4 Village 11/Eastlake Parkway Access/Project Driveway Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Eastlake Parkway/Village 11 Access/Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 on opening day. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide turn lane storage lengths as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report 29 Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Direct impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Birch Road/EUC Access/Project Driveway intersection (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3~15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3-5 Birch Road/EUC Access/Project Driveway Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits triggering the construction of intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Birch Road/EUC Access//Project Driveway intersection. Provide intersection lane geometry as shown in Figure 29 of the Traffic Report. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Turn lane storage lengths shall be provided as indicated in Table 20 of the Traffic Report 30 _ Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Internal Circulation Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 intersection (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3.21 Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 Intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 5 intersection. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as illustrated in Appendix K of the Traffic Report. 31 Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 6 intersection (EIR, Subchaptcr 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3.22 Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 6 Intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Street "A" (Spine Road)/Driveway 6 intersection. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as illustrated in Appendix K of the Traffic Report. 32 Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Street "A" (Spine Road)/Strcet "B" intersection (EIR, Subchaptcr $.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3.23 Street "A" (Spine Road)/Street "B" Intersection Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of the intersection improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries at the Street "A" (Spine Road)/Street "B' intersection. The design of the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as illustrated in Appendix K of the Traffic Report. 33 Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. PFFP: Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Street "A" (Spine Road) - Olympic Parkway to Birch Road (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3-24 Street "A" (Spine Road)- Olympic Parkway to Birch Road Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 34 Impact: · Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Eastlake Parkway - Olympic Parkway to Birch Road (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3; pages 5.3-36 through 5.3~43). 5.3-25 Eastlake Parkway - Olympic Parkway to Birch Road Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the Birch Road - La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). 35 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3-26 Birch Road - La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the La Media Road - Olympic Parkway to Birch Road (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. 36 L Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). 5.3-27 La Media Road - Olympic Parkway to Bimh Road Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits triggering the construction of these street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the transit crossing on the project site. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development of the proposed project would have significant impacts to the future trolley line. 37 Mitigation Measure: As above. 5.3-28 All transit crossings within the project site and at project driveways shall conform to MTDB standards. MTDB will likely coordinate a traffic study at the time of introducing rapid transit on the project site. D. AIR QUALITY Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality if it: · Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of applicable air quality plan. · Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Results in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). · Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or · Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The applicable air quality plan is the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS). The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has not promulgated standards or guidelines for CEQA air quality significance. In lieu of local standards, the appropriate quantitative thresholds for assessment of impacts are those defined as de minimis in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) General Conformity Rule, which was promulgated in 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.850-860 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 93.150-160. These thresholds are shown in Table 5.4-2. Where there is no applicable air quality plan, because the area is not a federal nonattainment area for that pollutant, the de minimis threshold provides a conservative standard. These emission rates are the same as those used by the APCD to define a major stationary soume. 38 Table 5.4-2 General Conformity Rule de Minimis Thresholds and San Diego APCD Major Stationary Source Definition Air Contaminant Particulate Matter CPM~o)I Oxides of Nitrogen CNOx)2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)2 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx)3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)4 Emission Rate (Ton/yr) 100 50 50 100 lO0 t The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is a federal attainment and state nonattain- ment area for PM~0. The threshold is for a federal moderate nonattainment area. 2 Threshold for a serious nonattainment area for ozone. 3 The SDAB is a federal and state attainment area for SOx. The threshold is for a federal nonattainmcnt area. 4 Threshold for a CO maintenance area. Source: USEPA 1993 The City of Chula Vista does not have emissions standards for determination of significant impacts. By precedent, the City has used the very conservative CEQA significance thresholds adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), as promulgated in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993). These standards are shown in Table 5.4-3 and will be used to determine the significance of project air quality impacts. Table 5.4-3 Threshold for Significant Air Quality Emissions Construction Emissions Threshold Operations Emissions Threshold Pollutant (tons/quarter) (pounds/day) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 24.75 550 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2.5 55 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 2.5 55 Particulate Matter (PMio) 6.75 150 Impact: Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of significant temporary construction equipment exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. Construction emissions would exceed thresholds for VOC and NOx. The proposed project would result in long-term operational emissions, primarily fi.om vehicle emissions that would exceed thresholds, including CO, VOC, NOx, and PM~0 (EIR, Subchapter 5.4, pages 5.4-9 through 5.4-13). 39 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant enviromnental effects as identified in the EIR. With implementation of all feasible mitigation, construction activity emission would still exceed the identified significance threshold for NOx, CO, and VOC. The only mitigation measure available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Estimated construction emissions of NOx and VOC would exceed the threshold. With the use of commercial power, the estimated NOx and VOC emissions would still exceed the threshold. It is also estimated that operation emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, and PM~0 would exceed the guideline thresholds in both 2005 and 2010. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.4, pages 5.4-14 through 5.4-16). 5.4-1 The following measures shall be specified as notes on the project grading plans and shall be implemented to minimize VOC and NOx construction emissions: · Bring commercial power to the site prior to construction and require contractors to use commercial power wherever feasible · Develop a ride-share plan for workers · Develop a site construction traffic management plan to minimize vehicle traffic and vehicle idling time · Consolidate construction deliveries · Develop a plan for maximizing loads during hauling operations 40 · Prohibit truck idling in excess of two minutes · Use solar, battery, or elecifically powered lighted signs · To the extent possible, use vehicles powered by natural gas (CNG, LNG) rather than diesel or gasoline engines · Use architectural coatings with the lowest VOC content feasible 5.4-2 Although PM~0 construction emissions would not be a significant impact on regional air quality, the following measures shall be specified as notes on the project grading plans and shall be implemented to minimize construction fugitive dust PM~0 emissions: · Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers or area corem to all inactive construction areas · Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible · Enclose, cover, water or apply soil stabilizers to exposed piles · Water active sites at least twice daily and unpaved roads at least three times daily, particularly at the end of the days construction operations · Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind gust speeds exceed 25 mph · All haul trucks to be covered or maintain at least two feet of freeboard · Maintain vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less · Pave or use gravel at all construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main mad(s) · Use track-out and grizzlies to remove soil and dust from vehicles leaving the site · Wash construction vehicles regularly 5.4-3 The following measures shall be implemented to reduce mobile source operation emissions: 41 5.4-4 · Provide preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools · Encourage ride-sharing · Encourage low emission fleet vehicles such as natural gas-powered vehicles · Encourage use of public transportation · Work with local officials to provide efficient public transportation · Provide on-site or nearby access locations for bus or trolley stops · Encourage the use of shuttles to major transit stations and multi modal centers · To the extent feasible, provide bicycle trails, paths, and lanes · Include bicycle parking facilities · Encourage tenants to provide showers for bicycling employees use · Schedule truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours · Require on-site truck loading zones To the extent feasible, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce stationary area source operation emissions: · Use solar or low-emission and energy efficient water heaters · Use central water heating systems · Use double-paned glass in windows · Use energy efficient parking lot lights · Use lighting controls and energy efficient interior and exterior lights 42 Use energy efficient systems to control interior HVAC systems · Keep interior building temperatures at levels consistent with energy efficiency and human health and comfort · Use light-colored roof materials to reflect heat ·Increase wall and attic insulation Include passive solar building designs Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. E. NOISE Standards of Signffieanee: Noise significance criteria are established by the Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix G) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and local regulations. The proposed project would have a significant noise impact if it would result in: · The development of commercial uses in areas where the noise level would exceed 70 dBA CNEL. · The development of schools, playgrounds, or exterior use areas of hotels in areas where the noise level would exceed 65 dBA CNEL. · The development of hotels or other residential use, other than single-family detached homes, where the noise level in habitable rooms due to exterior sources would exceed 45 dBA CNEL. · The generation of noise levels that violate the City's Noise Ordinance as specified in Table 5.5-2 of the EIR. · The exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. 43 A substantial permanent increase'in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or · A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. A substantial temporary increase in noise levels would be construction noise levels that exceed 70 dBA Hourly Noise Equivalent (Lcq) CNEL at sensitive receptors. Impact: Potential sources of noise related to the proposed FC site include traffic-generated noise, and commerci'al noise (EIR, Subchapter 5.5, pages 5.5-7 through 5.5-12). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: If persons using the properties would be exposed to noise in excess of 70 dBA CNEL there would be a significant noise impact. Significant noise impacts would also occur if a school use is included in the project, and noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL would impact the facility. School uses would be allowed on the property with the issuance of a use permit. Impacts from noise generated on the project site would be significant if stationary HVAC equipment, trucking, loading, and trash disposal activities on the site generated noise in excess of the limits of the Chula Vista noise ordinance. Project-generated traffic noise would be significant to homes and school adjacent to Eastlake Parkway south of Clubhouse Drive. 44 _ Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.5, pages 5.5-13 to 5.5-14). 5.5-1 Prior to the approval of site development plans, the Applicant shall submit a supplemental noise analysis acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building demonstrating the following: · Noise levels at exterior use areas of proposed hotels would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL; · Interior noise levels in habitable rooms of proposed hotels would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL; · Noise levels at student and staff-occupied areas of proposed school or day care facilities, including playgrounds, would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL; Noise levels generated on the project site, being the combined noise levels of HVAC equipment, truck traffic, loading and unloading, and trash collection, where these may occur simultaneously, would not exceed the applicable limits of the noise ordinance. The sound wall to be constructed adjacent to the loading dock at the northeastern portion of the McMillin property shall be designed to ensure that sound levels generated fi:om the loading dock do not exceed 65 dBA CNEL for exterior use areas and 45dBA CNEL for habitable moms, for a planned hotel to be located at the southeastern portion of the Otay Ranch Company portion of the site, 5.5-2 If the applicant proposes outdoor uses (i.e., dining or recreation), prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a supplemental noise analysis for outdoor uses proposed in the locations identified as impacted (70 dBA CNEL) in Figure 5.5-1 of the EIR. The noise an,alysis shall demonstrate the following: Noise levels at patron-occupied exterior areas of proposed commercial land uses would not exceed 70 dBA CNEL. 45 Significance After Mitigation: Noise-land use compatibility impacts and impacts fi.om noise generated on-site would not be significant. F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it: · Directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Impact: Grading impacts fi.om development of the site could result in potentially significant impacts to buffed paleontological resources in the Otay Formation. This could result in significant long- term direct impacts if fossils are found during the grading process (EIR, Subchapter 5.7, pages 5.7-2 through 5.7-3). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut into geological formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. Areas of the Otay Formation, which are known to be fossil-bearing, may be exposed during grading and construction activities. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and arc made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.7, pages 5.7-3 through 5.7-4). 46 5.7-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrading meet'mgs to consult with grading and excavation contractors. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. 5.7-2 A paleontological monitor shall be present on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (the Otay Formation) to inspect cuts for fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall also periodically inspect original cuts in deposits with unknown resource sensitivity. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. In the event fossils are discovered in unknown sensitive formations, it may be necessary to increase the per~day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring effort may be reduced. 5.7-3 When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. In situations where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be allowed to direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist or paleontological monitor, a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be employed. 5.7-4 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and maps shall be deposited at a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and the significance of the recovered fossils. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 47 G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it: Results in 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Results in 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 California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Resul(s in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impact: There could be direct impacts to biological resources because burrowing owl and northern harder have been identified as foraging on the site although they were not nesting in recent surveys. Implementation of the project would eliminate approximately 133 acres of agricultural fields, which could be used as foraging areas for raptor species. The PEIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor habitat as a significant impact, and development of the site would cumulatively contribute to this significant impact (EIR, Subchapter 5.8, pages 5.8-8 through 5.8-11). 48 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Direct impacts to biological resources would occur because burrowing owl and northern harrier have been identified as foraging but not nesting on the site because biological conditions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and northern harder to occupy the site between project approval and development. Implementation of the project would eliminate approximately 133 acres of agricultural fields, which could be used as foraging areas for raptor species. The PEIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor habitat as a significant impact, and development of the site would cumulatively contribute to this significant impact. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.8, page 5.8-12): 5.8-1 Focused surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to grading. If occupied burrows are detected, passive relocation of the species shall be conducted to avoid impacts from grading. 5.8-2 Focused surveys for active nests of the northern harrier shall be conducted prior to grading. If active nests are detected, and if construction activities occur between March 1 and July 31, construction activities shall be restricted within 900 feet of active nest sites. 5.8-3 Prior to recordation of each final map, the applicant shall convey land within the Otay Ranch RMP Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area as defined in the RMP, for a total of 135 acres. No mitigation measures are available to lessen the cumulative impacts associated with eliminating approximately 133 acres of agricultural fields, which could be used as foraging areas for raptor species. 49 Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to burrowing owl and northern harder would not be significant with mitigation. Cumulative impacts to potential foraging areas for raptor species are significant and not mitigated. H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on agricultural resources if it: Converts Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. Conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Involves other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Impact: Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural operations would create indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between agricultural uses and urban uses (El[R, Subchapter 5.9, pages 5.9-3 through 5.9-4). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The impacts of continued agricultural use of the land with adjacent land uses would also be significant. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural operations would result in indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and the adjacent developing urban uses. 50 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.9, page 5.9-5) for impacts associated with the continued agricultural use of the land with adjacent land uses. 5.9-1 The agricultural plan in the Planning Area 12 FC SPA Plan shall be implemented. The plan includes the following measures, which shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building: · A 200-foot buffer shall be placed between property boundaries and agricultural operations; If permitted interim agricultural uses require the use of pesticides, limits shall be established as to the time of day and the type of pesticide applications that may be used; · The use of vegetation along field edges to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet) from agriculture activities shall be encouraged; · Notification of adjacent property owners of potential pesticide applications through newspaper advertisement shall be accomplished prior to spraying; and · Fencing, where necessary, shall be installed to ensure the safety of Planning Area 12 FC patrons. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts associated with the continued agricultural use of the land with adjacent land uses would not be significant. I. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on hydrology and drainage if: 51 __ · Violates any water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements, including City of Chula Vista Engineering Standards on storm water flows and volumes. Substantially depletes groundwater or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ora stream or a river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. Substantially alters the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or a river, or substantially increases the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site. Creates or contributes runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provides substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. · Alters existing 100-year floodplains or flood regions. · Places housing within a 100-year flood hazard area structure that would impede or redirect flood flows. · Exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure ora levee or dam. · Exposes people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impact: Project implementatior~ may result in off-site runoff flooding effects downstream, which would have long-term, direct and indirect, significant impacts. Project implementation may also result in uncontrolled discharge of pollutants with "first-flush" events, which would have a long-term, indirect, significant impact (EIR, Subchapter 5.10, pages 5.10-5 through 5.10-8). 52 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the C EQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development of the proposed Planning Area 12 FC site would result in an increase in the amount of runoff during storms due to the overall increase in impervious surfaces in the area. Based on the amount of additional development area, the surface runoff in a 50~year and 100-year storm event would increase with implementation of the project. Additionally, potential contamination of surface water could result from mishandling of fuel or other hazardous materials used in the construction of the project. Construction activities and equipment would utilize fuels and other hazardous substances that could be subject to runoff. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.10, pages 5.10-9 through 5.10-11). 5.10-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista's standards and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5.10-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and obtain an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCI3). Adherence to all conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The permit requires development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Monitoring Plan for all phases of project construction. The SWPPP shall be incorporated into the grading and drainage design plans and shall provide for implementation of construction and postconstruction Best Management Practices (BMPs) on-site to reduce the amount of pollutants and sediments in construction and postconstruction surface runoff before it is discharged into the natural drainages. The grading plans will note the condition requiring a SWPPP and Monitoring Program Plan. 53 No grading will be performed during the rainy season (October 1 through April 30) without special erosion control measures approved by RWQCB. 5.10-3 Prior to construction, all parties involved shall meet to discuss the BMPs required by the erosion control plan and identified in the SWPPP prepared by the contractor pursuant to NPDES. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining the required BMPs to ensure that the measures are working properly, until the construction area has been permanently stabilized. 