HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2024-228Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO
Office of the City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Fee Exempt -Gov't Code 6103
DOC# 2025-0021401
111111111111111 1 I III 111111111111111 IIII III 1 I 1111111 III III
Jan 28, 2025 08:29 AM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
JORDAN Z. MARKS,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER
FEES: $0.00 (SB2 Atkins: $0.00)
PAGES: 75
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-228
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-228
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT EIR22-0001 FOR THE NAKANO PROJECT;
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NAKANO PROJECT (MPA21-
0016); ADOPTING THE NAKANO SPECIFIC PLAN (MPA21-
0017); APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE NAKANO
PROJECT (PCS21-0001); APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND ANNEXATION
AGREEMENT FOR THE NAKANO PROJECT; AND
SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF THE
NAKANO PROJECT SITE FROM THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA'S JURISDICTION INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
ACTIONS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is, for the purpose of
general description, the 23.77 acres located south of the Otay River, north of Dennery Road, east
of Interstate 805 ("1-805"), and west of the RiverEdge Terrace residential subdivision in the City
of San Diego ("Nakano Property" or "Project Site") (APN: 624-071-02); and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is bounded on the east, south, and west by the City of San
Diego and can only be accessed via Dennery Road; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site does not have direct access or connections to the City of Chula
Vista ("City") utilities, services and/or facilities, and, if developed, would need to be served by the
City of San Diego ("San Diego"); and
WHEREAS, Tri Pointe Homes ("Applicant" or "Property Owner") wishes to develop the
Nakano Property for residential use with infrastructure and public services provided by San Diego,
thus requiring reorganization of the Project Site from the City into San Diego; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, a duly verified application was filed with the City's
Development Services Department by the Applicant requesting approval of amendments to the
Chula Vista General Plan (MPA21-0016) changing the land use designation of the Project Site
from Open Space (OS) to Medium Residential (RM), adoption of the Nakano Specific Plan
(MPA21-0017), and approval of a Tentative Map for the Nakano Project (PCS21-0001)
("Proj ect"); and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, San Diego and the City entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding ("MOU") acknowledging that both have substantial claims to be the Lead
Agency in the annexation process, that the City would serve as the Lead Agency since the Nakano
Specific Plan will be processed within its jurisdiction, and San Diego would serve as a Responsible
Agency; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 2
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and has determined that the
Project may have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, requires the preparation
of Environmental Impact Report ('EW) EI1,22-0001; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR for the Project was issued for public review on April 26, 2024, and
was processed through the State Clearinghouse and issued clearinghouse number 2022060260; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the comments received on the Draft EIR and the
requirements of CEQA, a Final EIR was prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, EIR22-0001 incorporates all comments and recommendations received on the
Draft EIR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR,
and the City's responses to all "significant environmental points" raised by public and agency
comments submitted during the review and consultation process, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132; and
WHEREAS, revisions to EI1,22-0001 did not result in modifications to conclusions
regarding the significance of impacts or the addition of significant new information that would
require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing
before the Planning Commission, 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 property at least ten (10) days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution
recommending to the City Council that it certify EIR22-0001 and approve the Project, including
amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan for the Project, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Map
(PCS21-0001) for the Project, a Property Tax Exchange Agreement, an Annexation Agreement,
and support for the reorganization of the Nakano Property from the jurisdiction of the City of
Chula Vista into the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for
the Project, the Planning Commission hearing on the Project was held at the time and place as
advertised in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and the Planning Commission voted
4-1 to recommend to the City Council approval of the subject actions, and the hearing was
thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on the Project held on October 9, 2024, and the Minutes and Resolution
resulting therefrom are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 3
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing before the City Council on
the Project, 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 property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for
the Project, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City
Council in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, to hear public testimony with regard
to the same, and the proceedings and any documents submitted to the City Council as the decision -
makers shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
after hearing public testimony and staffs presentation and after reviewing all the subject
documents, does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
I. CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council considered EIR22-
0001 and associated documents for the Project and hereby adopts the proceedings and all
evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Project
and EIR22-0001 held on October 9, 2024, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6 and that EIR22-0001 is prepared in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines
(California Code Regs. Title 14 § 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures
of the City.
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent review and judgment, therefore,
certifies EIR22-0001 and all associated documents specific in Section III of this
Resolution, copies of which are incorporated herein by this reference and on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
II. EIR CONTENTS
That EIR22-0001 consists of the following:
A. Final Environmental Impact Report EIR22-0001, SCH #2022060260.
B. Appendices (A through U) to EIR22-0001.
C. Technical studies and information incorporated in the responses to comments.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in
full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of
Fact attached to this Resolution.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in EI13,22-0001 for the Nakano Project and in the
Findings of Fact and MMRP for this Project, the City Council hereby finds, pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, that
the mitigation measures described in the above -referenced documents are feasible.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As is also noted in the above -referenced environmental documents, one or more
alternatives to the Project which were identified as potentially feasible in the EIR were
found not to be feasible.
D. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council herby adopts
the Nakano Project MMRP as set forth in EIR22-0001. The City Council hereby finds
that the MMRP is designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the Applicant
and any other responsible parties implement the Project components and comply with
the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the MMRP.
E. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives,
certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the
Project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council hereby issues,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in the form set forth, a copy of which is filed with the City Clerk's
office, identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render
the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 5
IV. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Chula Vista General Plan, as
amended, is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following
amendments thereof by this Resolution as discussed and determined in the Nakano General
Plan Amendment Justification Report for the Project (Appendix B to the Nakano Specific
Plan, a copy of which is filed with the City Clerk's office.
V. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the Chula Vista General Plan amendments, specifically
changing the land use designation of the Project Site from Open Space ("OS") to Medium
Residential ("RM"), are hereby approved and adopted in substantially the form presented
to the City Council and incorporated herein and on file with the office of the City Clerk.
VI. NAKANO SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
A. That the Nakano Specific Plan is in conformance with the City's 2005 General Plan
based on the following:
The proposed Nakano Specific Plan is in conformance with and implements the 2005
Chula Vista General Plan. The Nakano Specific Plan is based on the vision and
objectives of the General Plan for the East Area Plan section of the General Plan. The
General Plan largely focuses on the revitalization and redevelopment of the western
portion of Chula Vista. Section 10.0 of the Land Use and Transportation Element of
the General Plan outlines the vision for the East Area Plan which is further subdivided
into six subareas. The Project Site is located in the East Main Street subarea section of
the East Area Plan. Section 10.4.4 of the General Plan sets forth the objectives and
policies to implement the General Plan's vision. The General Plan's vision for the East
Main Street subarea focuses mostly on the car dealerships along Main Street east of I-
805 and the entertainment facilities, namely the amphitheater and water park, and the
desire to keep the commercial activities separate from the residential areas to avoid a
conflict of land usage. Given the Nakano Property is adjacent to existing residential
uses located in San Diego, the Nakano Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to the
General Plan's vision and serves as an implementing regulatory document serving as
the primary source for policies, guidelines, and regulations that implement the
community's vision for the Nakano Property.
Based on the above the City Council does hereby find that the proposed Nakano
Specific Plan is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and that the public necessity
conveniences general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support its
approval and implementation.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 6
B. That the Nakano Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with the CVMC and
the California Government Code provision governing specific plans based on the
following findings of fact:
Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.07 (Specific Plans) and the California
Government Code Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 3 Article 8 Sections 65450 through 65457
establish the statutory authority for specific plans. As provided in CVMC Chapter
19.07, specific plans may be implemented through the adoption of standard zoning
ordinances and the planned community zone as provided in Title 19 or by plan
effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan. The
method of implementing an individual specific plan shall be established and expressed
by its adopting resolution or ordinance.
The Nakano Specific Plan is being adopted by this Resolution. All zoning related
portions of the Nakano Specific Plan (i.e. land use matrix, permitted uses, and
development regulations) are prepared to serve as regulatory provisions and supersede
other regulations and ordinances of the City for the control of land use and development
within the Nakano Specific Plan boundaries. The Nakano Specific Plan has been
prepared as an implementing document for future land uses, public improvements and
programs as provided for in the 2005 General Plan. The new zoning regulations
proposed in the Nakano Specific Plan would replace existing CVMC zoning
classifications for the Project Site and introduce residential uses which would be
permitted in the East Main Street subarea, consistent with the 2005 General Plan.
The City Council does hereby find that the Nakano Specific Plan has been prepared
pursuant to the authority granted in CVMC Chapter 19.07 (Specific Plans) and the
California Government Code Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 3 Article 8 Sections 65450
through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements identified in Government Code
Section 65451.
C. That a financing program has been prepared which identifies the methods of funding
for those facilities and services and ensures that the funds are spent on said facilities
pursuant to the phasing schedule based on the following findings of fact:
The Chula Vista General Plan 2005 update focused on the revitalization and
redevelopment of western Chula Vista. New growth is planned around smart growth
principles such as industrial/commercial business parks that concentrate infill and
redevelopment to select focus areas and corridors to protect stable single-family
neighborhoods, better utilize land resources, reduce environmental impacts and make
more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The Chula Vista General Plan calls for the
preparation and adoption of specific plans to carry out the vision of the General Plan in
an organized and orderly fashion. The Nakano Specific Plan implements the policies
and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan to direct a portion of the residential
growth expected to occur in the City over the next few years to the East Main Street
subarea by providing zone changes, development regulations and design guidelines to
accommodate the anticipated future growth on the Project Site. The Nakano Specific
Plan includes an assessment of the proposed distribution location and extent and
intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water,
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 7
drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities that would be
located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses
described in the plan. In addition, the Nakano Specific Plan and the Tentative Map
(PCS21-0001) for the Project Site includes a program of implementation measures
including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures
necessary to carry out the plan.
Specifically, Chapter 5 of the Nakano Specific Plan and EIR22-0001, including the
MMRP, provide the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur
commensurate with subsequent development. As described in the Nakano Specific
Plan, Tentative Map (PCS21-0001) and EIR, subsequent new development would be
required to provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with their
impact.
VII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS AND APPROVAL
A. Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS21-0001) for the Project is approved and adopted,
subject to the conditions stated herein. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5
of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map
(PCS21-0001), as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the elements of the City's
General Plan, based on the following:
Land Use and Circulation
The proposed Project is adjacent to existing San Diego communities that provide a
variety of residential, commercial, parks, open space, and school uses, as well as
public and private improvements to serve the community. The proposed Project is
consistent with the policies and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan related
to land use and circulation.
2. Economic Development
The Nakano Project is designed to help achieve the Chula Vista General Plan's
objectives that seek to promote a variety of job and housing opportunities to
improve the City's jobs/housing balance, provide a diverse economic base, and
encourage the growth of small businesses. The proposed Project is consistent with
those objectives.
3. Public Facilities and Services
Sewer
Sewer capacity needs are conditioned under this Resolution.
Parks
Parks, recreation, and open space obligations are conditioned under this Resolution
and other regulatory documents for this Project. Construction of any applicable
park, recreation and open space identified in this Resolution are the responsibility
of the Applicant.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 8
4. Housing
The Nakano Specific Plan is consistent with the Housing Element of the City's
General Plan by providing for high-quality multifamily residential opportunities in
the southeastern portion of the City.
Environmental
EIR22-0001 addressed the goals and policies of the Environmental Element of the
Chula Vista General Plan and found development of this site to be consistent with
those goals and policies. The proposed Project may have a significant effect on the
environment. Accordingly, the City Council, in the exercise of its independent
review and judgment, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
certifies the Project EIR (EIR22-0001) and associated MMRP, which are all
incorporated herein by this reference and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the site's
configuration, orientation, and topography allow for optimal lot siting to maximize
natural and passive heating and cooling. The project site's development will undergo
site plan and architectural review to ensure the fullest utilization of these opportunities.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region
and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the
City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (a -g) of the Subdivision Map Act, the
proposed Project meets the following requirements:
The proposed Project is consistent with applicable Chula Vista General Plan
provisions as specified in Section 65451 because the Nakano Specific Plan is
consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan's land use designations for the East
Plan Area.
2. Project design or improvement is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan land
use designations, as amended, and intended circulation for the East Area Plan.
3. The Project Site is suitable for the proposed density of development.
4. The Project Site is physically suitable for the type of development. The proposed
Project is surrounded by existing and entitled residential communities to the east
and southeast, commercial development to the south, I-805 freeway to the west,
and the Otay Valley Regional Park ("OVRP") open space to the north and will have
available access and infrastructure to serve the proposed Project.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 9
The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems because the proposed Project has been designed to have
suitable separation between structures and parcels and is able to be served by fire
and emergency services.
6. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property, within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map
if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that
these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established
by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted
to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements
for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed
Project's roadways and utilities are within the Project and are not in conflict with
existing easements.
E. The Project Site is physically suited for development and will be developed in
conformance with the Nakano Specific Plan and EI1,22-0001, its MMRP and
Addendums, which ensure that the Project Site is developed in a manner consistent
with the standards established by the City for a planned community.
F. The conditions herein imposed on the proposed Project are approximately proportional
both in nature and extent to the impacts created by the Project, based upon the City's
police powers and evidence provided by the record of the proceedings of EIR22-0001.
VIII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following shall be implemented and enforced by the City unless the proposed Project
is annexed into the jurisdiction of San Diego. Additional requirements may be imposed
resulting from new standards or regulations established at the time of development and/or
application submittal. If the proposed Project is annexed into and developed within San
Diego, the Applicant shall comply with all conditions, findings, resolutions, and ordinances
adopted by San Diego as part of the San Diego Project Entitlements (as defined by the
Annexation Agreement).
Unless otherwise specified, the following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services or their designee prior to issuance of building permits:
Planning
Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s), the applicant shall obtain a Service Plan
Agreement from San Diego to allow the Project to be developed in the City of Chula
Vista.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 10
2. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit and/or prior to approval of the first final
map, an out -of -service agreement shall be executed with the Local Agency Formation
Commission for San Diego County ("LAFCO") for the Project's additional wastewater
generation contributing to the City's existing Metro Flow share and allocation. Sewer
shall be served by the City Wastewater Department through connections to San Diego's
Otay Valley Trunk Sewer.
3. Where Alternative Compliance is implemented, the Applicant shall provide a six-foot
radiant heat wall consisting of two feet of CMU block and four feet of fire -rated glass
or six feet of CMU block. All habitable structures shall be fire -rated with upgraded
opening protection of dual-glazed/dual-tempered windowpanes including a 10 -foot
perpendicular return along the adjacent wall faces of the structures, per the note on
Sheet 17 of the Fuel Modification Plan.
4. Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s), the Applicant shall obtain a right-of-way
permit for grading that encroaches on property owned by the City. Immediately
following the completion of grading within the encroachment area, the Applicant shall
revegetate the native habitat that was removed for such activity.
5. Prior to the final inspection for the first residential building permit (exclusive of model
homes), the Applicant shall construct the proposed trails and landscape improvements
in accordance with the Otay Valley Regional Park Design Guidelines and provide
public access to the trails.
Land Development
6. The Project and Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements and guidelines
of the CVMC, the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, the Chula Vista Design and
Construction Standards, the Development Storm Water Manual for Development and
Redevelopment Projects, the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance (No. 1797), and the
Subdivision Map Act.
7. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain resource agency
permits from applicable agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (CWA Section 404 Permit), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement), and a Regional Water Quality
Control Board (CWA Section 401 Certification).
8. Prior to approval of a grading plan and issuance of a grading permit that includes offsite
grading, the Applicant shall provide the City with Letters of Permission from affected
property owners.
9. The on-site sewer and storm drain systems shall be private. All sewer laterals and storm
drains shall be privately maintained from each building unit to the City -maintained
public facilities.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 11
10. Separate permits for other public utilities (gas, electric, water, cable, telephone) shall
be required as necessary.
11. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and accessible parking shall be
designed to meet the City Design Standards, Americans with Disabilities Act standards,
and California Building Code Title 24 standards as applicable.
12. All driveways shall conform to the City's sight distance requirements in accordance
with CVMC Section 12.12.120 and Chula Vista Standard Drawing RWY-05 (Sight
Distance Requirements). Neither landscaping, street furniture, nor signs shall obstruct
the visibility of drivers at street intersections or driveways.
13. Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment
permit for any private facilities, temporary or permanent, within the public right-of-
way or a City easement.
14. Prior to issuance of any building permit within the Project, the Applicant shall provide
the City with proof of pad certification.
15. Areas affected by the proposed remedial grading shall be restored to pre -project
conditions/elevations and confirmed with an as -built survey after the grading has
occurred.
16. Prior to approval of the first final map or issuance of the first building permit,
whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide will -serve letters from San Diego
addressing water and sewer service.
17. Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall provide a letter from San
Diego allowing vehicular access to Dennery Road and accepting the increase in traffic
volumes generated from the Project.
18. Private Street "A" shall be designed to meet public street standards based on the
average daily trips ("ADT") generated, except that a minimum centerline radius of 170
feet shall be utilized.
19. The Applicant shall provide a 40 -foot -wide access easement to the City over portions
of Private Street "A" from Dennery Road to the Project boundary. A termination clause
shall be included in the easement deed to self -extinguish if/when the Project is annexed
into San Diego.
20. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Letter of
Permission for any proposed grading within the SDG&E easement.
21. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain approval from San Diego
for the relocation of its existing sewer mains and facilities affected by the Project.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 12
22. Prior to approval of a final map, the existing San Diego sewer easement shall be
vacated.
23. The Applicant shall obtain grading and right-of-way permits from San Diego for any
offsite work associated with Private Street "A" and Dennery Road.
24. Prior to approval of a final map, the Applicant shall provide offsite private easements
for access, utility, and storm water maintenance.
25. Prior to approval of a final map, all streets within the Project shall be labeled as private
streets.
26. The Project shall include a top -of -slope vehicle barrier for Access Road and Private
Street "A" where large downslope conditions are proposed.
27. Prior to issuance of grading, construction, and/or building permits, the Applicant shall
document compliance with the requirements pertaining to storm water best
management practices ("BMP") on applicable plans. The Applicant shall develop and
implement post -construction BMPs in accordance with the most recent regulations at
the time of grading, construction and building permit issuance.
28. The Project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan is considered conceptually
complete and provides adequate information on the project BMP's objectives to move
forward with construction drawings. Additional requirements may be imposed at the
time of development and/or when a Land Development permit application is submitted,
depending upon the final plans submitted for review and approval. Prior to approval of
the grading plans, the Applicant shall submit a final Storm Water Quality Management
Plan based on the latest BMP Design Manual to the City for review and approval.
29. The Project's Drainage Report is considered conceptually complete and provides
adequate information on the project's drainage objectives to move forward with
construction drawings. Additional requirements may be imposed at the time of
development and/or when a Land Development permit application is submitted,
depending upon the final plans submitted for review and approval. Prior to approval of
the grading plans, the Applicant shall submit a final Drainage Report based on the latest
requirements set forth in the City's Subdivision Manual for review and approval.
30. Prior to issuance of the first of the grading, construction, or building permit(s), the
Applicant shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance
Agreement with the City for the perpetual maintenance and funding of all post -
construction permanent BMP facilities within the Project to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 13
31. The Applicant shall submit a detailed operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for all
permanent BMPs as required by the City to preserve the intended pollution control
and/or flow control performance of the BMP(s). Upon completion of the BMPs/prof ect,
the Applicant shall update/finalize the plan to reflect constructed structural BMPs with
as -built plans and baseline photos.
32. The Applicant shall provide a letter of approval from San Diego for the Project's
proposed direct connection to the existing 27 -inch San Diego Otay Valley Trunk Sewer
and for the relocation of a portion of said pipe.
33. The Applicant shall meet San Diego's requirements regarding the payment of fees and
construction costs related to the connection to San Diego's sewer main.
34. If it is determined that a sewage metering station is needed for the Project, the Applicant
shall pay all direct and incidental costs for the installation and maintenance of the
sewage metering station at the proposed connection to San Diego's sewer main.
35. The Applicant shall agree not to protest formation of or inclusion in a maintenance
district or zone for the maintenance of landscape medians, scenic corridors along
streets, and/or public parks within or adjacent to the Project.
36. As a safety measure, prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall
construct speed bumps throughout the Project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
37. With the approval of any grading and public or private improvement plan, the
Applicant shall upload digital files in a format such as AutoCAD DWG or DXF
(AutoCAD version 2000 or above), ESRI GIS shapefile, or personal geodatabase
(ArcGIS version 9.0 or above) using the city's digital submittal file upload website:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/goto/GIS. (The data upload site only accepts zip -formatted
files.)
38. If it is determined that the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego must enter into an
agreement for the provision of sewer service to the Project, the agreement shall be
executed prior to approval of the improvement plans for the Project.
Housing
39. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall execute an affordable
housing agreement for the Project compliant with the City's inclusionary requirements
at the time of execution of the regulatory agreement.
Transportation
40. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with San Diego to complete the following
improvements and provide the fair share contribution(s) specified in the Project's Local
Mobility Analysis ("LMA") and in accordance with San Diego requirements.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 14
Demonstration of compliance with these conditions shall be provided to the City prior
to issuance of any building permit(s) unless indicated otherwise.
a. The Applicant shall permit and bond the removal and replacement of the existing
driveway on Dennery Road with full -height curb, gutter, and non-contiguous
sidewalk and construct a new 25 -foot -wide driveway as shown on Exhibit `A' on
file in the Office of the City Clerk, per current San Diego standards, satisfactory to
San Diego's Engineer. All improvements shall be completed and operational prior
to final inspection for the first building permit.
b. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Owner/Permittee shall assure by
permit and bond with San Diego completion of the improvements specified in the
Local Mobility Analysis and shall provide a fair share contribution of 2.5 percent
to San Diego towards the bridge widening as part of the Palm Ave -Interstate 805
Interchange / 500869 Project within San Diego, satisfactory to San Diego's City
Engineer.
c. At the intersection of Palm Avenue/Dennery Road, the Applicant shall permit and
bond the following per San Diego standards, satisfactory to San Diego's City
Engineer. All improvements shall be completed and operational prior to final
inspection for the first building permit:
1) Installation of pedestrian countdown signal heads and installation of backplates
with retroreflective borders on all approaches via a traffic signal modification
plan;
2) Extension of the exclusive eastbound dual left turn lanes with 280 feet of
storage per lane by an additional 85 feet of storage per lane with appropriate
taper to provide a total storage length of 365 feet per lane via improvement
plans and signing and striping plans;
3) Extension of the exclusive southbound right turn lane with 95 feet of storage by
an additional 50 feet of storage with appropriate taper to provide a total storage
length of 145 feet via improvement plans and signing and striping plans; and
4) Installation of audible countdown pedestrian heads for each pedestrian phase
and upgrading the traffic controller to a 2070 controller including software
update and communications equipment.
d. At the intersection of Dennery Road/Red Fin Lane, the Applicant shall permit and
bond the following per San Diego standards, satisfactory to San Diego's City
Engineer. All improvements shall be completed and operational prior to final
inspection for the first building permit:
1) Extension of the exclusive eastbound left turn lane with 190 feet of storage by
an additional 50 feet to provide a total storage length of 240 feet via
improvement plans and signing and striping plans; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 15
2) Upgrade of the existing bicycle loop detectors along Dennery Road and install
Type E Modified front loops on all approaches via a traffic signal modification
plan.
e. The Applicant shall record an access easement in favor of all affected parcels within
the Project Site, satisfactory to the City's City Engineer. All improvements shall be
completed and operational prior to final inspection for the first building permit.
f. The Applicant shall pay the Active Transportation In Lieu fee to San Diego.
g. The Applicant shall construct a secondary emergency -only access, as shown on
Tentative Map (PCS21-0001), to the satisfaction of the City's City Engineer and
Fire Marshal. All improvements shall be completed and operational prior to final
inspection for the first building permit.
Fire
41. The Project shall comply with the CVMC, California Fire Code, National Fire
Protection Association Standards, and Chula Vista Fire Department's Fire Safety
Engineering Standard Details and Requirements in effect at the time of permit
application and plan submittal.
42. The Project shall comply with the approved Fire Protection Plan and all provisions set
forth within the Fire Protection Plan.
Landscabe Architecture
43. No wall footings nor utilities shall be placed within the parkway of Private Street "A"
in locations that would inhibit the ability to plant street trees at approximately equal
spacing as depicted in the approved Landscape Concept Plan. This shall be documented
on the Project's grading and public improvement plans.
44. Prior to the second submittal of the building permit set, the Applicant shall submit a
complete set of landscape improvement plans for review and approval by the Director
of Development Services or their designee. Said plans shall conform to the following
City documents including but not limited to:
a. Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (LWCO), CVMC Chapter 20.12
b. City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual
c. City of Chula Vista Shade Tree Policy (576-19)
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 16
45. Prior to the final building inspection, in accordance with CVMC Chapter 17. 10, as
amended by City Council Ordinance Nos. 2010-3163 and 2014-3324, the Property
Owner shall pay the generated Parkland Acquisition and Development ("PAD") fees
for new dwelling units, in accordance with the City's current Master Fee Schedule.
46. Prior to the final building inspection, the Property Owner shall have installed landscape
improvements and have had said improvements inspected by City staff, per the
approved landscape improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services or their designee.
Environmental Services
47. The Project shall comply with the City Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual
(haps:Ilwww.chulavistaca.gov/homelshowdocument?id=5211) as well as CVMC
Section 19.58.340, CVMC Chapter 8.24, and CVMC Chapter 8.25 for food
waste/organics diversion, recycling, and trash requirements.
Facilities Financi
48. If LAFCO does not approve annexation into San Diego, the Planned Facilities
Financing Program ("PFFP") shall be revised to determine whether there are impacts
to City facilities or public services.
IX. ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
The City Council hereby approves the Annexation Agreement among the City, San Diego,
and the Applicant for the Nakano Property (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's
office), finding it consistent with the California Government Code, adopted City policies,
and the Chula Vista General Plan.
X. TAX SHARING AGREEMENT
The City Council hereby approves the Tax Sharing Agreement among the City and San
Diego for the Nakano Property (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office),
finding it consistent with the California Government Code, adopted City policies, and the
Chula Vista General Plan.
XI. REORGANIZATION; DETACHMENT; CITY SUPPORT
The City Council hereby orders that the Nakano Specific Plan, EM22-0001, MMRP,
Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Annexation Agreement, Tax
Sharing Agreement, and all other associated and appropriate documents, be submitted to
LAFCO for official adoption in furtherance of such reorganization action to detach the
Nakano Property from the City and annex the same to San Diego, including such changes
in the City's sphere of influence affecting the property. Pursuant to the provisions of the
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 17
Annexation Agreement, the City Council also irrevocably consents to the reorganization
and will cooperate in every reasonable way with the Applicant and San Diego's application
to LAFCO related to the annexation of the Project Site into San Diego.
Consistent with Section 4.1.3 of the Annexation Agreement, within ten (10) calendar days
of the Effective Date of the Annexation Agreement (as defined in Section 1.2 of such
Agreement), or as soon thereafter as practicable, the City of Chula Vista shall adopt a
Resolution of Support for the City of San Diego's Application with LAFCO for a
Reorganization regarding the Nakano Project and Nakano Property.
XII. CITY IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT OF PROJECT CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL AND CVMC, AND DEFENSE OF PROJECT APPROVALS
The following ongoing conditions shall apply to the Project Site for as long as it relies upon
this approval:
1. Approval of the Project shall not waive compliance with any provisions of the
CVMC nor any other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of permit
issuance.
2. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to fully and completely
reimburse, indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel approved by the City in
writing) and hold harmless the City, its City Council members, Planning
Commission members, officers, employees, attorneys, and representatives, at its
sole cost and with separate and independent counsel identified by the City, from
and against any and all liabilities, judgments, losses, damages, demands, claims,
and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities),
(including any costs and expenses to prepare the administrative record for any
challenge to the Project Entitlements and/or compiling a response to a California
Public Records Act request(s) to provide the record of proceedings materials for
the Project Entitlements), incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from
(a) the City's approval of the Project, (b) the City's actions on any environmental
document concerning this Project, and (c) the City's approval or issuance of any
other permit or action, whether discretionary or non -discretionary, in connection
with the use(s) contemplated on the Project Site. The Property Owner and Applicant
shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this
Resolution where indicated below. The Property Owner's and Applicant's
compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property
Owner's and Applicant's successors and assigns.
3. All terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns, and representatives of the
Applicant as to any or all of the property.
4. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City
General Plan, the CVMC, the Chula Vista Landscape Manual, the Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual, the Chula Vista Design and Construction Standards, the Chula
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 18
Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and relevant Precise Plan(s), the any relevant Public
Facilities Financing Plan(s) Air Quality Improvement Plan, the Chula Vista
Development Storm Water Manual, the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, the Water Conservation Ordinance, and applicable Chula Vista City Council
policies, all as amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the
Director of Development Services, except as otherwise provided by the Annexation
Agreement, as adopted, applicable to the Project Site.
5. If any of the terms, covenants, or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur
timely, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time,
if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to
their terms, the City shall have the right, in its sole discretion and notwithstanding
any other provisions or holding of the law, to immediately stop or cease the
inspection or issuance of any form or type of permits or certificates of occupancy
relating to the Project; to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, including
issuance of building permits; to deny or further condition the subsequent approvals
that are derived from the approvals herein granted; to institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions; and/or to seek damages
for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any
of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to
remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
6. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Chula Vista
General Plan and adopted Nakano Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to
time, except as otherwise provided by the Annexation Agreement, as adopted,
applicable to the Project Site.
XIII. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the 90 -day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or
other exaction described in this Resolution begins on the effective date of this Resolution
and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section
66020(a). Failure to timely follow this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to
attack, set aside, void, or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar
application processing fees or service fees in connection with the Project, and it does not
apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions that have been given notice
similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations
has previously expired.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 19
XIV. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines
provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read,
understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped
copy returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return the signed and stamped copy of this
recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the Property
Owner/Applicant's desire that the Project and subsequent permit applications be held in
abeyance without approval.
EDocuSigned by:
Q(.Cu�, 66W
Allen Kasham
for Tri Pointe Homes IE -SD, Inc.
Applicant/Property Owner
1/26/2025
Date
XV. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY SUBDIVISION MANUAL
The City Council does hereby find that the Project is in conformance with the City's
Subdivision Manual, CVMC Chapter 18.12, and the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
XVI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the 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 a Court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this Resolution shall be
deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Resolution No. 2024-228
Page No. 20
Presented by
DocuSigned by:
For
AA76F15D450845D...
Laura C. Black, AICP
Director of Development Services
Approved as to form by
Signed by:
9. VV4
96F66761308847B...
Marco A. Verdugo
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 3rd day of December 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Chavez, Gonzalez, Morineau, Preciado, and McCann
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
DocuSigned by:
:
7R04FC93BQOR473
John McCann, Mayor
ATTEST:
DocuSigned by:
t
3074f7104FAF349F
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2024-228 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular
meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 3rd day of December 2024.
Executed this 3rd day of December 2024.
DocuSigned by:
3074D104EAF342E...
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
for the
NAKANO PROJECT
Project No. EIR22-0001
SCH No. 2022060260
October 2024
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
A. California Environmental Quality Act....................................................................................1
B. Record of Proceedings............................................................................................................2
C. Custodian and Location of Records......................................................................................3
II. PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................................3
A. Project Objectives....................................................................................................................3
B. Project Description..................................................................................................................3
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWAND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION......................................................9
A. Notice of Preparation..............................................................................................................9
B. Public Review of EIR................................................................................................................9
C. Final EIR.....................................................................................................................................9
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS................................................................................................................10
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA .......................................................................................11
A. Legal Effects of Findings.......................................................................................................11
VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM....................................................12
VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS..........................................................................................................12
VIII. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS........................................................................................13
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...........................................................13
A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)........................................................................13
B. Impacts that can only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by Another
Jurisdiction: Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) ............13
C. Impacts that would remain Significant and Unavoidable: Findings Pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)...................................................................42
X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................45
A. No Project (No Development) Alternative..........................................................................45
B. No Project (Development Under the Existing General Plan) Alternative.................................46
C. Reduced Footprint Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative..............................................47
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................48
OverridingBenefits.............................................................................................................................48
XII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTH ER CEQA CONSI DERATIONS .....................................................49
A. Growth Inducement..............................................................................................................49
B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes................................................................51
XIII. DECISION AND EXPLANATION REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE EIR..........................51
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
I. INTRODUCTION
The following Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been
prepared for the Nakano Project (Project) (Project No. EIR22-0001). The environmental effects of the
Project are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse No.
2022060260) dated April 2024, which is incorporated by reference herein.
A. California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and
the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines; 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.)
promulgated thereunder require that the environmental impacts of a project or program be
examined before a project is approved. In addition, once significant impacts have been identified,
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that certain findings be made before project approval. While
staff of a decision-making body can assist in recommending adoption of findings to proceed on a
project subject to a certified EIR, only the decision-making body has the authority to make such
findings. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) states that no public agency shall approve or
carry out a project or program for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless
such public agency makes one or more of the following findings for each potentially significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate
or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment;
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency; or
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines be
supported by substantial evidence in the record (Section 15091(b) of the CEQA Guidelines). Under
CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable
inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a
conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence must include
facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts
(Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines).
When making the findings required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project
or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects.
These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures.
The following Findings have been submitted to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (City), as the
decision-making body, to be approved for the Project pursuant to CEQA. The Project, as detailed
Page 1
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
below, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is included herein (see Section X) as part of the Project's Findings.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Project (EIR 22-0001, State
Clearinghouse No. 2022060260), as well as all other information in the Record of Proceedings (as
defined below) on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as
the CEQA lead agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent
discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation
of the Project.
B. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the
following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the Project;
• Comments received on the NOP;
• The Draft EIR for the Project;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
review comment period on the Draft EIR;
• All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during
the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR;
• All written and oral public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Project
at which such testimony was taken;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference or cited in the Draft
EIR and the Final EIR;
• All supplemental documents prepared for the EIR and submitted to the City Council prior to
its public hearing on the Project;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local
laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings;
• City staff report prepared for the public hearing related to the Project and any exhibits thereto;
• Project permit conditions; and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6(e).
Page 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
C. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the Record of Proceedings for the City's actions
on the Project are located at the offices of the Development Services Department (DSD) at 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. DSD is the custodian of the Project's Record of Proceedings.
Copies of the documents that constitute the Record of Proceedings are and at all relevant times have
been available upon request at the offices of DSD.
The Draft and Final EIR are available for review on the City's CEQA website at:
https:llw.chulavistaca.govldepartmentsldevelopment-serviceslplanninglplannin -digital-
Egf leir. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Objectives
The objectives of the Project include the following:
1. Develop underutilized property to provide housing in response to regional housing needs.
2. Achieve efficient provision of services through reorganization of the property through an
application to the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to detach from the
City and Otay Water District (OWD) and annex into the City of San Diego.
3. Provide a compact residential development pattern that is conducive to walking and bicycling.
4. Construct a variety of housing types at a density range that maximizes development potential
consistent with the surrounding residential communities.
5. Provide amenities that contribute to the nearby Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) recreational
uses and community connectivity, including an overlook to the park and multi -modal
connections.
6. Generate financial benefits to the local economy, through efficient provision of public services,
providing workforce housing, and generating property tax and local jobs.
B. Project Description
The Project is a residential development consisting of up to 221 detached condominiums, duplexes,
and townhomes - including 22 affordable homes - and their supporting amenities. Recreational
amenities include pocket parks, an overlook park associated with the OVRP, and publicly accessible
trail connections to the OVRP. Primary site access is proposed via an off-site connection to Dennery
Road, and secondary emergency access is proposed via a connection to Golden Sky Way in the
adjacent RiverEdge Terrace residential development. The Project proposes a private internal street
network and would require off-site remedial grading north of the Project site on property owned by
the City.
Page 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
The EIR analyzes three possible development scenarios, one of which is the subject of these Findings:
Annexation Scenario 2a. These Findings are applicable to Annexation Scenario 2a, for which the City
is the lead agency and decision-making body.
Under Annexation Scenario 2a, site grading and development of the Project site would not proceed
until after approval of City discretionary actions and the LAFCO reorganization process is complete. In
this scenario, the City of San Diego would issue grading and building permits for the Project site and
all off-site improvement areas after approval of the LAFCO reorganization.
All three scenarios would be set in the same project footprint and include the same physical design,
including the requirement for approvals from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for
proposed changes to on-site drainage.
The following is a summary of the Project components under Annexation Scenario 2a.
Residential Unit Mix
While the site plan identifies a total of 215 units consisting of 61 detached condominiums, 84 duplexes,
and 70 townhome dwelling units (see Final EIR, Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1), the environmental analysis
assumes up to 221 units to account for potential changes in the unit mix.
The detached condominiums would be two-story, standalone units that share no adjoining walls with
neighboring units. The condominiums would feature three to five bedrooms and attached two -bay
garages and would range in size from approximately 1,761 to 2,135 square feet. Duplex units would
range in size from approximately 1,461 to 1,668 square feet. The attached townhomes would consist
of four to five units clustered in a row with no separation between units. The townhomes would be
two or three stories with varied roof pitching. Each townhome unit would include two to four
bedrooms, two to two -and -one-half bathrooms, and a two -bay garage. The townhome units would
range in size from approximately 1,083 to 1,480 square feet.
The Project would provide 10 percent of the total units, or 22 units, as affordable. A total of 11 units
would be affordable to low-income households (five percent of the total) and 11 units would be
affordable to moderate -income households (five percent of the total).
Access and Off-site Roadway Improvements
Access to and from the Project site would be provided via Dennery Road, a City of San Diego 4 -Lane
Collector located southeast of the Project site. At the Project entrance along Dennery Road, the
existing driveway would be replaced with a full curb and gutter, and a new 25 -foot -wide driveway
would be constructed approximately 40 feet southwest of the existing driveway. The Project would
remove and/or repair existing trees and landscaping affected by driveway construction.
Page 4
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
The following off-site improvements would be implemented at this intersection:
• Palm Avenue Left Turn Bay Storage: To accommodate additional Project trips, for eastbound
left turns, the Project would extend the existing left turn bay storage at the intersection of
Palm Avenue and Dennery Road by an additional 85 feet to provide approximately 365 feet of
left turn bay storage.
• Dennery Road Right Turn Bay Storage: To accommodate additional Project trips, for
southbound right turns, the Project would extend the right turn bay by an additional 50 feet
to provide approximately 145 feet of right turn bay storage.
• As part of the City of San Diego's street safety policy, Systemic Safety. The Data -Driven Path to
Vision Zero, upgraded signal heads with backplates with retroreflective borders would be
installed by the Project at all intersection approaches to increase the visibility of traffic signals
and reduce incidences of vehicles proceeding through red lights.
• As part of the City of San Diego's street safety policy, Systemic Safety. The Data -Driven Path to
Vision Zero, proposed improvements at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Dennery Road
include the installation of audible countdown pedestrian heads for each pedestrian phase and
upgrading the traffic controller to a 2070 controller including software update and
communications equipment per current City of San Diego standards.
• To accommodate the Project's eastbound U -turning vehicles along Dennery Road, the Project
would extend the left turn bay storage by an additional 50 feet at the intersection of Dennery
Road and Red Coral Lane/Red Fin Lane to provide approximately 240 feet of left turn bay storage.
Open Space, Recreation Amenities, and Landscaping
The Project would include several pocket parks, paseos, and trail connections to the OVRP (see Final
EIR Figure 3-6). The central overlook pocket park at the northern boundary would provide a trail
connection to the OVRP. The pocket park at the northwestern corner of the Project site would offer
two playground areas. An approximate 0.04 -acre monument entry pocket park would be provided
near the Project entrance.
The Project would emphasize trail connections to the OVRP for both residents and members of the
surrounding community. An existing trail connection running along the western side of the Project
site would be retained as a 7 -to -8 -foot -wide trail enhanced with decomposed granite surfacing to
provide connection to the OVRP trail system. In addition to the north -south trail connection, the
Project would provide trail improvements within the parcel to the north to enhance the OVRP trail
system. The trails in the north within the OVRP would be 8 feet wide, with decomposed granite
surfacing, header boards on each side, and peeler pole fencing on one side of the trail. Trail
improvements would be constructed consistent with OVRP trail guidelines.
The Project has prepared a detailed landscape plan to guide the appearance and functionality of
landscaping within the Project site. Street trees would be provided along Dennery Road in addition to
the proposed private streets. Native, drought -tolerant species would be emphasized for water
conservation, fire resistance, and erosion control. The homeowners association would be responsible
for long-term maintenance of all landscaping outside of individual homeowner lots. All constructed
Page 5
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
slope areas would be landscaped in compliance with City standards relating to minimum planting and
landscaped area requirements.
Fire Management
The Project would incorporate fuel modification alongside roadways and generally within 100 feet of
residences. Where 100 feet of brush management cannot be accommodated, alternative compliance
measures would be incorporated to provide enhanced fire protection. Alternative compliance
measures include the installation of radiant heat walls that include either 6 -foot masonry walls or 6 -foot
masonry with glass view fence wall. Brush management zones and alternative compliance features are
depicted on Final EIR Figure 3-9. Both walls would provide fire protection; however, the masonry with
glass view wall would be provided along the northern Project border to provide views toward the Otay
River. Additional alternative compliance measures would be installed including dual -glazed/
dual -tempered panes and additional 10 -foot perpendicular returns along adjacent wall faces.
Signage, Lighting Walls, and Fencing
The Project would include vertical monument signage with lighting within private property, along the
Project frontage at the entrance driveway from Dennery Road. Additional monument signage with
lighting within private property is proposed at the entry into the residential area at the Project
entrance driveway, outside of the public right-of-way. Lighting is proposed throughout the
development for safety and aesthetic purposes. Pole -mounted lighting would be provided along
private streets and bollard lighting is proposed within the pocket parks along the northern end of the
Project site. Trail signage is also proposed.
The rear of residential lots along the northern Project boundary would have glass and block fire -rated
walls for alternative compliance fire protection, while providing views to the adjacent open space.
These walls would be a maximum of 6 -foot -tall concrete masonry unit wall topped with a 3 -foot tall
glass component. Composite split rail fencing with chain-link attached is proposed throughout the
Project site, specifically along proposed trails and pedestrian paths, and along the Project boundaries
and detention basin located in the northwest portion of the Project site. 6 -foot -tall masonry block
walls with decorative caps are proposed at the rear of certain yard areas where noise attenuation is
needed. In other areas, 6 -foot -tall, non-combustible, fire -retardant wood fence or vinyl fencing is
proposed to separate rear yards. To accommodate the Project site access from Dennery Road while
maintaining roadway design standards along Private Street A, a concrete masonry block retaining wall
is proposed along the south side of Private Street A to retain the adjacent slope. This wall would run
a length of 419 feet with a maximum height of 14 feet. just east of Lot 14, an approximately
125 -linear -foot -long stepped retaining wall with a maximum height of 24 feet would be constructed
to retain the adjacent slope. Approximately 23.6 feet of the wall height would be exposed. Fence and
wall details are depicted on Final EIR Figure 3-10.
Grading
Grading is proposed on a total of 21.18 acres within and adjacent to the Project site. Off-site
improvement areas would include an approximate 0.45 -acre area of remedial grading and trail
improvements within the OVRP to the north. Off-site improvements to the south and east would
include grading within an approximate 1.28 -acre area of disturbance associated with the Project's
Page 6
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
access road and secondary emergency only access road located in the City of San Diego. The total
Project disturbance footprint including all grading, off-site improvement areas, and buffer areas
beyond grading limits is 23.37 acres.
Development Regulations
In Annexation Scenario 2a, the City of San Diego would adopt a prezoning ordinance to allow for the
Project site to be zoned Residential Multiple Unit 1-1 (RM -1-1), which would permit a maximum density
of one dwelling unit for each 3,000 square feet of lot area. The Project site would be designated
Residential -Low Medium in the Otay Mesa Community Plan and City of San Diego General Plan.
Development regulations for the Project site would be as defined in the San Diego Municipal Code
(SDMC) for the RM -1-1 zone except for two deviations requested as follows:
• A deviation is proposed for minimum and standard side yard setbacks where the required
minimum side yard setback is 5 feet or 10 percent of the premises width (100 feet), whichever
is greater; the proposed minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. Where the standard setback is
8 feet or 10 percent of the premises width (100 feet), whichever is greater, the proposed
standard side yard setback is 10 feet. A deviation is requested to increase the retaining wall
height outside of the required yard in the RM -1-1 zone from 12 feet to 204 feet. The reduced
setbacks and increased wall height allow the proposed development to meet the Otay Mesa
Community Plan design guideline objective of providing a diversity of housing opportunities
for a variety of household types, lifestyles, and income levels, while meeting conservation
goals for environmentally sensitive lands and maximizing the health, safety, and welfare of
the community. Requiring 100 feet minimum and standard side yard setbacks and 12 feet
maximum retaining wall height will eliminate much of the development footprint, and the
Project will not be able to maximize the number of residential units.
Additionally, site design regulations would be adopted through an uncodified ordinance. The Project
would be required to comply with RM -1-1 zone regulations, and proposed deviations, site design criteria,
and conditions of approval would be part of the uncodified ordinance. Based on the proposed RM -1-1
zone, the Project site could accommodate up to 345 units; however, the maximum development
potential for the Project site would be limited to 221 units through the uncodified ordinance.
Discretionary Actions
The discretionary actions for the City under Annexation Scenario 2a would include the following:
• Amend the City's General Plan to remove the Open Space (OS) designation and designate the
Project site as Residential Medium to allow residential development at a density range of 6.1
to 11 dwelling units per acre.
• Adopt the Nakano Specific Plan to establish the land use, intensity, development regulations, design
standards, and primary infrastructure components needed to support development of the site.
• Approve a Tentative Map to subdivide the property as a condominium project as defined by Section
4125 of the Civil Code of the State of California and as filed pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act.
Page 7
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
• Certify the Project EIR.
• Adopt the CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.
• Adopt a Resolution of Support for the City of San Diego's Application to LAFCO consenting to
the reorganization annexing the Project site into the City of San Diego.
• Approve an Annexation Agreement outlining the process by which the Project would be
processed and annexed into the City of San Diego.
After approval of the City of Chula Vista discretionary actions, the following City of San Diego actions
would be required:
• Adopt a Prezoning Ordinance delineating the zoning territory not yet incorporated into the
City of San Diego as Residential Multiple Unit Zone, RM -1-1. The Prezone Ordinance would be
initiated by and receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Prezone
Ordinance would require City Council approval and would not be effective until after the
effective date of the LAFCO approval of the Nakano Reorganization.