5.10-4 Prior to approval of the TM and/or Site Plan by the Design Review Committee, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Chula Vista Storm Water and Discharge Control Ordinance and the NPDES Municipal Permit (including the Final Model SUSMP for the San Diego Region). The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer of a report that includes the following elements: Description of project characteristics, site conditions, flow patterns, pollutants emanating fi.om the project site, and conditions of concern. ii. Description of site design and source control BMPs considered and to be implemented. iii. Description of applicable treatment control BMPs considered and to be implemented to reduce or treat the identified pollutants. iv. Justification for selection of the proposed treatment control BMP(s) including (1) targeted pollutants, justification, and alternative analysis, (2) design criteria (including calculations), (3) pollutants removal information (other than vendors specifications), and (4) literature references. v. Site plan depicting locations of the proposed treatment control BMPs; and vi. Operation and maintenance plan for the proposed treatment control BMPs. 5.10-5 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a SWPPP shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to ensure implementation of the BMPs required by the erosion control plan. Potential BMPs that could be used include the following. However, this does not preclude the use of other BMPs that would meet the requirements of the NPDES: 54 Short-term placement of sedimem trapping facilities such as sand bags, matting, mulch, brush barriers, filters, berms, hay bales, silt fences, and/or sediment pools or other similar devices, along with all pertinent graded areas to minimize off-site sediment transport. Such facilities would likely be required for the base of manufactured slopes, as well as all areas adjacent to, or upstream of, major drainage courses and wetlands. ii. Hydroseeding of manufactured slopes following construction, together with provision of adequate water (through irrigation or truck watering) for an appropriate establishment period to be determined by the City Engineer. iii. Reclamation of all disturbed areas as soon as practicable after completion of grading. iv. Placement of temporary and/or permanent (if applicable) desilting basins, dikes, check dams, sediment basins, riprap, or other appropriate structures at applicable points upstream of all drainage courses and wetlands, or where substantial drainage alteration is proposed. Placement of energy dissipating structures (e.g., sediment basins, riprap aprons, water bars, or drop structures) at all storm drain, subdrain, and pipe outlets, as well as all drainage crossings, downstream outlets at all culverts and brow ditches, and applicable areas within drainage ditches or swales. vi. Use of subdrains in applicable areas to redirect subsurface flows. vii. Stabilization of construction vehicle and equipment access points by temporary paving, graveling, and/or use of sediment trapping devices to reduce the movement of sediment onto public roads and rights-of-way. viii. Restriction of grading during the rainy season, October 1 through April 30, unless related erosion and sedimentation control measures are implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be in place a minimum of five days prior to any forecasted rain and shall include, but not be limited to: · Silt fencing shall be placed in all locations along the corridor where grading is higher than adjacent natural areas. 55 · Silt fencing shall be maintained in a functioning condition until site preparation for the next phase of construction begins. · Sand bags will be used as necessary to ensure that the silt fence adequately maintains its integrity. A solid line of sand bags will be placed on the silt fence adjacent to any body of water or creek. · Construction fencing shall be placed along the corridor to keep vehicles and equipment from inadvertently entering natural areas. · Adequate liners will be used to eliminate the potential for soil migration which might be caused by precipitation from construction areas where there is bare soil. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. J. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Standards of Significance: Impacts to geology and soils are considered significant if the proposed project would: · Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, or injury, involving: - rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; - seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or - landslides. · Results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 56 Is located on a geologic unit or on soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 Uniform Building Code CtJBC) (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property. Has soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal of wastewaters. Impact: The exposure of individuals or structures to ground acceleration from potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-term, significant impact associated with the implementation of the proposed project. The site is characterized by compressible soils. Development on these soils could potentially settle under increased loads, or due to an increase in moisture content fi.om site irrigation or change in drainage conditions. This settlement could result in damage to structures, roads, and property. Additionally, several locally continuous claystone beds were observed, which may intersect the proposed cut slopes that could potentially result in surficial slope failures (EIR, Subchapter 5.1, pages 5. I 1-6 to 5.11-7). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The closest active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone, approximately 11 miles to the west of the site. A major earthquake occun'ing on this fault or other regional active faults in Southern California could subject the proposed development to moderate-to-severe ground shaking. Impacts from ground shaking would be significant. Exposure of people to earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-term, and significant impact. 57 Expansive soils within pavement, foundation, or slab subgrade could heave when wetted, resulting in cracking or failure of these development improvements. Development on compressible soils could potentially settle under increased load and damage structures, roads, and property. The design of the proposed FC site structures would comply with the requirements of the Lr[IC and standard practices of the Structural Engineering Association of California. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.11, pages 5.11-8 through 5.11-9). The use of site-specific foundation, building, and seismic designs, as well as special construction equipment, techniques, and materials can mitigate or avoid significant geologic impacts as indicated below. Designs for the project components must demonstrate conformance standards adhering to the UBC, the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, current seismic design specifications of the Structural Engineering Association of California, and other various regulatory requirements. The following measures shall be implemented. 5.11-1 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the applicant shall verify that the applicable recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnics, Incorporated, Section 8, dated September 2002, for the McMillin property have been incorporated into the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. 5.11 ~2 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the applicant shall verify that the applicable recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geocon, Inc., Section 8, dated August 30, 2001, for the Otay. Ranch Company property have been incorporated into the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 58 K. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES/COMPLIANCE WITH CITY THRESHOLDS AND STANDARDS POTABLE WATER Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on potable water if it: · Encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of water or use of water in a wasteful manner. · Results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services. · Contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility. In addition, according to City threshold standards, impacts to water resources would be significant if the proposed project exceeds City threshold standards to ensure that adequate supplies of quality water, appropriate for intended use, are available. The standards require the following actions: · The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level; · The project applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a SPA Plan application; and · The Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long- term basis prior to the development of each Otay Ranch SPA. Impact: The proposed project could result in significant impacts to potable water supply and storage (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, pages 5.12-4 through 5.12-7). 59 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of facilities does not coincide with the anticipated growth associated with the FC site SPA Plan. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-8). 5.12-1 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be approved prior to the approval of each TM. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost of development and must be in compliance with the Otay Water District (OWD) Master Plan. 5.12-2 Prior to approval of each TM, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate pumping and storage capacities are available or would be available concurrent with need. 5.12-3 Prior to approval of each Final Map (FM), the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate storage capacity exists or would be available to serve the FC need. 5.12-4 5.12-5 Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) for the Planning Area 12 FC site. Prior to approval of the first TM, the applicant shall submit a SAMP for the FC site. The SAMP shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis for the McMillin and Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 SPA- Freeway Commemial properties. 60 Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. RECYCLED WATER Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on recycled water service if it: · Encourages activities which result in the use of large mounts of water or use of water in a wasteful manner. · Results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services. · Contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility. · Creates a public health risk. Impact: The proposed project could result in significant impacts to recycled water supply and storage (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, pages 5.12-9 to 10 and 5.12-12). Finding: .Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the need for recycled water and would place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. There is a project recycled water demand for irrigational purposes of approximately 0.010 MGD (6.8 gpm) for the northern portion and 0.026 MGD (17.9 gpm) for the southern portion. Approximately 3,500 feet of 8-inch on-site piping is proposed to provide service for irrigation based on supplying the 77,000 gpd demands over a two-hour operation period. 61 Mitigation Measures: The folloWing mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, pages 5.12-10 through 5.12-11). 5.12-6 Prior to the approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall provide for adequate recycled water storage and distribution facilities, which shall be constructed in accordance with the Subarea Water Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water infrastructure improvements are described in the Planning Area 12 FC PFFP and SPA Plan. The proposed PFFP identifies development impact fees that the applicant shall pay to mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the applicant's responsibility to construct or pay for necessary mitigatibn, and the phasing improvements. 5.12-7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall provide written proof from the OWD that adequate water storage and distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed project site. 5.12-8 A complete Subarea Water Master Plan shall be required prior to approval of the TM. The recycled water system shall be designed at that time and the timing and cost shall be identified by phase of development. 5.12-9 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approved by OWD prior to approval of each TM. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost of phase of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. 5.12-10 The proposed project shall be responsible for constructing all potable and recycled water improvements necessary to serve the projects, which include but are not limited to the proposed water lines along Eastlake Parkway and Birch Road. The proposed project shall adequately provide potable and recycled water service without relying on any proposed water construction phasing by other developments. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 62 SEW-ER Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on sewer service if it: · Results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services. · Contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility. · Creates a public health risk. · Exceeds City Engineering Standards. Impact: Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to sewer services (EIR, Subchapter 5-12, pages 5.12-12 to13). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The City has established criteria to estimate sewage flows from different land uses. Commercial/industrial uses generate 2,500 gpd/acre. The projected average daily flow for the northern portion of the FC site is 215,250 gpd, and 86,000 gpd for the northem portion. The existing sewage disposal system does not currently have sufficient capacity to accommodate flows from the FC site, which would result in a near-term significant impact until upgrades to the system, currently underway, are completed. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-15). 63 5.12-11 Prior to the recordation of the first Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that the Poggi Canyon Intemeptor has adequate capacity in the interim to handle projected sewage flows for the entire SPA. 5.12-12 Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP. 5.12-13 The project shall be responsible for constructing all sewer improvements necessary to serve the project, which include but are not limited to the proposed sewer lines along Bimh Road east and west of SR 125 and La Media Road to connect to the exisfmg Poggi Canyon Sewer. The proposed project shall adequately provide sewer service without relying upon any proposed sewer construction phasing by other developments. The developer shall also underwrite the cost of all studies and reports needed to support the addition of sewer flows to existing lines. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. LAW ENFORCEMENT Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on police service if it: Exceeds threshold standards, such as the ability to respond to Priority One emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 84 percent of the cases and maintain an average response time to all Priority One calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Exceeds threshold standards to respond to Priority Two urgent calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 62 percent of cases and maintain an average response time to all Priority Two calls of 7 minutes or less. Impact: · The project would cause an incremental increase in calls for police services (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-18). 64 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The Police Department does not currently meet the threshold standards for either Priority One or Priority Two calls. Development of the FC site would result in an incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of the project, officers would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service. Increased travel time lengthens response time. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.11, pages 5.11-8 through 5.11-9). 5.12-14 Police service facilities shall be financed or provided in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the FC site. 5.12-15 The City will monitor Police Department responses to emergency calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on fire services if it: Reduces the ability to respond to calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 85 percent of the cases. 65 Impact: The proposed project would increase the demand for fire services (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-20). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of thc CEQA Gnidelincs, changes or alterations arc required in, or incorporated into, thc project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However, as population growth in the service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed with Villages 2 and 9 of the Otay Valley parcel and within Village 13 of the Proctor Valley Parcel. Impacts to fire and emergency medical services would be significant if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the projects anticipated population growth and increased demand for service. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings (E1R, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-21). 5.12-16 Fire service facilities shall be financed or provided in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the FC site. 5.12-17 The City will monitor Fire Department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 66 SCHOOLS Standards of Significance: Significance thresholds do not apply, as the FC site is planaed as a retail commercial area, and would not generate the need for schools. Impact: Schools are not required for implementation of the FC site since the development would be for commercial purposes; however, payment of school fees is still required per the PFFP (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-22). , Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the signdicant environmental effects as identified in the E~, to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development o£ the FC site would not include any school facilities since the development would be for commercial purposes. However, payment of school fees is still required per the PFFP. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5.12-22). 5.12-18 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all required school mitigation fees. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 67 - L. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to hazardous materials if it: · Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Creates 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. Emits hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be created. Is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. · Is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. · Impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. · Exposes people or structure to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas, Impact: Significant impacts could occur because hazardous materials could be used or transported to the site (EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 5.13-3 through 5.13-4). 68 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials could result from implementation of the FC site because hazardous materials could be used or transported to the site as a result of the proposed commercial facility. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 5.13-4). 5.13-1 The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials on the site shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations of federal, state, and local agencies, including the EPA, the California DHS, and Caltrans (EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 5.13-4). Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. 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)). Several development proposals have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego in proximity of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the FC site SPA Plan. 69 In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This reflects the inability of the Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions (i.e., City of San Diego, City of National City, and Caltrans) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to cumulative impacts. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the following irreversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to pages in the EIR. A. LAND USE, PLANNING, AND ZONING Impact: Cumulative land use, planning, and zoning impacts were addressed in PEIR 90-01 for the Otay Ranch GDP, and the loss of open space and agricultural land were found to be significant and not mitigated. Development of the property would result in a significant change in the character of the site fi:om rural open space to an urban use. The overall loss of open space associated with the conversion of land f~om rural to urban' would have a significant cumulative land use impact (EIR, Subchapter 5.1, page 5.1-19). Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Projec{ alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The City Council determined that cumulative land use impacts were acceptable because of the specific overriding considerations. Development of the property would result in a significant change in the character of the site fi:om rural open space to an urban use (EIR, Subchapter 5.1, page 5.1-19). 70 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation, other than the No Project alternative, is available to lessen or avoid this impact. B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS Impact: Cumulative landform alteration and aesthetic impacts were addressed in PEIR 90-01 as significant and not mitigable. Cumulative land use impacts of this project incrementally add to this cumulative loss. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve the tray Ranch GDP, the City Council found that there are no possible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The City Council determined that cumulative landform and aesthetic impacts were acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Development of the site would result in a significant change in the visual quality of the area (EIR, Subchapter 5.2, page 5.2-29). C. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS Cumulative Impacts associated with the proposed project would occur at the following segments and intersections (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31]: East "H" Street from 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive · Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ranchero Intersection · Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road Intersection · East "H" Street/Paseo Ranchero Intersection 71 · Eastlake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road Intersection · Otay Lakes Road north of"H" Street · Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Pasco del Rey Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at East "H" Street from 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive in the Existing + Project Scenario (E~R, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Existing + Project (1,215,000 Square Fee0 5.3-6 East "H" Street - 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the Traffic Development Impact Fee (TDIF) program towards adding a 4th westbound lane on East "H" Street between In 805 and Hidden Vista Drive. 72 Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Telegraph Canyon Road/Pasco Ranchero intersection in the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 tkrough 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 Square Feet 5.3-7 Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ranchero Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing northbound and eastbound fight-mm overlap phasing. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road intersection in the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 871,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31 ). 73 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchaptcr 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2005 without SR 125 ut 871,00 square feet 5.3-8 Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing a third northbound through lane at the intersection and continue the third northbound lane north of the intersection. Significance Mter Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at the East "H" Street Paseo Ranchero intersection in the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). 74 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2005 without SR 125 with Entire Project (1,21S,000 Square Feet) 5.3-9 East "H" Street/Pasco Ranchero Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing a new eastbound right-turn lane on East "H" Street at Pasco Ranchero if the entire project is constructed before SR 125. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Eastlake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road intersection in the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.345 through 5.3-31). 75 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as idemified in the EIR to a level o£insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development o£ the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant t~ough these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Year 2005 without SR 125 with Entire Project (1,215,000 square feet) 5.3-10 Eastlake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TD~ toward adding a fourth through lane on Otay Lakes Road west of Eastlake Parkway, and a southbound fight-turn lane on Eastlake Parkway if the entire project is constructed before SR 125. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Telegraph Canyon Road/Pasco Ranchero intersection in the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). 76 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the C£QA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, thc project that will substantially lessen or avoid thc significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Year 2005 without SR 125 with Entire Project (1,215, 000 square fee0 5.3-11 Telegraph Canyon Road/Pasco Ranchero Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing northbound and eastbound right-turn overlap phasing. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road intersection in the Year 2005 without SR 125 at 1,215,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). 77 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2005 without SR 125 with Entire Project (1,215,000 square feet) 5.3-12 Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road Intersection Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward providing a third northbound through lane at the intersection and continue the third northbound lane north of the intersection. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at East "H" Street - 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive in the Year 2005 without SR' 125 at 1,215,000 square feet scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). 78 Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2005 without SR 125 with Entire project (1,215,000 square feet) 5.3-13 East "H" Street - 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward adding a 4th westbound lane on East "H' Street between 1-805 and Hidden Vista Drive. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Otay Lakes Road north of"H" Street in the Year 2010 scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3- 15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. 79 Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (E1R, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2010 (1,215,000 Square Feet) 5.3-14 Otay Lakes Road - North of"H" Street Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF toward widening to 6 lanes or towards an intersection improvement, which provides additional capacity along Otay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur at Telegraph Canyon Road - 1-805 to Pasco Del Rey in the Year 2020 scenario (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-15 through 5.3-31). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. 80 Explanation: Based on these significance criteria, development of the proposed project would have significant direct impacts to several driveways within the project site. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-36 through 5.3-43). Year 2020 (1,215,000 Square Feet) 5.3-15 Telegraph Canyon Road - 1-805 to Pasco Del Rey Prior lo issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the TDIF for the planned City project to add a 4th westbound lane on Telegraph Canyon Road between 1- 805 and the Vons Driveway. Significance After Mitigation: Impacts would not be significant. Impact: Development of the project would result in significant cumulative impacts to freeway segments of 1-805 that cannot be mitigated. These freeway segments are the following: 1-805, East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road (Existing + Project Scenario); 1-805, Bonita Road to East "H" Street and 1-805, East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road (Year 2005 without SR 125 Scenario); 1-805, Bonita Road to East "H" Street and 1-805 East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road (Year 2005 with SR 125 Scenario) (EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 5.3-28). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such other changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. In the case of improvements required to 1-805 in the above-identified five scenarios, the changes or alterations required are the responsibility of Caltrans. 81 Explanation: Additional lanes are required to maintain an acceptable LOS on 1-805. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings (E1R, Subchapter 5.3, pages 5.3-40 to 5.3-41). Existim~ + Project 5.3-16 1-805 East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Year 2005 Without SR 125 5.3-17 1-805 - Bonita Road to East "H" Street Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caitrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. 5.3-18 1-805 - East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. 82 Year 2005 With SR 125 5.3-19 1-805 - Bonita Road to East "H" Street Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. 5.3-20 1-805 - East "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. D. AIR QUALITY Impact: Cumulative impacts to air quality related to construction emissions of CO, NOx, and VOC would be significant. Additionally, the project would result in long-term operational emissions, primarily from vehicle emissions that would exceed thresholds (EIR, Subchapter 5.4, page 5.4- 14). Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Estimated construction emissions of NOx would exceed the threshold. With the use of commercial power, the estimated NOx emissions would be less than the threshold. It is also estimated that operation emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx would exceed the guideline thresholds in both 2005 and 2010. 83 Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. E. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Grading impacts from development of the site could result in potentially significant impacts to buried paleontological resources in the Otay Formation. This could result in significant long- term direct impacts if fossils are found during the grading process. (EIR, Subchapter 6.1 page 6-7). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Numerous important discoveries of paleontological resources have been made in the Otay Ranch and surrounding area in recent years. Subsurface paleontological resources may exist on the Planning Area 12 FC site as well, as documented in Sections 5.7 and 6.1 of the EIR. Site- specific mitigation measures are available to mitigate impacts from development of the project site. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are required for the development of the Planning Area 12- FC SPA and Tentative Map (TM) area: 5.7-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an apPropriate mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrading meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual 84 with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. 5.7-2 A paleontological monitor shall be present on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (the Otay Formation) to inspect cuts for fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall also periodically inspect original cuts in deposits with unknown resource sensitivity. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. In the event fossils are discovered in unknown sensitive formations, it may be necessary to increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring effort may be reduced. 5.7-3 When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall recover them. In situations where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be allowed to direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist or paleontological monitor, .a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be employed. 5.7-4 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and maps shall be deposited at a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall he completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and the significance of the recovered fossils. Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures will lessen the cumulative impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Development of the FC site would contribute to a significant cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat (EIR, Subchapter 5.8, page 5.8-12). 85 _ Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guideline, specific economic, legal, social, tectmolog/cal, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Implementation of the Freeway Commercial site would eliminate approximately 133 acres of agricultural fields, which could be used as foraging areas for raptor species. The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor habitat as a significant impact, and development of the site would cumulatively contribute to this significant impact (EIR, Subchapter 5.8, page 5.8-13). Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact, and therefore, the project would result in significant cumulative impacts to raptor foraging habitat that cannot be fully mitigated. G. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Impact: Cumulative development 6f Otay Ranch and surrounding properties would result in the permanent loss or impairment of lands suitable and historically used for production of coastal- dependent crops (EIR, Subchapter 5.9, page 5.9-4). Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guideline, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Although the area is not currently used for this type of agricultural production, it has been used for such in the recent past. In addition, the region represents an agricultural resource because of its coastal climatic conditions that are favorable to agricultural production. Tho cumulative commitment of agricultural land to urban uses would be irreversible (EIR, Subchapter 5.9, page 5.9-5). 86 Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact. Therefore, there would be significant cumulative impacts related to agricultural resoumes that cannot be fully mitigated. H. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Impact: Hydrology/Surface Water Cumulatively, existing and proposed development in the subregion would result in the construction of substantial new areas of impervious surfaces that would reduce the amount of infiltration of storm water. This could result in a decrease in potential recharge to the groundwater basin and an increase in surface runoff (EIR, Subchapter 6.1, page 6-8). Water Oualitv Developments in the Chula Vista area could cumulatively affect the contamination of downstream water resources, including Poggi Canyon and the Otay River basin. This potential increase in runoff and decrease in water quality would have a significant cumulative impact on these drainage basins (EIR, Subchapter 6.1, page 6-9). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Existing and proposed development in the subregion would result in the construction of substantial new areas of impervious surfaces that would reduce the amount of infiltration of storm water on a cumulative basis. This could result in a decrease in potential groundwater recharge and an increase in surface runoff. Regional construction of major developments in the Chula Vista area could cumulatively affect the contamination of downstream water resources. This potential increase in runoff and decrease in water quality would have a significant cumulative impact on these drainage basins. Preparation of SWPPPs and implementation of 87 _ BMPs for development projects substantially diminish the potential for significant runoff and water quality impacts. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are required for the development of the Planning Area 12- FC SPA and Tentative Map (TM) area: 5.10-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista's standards and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5.10-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the project proponent shall submit an NOI and obtain an NPDES Permit for Construction Activity from SWRCB. Adherence to all conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The permit requires development of a SWPPP and a Monitoring Plan for all phases of project construction. The SWPPP shall be incorporated into the grading and drainage design plans and shall provide for implementation of construction and postconstruction BMPs on-site to reduce the amount of pollutants and sediments in construction and postconstruction surface runoff before it is discharged into the natural drainages. The grading plans will note the condition requiring a SWPPP and Monitoring Program Plan. No grading will be performed during the rainy season (October 1 through April 30) without special erosion control measures approved by RWQCB. Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures will lessen the cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality to less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES/COMPLIANCE WITH CITY THRESHOLDS AND STANDARDS Impact: Water Cumulative impacts to the water supply associated with regional development in San Diego County would be anticipated. Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and place additional demands on water storage and 88 pumping facilities. Development of the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the need for recycled water and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities (EIR, Subchapter 6.1, page 6-9). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Additional demand for water associated with the Planning Area 12 FC parcel in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects would incrementally add to the need for additional water supplies to the region. The demand for water service has been planned by the City 0f Chula Vista, and an extensive water recycling system is in the process of construction in the eastern Chula Vista area. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are required for the development of the Planning Area 12- FC SPA and Tentative Map (TM) area: 5.12-1 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be approved prior to the approval of each TM. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. 5.12-2 Prior to approval of each TM, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate pumping and storage capacities are available or would be available concurrent with need. 5.12-3 Prior to approval of each Final Map, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate storage capacity exists or would be available to serve the FC need. 5.12-4 Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) for the Planning Area 12 FC site. 89 5.12-5 Prior to approval of the first TM, the applicant shall submit a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the FC site. The SAMP shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long- term basis for the McMillin and Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 SPA- Freeway Commercial properties. 5.12-6 Prior to the approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall provide for adequate recycled water storage and distribution facilities, which shall be constructed in accordance with the Subarea Water Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water infi-astmcture improvements are described in the Planning Area 12 FC PFFP and SPA Plan. The proposed PFFP identifies development impact fees that the applicant shall pay to mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the applicant's responsibility to construct or pay for necessary mitigation, and the phasing improvements. 5.12-7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall provide written proof from the OWD that adequate water storage and distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed project site. 5.12-8 A complete Subarea Water Master Plan shall be required prior to approval of the TM. The recycled water system shall be designed at .that time and the timing and cost shall be identified by phase of development. 5.12-9 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approved by OWD prior to approval of each TM. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost of phase of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. 5.12-10 The proposed project shall be responsible for constructing all potable and recycled water improvements necessary to serve the projects, which include but are not limited to the proposed water lines along Eastlake Parkway and Birch Road. The proposed project shall adequately provide potable and recycled water service without relying on any proposed water construction phasing by other developments. Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures will lessen the cumulative impacts to water resources to less than significant. 90 Impact: Sew~F Development of the proposed Planning Area 12 FC Site in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects would incrementally add to the need for additional sewage disposal systems in the region (EIR, Subchapter 6.1, page 6-10). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development of the proposed Planning Area 12 FC Site would incrementally add to the need for additional sewage facilities in the region. However, potentially significant cumulative impacts to the region's infrastructure would be mitigated through improvements to existing facilities and extension of existing facilities to service projects throughou[ the region. These improvements include the Salt Creek I Interceptor Sewer and the Wolf Creek Interceptor Sewer. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are required for the development of the Planning Area 12- FC SPA and Tentative Map (TM) area: 5.12-11 Prior to the recordation of the first Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that the Poggi Canyon Interceptor has adequate capacity in the interim to handle projected sewage flows for the entire SPA. 5.12-12 Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP. 5.12-13 The project shall be responsible for constructing all sewer improvements necessary to serve the project, which include but are not limited to the proposed sewer lines along Birch Road east and west of SR 125 and La Media Road to connect to the existing Poggi Canyon Sewer. The proposed project shall adequately provide sewer service without relying upon any proposed sewer construction phasing by other developments. 91 _ The developer shall also unden,a-ite the cost of all studies and reports needed to support the addition of sewer flows to existing lines. Significance After Mitigation: Site improvements would reduce the project-specific impacts of the development of the Planning Area 12 FC site, and the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would not be significant. Impact: Solid Waste A substantial increase in the generation of solid waste would occur with the implementation of the FC site. The cumulative impact has the potential to be significant (EIR, Subchapter 6.1, page 6-10). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Land use buildout in the City of Chula Vista could result in a substantial increase in the generation of solid waste. Capacity of the nearby Otay Landfill is sufficient and the landfill is expected to be in operation through the year 2028 under current waste generation regulations. Cumulative impacts would therefore not be significant through compliance with City and County programs and policies related to solid waste management. These programs and policies include mandatory curbside recycling in the City of Chula Vista, a materials recovery facility, a buyback center, a composting facility, and a household hazardous waste collection facility. As a result, cumulative solid waste impacts are not significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact: Law Enforcement and Fire Protection The Chula Vista Police and Fire Departments do not currently meet the threshold standard for the response times for the City. However, a new facility is planned at Fourth and F Street in the 92 City of Chula Vista to meet law enforcement requirements as population growth in the service area warrants. Also fire stations would be constructed with Villages Two and Nine of the Otay Valley parcel and within Village Thirteen of the Proctor Valley Parcel as population growth in the service area warrants (EIR, Subchapter 6.1, pages 6-10 and 6-11). Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Although this project would not directly bring new residents into the area since there is no permanent residential component, cumulative impacts to police and fire services could be significant in'conjunction with past, present, and anticipated future development in the region. A PFFP has been prepared and would be implemented prior to the time of development. The plan addresses the need for additional 'police and fire services and recommends methods for alleviating service conditions. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are required for the development of the Planning Area 12- FC SPA and Tentative Map (TM) area: 5.12-14 Police service facilities shall be financed or provided in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the FC site. 5.12-15 The City will monitor Police Department responses to emergency calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City. 5.12-16 Fire service facilities shall be financed or provided in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the FC site. 5.12-17 The City will monitor Fire Department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City. 93 Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures will lessen the cumulative impacts to law enforcement and fire services to less than significant. XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will cause some unavoidable 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 unavoidable significant environmental effects. Where, as in this project, significant environmental effects remain, even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the decision makers must 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]; LaurelHills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal. App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hartford (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 projects, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. If project altematives 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 94 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]). Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: "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)(3)). "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 95 CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant econo'dc, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cai.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 demonstrate 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: · Land Use, Planning, and Zoning (direct and cumulative - change in the character of the site fi.om rural open space to an urban use); · Landform Alteration/Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - the existing visual character of open space would be degraded); · Transportation, Circulation, and Access (cumulative - impact to 1-805 freeway segments would be significant); · Air Quality (cumulative - estimated construction emissions of CO, NOx, and VOC would exceed the threshold); · Biological Resources (cumulative - contribution to the loss of foraging areas for raptor species); · Agricultural Resources (cumulative - loss of agricultural grazing land and land suitable for the production of crops). 96 Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed above (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal. App.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426]). As the following discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. 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 where 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. A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Section 15126, subdivision (d)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the "No Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." Under the No Project alternative, the FC site would remain essentially in its existing undeveloped condition. The impacts associated with project implementation and the potentially significant cumulative impacts of proposed and approved developments in the area would not occur under this scenario. The No Project Alternative would nullify impacts to land use, planning, and zoning; landform alteration and aesthetics; transportation, circulation, and access; air quality; noise; paleontological resources; biological resources; agricultural resources; hydrology and drainage; geology and soils; public services and utilities/compliance with City thresholds and standards; and hazards and hazardous materials. However, as part of the City's General Plan and adopted GDP, the Otay Ranch FC SPA Plan Planning Area 12 is an area 97 _ planned for development, and it is likely that similar development would be proposed for the site in the future. Although the No Project alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the proposed project, it would not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Findings: The No Project alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives, including the objective of providing FC space that has been identified in the Otay Ranch GDP since its adoption in 1993. The No Project alternative would not provide for the FC uses anticipated when the Otay Ranch GDP was approved. The No Project alternative would not implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, specifically the Otay Ranch GDP. The No Project alternative would not promote uses between the commercial center and uses in adjacent development areas to balance activities, services, and facilities within Otay Ranch. The City and County would receive much lower long-term revenues in the form of property and sales tax resulting fi.om the non-development of the proposed FC use. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would achieve very few of the objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily preserve the open space and other natural features on the project site, it would amount to a failure to attempt to plan the site for eventual development, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan GDP. Additionally, the No Project alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public services and utilities; to plan for the FC uses anticipated when the Otay Ranch GDP was approved; and to complete the City's cimulation system. The alternative also fails to promote uses between the commercial center and uses in adjacent development areas to balance activities, services, and facilities within Otay Ranch. 