Amend the City of San Diego General Plan to designate the site Residential.
Amend the Otay Mesa Community Plan to designate the site as Residential -Low Medium.
• Adopt Site Development Plan Findings as required by SDMC Section 126.0505 for the off-site
primary and secondary emergency only access roads currently within the City of San Diego.
• Approve a Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan Minor Amendment to
include the property within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan.
• Approve a Resolution of Application to LAFCO.
• Approve an Annexation Agreement outlining the process by which the Project would be
processed and annexed into the City of San Diego.
• Approve a City of San Diego sewer easement vacation pursuant to Section 66434(G) of the
Subdivision Map Act. Adopt an uncodified ordinance allowing site development to proceed
after annexation. The uncodified ordinance would ensure Project consistency with the Land
Development Code and applicable City of San Diego requirements.
• Wetland Deviation findings based on the Biologically Superior Option in accordance with
SDMC Section 143.0150 for the portion of the Project site.
• Amend the City of San Diego City Council District Boundary to incorporate the Project site into
District 8.
• Annex the Project site into the Ocean View Hills Maintenance Assessment District.
Page 8
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
The following actions would be required to be taken by LAFCO:
Approve a City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Revision.
Approve a resolution to detach the site from the City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District.
Remove the site from the City of Chula Vista and Annex the Project site to the City of San Diego.
Additionally, prior to submittal of a LAFCO application, the OWD would provide a Resolution or Letter
of Support to remove the property from the OWD boundaries and annex the property into the City of
San Diego for water services. Lastly, San Diego Gas & Electric would be required to approve easement
vacations along the northern and eastern property line as shown on the Tentative Map. Easements
would be vacated pursuant to Section 66434(G) of the Subdivision Map Act.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWAND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Notice of Preparation
In compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a NOP on May 5, 2022,
which began a 30 -day period for comments on the appropriate scope of the Draft EIR. Consistent with
Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public scoping
meeting was to be held to solicit comments regarding the scope and analysis of the EIR. However, due
to the declared state of emergency related to the COVID-19 virus and in the interest of protecting
public health and safety, the City followed health mandates from Governor Newsom and the County
of San Diego (County) to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus by limiting public meetings. Therefore,
the City did not conduct an in-person scoping meeting. A pre-recorded presentation was made
available on the City's website from May 5 to July 14, 2022, in addition to publication of the NOP.
Comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in the Final EIR as Appendix A.
B. Public Review of EIR
The City published the Draft EIR on April 26, 2024. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, upon
publication of the Draft EIR, the City filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse of the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research indicating that the Draft EIR had been completed and was
available for review and comment by the public until June 11, 2024. The public review period was
subsequently extended to June 26, 2024, to accommodate a request from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and CDFW. At this time, the City also posted a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087.
C. Final EIR
On October 9, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project
and, by a 4-1 vote, recommended approval of the Project and certification of the Final
EIR. On December 3, 2024, the City Council certified the Final EIR, adopted these Findings of
Fact, and approved the Project.
Page 9
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
• Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051, the City is the "Lead Agency" for the
Project.
• The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
• The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and these
documents reflect the independent judgment of the City.
• A MMRP has been prepared for the Project, which the City has adopted or made a condition
of approval of the Project. That MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered
part of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.
• The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of
mitigation measures. The City will serve as the MMRP Coordinator.
• In determining whether the Project has a significant impact on the environment, and in
adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of Public Resources Code, the City has
based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with Public Resources Code
Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15901(b).
• The impacts of the Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification
of the Final EIR.
• The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto and has
determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add
significant new information regarding environmental impacts associated with the Project. The
City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received
up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the environmental impacts identified
and analyzed in the Final EIR.
• The responses to comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and
amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR, and do not result in new information being added to the
Final EIR that would require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).
• The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources
toward the Project prior to certification of the Final EIR, nor has the City previously committed
to a definite course of action with respect to the Project.
• Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and/or Final EIR are
and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City, custodian of record
for such documents or other materials.
• Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record, the
City hereby conditions the Project and finds as stated in these Findings.
Page 10
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[...]" 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 or programs and the feasible alternatives
or feasible mitigation measures that will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Public
Resources Code Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or
other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual
projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects."
The mandate and principles described in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in
part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects or
programs for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR
for a proposed project or program, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one
or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "changes 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 Section 15091(a)(1)). The second
permissible finding is that "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(a)(2)). The third potential conclusion is that "specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines Section 15364
adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Ca 1.3d 553, 565).
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to
substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project
modifications or alternatives are not required; however, where such changes are infeasible or where
the exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility for modifying the Project lies and has been implemented
by with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a), (b), and (c)).
A. Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these Findings conclude thatvarious design features incorporated into the program
and mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these design features and
mitigation measures. These Findings, therefore, constitute a binding set of obligations that will come
into effect when the City formally approves the Project.
Page 11
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
The Project design features and adopted mitigation measures are included in the MMRP adopted
concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of constructing and
implementing the Project.
VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1), the City, in adopting these Findings, also
concurrently adopts an MMRP. The MMRP is designed to ensure that during Project implementation,
all responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The MMRP is
described in the document entitled "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program," included as
Chapter 10 of the Final EIR. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with required mitigation
measures. The MMRP will be available for the public to review by request during the mitigation
compliance period, which is ongoing following program approval and through buildout of future
projects implemented under the conditions of the program.
The MMRP will serve the dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the
program and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future
decisions.
VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Final EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with Project
implementation. The Final EIR concludes that the Project would have no significant impacts and
require no mitigation measures associated with the following issue areas:
• Land Use (Physically Divide a Community; Plan Consistency; Deviation or Variance)
• Air Quality (All Thresholds)
• Biological Resources (Wildlife Corridors and Nurseries; Conflicts with Plans)
• Geologic and Paleontological Resources (All Thresholds)
• Health and Safety (Handling, Storage and Treatment; Emissions near School; Airport Safety;
Emergency Plans; Wildland Fires)
• Historic Resources (Human Remains; Sacred Uses)
• Noise (All Thresholds)
• Transportation (Transportation System, Design Hazard; Emergency Access)
• Aesthetics (All Thresholds)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (Violate Standards -Operational; Groundwater; Drainage; Flood,
Tsunami, Seiche; Conflict with Plans)
• Public Services and Facilities (All Thresholds)
• Utilities and Sewer Systems (All Thresholds)
• Wildfire (All Thresholds)
• Energy (All Thresholds)
• Population and Housing (All Thresholds)
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources (All Thresholds)
Page 12
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
The Final EIR concludes that implementation of the Project would result in significant direct,
indirect, and/or cumulative impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant levels with
respect to the following issues:
• Biological Resources (Sensitive Resources and Habitats, Wetlands)
• Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials (Exposure to Toxic Substance; Hazardous Materials
Site)
• Historical Resources (Prehistoric Resources)
• Tribal Cultural Resources (Tribal Resources)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (Violate Standards -Construction)
The Final EIR concludes that implementation of the Project would result in significant and
unavoidable direct and/or cumulative impacts with respect to the following issues:
• Land Use (Plan Consistency - San Diego Housing Element)
• Greenhouse Gas (All Thresholds)
• Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
VIII. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City finds the characterization of impacts in the Final EIR with respect to issue areas identified as
less than significant have been described accurately and would result in less than significant impacts
as so described in the Final EIR. This finding applies to the impacts evaluated in the Final EIR and
determined to be less than significant, as stated under VII.
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)
Under Annexation Scenario 2a, all mitigation associated with Project site and off-site improvement
area impacts would be under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. See Section IX.B, Findings
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2).
B. Impacts that can only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by Another Jurisdiction:
Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)
1. Biological Resources
Impact: The Project would result in direct impacts to 17.25 acres of sensitive upland vegetation
communities within the Project site and off-site improvement areas. Direct impacts would be
potentially significant.
Facts: The Project would result in direct impacts to sensitive upland vegetation communities,
consisting of 3.60 acres of Tier II vegetation communities (Diegan coastal sage scrub) and 13.65 acres
of Tier 1116 vegetation communities (non-native grassland). As detailed in Final EIR Section 4.3.3.2,
potentially significant direct impacts include 3.60 acres of Tier 11 vegetation communities (Diegan
coastal sage scrub) and 13.65 acres of Tier 1116 vegetation communities (non-native grasslands).
Page 13
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Mitigation Measures:
BIO -SD -1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation
Sensitive Upland Vegetation. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited
to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for
Subdivisions, by the City of San Diego for Annexation Scenario 2a, the owner/permittee shall mitigate
for impacts to sensitive upland vegetation in accordance with the City of San Diego's 2018 Biology
Guidelines. The project owner/permittee shall mitigate direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub
and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated at a 1:1 mitigation ratio and non-native grassland
at a 0.5:1 ratio inside the MHPA. Mitigation for 3.43 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier 11), 0.17
acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (Tier 11), and 13.65 acres of non-native
grassland (Tier 1116) will be achieved through the preservation of 10.43 acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub habitat (Tier 11) at the Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area. The
applicant shall provide proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of San Diego via a mitigation
ledger prior to issuance of any land development permits.
BIO -SD -2 Biological Resource Protection During Construction
I. Prior to Construction
A. Biologist Verification - The owner/permittee shall provide a letter to the City's Mitigation
Monitoring Coordination (MMC) section stating that a Project Biologist (Qualified Biologist) as
defined in the City of San Diego's Biological Guidelines (2018), has been retained to implement
the project's biological monitoring program. The letter shall include the names and contact
information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the project.
B. Preconstruction Meeting - The Qualified Biologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting,
discuss the project's biological monitoring program, and arrange to perform any follow up
mitigation measures and reporting including site-specific monitoring, restoration or
revegetation, and additional fauna/flora surveys/salvage.
C. Biological Documents - The Qualified Biologist shall submit all required documentation to
MMC verifying that any special mitigation reports including but not limited to, maps, plans,
surveys, survey timelines, or buffers are completed or scheduled per City Biology Guidelines,
MSCP, ESL, project permit conditions; CEQA; endangered species acts (ESAs); and/or other
local, state or federal requirements.
D. BCME - The Qualified Biologist shall present a Biological Construction Mitigation/Monitoring
Exhibit (BCME) which includes the biological documents in C above. In addition, include:
restoratio n/revegetation plans, plant salvage/relocation requirements (e.g., coastal cactus
wren plant salvage, burrowing owl exclusions, etc.), avian or other wildlife surveys/survey
schedules (including general avian nesting and USFWS protocol), timing of surveys, wetland
buffers, avian construction avoidance areas/noise buffers/ barriers, other impact avoidance
areas, and any subsequent requirements determined by the Qualified Biologist and the City
ADD/MMC. The BCME shall include a site plan, written and graphic depiction of the project's
biological mitigation/monitoring program, and a schedule. The BCME shall be approved by
MMC and referenced in the construction documents.
Page 14
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
E. Resource Delineation -Prior to construction activities, the Qualified
Biologists ha I I supervise the placement of orange construction fencing or equivalent along the
limits of disturbance adjacent to sensitive biological habitats and verify compliance with any
other project conditions as shown on the BCME. This phase shall include flagging plant
specimens and delimiting buffers to protect sensitive biological resources (e.g., habitats/flora
& fauna species, including nesting birds) during construction. Appropriate steps/care should
be taken to minimize attraction of nest predators to the site.
F. Education - Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall
meet with the owner/permittee or designee and the construction crew and conduct an on-site
educational session regarding the need to avoid impacts outside of the approved construction
area and to protect sensitive flora and fauna (e.g., explain the avian and wetland buffers, flag
system for removal of invasive species or retention of sensitive plants, and clarify acceptable
access routes/methods and staging areas, etc.).
II. During Construction
A. Monitoring - All construction (including access/staging areas) shall be restricted to areas
previously identified, proposed for development/staging, or previously disturbed as shown on
"Exhibit A" and/or the BCME. The Qualified Biologist shall monitor construction activities as
needed to ensure that construction activities do not encroach into biologically sensitive areas,
or cause other similar damage, and that the work plan has been amended to accommodate
any sensitive species located during the preconstruction surveys. In addition, the Qualified
Biologist shall document field activity via the Consultant Site Visit Record (CSVR). The CSVR
shall be e-mailed to MMC on the 1st day of monitoring, the 1st week of each month, the last
day of monitoring, and immediately in the case of any undocumented condition or discovery.
B. Subsequent Resource Identification - The Qualified Biologist shall note/act to prevent any
new disturbances to habitat, flora, and/or fauna onsite (e.g., flag plant specimens for
avoidance during access, etc.). If active nests or other previously unknown sensitive resources
are detected, all project activities that directly impact the resource shall be delayed until
species specific local, state or federal regulations have been determined and applied by the
Qualified Biologist.
III. Post Construction Measures
A. In the event that impacts exceed previously allowed amounts, additional impacts shall be
mitigated in accordance with City Biology Guidelines, ESL and MSCP, State CEQA, and other
applicable local, state and federal law. The Qualified Biologist shall submit a final BCME/report
to the satisfaction of the City ADD/MMC within 30 days of construction completion.
Finding: A total of 3.60 acres of Tier II vegetation communities (Diegan coastal sage scrub) and 13.65
acres of Tier III vegetation communities (non-native grassland) would be directly impacted as a result
of Project development. Implementation of the mitigation measures BIO -SD -1 and BIO -SD -2 would
require preservation of like habitat consistent with the ratios consistent with the City of San Diego's
Biology Guidelines listed in Final EIRTable 4.3-5. To ensure no additional indirect impacts would occur,
the mitigation requires on-site biological monitors to be present during grading activities and requires
Page 15
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
best management practices during construction to reduce potential direct and indirect impacts.
Therefore, mitigation measures BIO -SD -1 and BIO -SD -2 would ensure that all direct, indirect, and
cumulatively significant impacts related to sensitive species and habitats under Annexation Scenario
2a would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, and Final EIR Appendix D.
Impact: The Project would result in indirect impacts to special -status plant species within the on-site
and off-site areas including California adolphia, San Diego bur -sage, San Diego barrel cactus, San
Diego County viguiera, small -flowered microseris, and ashy spike -moss. Impacts would be potentially
significant. Additionally, direct impacts to 14 Otay tarplant individuals within the off-site improvement
area would be significant.
Facts: The Project may result in indirect impacts to special -status plant species within the on-site and
off-site areas including California adolphia, San Diego bur -sage, San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego
County viguiera, small -flowered microseris, ashy spike -moss, and Otay tarplant as detailed in Final EIR
Section 4.3.3.2 and Final EIR Appendix D.
Mitigation Measures: See BIO -SD -2
BIO -SD -3 Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, shall incorporate
the following mitigation measures into the project design and include them verbatim on all
appropriate construction documents. In lieu of the below Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan, the
owner/permittee may also purchase equivalent mitigation credits at a City of San Diego -approved
mitigation bank, subject to Wildlife Agency review and approval. The mitigation bank must contain an
Otay tarplant population or have the species reintroduced for the purposes of mitigation. The
applicant is required to provide proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of San Diego prior to
the issuance of any construction development permits.