98 For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project alternative is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal. App3d at'417; Sequoyah Hills, supa, 23 Cai.App.4th at 715). B. ALTERNATIVE I - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATWE The Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 1) would divide the property into five lots, with all lots used for FC purposes but at a reduced intensity of development. Alternative 1 would consist of 908,000 square feet of retail commemial space, versus the 1,215,000 square feet of retail commercial space under the proposed project, about a 25 pement reduction. Floor area ratio would be 0.20 versus the 0.25 under the proposed project. Under the Reduced Intensity Altemative, it is assumed that commemial development would be of similar character, simply reduced in size from the FC site proposal. Land use, planning, and zoning impacts would be reduced under this alternative from the proposed FC site analysis due to the decrease in site density. However, the entire site would still be built out and the physical impacts associated with grading and construction would still occur. Landform alteration and aesthetic impacts may be less than the proposed project because less grading may be needed to implement a project of a reduced intensity of development. Alternative I could result in a reduction in grading due to the reduction in total square footage allowed on the site under this alternative. However, the entire site would still be built out and the physical impacts associated with grading and construction would still occur, just at a reduced scale. Traffic generated by Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed project because of the reduction in square footage of commemial space that would be available for occupancy. The proposed project would generate 48,600 ADT, while Altemative 1, which is approximately a 25 percent reduction in size, would generate 36,450 vehicle trips per day (LLG 2002). This reduction in ADT would result in fewer impacts to the local and regional circulation system than the proposed project. Air pollutants associated with the construction and operation of the FC site may be less than the proposed project under Alternative 1. Generally, long-term air quality impacts may be reduced due to the redaction in overall square footage of building development. Short-term air quality impacts would be reduced because the construction period would be shortened given the reduced intensity of development. However, the reduction in air quality impacts would be minor in comparison with the proposed project. 99 Shor~-tenn noise impacts associated with the construction of the commercial £acility would be reduced under Alternative 1 because the construction period would be shortened given the reduced intensity of development. However, this reduction would be minor in comparison with the proposed project. Long-term operational noise impacts of Alternative 1 would be similar to the proposed project and would not substantially avoid or lessen noise impacts. Cultural resource impacts would not be significant under Alternative 1 because no cultural resource sites were found on the property. Paleontological resource impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project because subsurface paleontological resources could be exposed during the grading process. These impacts can be mitigated through a construction monitoring and recovery process in the event paleontological resources are discovered during site grading. Biological resource impacts would not be significant under Alternative 1 because the FC site is devoid of native vegetation due to former agricultural use of the site. Impacts to burrowing owl and northern harrier would occur under this alternative and would be significant, similar to the proposed project. Agricultural resource impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. This would continue the trend of loss of agricultural land in this region of San Diego County and the impact would be significant. Hydrology and drainage impacts may be reduced under Alternative 1 assuming a reduction in the amount of grading required. This would result in an overall long-term reduction in the rate and amount of surface runoff, and a reduction in erosion and sedimentation that could occur at the project site compared to the proposed Project. Potential geological impacts to local soils and underlying geology would be reduced from those of the proposed project under Alternative 1, assuming a reduction in the amount of grading required and would not be significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Water and sewer demands under Alternative 1 would be reduced compared to the proposed project. The demand for police and fire services would also be reduced under Alternative 1. The need for new infrastructure and services would be reduced but would not be avoided under this alternative. Alternative 1 would not meet the basic project objectives. Alternative 1 would result in a decrease in significant adverse impacts caused by the project to the issue of transportation, 100 circulation, and access but would not completely avoid impacts. In this respect, Alternative 1 is environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, it is not a feasible alternative and does not meet the basic project objectives as explained below. Alternative 1, the reduced intensity alternative, would be infeasible since the project would not be consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) concerning the intensity of commercial development anticipated. The Otay Ranch GDP anticipates an intensity of commercial development that will generate sufficient sales tax revenue to off-set the costs associated with residential services. The Otay Ranch GDP contains an analysis of revenues generated and cost of services provided within the Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan. It is an objective of the Otay Ranch GDP to maintain a balance between the cost of services provided and revenues generated. In order to generate sufficient revenues to cover the cost of City services provided to residents within Otay Ranch, commercial development must be of a high enough intensity to generate adequate sales tax revenues. The economic modeling performed for the Service/Revenue Plan portion of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan assumes a floor area ratio of 25 percent for the Freeway Commercial project. The reduced intensity alternative (20 percent FAR), would not be consistent with the economic modeling performed for the Otay Ranch project in its entirety, and could result in an imbalance between revenues generated and the costs of services provided. The reduced intensity alternative could result in a long term negative economic impact to the City Of Chula Vista. For these reasons, the City Council concludes that Alternative 1 is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal. App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supa, 23 Cai. App.4th at 715). C. ALTERNATIVE 2 - OFFICE WITH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ALTERNATiVE The Office with Freeway Commercial Alternative (Alternative 2) would divide the property into five lots, with three lots used for FC purposes at a reduced intensity of development, and two lots used for professional and administrative offices. Alternative 2 would consist of a total of 1,135,000 square feet of retail commercial space and professional administrative offices, versus the 1,215,000 square feet of retail commercial space under the proposed project. Alternative 2 would allow 490,000 square feet of retail commercial uses and 645,000 square feet of professional administrative office space for the remainder of the site. All uses would have a floor area ratio of 0.25 under this alternative. It is assumed that commercial development and professional office space would be of similar character to the FC site proposal under Alternative 2. 10l _ Alternative 2 would continue the conversion of agricultural land uses to urban uses, and this would be an unavoidable impact of the project that could not be fully mitigated. Landform alteration and aesthetic impacts would be similar to the proposed project because approximately the same amount of grading would be needed to implement a project of about the same size of development. Traffic generated by Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project because different uses would occur at the project site. The proposed project would generate 48,600 ADT, while Alternative 2, which is similar in size, would generate 33,260 vehicle trips per day (LLG 2002). This reduction in ADT would result in fewer impacts to the local and regional circulation system than the project as proposed. Air pollutants associated with the construction and operation of the FC site would be similar to the proposed project under Alternative 2 due to similar square footage of development. Short- term air quality impacts would not be reduced because grading of the site and construction of buildings would be required regardless of alternative. Short-term noise impacts associated with the construction of the commercial facility would be similar under Alternative 2 because the construction period would be about the same length of time. Long-term operational noise impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would not substantially avoid or lessen noise impacts. Cultural resource impacts would not be significant under Alternative 2 because no cultural resource sites were found on the property. Paleontological resource impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project because subsurface paleontological resoumes could be exposed during the grading process. These impacts can be mitigated through a construction monitoring and recovery process in the event paleontological resources are discovered during site grading. Biological resource impacts would not be significant under Alternative 2 because the FC site is devoid of native vegetation due to continuing agricultural use of the site. Impacts to burrowing owl and northem harrier would occur under this alternative and would be significant, similar to the proposed project. Agricultural resource impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. This would continue the trend of loss of agricultural land in this region of San Diego County and the impact would be significant. 102 Hydrology and drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed project under Alternative 2. Impacts would be mitigated through preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and use of BMPs as necessary during and after the grading and construction process. Potential geological impacts to local soils and underlying geology under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed project and would not be significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Water and sewer demands under Alternative 2 would be similar compared to the proposed project. The demand for police and fire services would also be similar under Alternative 2. The need for new infrastructure and services would be similar but would not be avoided under this alternative. Alternative 2 would not meet the basic project objectives. Alternative 2 would not avoid significant adverse impacts caused by the project to the issue of transportation, circulation, and access. This alternative is not feasible because it does not meet the basic project objectives as explained below. Alternative 2 would not meet the basic project objective of providing sufficient freeway commemial space that was identified in the Otay Ranch GDP and SRP when it was adopted in 1993. Additionally, this alternative would not implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch GDP as it was originally approved. This alternative would not promote uses between the commercial center and uses in adjacent areas because insufficient commercial space would be provided that is less than anticipated under the approved GDP. Alternative 2 would provide FC space, but at a decreased level since less square footage of retail commercial space would be available. For these reasons, the City Council concludes that Alternative 2 is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal. App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supa, 23 Cai.App.4th at 715). 103 STATEIVIENT OF OVERIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PLANNING AREA 12-FC SITE SPA PLAN EIR The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts in the following areas, described in detail in these Findings of Fact: · Land Use, Planning, and Zoning · Landform/Aesthetics · Transportation, Circulation, and Access · Air Quality · Biological Resources · Agricultural Resources 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 these 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 these examinations, the City has determined that none of the alternatives (1) meets project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the proposed project. As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 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 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 fi.om taking certain action with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the 104 decision maker has reconmaended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, 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, El[Rs 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 proposed project would have the following substantial, social, environmental, and economical benefits. Any one of the masons 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 V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION Development of the FC site would result in the conveyance of land into the Otay Ranch open space preserve. The RMP has established performance standards for achieving an 11,375-acre Otay Ranch open space preserve. Compliance relies on progressive acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the designated Otay Ranch preserve areas with each development approval. Implementation of the FC site would have an indirect, long-term, potentially significant impact related to biological resoUrces unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and concurrently with development. Conditions placed on the project will require that open space be conveyed prior to approval of future final maps in accordance with the RMP at a rate of 1.188 acres for each acre of development related to the FC SPA. A total of 135 acres will be required to be conveyed based on the current Conceptual SPA Plan. The conveyance requirement is calculated based on the 133-acre project site, less common areas and roads, leaving 114 acres to which the 1.188 per acre multiplier is applied. 