Prior to Permit Issuance
A. Land Development Review (LDR) Plan Check
1. Prior to the NTP or issuance for any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first
Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits, whichever is applicable,
the ADD environmental designee shall verify that the requirements for the
revegetation/restoration plans and specifications, including mitigation of direct impacts to
Otay tarplant individual plants at a 4:1 ratio. While the number of individual plants present
may vary year-to-year, it is estimated 14 individuals would be impacted and mitigation would
include 56 Otay tarplant individuals. The landscape construction documents and
specifications must be found to be in conformance with the Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan for
the Nakano Project prepared by RECON 2022, the requirements of which are summarized
below:
Page 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
B. Revegetation/Restoration Plan(s) and Specifications
1. Landscape Construction Documents (LCD) shall be prepared on D -sheets and submitted to
the City of San Diego Development Services Department, Landscape Architecture Section (LAS)
for review and approval. LAS shall consult with Mitigation Monitoring Coordination (MMC) and
obtain concurrence prior to approval of LCD. The LCD shall consist of
revegetation/restoration, planting, irrigation and erosion control plans; including all required
graphics, notes, details, specifications, letters, and reports as outlined below.
2. Landscape Revegetation/Restoration Planting and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared in
accordance with the San Diego Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 14, Article 2, Division
4, the LDC Landscape Standards submittal requirements, and Attachment "B" (General Outline
for Revegetation/Restoration Plans) of the City of San Diego's LDC Biology Guidelines. The
Principal Qualified Biologist (PQB) shall identify and adequately document all pertinent
information concerning the revegetation/restoration goals and requirements, such as but not
limited to, plant/seed palettes, timing of installation, plant installation specifications, method
of watering, protection of adjacent habitat, erosion and sediment control,
performance/success criteria, inspection schedule by City staff, document submittals,
reporting schedule, etc. The LCD shall also include comprehensive graphics and notes
addressing the ongoing maintenance requirements (after final acceptance by the City).
3. The Revegetation Installation Contractor (RIC), Revegetation Maintenance Contractor (RMC),
Construction Manager (CM) and Grading Contractor (GC), where applicable shall be
responsible to insure that for all grading and contouring, clearing and grubbing, installation
of plant materials, and any necessary maintenance activities or remedial actions required
during installation and the 120 -day plant establishment period are done per approved LCD.
The following procedures at a minimum, but not limited to, shall be performed:
a. The RMC shall be responsible for the maintenance of the upland mitigation area for a
minimum period of 120 days. Maintenance visits shall be conducted on a weekly basis
throughout the plant establishment period.
b. At the end of the 120 -day period the PQB shall review the mitigation area to assess the
completion of the short-term plant establishment period and submit a report for
approval by MMC.
c. MMC will provide approval in writing to begin the five-year long-term
establishment/maintenance and monitoring program.
d. Existing indigenous/native species shall not be pruned, thinned or cleared in the
revegetation/mitigation area.
e. The revegetation site shall not be fertilized.
f. The RIC is responsible for reseeding (if applicable) if weeds are not removed, within one
week of written recommendation by the PQB.
Page 17
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
g. Weed control measures shall include the following: (1) hand removal, (2) cutting, with
power equipment, and (3) chemical control. Hand removal of weeds is the most
desirable method of control and will be used wherever possible.
h. Damaged areas shall be repaired immediately by the RIC/RMC. Insect infestations, plant
diseases, herbivory, and other pest problems will be closely monitored throughout the
five-year maintenance period. Protective mechanisms such as metal wire netting shall
be used as necessary. Diseased and infected plants shall be immediately disposed of
off-site in a legally -acceptable manner at the discretion of the PQB or Qualified Biological
Monitor (QBM) (City approved). Where possible, biological controls will be used instead
of pesticides and herbicides.
4. If a Brush Management Program is required the revegetation/restoration plan shall show the
dimensions of each brush management zone and notes shall be provided describing the
restrictions on planting and maintenance and identify that the area is impact neutral and shall
not be used for habitat mitigation/credit purposes.
C. Letters of Qualification Have Been Submitted to ADD
1. The applicant shall submit, for approval, a letter verifying the qualifications of the biological
professional to MMC. This letter shall identify the PQB, Principal Restoration Specialist (PRS),
and QBM, where applicable, and the names of all other persons involved in the
implementation of the revegetation/restoration plan and biological monitoring program, as
they are defined in the City of San Diego Biological Review References. Resumes and the
biology worksheet should be updated annually.
2. MMC will provide a letter to the applicant confirming the qualifications of the PQB/PRS/QBM
and all City Approved persons involved in the revegetation/restoration plan and biological
monitoring of the project.
3. Prior to the start of work, the applicant must obtain approval from MMC for any personnel
changes associated with the revegetation/restoration plan and biological monitoring of the
project.
4. PBQ must also submit evidence to MMC that the PQB/QBM has completed Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) training.
Prior to Start of Construction
A. PQB/PRS Shall Attend Preconstruction (Precon) Meetings
1. Prior to beginning any work that requires monitoring:
a. The owner/permittee or their authorized representative shall arrange and perform a
Precon Meeting that shall include the PQB or PRS, Construction Manager (CM) and/or
Grading Contractor (GC), Landscape Architect (LA), Revegetation Installation Contractor
(RIC), Revegetation Maintenance Contractor (RMC), Resident Engineer (RE), Building
Inspector (BI), if appropriate, and MMC.
Page 18
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
b. The PQB shall also attend any other grading/excavation related Precon Meetings to
make comments and/or suggestions concerning the revegetation/restoration plan(s)
and specifications with the RIC, CM and/or GC.
c. If the PQB is unable to attend the Precon Meeting, the owner shall schedule a focused
Precon Meeting with MMC, PQB/PRS, CM, BI, LA, RIC, RMC, RE and/or BI, if appropriate,
prior to the start of any work associated with the revegetation/ restoration phase of the
project, including site grading preparation.
2. Where Revegetation/Restoration Work Will Occur
a. Prior to the start of any work, the PQB/PRS shall also submit a revegetation/restoration
monitoring exhibit (RRME) based on the appropriate reduced LCD (reduced to 11"x 17"
format) to MMC, and the RE, identifying the areas to be revegetated/restored including
the delineation of the limits of any disturbance/grading and any excavation.
b. PQB shall coordinate with the construction superintendent to identify appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) on the RRME.
3. When Biological Monitoring Will Occur
a. Prior to the start of any work, the PQB/PRS shall also submit a monitoring procedures
schedule to MMC and the RE indicating when and where biological monitoring and
related activities will occur.
4. PQB Shall Contact MMC to Request Modification
a. The PQB may submit a detailed letter to MMC prior to the start of work or during
construction requesting a modification to the revegetation/restoration plans and
specifications. This request shall be based on relevant information (such as other
sensitive species not listed by federal and/or state agencies and/or not covered by the
MSCP and to which any impacts may be considered significant under CEQA) which may
reduce or increase the potential for biological resources to be present.
During Construction
A. PQB or QBM Present During Construction/Grading/Planting
1. The PQB or QBM shall be present full-time during construction activities including but not
limited to, site preparation, cleaning, grading, excavation, landscape establishment in
association with the project's grading permit which could result in impacts to sensitive
biological resources as identified in the LCD and on the RRME. The RIC and/or QBM are
responsible for notifying the PQB/PRS of changes to any approved construction plans,
procedures, and/or activities. The PQB/PRS is responsible to notify the CM, LA, RE, BI
and MMC of the changes.
2. The PQB or QBM shall document field activity via the Consultant Site Visit Record Forms
(CSVR). The CSVRs shall be faxed by the CM the first day of monitoring, the last day of
Page 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
monitoring, monthly, and in the event that there is a deviation from conditions identified
within the LCD and/or biological monitoring program. The RE shall forward copies to MMC.
3. The PQB or QBM shall be responsible for maintaining and submitting the CSVR at the time
that CM responsibilities end (i.e., upon the completion of construction activity other than that
of associated with biology).
4. All construction activities (including staging areas) shall be restricted to the development areas
as shown on the LCD. The PQB/PRS or QBM staff shall monitor construction activities as
needed, with MMC concurrence on method and schedule. This is to ensure that construction
activities do not encroach into biologically sensitive areas beyond the limits of disturbance as
shown on the approved LCD.
5. The PQB or QBM shall supervise the placement of orange construction fencing or City
approved equivalent, along the limits of potential disturbance adjacent to (or at the edge of)
all sensitive habitats, including Diegan coastal sage scrub (including Baccharis-variant),
non-native grassland, southern willow scrub, emergent wetland, and disturbed wetland, as
shown on the approved LCD.
6. The PBQ shall provide a letter to MMC that limits of potential disturbance has been surveyed,
staked and that the construction fencing is installed properly.
7. The PQB or QBM shall oversee implementation of BMPs, such as gravel bags, straw logs, silt
fences or equivalent erosion control measures, as needed to ensure prevention of any
significant sediment transport. In 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.3 Biological Resources Nakano
Project EIR Page 4.3-59 addition, the PQB/QBM shall be responsible to verify the removal of
all temporary construction BMPs upon completion of construction activities. Removal of
temporary construction BMPs shall be verified in writing on the final construction phase CSVR.
8. PQB shall verify in writing on the CSVR's that no trash stockpiling or oil dumping, fueling of
equipment, storage of hazardous wastes or construction equipment/material, parking or
other construction related activities shall occur adjacent to sensitive habitat. These activities
shall occur only within the designated staging area located outside the area defined as a
biological sensitive area.
9. The long-term establishment inspection and reporting schedule per LCD must all be approved
by MMC prior to the issuance of the Notice of Completion (NOC) or any bond release.
B. Disturbance/Discovery Notification Process
1. If unauthorized disturbances occurs or sensitive biological resources are discovered that
where not previously identified on the LCD and/or RRME, the PQB or QBM shall direct the
contractor to temporarily divert construction in the area of disturbance or discovery and
immediately notify the RE or BI, as appropriate.
2. The PQB shall also immediately notify MMC by telephone of the disturbance and report the
nature and extent of the disturbance and recommend the method of additional protection,
such as fencing and appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). After obtaining
Page 20
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
concurrence with MMC and the RE, PQB and CM shall install the approved protection and
agreement on BMPs.
3. The PQB shall also submit written documentation of the disturbance to MMC within 24 hours
by fax or email with photos of the resource in context (e.g., show adjacent vegetation).
C. Determination of Significance
1. The PQB shall evaluate the significance of disturbance and/or discovered biological resource
and provide a detailed analysis and recommendation in a letter report with the appropriate
photo documentation to MMC to obtain concurrence and formulate a plan of action which
can include fines, fees, and supplemental mitigation costs.
2. MMC shall review this letter report and provide the RE with MMC's recommendations and
procedures.
Post Construction
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Period
1. Five -Year Mitigation Establishment/Maintenance Period
a. The RMC shall be retained to complete maintenance monitoring activities throughout
the five-year mitigation monitoring period.
b. Maintenance visits will be conducted twice per month for the first six months, once per
month for the remainder of the first year, and quarterly thereafter.
c. Maintenance activities will include all items described in the LCD.
d. Plant replacement will be conducted as recommended by the PQB (note: plants shall be
increased in container size relative to the time of initial installation or establishment or
maintenance period may be extended to the satisfaction of MMC.
2. Five -Year Biological Monitoring
a. All biological monitoring and reporting shall be conducted by a PQB or QBM, as
appropriate, consistent with the LCD.
b. Monitoring shall involve both qualitative horticultural monitoring and quantitative
monitoring (i.e., performance/success criteria). Horticultural monitoring shall focus on
soil conditions (e.g., moisture and fertility), container plant health, seed germination
rates, presence of native and non-native (e.g., invasive exotic) species, any significant
disease or pest problems, irrigation repair and scheduling, trash removal, illegal
trespass, and any erosion problems.
c. After plant installation is complete, qualitative monitoring surveys will occur monthly
during year one and quarterly during years two through five.
Page 21
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
d. Upon the completion of the 120 -days short-term plant establishment period,
quantitative monitoring surveys shall be conducted at 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months
by the PQB or QBM. The revegetation/restoration effort shall be quantitatively evaluated
once per year (in spring) during years three through five, to determine compliance with
the performance standards identified on the LCD. All plant material must have survived
without supplemental irrigation for the last two years.
e. Quantitative monitoring shall include the use of fixed transects and photo points to
determine the vegetative cover within the revegetated habitat. Collection of fixed
transect data within the revegetation/restoration site shall result in the calculation of
percent cover for each plant species present, percent cover of target vegetation, tree
height and diameter at breast height (if applicable) and percent cover of non-native/non-
invasive vegetation. Container plants will also be counted to determine percent
survivorship. The data will be used to determine attainment of performance/success
criteria identified within the LCD.
f. Biological monitoring requirements may be reduced if, before the end of the fifth year,
the revegetation meets the fifth -year criteria and the irrigation has been terminated for
a period of the last two years.
g. The PQB or QBM shall oversee implementation of post -construction BMPs, such as
gravel bags, straw logs, silt fences or equivalent erosion control measure, as needed to
ensure prevention of any significant sediment transport. In addition, the PBQ/QBM shall
be responsible to verify the removal of all temporary post -construction BMPs upon
completion of construction activities. Removal of temporary postconstruction BMPs
shall be verified in writing on the final postconstruction phase CSVR.
B. Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report
1. A draft monitoring letter report shall be prepared to document the completion of the 120 -day
plant establishment period. The report shall include discussion on weed control, horticultural
treatments (pruning, mulching, and disease control), erosion control, trash/debris removal,
replacement planting/reseeding, site protection/signage, pest management, vandalism, and
irrigation maintenance. The revegetation/restoration effort shall be visually assessed at the
end of 120 -day period to determine mortality of individuals.
2. The PQB shall submit two copies of the Draft Monitoring Report which describes the results,
analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the Biological Monitoring and Reporting Program
(with appropriate graphics) to MMC for review and approval within 30 days following the
completion of monitoring. Monitoring reports shall be prepared on an annual basis for a
period of five years. Site progress reports shall be prepared by the PQB following each site
visit and provided to the owner, RMC, and RIC. Site progress reports shall review maintenance
activities, qualitative and quantitative (when appropriate) monitoring results including
progress of the revegetation relative to the performance/success criteria, and the need for
any remedial measures.
3. Draft annual reports (three copies) summarizing the results of each progress report including
quantitative monitoring results and photographs taken from permanent viewpoints shall be
Page 22
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
submitted to MMC for review and approval within 30 days following the completion of
monitoring.
4. MMC shall return the Draft Monitoring Report to the PQB for revision or for preparation of
each report.
5. The PQB shall submit revised Monitoring Report to MMC (with a copy to RE) for approval within
30 days.
6. MMC will provide written acceptance of the PQB and RE of the approved report.
C. Final Monitoring Reports(s)
1. PQB shall prepare a Final Monitoring upon achievement of the fifth -year performance/success
criteria and completion of the five-year maintenance period.
a. This report may occur before the end of the fifth year if the revegetation meets the fifth -
year performance /success criteria and the irrigation has been terminated for a period
of the last two years.
b. The Final Monitoring report shall be submitted to MMC for evaluation of the success of
the mitigation effort and final acceptance. A request for a pre -final inspection shall be
submitted at this time, MMC will schedule after review of report.
c. If at the end of the five years any of the revegetated area fails to meet the project's final
success standards, the applicant must consult with MMC. This consultation shall take
place to determine whether the revegetation effort is acceptable. The applicant
understands that failure of any significant portion of the revegetation/restoration area
may result in a requirement to replace or renegotiate that portion of the site and/or
extend the monitoring and establishment/maintenance period until all success
standards are met.
D. Management and Maintenance in Perpetuity
The Otay tarplant mitigation area shall be protected and managed/maintained in perpetuity. The Otay
tarplant mitigation site shall be addressed through a long-term management plan. The Otay tarplant
mitigation area shall be covered by a Covenant of Easement to the benefit of the City of San Diego or
dedicated in -fee title to the City of San Diego. The project proponent shall provide funding in an
amount approved by the City based on a Property Analysis Record, or similar cost estimation method,
to secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management, maintenance, and
monitoring of the off-site mitigation area pursuant to the long-term management plan by an agency,
nonprofit organization, or other entity approved by the City of San Diego.
Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures BIO -SD -2 and BIO -SD -3 require on-site biological
monitoring and the best management practices to be employed during grading and construction
activities. Mitigation measure BIO -SD -2 would ensure that indirect impacts associated with dust,
erosion, and runoff generated by construction activities would not occur. Mitigation measure
BIO -SD -3 provides specific guidelines related to the disturbance of Otay tarplant including
Page 23
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
replacement, management and maintenance in perpetuity. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts
related to special status plants under Annexation Scenario 2a would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, and Final EIR Appendix D.
Impact: The Project would result in direct and indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species
including least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, yellow -breasted chat, yellow
warbler, and Crotch's bumble bee. Impacts would be potentially significant. Additionally, due to their
moderate potential to forage within the Project impact areas, direct impacts to foraging Crotch's
bumble bee during construction would be potentially significant.
Facts: The Project may result in direct and indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species within the
on-site and off-site areas including least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl,
yellow -breasted chat, yellow warbler, and Crotch's bumble bee as detailed in Final EIR Section 4.3.3.2
and Final EIR Appendix D.
Mitigation Measures: See BIO -SD -1
BIO -SD -4 Avian Protection Requirements
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, removal
of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed area of disturbance (both on-site and within the
Wetland Plan area of work) should occur outside of the breeding season for least Bell's vireo,
burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow -breasted chat, and yellow warbler (February 1
to September 15) or a preconstruction survey shall be completed by a Qualified Biologist
preconstruction to determine the presence or absence of nesting least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl,
coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow -breasted chat, and yellow warbler on the proposed area of
disturbance. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start
of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The applicant shall submit the results of
the preconstruction survey to City of San Diego DSD for review and written approval prior to initiating
any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report in conformance with the City
of San Diego's Biology Guidelines and applicable state and federal law (i.e., appropriate follow-up
surveys, monitoring schedules, construction and noise barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and
include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of
breeding activities is avoided. The report shall be submitted to the City of San Diego for review and
written approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego's
MMC Section and Biologist shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or
mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction.
BIO -SD -5 Direct Impact Avoidance and Noise Restrictions for Least Bell's Vireo
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the City of San Diego
Page 24
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Manager (or appointed designee) shall verify that the following project requirements regarding the
least Bell's vireo are shown on the construction and wetland restoration plans:
No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur between March 15 and
September 15, the breeding season of the least Bell's vireo, until the following requirements have
been met to the satisfaction of the City of San Diego Manager:
A. A Qualified Biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(a) Recovery
Permit) shall survey those wetland areas that would be subject to construction noise levels
exceeding 60 decibels [dB(A)] hourly average for the presence of the least Bell's vireo. Surveys
for this species shall be conducted pursuant to the protocol survey guidelines established by
the USFWS within the breeding season prior to the commencement of construction. If the
least Bell's vireo is present, then the following conditions must be met:
1. Between March 15 and September 15, no clearing, grubbing, or grading of occupied least
Bell's vireo habitat shall be permitted. Areas restricted from such activities shall be staked
or fenced under the supervision of a Qualified Biologist; and
2a. Between March 15 and September 15, no construction activities shall occur within any
portion of the site where construction activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60
dB(A) hourly average at the edge of occupied least Bell's vireo or habitat. An analysis showing
that noise generated by construction activities would not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average at
the edge of occupied habitat must be completed by a qualified acoustician (possessing
current noise engineer license or registration with monitoring noise level experience with
listed animal species) and approved by the City of San Diego Manager at least two weeks
prior to the commencement of construction activities. Prior to the commencement of any
construction activities during the breeding season, areas restricted from such activities shall
be staked or fenced under the supervision of a qualified biologist; or
2b. At least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities, under the direction
of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures (e.g., berms, walls) shall be
implemented to ensure that noise levels resulting from construction activities will not
exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of habitat occupied by the least Bell's vireo.
Concurrent with the commencement of construction activities and the construction of
necessary noise attenuation facilities, noise monitoring* shall be conducted at the edge of
the occupied habitat area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average.
If the noise attenuation techniques implemented are determined to be inadequate by the
qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until
such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding
season (September 16).
*Construction noise monitoring shall continue to be monitored at least twice weekly on
varying days, or more frequently depending on the construction activity, to verify that noise
levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB(A) hourly average or to
the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB (A) hourly average. If not, other measures
shall be implemented in consultation with the Qualified Biologist and the City of San Diego
Manager, as necessary, to reduce noise levels to below 60 dB(A) hourly average or to the
ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) hourly average. Such measures may
Page 25
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and
the simultaneous use of equipment.
B. If least Bell's vireo are not detected during the protocol survey, the Qualified Biologist shall
submit substantial evidence to the City of San Diego Manager and applicable resource
agencies for review and written approval which demonstrates whether or not mitigation
measures such as noise walls are necessary between March 15 and September 15 as follows:
1. If this evidence indicates the potential is high for least Bell's vireo to be present based on
historical records or site conditions, then condition A.III shall be adhered to as specified
a bove.
2. If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species are anticipated, no mitigation
measures would be necessary.
BIO -SD -6 Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey and Avoidance in the City of San Diego
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the City of San Diego
Manager (or appointed designee) shall verify that the following project requirements regarding
burrowing owl are shown on the construction plans:
PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY ELEMENT
Prior to Permit or Notice to Proceed Issuance:
As this project area has been determined to be burrowing owl occupied or to have burrowing owl
occupation potential, the Applicant Department or Permit Holder shall submit evidence to the
ADD of Entitlements and MSCP staff, to the satisfaction of the City, verifying that a biologist
possessing qualifications pursuant to the "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of
California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game, March 7, 2012 (hereafter
referred as CDFG 2012, Staff Report), has been retained to implement a burrowing owl
construction impact avoidance program.
2. The qualified burrowing owl biologist (or their designated biological representative) shall attend
the preconstruction meeting to inform construction personnel about the City of San Diego's
burrowing owl requirements and subsequent survey schedule.
Prior to Start of Construction:
1. The Applicant Department or Permit Holder and Qualified Biologist must ensure that initial
preconstruction/take avoidance surveys of the project "site" are completed between 14 and 30
days before initial construction activities begin, including brushing, clearing, grubbing, or grading
of the project site regardless of the time of the year. "Site" means the project site and the area
within a radius of 450 feet of the project site. The report shall be submitted and approved by the
Wildlife Agencies and/or City of San Diego MSCP staff in writing prior to construction or burrowing
owl eviction(s) and shall include maps of the project site and burrowing owl locations on aerial
photos.
Page 26
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
2. The preconstruction survey shall follow the methods described in CDFG 2012, Staff
Report - Appendix D.
3. 24 hours prior to commencement of ground -disturbing activities, the Qualified Biologist shall
verify results of preconstruction/take avoidance surveys via review of the Survey Report (see
report requirements in CDFG 2012, Staff Report - Appendix D 3) that is to be provided to the City
and Wildlife Agencies. Written verification via the Survey Report shall be provided to the City of
San Diego's MMC and MSCP Sections, and to the satisfaction of these sections. If results of the
preconstruction surveys have changed and burrowing owl are present in areas not previously
identified, immediate notification to the City of San Diego and Wildlife Agencies shall be provided
prior to ground -disturbing activities.
During Construction:
Best Management Practices shall be employed as burrowing owls are known to use open pipes,
culverts, excavated holes, and other burrow -like structures at construction sites. Legally permitted
active construction projects which are burrowing owl occupied and have followed all protocol in
this mitigation section, or sites within 450 feet of occupied burrowing owl areas, should undertake
measures to discourage burrowing owls from recolonizing previously occupied areas or colonizing
new portions of the site. Such measures include, but are not limited to, ensuring that the ends of
all pipes and culverts are covered when they are not being worked on, and covering rubble piles,
dirt piles, ditches, and berms.
2. Ongoing Burrowing Owl Detection - If burrowing owls or active burrows are not detected during
the preconstruction surveys, Section "A" below shall be followed. If burrowing owls or burrows
are detected during the preconstruction surveys, Section "B" shall be followed. NEITHER THE MSCP
SUBAREA PLAN NOR THIS MITIGATION SECTION ALLOWS FOR ANY BURROWING OWLS TO BE
INJURED OR KILLED OUTSIDE OR WITHIN THE MHPA; in addition, IMPACTS TO BURROWING OWLS
WITHIN THE MHPA MUST BE AVOIDED.
A. Post Survey Follow Up if Burrowing Owls and/or Signs of Active Natural or Artificial
Burrows Are Not Detected During the Initial Preconstruction Survey - Monitoring the site
for new burrows is required using CDFG Staff Report 2012 Appendix D methods for the period
following the initial preconstruction survey, until construction is scheduled to be complete and
is complete (NOTE - Using a projected completion date [that is amended if needed] will allow
development of a monitoring schedule).
1) If no active burrows are found but burrowing owls are observed to occasionally (1-3
sightings) use the site for roosting or foraging, they should be allowed to do so with no
changes in the construction or construction schedule.
2) If no active burrows are found but burrowing owls are observed during follow up
monitoring to repeatedly (4 or more sightings) use the site for roosting or foraging, the
City of San Diego's MMC and MSCP Sections shall be notified and any portion of the site
where owls have been sited and that has not been graded or otherwise disturbed shall be
avoided until further notice.
Page 27
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
3) If a burrowing owl begins using a burrow on the site at any time after the initial
preconstruction survey, procedures described in Section B must be followed.
4) Any actions other than these require the approval of the City of San Diego and the Wildlife
Agencies.
B. Post Survey Follow Up if Burrowing Owls and/or Active Natural or Artificial Burrows are
Detected During the Initial Preconstruction Survey - Monitoring the site for new burrows
is required using Appendix D CDFG 2012, Staff Report for the period following the initial
preconstruction survey, until construction is scheduled to be complete and is complete (NOTE
- Using a projected completion date (that is amended if needed) will allow development of a
monitoring schedule which adheres to the required number of surveys in the detection
protocol).
1) This section (B) applies only to sites (including biologically defined territory) wholly outside
of the MHPA - all direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls within the MHPA SHALL
be avoided.
2) If one or more burrowing owls are using any burrows (including pipes, culverts, debris
piles, etc.) on or within 300 feet of the proposed construction area, the City of San Diego's
MMC and MSCP Sections shall be immediately contacted. The City of San Diego's MSCP
and MMC Section shall contact the Wildlife Agencies regarding eviction/collapsing burrows
and enlist appropriate City of San Diego biologist for on-going coordination with the
Wildlife Agencies and the qualified consulting burrowing owl biologist. No construction
shall occur within 300 feet of an active burrow without written concurrence from the
Wildlife Agencies. This distance may increase or decrease, depending on the burrow's
location in relation to the site's topography, and other physical and biological
characteristics.
a) Outside the Breeding Season - If the burrowing owl is using a burrow on-site
outside the breeding season (i.e., September 1 -January 31), the burrowing owl may
be evicted after the qualified burrowing owl biologist has determined via fiber optic
camera or other appropriate device, that no eggs, young, or adults are in the burrow.
Eviction requires preparation of an Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with
CDFG 2012 Staff Report, Appendix E (or most recent guidance available) for review
and submittal to Wildlife Agencies and City of San Diego (MMC and MSCP). Written
concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies is required prior to Exclusion Plan
implementation.
b) During Breeding Season - If a burrowing owl is using a burrow onsite during the
breeding season (February 1 -August 31), construction shall not occur within 300 feet
of the burrow until the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the
burrow, at which time the burrowing owls can be evicted. Eviction requires
preparation of an Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with CDFG 2012 Staff
Report, Appendix E (or most recent guidance available) for review and submittal to
Wildlife Agencies and City of San Diego (MMC and MSCP). Written concurrence from
the Wildlife Agencies is required prior to Exclusion Plan implementation.
Page 28
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
3. Survey Reporting During Construction - Details of construction surveys and evictions (if
applicable) carried out shall be immediately (within 5 working days or sooner) reported to
the City of San Diego's MMC, and MSCP Sections and the Wildlife Agencies and must be
provided in writing (as bye -mail) and acknowledged to have been received bythe required
Agencies and DSD Staff member(s).
Post Construction:
1. Details of all surveys and actions undertaken on-site with respect to burrowing owls (i.e.,
occupation, eviction, locations etc.) shall be reported to the City of San Diego's MMC Section and
the Wildlife Agencies within 21 days post -construction and prior to the release of any grading
bonds. This report must include summaries of all previous reports for the site; and maps of the
project site and burrowing owl locations on aerial photos.
BIO -SD -7 Direct Impact Avoidance for Crotch's Bumble Bee
Should this species no longer be a state candidate for listing or state listed as threatened or
endangered at the time of the preconstruction meeting, then no avoidance measures shall be
required.
1. Prior to the Notice to Proceed (NTP) for any construction permits, including but not limited to, the
first Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits, the Development
Services Department (DSD) Director's Environmental Designee shall verify the following project
requirements regarding the Crotch's bumble bee are shown on the construction permit:
A. To avoid impacts to Crotch's bumble bee, removal of habitat in the proposed area of
disturbance must occur outside of the Colony Active Period between April 1 through August
31. If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the Colony
Active Period, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to determine the
presence or absence of Crotch's bumble bee within the proposed area of disturbance.
B. Surveys must be conducted by a Qualified Biologist meeting the qualifications discussed in
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations
for California Endangered Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6,
2023). The Qualified Biologist shall send all photo vouchers to a CDFW-approved taxonomist
to confirm the identifications of the bumble bees encountered during surveys.
C. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted during the colony active period between April
1 through August 31 by the Qualified Biologist within 30 calendar days prior to the issuance
of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits and within one year
prior to the initiation of project activities (including removal of vegetation). The pre -
construction survey shall consist of photographic surveys following California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations for California Endangered
Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6, 2023). The surveys shall
consist of passive methods unless a Memorandum of Understanding is obtained, as described
below. The surveys shall consist of three separate visits spaced two to four weeks apart.
Survey results will be considered valid until the start of the next colony active period.
Page 29
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
D. If additional activities (e.g., capture or handling) are deemed necessary to identify bumble
bees of an unknown species that may be Crotch's bumble bee, then the Qualified Biologist
shall obtain required authorization via a Memorandum of Understanding or Scientific
Collecting Permit pursuant to CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee
Species (CDFW 2023). Survey methods that involve lethal take of species are not acceptable.
E. The Qualified Biologist/owner permittee shall submit the results (including positive or negative
survey results) of the pre -construction survey to City DSD (Mitigation Monitoring and
Coordination) City Planning Department (MSCP) staff and CDFW for review and written
approval prior to the issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building
Plans/Permits.
F. If pre -construction surveys identify Crotch's bumble bee individuals on-site, the Qualified
Biologist shall notify and consult with CDFW to determine whether project activities would
result in impacts to Crotch's bumble bee, in which case an Incidental Take Permit ITP) may be
required. If an ITP is required, it shall be obtained prior to issuance of Grading Permit,
Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits and all necessary permit conditions shall
be fulfilled prior to initiation of project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened,
candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law
(California Fish and Game Code §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, §786.9) under the CESA.
G. Survey data shall be submitted by the Qualified Biologist to the CNDDB in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW, or Scientific Collecting Permit requirements, as
applicable.