105 The currently approved RMP conveyance area consists of approximately 3,400 acres within the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego jurisdictions. To date, the City and County of San Diego have accepted grant deeds, Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs) and/or are currently in the process of acquisition on approximately 2,206 acres of preserve land within the approved conveyance area. As final maps are processed for the FC Site, applicants will be required to convey land in accordance with the approved conveyance plan. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT MINIMIZE THE DEVELOPMENT ON AIR QUALITY AND CONGESTION ADVERSE IMPACTS OF The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego Air Basin. Most of this pollution is attributable to motor vehicles. The FC site and the village concept of the Otay Ranch GDP are designed to minimize automobile trip length and thereby reduce pollutant contributions to regional air quality that would otherwise result if commercial development were provided in a scattered pattern by the development of a centralized commemial area in the Otay Ranch GDP. The FC site location adjacent to the Villages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11, and future Villages 7, 8, and the University Site would provide commercial development proximate to these developments. The FC Site would serve as a regional commercial center for use by all Otay Ranch villages, as well as for users in the adjacent Eastlake community and the Eastern Territories Planning Area in the City of Chula Vista. As a mixed-use development, centralization of the FC site in the Otay Ranch GDP would promote linkage of trips, reduce trip length, and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking, and use of transit. The project site also creates a multi-modal transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single-passenger vehicle trips by providing right-of-way, a station site, and parking for future light-rail transit. Designed to encourage walking, biking, use of transit, and reduced reliance on automobiles, the remainder of the Otay Ranch GDP clusters high-density, high-intensity development in villages near transit and light rail terminals, jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers close by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes. COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL PLANNING The Otay Ranch GDP and the FC site SPA Plan provide the opportunity to comprehensively plan development that meets the region's needs for commercial, jobs, infrastructure, and environmental preservation. These benefits are made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay Ranch GDP includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that are not typically undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process 106 undertaken for the GDP involved long-range interjurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County. The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the GDP include the following: Comprehensive consideration of the GDP cumulative effects. · Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure, and public service planning. · Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities. The GDP includes a provision for designating land for regional purpose facilities, including the FC site, which would serve as a regional commercial center for the area. Implementation of projects through the designation of land for regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide better opportunities for users of these facilities than is currently available. FISCAL BENEFIT The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch GDP and included in the Otay Ranch Service Revenue Plan, concluded that, at buildout, the GDP would have a net positive impact on both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout there will be short-term periods in which the costs to service Otay Ranch exceed revenues, the GDP includes a reserve fund program, which p[otects the City and County by correcting any operation deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal shortfall. Financing of the reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the responsibility of the applicant. The project will provide significant communitywide commercial facilities. As the plan is implemented, it will be responsible for constructing public facilities and infi'astmcture to serve the project and incidentally the subregion. These facilities include: Establishment of a subregional freeway~oriented commercial center that also reserves a public transit right-of-way, station site, and park-and-ride facility for extension of the San Diego Trolley or other regional public transit system to reduce reliance on the automobile, to access uses within the center and destinations served by the transit system. · Provide funds for Public Services as required by the PFFP. 107 · Improvements to the regional and local circulation system, water supply system, sewer system, and drainage system through implementation of the project. The project would also generate new temporary construction-related jobs that would enhance the economic base of the region. For these reasons, on balance the City Council finds there are economic, social, and other considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable effects are considered acceptable. 108 OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMIVIERcIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM In~oduc~on This Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures am identified and additional conditions are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and gene~:ating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following: Monitoring team qualifications · Specific monitoring activities Reporting system Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures The proposed project is the adoption of a SPA Plan for the Freeway Commercial port/on of Planning Area 12 of the 'Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). It includes an evaluation of one Conceptual Tentative Map on the southern portion of the site. The Otay Ranch GDP defines the Freeway Commemial site as a regional use that requires an automobile orientation near regional transportation systems, with expected uses that would include thoroughfare commemial, visitor commercial, and regionally oriented retail commercial uses. The proposed Freeway Commercial SPA Plan would allow for the development of a total of 1,215,000 square feet of commercial uses on the 132.9-acre parcel. The project site also allows for a light rail alignment or other transit way and a station site to be reserved for the San Diego Trolley, with a park-and-ride component for commuter parking in the commereial area. The project site also includes room for street rights-of-way and a 75' enhancement buffer to be used for landscaping along the exterior boundaries of the project. The EI1L incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR include land use, planning, and zoning, landform alteration and aesthetics, transportation, circulation, and access, air quality, noise, cultural resources, paleontological resources, biological resources, agricultural Page I resources, hydrology and drainage, geology and soils, public services and utilities/compliance with City Thresholds and Standards Policy, and hazards and hazardous materials. 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 include all of the above issues. No mitigation is required for the issue of cultural resources because no cultural resources were identified on the project site. Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Freeway Commercial SPA Plan therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above. Mitigation Monitorin~ Team A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be accomplished by Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and the MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities: · interpersonal, decision~making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in working under trying field circumstances; · Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special features found in the project area; Knowledge of the types of envirorm~ental impacts associated with construction of cost- effective mitigation options; and · Excellent communication skills. The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following: · Implement and manage the monitoring program; Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring; · Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final construction monitoring; · Act as a liaison between the City of Chula Vista and the applicant's contractors; Page 2 Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs and ESs in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project reqfftrernents, construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort; Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit conditions; · Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation or proposed additional mitigation; · Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project enviwnmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions, and; · Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and personnel responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance. The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in performing the quality control tractions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and functions are to: Maintain a working knowledge of the Freeway Commercial permit conditions, contract documents, construction schedules, and any special mitigation requirements for his or her assigned construction area; · Assist the MM and the applicant's construction contractors in coordinating with City of Chula Vista compliance activities; · Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit conditions, and; · Provide fi'equent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist the MM as necessary in preparing status reports. The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project implement.ation and to provide direction for mitigation. Pro~-am Procedural Guidelines Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to initiate the monitoring program and to establish the responsibility and authority of the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects. Page 3 An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted, and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and the construction crew supervisor. The MM would distribute to each Environmental Monitor and Environmental Specialist a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time flame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented. In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MM following the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive constmction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major accomplislunents of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each EM or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the MM. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status report, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback .is essential for the' City of Chula Vista to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project. Actions in Case of Noncompliance There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted conditions of approval: · Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment; · Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or task delay, and; · Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay. In each case, the MM would notify the applicant's contractor and the City of Chula Vista of the noncompliance, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily basis. Page 4 There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Otay Ra0ch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors, the City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will further refine the mitigation measures. Page 5 X X X X X X x x X X X X X x x x E X X X X ~ X X X X X ~ X X X X X X X c