Finding: In addition to mitigation measure BIO -SD -1 requiring habitat -based mitigation, the Project
would implement BIO -SD -4 through BIO -SD -7 requiring specific measures associated with each
special status species. BIO -CV -4 requires preconstruction should occur outside of the breeding season
for least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow -breasted chat, and yellow
warbler (February 1 to September 15) or a preconstruction survey shall be completed by a Qualified
Biologist preconstruction to determine the presence or absence of nesting least Bell's vireo,
burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow -breasted chat, and yellow warbler on the
proposed area of disturbance. Specifically related to avoidance of least Bell's vireo, BIO -SD -5 requires
avoidance or preconstruction surveys between March 15 and September 15, the breeding season of
the least Bell's vireo until specific requirements are met including an additional work zone delineation
plus 300 feet, as well as noise reduction measures if a preconstruction survey detects this species.
Initial preconstruction/take avoidance surveys are completed between 14 and 30 days before initial
construction activities begin. Surveys must be conducted by a Qualified Biologist meeting the
qualifications discussed in the CDFW guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations for California Endangered
Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6, 2023). The Qualified Biologist shall
send all photo vouchers to a CDFW-approved taxonomist to confirm the identifications of the bumble
bees encountered during surveys. Implementation of BIO -SD -1 and BIO -SD -4 through BIO -SD -7 would
ensure that direct, indirect, and cumulatively significant impacts related to sensitive species and
habitats under the Annexation Scenario 2a would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, and Final EIR Appendix D.
Page 30
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Impact: Consistent with City of San Diego Biology Guidelines (2018) and the ESL Regulations, impacts
to potential jurisdictional resources within the project area would be avoided and minimized to the
extent feasible. However, despite effort to avoid and minimize impacts, a total of 0.40 acre of impacts
to potential RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of San Diego wetlands would occur with
project implementation (see Final EIR Figure 4.3-6). Impacts would be potentially significant.
Facts: The Project would result in impacts to 0.40 acre of wetland habitat. Under Annexation Scenario
2a, impacts to wetlands would require a deviation from the ESL wetland regulations in accordance
with SDMC Section 143.0150. The project qualifies for a wetland deviation under the Biologically
Superior Option because the wetlands are considered low quality, and the Project has demonstrated
wetlands avoidance to the extent feasible. In addition, the Project would result in a biologically
superior design through creation/establishment and enhancement/ rehabilitation within Spring
Canyon, as well as improvements to the on-site wetlands. Wetland enhancement/ rehabilitation would
include the conversion of non-native riparian habitat (i.e., tamarisk scrub) into native riparian habitat,
while wetland creation/establishment would include the conversion of disturbed habitat and non-
native grassland habitat to native riparian habitat. All details of wetland and wetland buffer
requirements are provided in the Wetland Plan (Final EIR Appendix D, Attachment 13).
Mitigation Measures: See BIO -SD -2
BIO -SD -8 Wetland Restoration/Creation and Permits
Prior to issuance of land development permits by the City of Chula Vista, including clearing, grubbing,
grading, and/or construction permits that impact jurisdictional waters, the Project applicant shall
provide compensatory wetland mitigation resulting in no overall net loss of wetlands. The Project
would result in a total of 0.40 acre of impacts to RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of
Chula Vista wetlands. A total of 0.80 acre of mitigation for permanent impacts shall be provided, at
minimum. To ensure no net loss, the mitigation shall include a 1:1 creation component.
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or
construction permits by the City of Chula Vista that impact jurisdictional waters, the Project applicant
shall obtain all necessary permits from RWQCB and CDFW and shall mitigate direct impacts pursuant
to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and in accordance with the terms and conditions of all
required permits. Areas under the jurisdictional authority of RWQCB and CDFW shall be delineated
on all grading plans.
The applicant shall submit a Final Wetlands Plan and submit it for review and approval to the
satisfaction of the City of San Diego, USFWS, RWQCB, and CDFW. The plan shall include, at a minimum,
an implementation strategy; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative
and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated
completion time; contingency measures; and identify long-term funding.
The Project applicant shall implement the Wetlands Plan subject to the oversight and approval of the
City of San Diego DSD director (or their designee), RWQCB, and CDFW. Additionally, as a project design
feature, the Final Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include 2.21 acres of weed control
within the Spring Canyon corridor and 0.46 acre of wetland creation/establishment area that shall
Page 31
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
serve as partial mitigation for Southwest Village project being processed by the City of San Diego
(SCH2O04651076; PRJ-0614791).
The Project proponent shall provide funding in an amount approved by the City and the Wildlife
Agencies based on a Property Analysis Record, or similar cost estimation method, to secure the
ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the off-
site wetland mitigation area by an agency, nonprofit organization, or other entity approved by the City
and the Wildlife Agencies.
113I0 -SD -9 Protection and Management Element
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the remaining
environmentally sensitive lands (ESL) shall be placed in a covenant of easement (Figure 6-1) per
Section 143.0140(a) of the SDMC ESL regulation (City of San Diego 2022). These lands will not be used
towards mitigation and will be protected from future development. Long-term management of the
wetlands within the covenant of easement would be managed by the homeowners association in
accordance with the Long-term Management Plan (see BIO -SD -10).
BIO -SD -10
Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, a long-term
management plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of San Diego DSD director (or their
designee), USFWS, and CDFW to address the ongoing maintenance of the on-site wetland mitigation
lands to remain. This plan shall require (1) yearly inspection and enforcement of lighting within the
site to be directed and shielded away from the wetland area; (2) yearly maintenance of the 6 -foot
block wall that separates the development from the wetland area to reduce intrusion into the
wetlands; (3) control invasive species appearing within the wetland three times a year; (4) brush
management once a year with techniques that protect habitat quality; and (5) trash removal once a
year. The project proponent shall provide funding in an amount approved by the City and the Wildlife
Agencies based on a Property Analysis Record (Center for Natural Lands Management 1998), or similar
cost estimation method, to secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management,
maintenance, and monitoring of the on-site wetland mitigation area by the Owner/Permittee.
Finding: In addition to mitigation measure BIO -SD -2 relating to indirect impacts to sensitive habitat,
the Project would implement BIO -SD -8 to BIO -SD -9 requiring specific mitigation associated with
impacts to jurisdictional wetland resources. BIO -SD -8 requires compensatory wetland mitigation
resulting in no overall net loss of wetlands at ratios approved by RWQCB, CDFW, and the City of San
Diego. To ensure no net loss, the mitigation shall include a 1:1 creation or restoration component.
Additionally, a Wetlands Plan is required to be submitted and approved by RWQCB, CDFW, and the
City to ensure a long-term planting and viability plan for the wetlands restoration. BIO -SD -9 requires
the remaining environmentally sensitive lands to be placed in a covenant of easement (Figure 6-1) per
Section 143.0140(a) of the SDMC. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO -SD -10 requires preparation
and approval of a long term management plan associated with the on-site wetland. With
implementation of BIO -SD -8 through BIO -SD -10, direct impacts to wetlands would be reduced to less
Page 32
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
than significant. With implementation of BIO -SD -2, indirect impacts to wetlands during construction
would be reduced to less than significant.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, and Final EIR Appendix D.
3. Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials
Impact: The Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment, resulting in a direct significant impact.
Facts: Although no burn ash was identified within the Project site or within areas of the adjacent
Davies property proposed for remedial grading, there is a potential risk that during construction of
the Project site, of burn ash being released during grading, which would be a direct significant impact
as detailed in Final EIR Section 4.6.3.1 and Final EIR Appendix H.
Mitigation Measure:
HAZ-SD-1 Community Health and Safety Plan
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to: the first Grading Permit,
Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the
Owner/Permittee shall prepare a Community Health and Safety Plan (CHSP) to address the Project
site and potential burn ash contamination to be reviewed and approved by the City of San Diego Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA). The CHSP shall include a site description, the scope of work to be
conducted, responsibilities and key personal and contact information, analysis of hazards present,
and procedures and protocols based on current regulatory standards and guidance to be utilized in
the event hazardous conditions related to burn ash is encountered. Such conditions can include visual
observations that indicate evidence of burn ash such as heat frosted glass shards, or stained or
discolored soil. The CHSP shall include information informing all personnel of the potential presence
of burn ash and procedures to follow if any is encountered during construction activities.
The City of San Diego LEA shall be invited to any preconstruction meetings and the approved CHSP
shall be distributed to all contractors and implemented by the Owner/Permittee, the Contractor, and
subcontractors prior to and during all soil excavation activities. The Contractor shall serve as the Site
Safety Manager and oversee the implementation of the CHSP.
The Owner/Permittee shall provide the City of San Diego evidence of completion and approval of the
CHSP prior to issuance of grading permits.
Finding: Mitigation measure HAZ-SD-1 requires preparation of a CHSP under the oversight of the City
of San Diego LEAto detail potential hazards that may be present, and procedures and protocols based
on current regulatory standards to be utilized in the event any hazardous condition is encountered.
Specifically, the CHSP would include procedures to follow should burn ash be encountered during
grading and construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-SD-1 would ensure
Page 33
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
adverse impacts related to potential accidental release of burn ash during grading for the areas
currently within the City would be reduced to less than significant.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.8.3.2 and Final EIR Appendix H.
4. Historical and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact: A potentially significant impact to unknown prehistoric/archaeological resources could result
during on-site grading and grading within the off-site components improvement areas. Therefore,
impacts to historical resources associated with potential discovery of buried archaeological remains
and/or Tribal Cultural Resources would be significant.
Facts: During grading activities there is a potential to impact buried prehistoric archaeological
resources and/or Tribal Cultural Resources. This could result in direct significant impacts as detailed
in Final EIR Sections 4.7.3.2 and 4.10.3.2 and Final EIR Appendix K.
Mitigation Measure:
HIST -SD -1 Archeological and Native American Monitoring
I. Prior to Permit Issuance
A. Entitlements Plan Check
1. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions,
but prior to the first preconstruction meeting, whichever is applicable, the Assistant
Deputy Director (ADD) Environmental designee shall verify that the requirements for
Archaeological Monitoring and Native American monitoring have been noted on the
applicable construction documents through the plan check process.
B. Letters of Qualification have been submitted to ADD
The applicant shall submit a letter of verification to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Coordination (MMC) office identifying the Principal Investigator (PI) for the project and the
names of all persons involved in the archaeological monitoring program, as defined in the
City of San Diego Historical Resources Guidelines (HRG). If applicable, individuals involved
in the archaeological monitoring program must have completed the 40 -hour HAZWOPER
training with certification documentation.
2. MMC will provide a letter to the applicant confirming the qualifications of the PI and all
persons involved in the archaeological monitoring of the project meet the qualifications
established in the HRG.
3. Prior to the start of work, the applicant must obtain written approval from MMC for any
personnel changes associated with the monitoring program.
Page 34
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
II. Prior to Start of Construction
A. Verification of Records Search
1. The PI shall provide verification to MMC that a site specific records search (1/4 -mile radius)
has been completed. Verification includes, but is not limited to a copy of a confirmation
letter from South Coastal Information Center, or, if the search was in-house, a letter of
verification from the PI stating that the search was completed.
2. The letter shall introduce any pertinent information concerning expectations and
probabilities of discovery during trenching and/or grading activities.
3. The PI may submit a detailed letter to MMC requesting a reduction to the 1/4 -mile radius.
B. PI Shall Attend Precon Meetings
Prior to beginning any work that requires monitoring; the Applicant shall arrange a Precon
Meeting that shall include the PI, Native American consultant/monitor (where Native
American resources may be impacted), Construction Manager (CM) and/or Grading
Contractor, Resident Engineer (RE), Building Inspector (BI), if appropriate, and MMC. The
qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall attend any grading/excavation
related precon meetings to make comments and/or suggestions concerning the
archaeological monitoring program with the CM and/or Grading Contractor.
If the PI is unable to attend the precon meeting, the applicant shall schedule a focused
precon meeting with MMC, the PI, RE, CM or BI, if appropriate, prior to the start of any
work that requires monitoring.
2. Identify Areas to be Monitored
a. Prior to the start of any work that requires monitoring, the PI shall submit an
Archaeological Monitoring Exhibit (AME) (with verification that the AME has been
reviewed and approved by the Native American consultant/monitor when Native
American resources may be impacted) based on the appropriate construction
documents (reduced to 11 x17) to MMC identifying the areas to be monitored including
the delineation of grading/excavation limits.
b. The AME shall be based on the results of a site specific records search as well as
information regarding existing known soil conditions (native or formation).
3. When Monitoring Will Occur
a. Prior to the start of any work, the PI shall also submit a construction schedule to MMC
through the RE indicating when and where monitoring will occur.
b. The PI may submit a detailed letter to MMC prior to the start of work or during
construction requesting a modification to the monitoring program. This request shall
be based on relevant information such as review of final construction documents
which indicate site conditions such as depth of excavation and/or site graded to
bedrock, etc., which may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present.
Page 35
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
III. During Construction
A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During Grading/Excavation/Trenching
The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to archaeological
resources as identified on the AME. The CM is responsible for notifying the RE, PI, and
MMC of changes to any construction activities such as in the case of a potential safety
concern within the area being monitored. In certain circumstances Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) safety requirements may necessitate modification of
the AME.
2. The Native American consultant/monitor shall determine the extent of their presence
during soil disturbing and grading/excavation/trenching activities based on the AME and
provide that information to the PI and MMC. If prehistoric resources are encountered
during the Native American consultant/monitor's absence, work shall stop and the
Discovery Notification Process detailed in Section III.B-C and IV.A-D shall commence.
3. The PI may submit a detailed letter to MMC during construction requesting a modification
to the monitoring program when a field condition such as modern disturbance post-dating
the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native
soils are encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be
present.
4. The archaeological and Native American consultant/monitor shall document field activity
via the Consultant Site Visit Record (CSVR). The CSVRs shall be faxed or emailed by the CM
to the RE the first day of monitoring, the last day of monitoring, monthly (Notification of
Monitoring Completion), and in the case of ANY discoveries. The RE shall forward copies
to MMC.
B. Discovery Notification Process
1. In the event of a discovery, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to
temporarily divert all soil disturbing activities, including but not limited to digging,
trenching, excavating or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area
reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent resources and immediately notify the RE or BI,
as appropriate.
2. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless monitor is the PI) of the discovery.
3. The PI shall immediately notify MMC by phone of the discovery, and shall also submit
written documentation to MMC within 24 hours by fax or email with photos of the resource
in context, if possible.
4. No soil shall be exported off-site until a determination can be made regarding the
significance of the resource specifically if Native American resources are encountered.
Page 36
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
C. Determination of Significance
1. The PI and Native American consultant/monitor, where Native American resources are
discovered, shall evaluate the significance of the resource. If human remains are involved,
follow protocol in Section IV below.
a. The PI shall immediately notify MMC by phone to discuss significance determination
and shall also submit a letter to MMC indicating whether additional mitigation is
required.
b. If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery
Program (ADRP), which has been reviewed by the Native American
consultant/monitor, and obtain written approval from MMC. Impacts to significant
resources must be mitigated before ground -disturbing activities in the area of
discovery will be allowed to resume. Note: If a unique archaeological site is also a
historical resource as defined in CEQA, then the limits on the amount(s) that a project
applicant may be required to pay to cover mitigation costs as indicated in CEQA
Guidelines Section 21083.2 shall not apply.
c. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to MMC indicating that
artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring report. The
letter shall also indicate that no further work is required.
IV. Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and no soil shall be exported offsite until
a determination can be made regarding the provenance of the human remains; and the following
procedures as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.3(e), the California Public Resources Code (Section
5097.98) and state Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be undertaken:
A. Notification
1. Archaeological monitor shall notify the RE or BI as appropriate, MMC, and the PI, if the
monitor is not qualified as a PI. MMC will notify the appropriate senior planner in the
Environmental Analysis Section of the Development Services Department to assist with
the discovery notification process.
2. The PI shall notify the medical examiner after consultation with the RE, either in person or
via telephone.
B. Isolate discovery site
1. Work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a determination can be
made by the medical examiner in consultation with the PI concerning the provenance of
the remains.
2. The medical examiner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a field
examination to determine the provenance.
Page 37
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
3. If a field examination is not warranted, the medical examiner will determine with input
from the PI, if the remains are or are not most likely to be of Native American origin.
C. If human remains ARE determined to be Native American
1. The medical examiner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within
24 hours. By law, ONLY the medical examiner can make this call.
2. NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be the most likely
descendent (MLD) and provide contact information.
3. The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the medical examiner has
completed coordination, to begin the consultation process in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(e), and the California Public Resources and Health & Safety
Codes.
4. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner or
representative, for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity, of the human remains
and associated grave goods.
5. Disposition of Native American Human Remains will be determined between the MLD and
the PI, and, if:
a. The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD, OR the MLD failed to make a recommendation
within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, OR;
b. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD
and mediation in accordance with PRC Section 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC fails to provide
measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner shall reinter the human
remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface
disturbance, THEN
c. To protect these sites, the landowner shall do one or more of the following:
(1) Record the site with the NAHC;
(2) Record an open space or conservation easement; or
(3) Record a document with the County. The document shall be titled "Notice of
Reinterment of Native American Remains" and shall include a legal description of
the property, the name of the property owner, and the owner's acknowledged
signature, in addition to any other information required by PRC Section 5097.98.
The document shall be indexed as a notice under the name of the owner.
Page 38
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
V. Night and/or Weekend Work
A. If night and/or weekend work is included in the contract:
1. When night and/or weekend work is included in the contract package, the extent and
timing shall be presented and discussed at the precon meeting.
2. The following procedures shall be followed.
a. No Discoveries
In the event that no discoveries were encountered during night and/or weekend work,
the PI shall record the information on the CSVR and submit to MMC via fax by 8 a.m.
of the next business day.
b. Discoveries
All discoveries shall be processed and documented using the existing procedures
detailed in Sections III - During Construction, and IV - Discovery of Human Remains.
Discovery of human remains shall always be treated as a significant discovery.
c. Potentially Significant Discoveries
If the PI determines that a potentially significant discovery has been made, the
procedures detailed under Section III - During Construction and IV - Discovery of
Human Remains shall be followed.
d. The PI shall immediately contact MMC, or by 8 a.m. of the next business day, to report
and discuss the findings as indicated in Section III -B, unless other specific
arrangements have been made.
B. If night and/or weekend work becomes necessary during the course of construction:
1. The CM shall notify the RE, or BI, as appropriate, a minimum of 24 hours before the work
is to begin.
2. The RE, or BI, as appropriate, shall notify MMC immediately.
C. All other procedures described above shall apply, as appropriate.
VI. Post Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report
1. The PI shall submit two copies of the Draft Monitoring Report (even if negative), prepared
in accordance with the Historical Resources Guidelines (Appendix C/D) which describes
the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the Archaeological Monitoring
Program (with appropriate graphics) to MMC for review and approval within 90 days
following the completion of monitoring. It should be noted that if the PI is unable to submit
Page 39
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
the Draft Monitoring Report within the allotted 90 -day timeframe resulting from delays
with analysis, special study results or other complex issues, a schedule shall be submitted
to MMC establishing agreed due dates and the provision for submittal of monthly status
reports until this measure can be met.
a. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the
Archaeological Data Recovery Program shall be included in the Draft Monitoring
Report.
b. Recording Sites with State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
The PI shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate State of California
Department of Park and Recreation forms—DPR 523A/B) any significant or potentially
significant resources encountered during the Archaeological Monitoring Program in
accordance with the City of San Diego's HRG, and submittal of such forms to the South
Coastal Information Center with the Final Monitoring Report.
2. MMC shall return the Draft Monitoring Report to the PI for revision or, for preparation of
the Final Report.
3. The PI shall submit revised Draft Monitoring Report to MMC for approval.
4. MMC shall provide written verification to the PI of the approved report.
5. MMC shall notify the RE or BI, as appropriate, of receipt of all Draft Monitoring Report
submittals and approvals.
B. Handling of Artifacts
1. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are cleaned and
cataloged.
2. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function
and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified
as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.
3. The cost for curation is the responsibility of the property owner.
C. Cu ration of artifacts: Accession Agreement and Acceptance Verification
1. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts associated with the survey, testing
and/or data recovery for this project are permanently curated with an appropriate
institution. This shall be completed in consultation with MMC and the Native American
representative, as applicable.
2. The PI shall include the Acceptance Verification from the curation institution in the Final
Monitoring Report submitted to the RE or BI and MMC.
Page 40
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
When applicable to the situation, the PI shall include written verification from the Native
American consultant/monitor indicating that Native American resources were treated in
accordance with state law and/or applicable agreements. If the resources were reinterred,
verification shall be provided to show what protective measures were taken to ensure no
further disturbance occurs in accordance with Section IV - Discovery of Human Remains,
Subsection 5.
D. Final Monitoring Report(s)
1. The PI shall submit one copy of the approved Final Monitoring Report to the RE or BI as
appropriate, and one copy to MMC (even if negative), within 90 days after notification from
MMC that the draft report has been approved.
The RE shall, in no case, issue the Notice of Completion and/or release of the Performance
Bond for grading until receiving a copy of the approved Final Monitoring Report from MMC
which includes the Acceptance Verification from the curation institution.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure HIST -SD -1 requires archaeological and Native
American monitoring during grading to ensure oversight during ground -disturbing activities. Should
unidentified potentially significant historic archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources be discovered
during Project grading, the monitors would halt work to allow the resources to be evaluated. If
significant resources are recovered, implementation of a Research Design and Data Recovery Program
would be required. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measure HIST -SD -1 would ensure
significant resources are treated properly to reduce significant direct impacts to less than significant.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.7, Historical Resources, Section 4.10, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Final EIRAppendix K.
6. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact: The Project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction, resulting in a
significant direct impact to water quality.
Facts: Due to the potential for burn ash to be encountered during site grading, pollutants could be
released during construction and flow into surface water. The potential to encounter burn ash within
the Project site would result in a potentially significant impact to water quality as detailed in Final EIR
Section 4.12.3.2 and Final EIR Appendix K.
Mitigation Measures: See HAZ-SD-1
Finding: The Project would implement mitigation measure HAZ-SD-1, requiring preparation and
approval of a CHSP prior to ground -disturbing activities within the City. Under the oversight of the City
of San Diego LEA, the CHSP would detail potential hazards that may be present, as well as procedures
and protocols based on current regulatory standards to be utilized in the event any hazardous
condition is encountered. Specifically, the CHSP would include procedures to follow should burn ash
be encountered during grading and construction activities. Therefore, implementation of mitigated
Page 41
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
measure HAZ-SD-1 would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts related to pollutant runoff
(burn ash) to less than significant levels.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.12, Hydrology and Water Quality and Final EIR Appendices H-1 through H-5.
C. Impacts that would remain Significant and Unavoidable: Findings Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record
of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3), finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make infeasible any mitigation measures related to land use plan consistency (consistency with the
City of San Diego General Plan 021-2029 Housing Element) for the Project's greenhouse gas [GHG])
and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts as explained in more detail in the Final EIR.
"Feasible" is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished
in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) also provide that "other" considerations may form the basis for
a finding of infeasibility. Case law makes clear that a mitigation measure or alternative can be deemed
infeasible because of its failure to meet Project objectives or on related public policy grounds. These
Findings are appropriate because there are no feasible mitigation measures available that would
reduce the identified Project impacts to below a level of significance.
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact: The Project would result in significant impacts associated with GHG emissions and conflict
with applicable plans, policies, and/or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of GHGs.
Facts: Under Annexation Scenario 2a, the Project would implement the City of San Diego's Climate
Action Plan (CAP) Consistency Regulations and proposed project design features. However, because
the Project would not be consistent with the growth projections used in the development of the CAP,
cumulative GHG impacts would be significant.
Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions and conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs would be significant as
detailed in Final EIR Section 4.5 and Final EIR Appendix M-1.
Mitigation Measures:
GHG-SD-1 Transit Passes
Prior to first occupancy, the permittee shall implement a transit subsidy program. The subsidy value
will be limited to the equivalent value of 25 percent of the cost of an MTS "Regional Adult Monthly/30
Day Pass" (currently $72, which equates to a subsidy value of $18 per month). Subsidies will be
Page 42
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
available on a per-unit basis to residential tenants for a period of five years (five years after issuance
of the first occupancy permit). Permittee shall provide an annual report to the City Engineer in each
of the first five years demonstrating how the offer was publicized to residents and documenting the
results of the program each year, including number of participants and driveway traffic counts.
GHG-SD-2 Commute Trip Reduction Program
Prior to first occupancy, the permittee shall develop and implement a commute trip reduction
program that requires each homeowner and tenant to be provided with a one-page flyer every year
that provides information regarding available transit, designated bicycle routes, local bicycle groups
and programs, local walking routes and programs, and rideshare programs.
GHG-SD-3 Bicycle Micro -mobility Fleet
Prior to first occupancy, the permittee shall provide one bicycle (up to a $400 value) per unit to the
first buyer of each unit.
GHG-SD-4 Energy Star Appliances
Prior to the issuance of residential building permits, the permittee shall submit building plans
illustrating that residential structures shall have Energy Star rated appliances (clothes washers,
dishwashers, refrigerators, and ceiling fans).
GHG-SD-5 Alternative Water Heating
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permittee shall submit building plans illustrating that
residential structures shall have non -gas water heaters (e.g., electric or solar water heating).
GHG-SD-6 Water Efficient Landscaping
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permittee shall submit landscaping plans illustrating that
the project would provide low-water use/drought tolerant plant species with low-water use irrigation
(e.g., spray head or drip), where required.
Finding: The Project would implement mitigation measures GHG-SD-1 through GHG-SD-6 to reduce
the Project's GHG emission impact. The Project would also implement the City of San Diego's CAP
Consistency Regulations. However, per the City of San Diego's CAP threshold guidance, a project that
would generate more emissions than planned for in the City of San Diego CAP would result in a
significant impact with regards to GHG. The Project site is not currently within the City of San Diego
and therefore the associated GHG emissions were not accounted for in the City of San Diego CAP. As
such, the Project would be required to achieve net zero emissions in order to not increase emissions
beyond the level assumed in the CAP. All feasible mitigation has been implemented as further detailed
in the GHG Emissions Technical Report (see Appendix G). While the proposed mitigation measures
would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible, the Project would not achieve net zero emissions
and therefore would not be consistent with the CAP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable
cumulative GHG emission impact after mitigation.
Page 43
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this
impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations described below make the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the
FEIR infeasible. Thus, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.5 and Final EIR Appendix G.
2. Transportation/Circulation
Impact: The Project would result in VMT exceeding thresholds identified in the City of San Diego
Transportation Study Manual (TSM). Pursuant to the TSM the Project would exceed the threshold of
15 percent below the regional mean VMT per capita. Impacts would be significant.
Facts: The Project would apply Transportation Demand Management measure T-4 (Integrate
Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing) from the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing
Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. The Project proposes 22 affordable units
(11 low-income and 11 moderate -income). Measure T-4 would apply to the 11 low-income units.
Application of this strategy resulted in a reduction of approximately 1.4 percent of the Project's total
VMT per capita, resulting in 90.6 percent of the regional mean VMT per capita, which is above the City
of San Diego's threshold of 85 percent of the regional average VMT per capita. Therefore, even with
the application of CAPCOA reduction measures, and GHG related project design features (PDFs),
impacts would be significant.
Mitigation Measures:
TRA -SD -1 San Diego Active Transportation In Lieu Fee
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the owner/permittee shall pay the City of San Diego Active
Transportation In Lieu Fee, consistent with SDMC Section 143.1101, as mitigation to the greatest
extent feasible. The owner/permittee shall provide evidence to the City of San Diego that the fee has
been paid.
Finding: The Project would implement mitigation measures TRA -SD -1 requiring the collection of funds
consistent with SDMC Section 143.1101 to be used to fund VMT reducing infrastructure projects
throughout the City of San Diego. However, notwithstanding implementation of CAPCOA reduction
measure T-4 and mitigation measure TRA -SD -1, because the Project would not be able to reduce VMT
to below 85 percent of regional mean (per capita), it would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT
impact after mitigation.
No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified or proposed that would mitigate this
impact to below a level of significance. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations described below make the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR infeasible. Thus, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Page 44
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 4.9 and Final EIR Appendix M-1.
3. Land Use
Impact: Under Annexation Scenario 2a, site grading and development proceed after the LAFCO
reorganization process is complete. Therefore, all development -related impacts are based on City of
San Diego regulations and policies. The Project would conflict with the City of San Diego General Plan
Housing Element because it would not be consistent with Goal 5, Objective O which states that
housing policies should align with state and local emissions reduction and climate adaptation
strategies. Therefore, impacts associated with land use plans and policies would be significant.
Facts: Although the Project would implement mitigation measures GHG-SD-1 through GHG-SD-6,
GHG emissions are considered significant because the Project site is not currently within the City of
San Diego and associated emissions were not accounted for in the City of San Diego CAP. To meet the
assumptions in the CAP, the Project would have to obtain net zero or negative GHG emissions. While
the inclusion of proposed PDF-GHG-1 through PDF-GHG-9 and mitigation measures GHG-SD-1
through GHG-SD-4 would reduce GHG emissions, the associated reduction cannot be shown to result
in net zero emissions, and it cannot be demonstrated that the Project would achieve emissions
consistent with the CAP. As such, the Project would not be consistent with the CAP and the Project
would not be consistent with Goal 5, Objective O of the Housing Element.
X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must contain a discussion of "a
range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." Section 15126.6(f)
further states that "the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the'rule of reason' that requires
the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice."
The objectives of the proposed Project are stated above in Section II.A. Project Objectives.
The City Council must consider the feasibility of any alternatives to the Project, evaluating whether
these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects while achieving
most of the objectives of the Project. The Final EIR includes an analysis of three alternative scenarios
comparable to the Annexation Scenario 2a: No Project (No Development) Alternative, No Project
(Development Under the Existing General Plan) Alternative, and the Reduced Footprint Wetland
Impact Reduction Alternative.
A. No Project (No Development) Alternative
Under the No Project (No Development) Alternative, the Project would not be implemented, and the
Project site would remain in its current vacant condition.
Potentially Significant Effects: The No Project (No Development) Alternative would avoid all
significant and potentially significant impacts associated with the Project, including significant and
Page 45
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
unmitigated Land Use, Transportation and GHG impacts, and significant but mitigated impacts related
to Biological Resources, Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials, Historical and Tribal Cultural
Resources, and Hydrology and Water Quality.
Finding: The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, rejects
the No Project (No Development) Alternative as it fails to satisfy the Project's underlying purpose and
fails to meet any of the Project objectives. The City finds that any of these grounds are independently
sufficient to support rejection of this alternative.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 9.2, No Project (No Development) Alternative.
B. No Project (Development Under the Existing General Plan) Alternative
The No Project (Development Under the Existing Plan) Alternative is the No Project Alternative that
could reasonably be expected to occur if the Project did not proceed, and development would be
completed in accordance with applicable land use plans and zoning. This alternative assumes the site
would be developed with a passive recreational use consistent with the City Agricultural Zone (A-8)
and Open Space (OS) General Plan designation. This alternative assumes the Project site would be
developed with a passive park, including roadway improvements to allow vehicular access to the site
via Dennery Road, and on-site parking primarily as trail staging for public access to the OVRP. Parking
areas are assumed to be pervious. Passive park improvements are assumed to include natural and
landscaped open space areas including grass play areas, picnic areas with shade structures, and trail
improvements. One caretaker's residence is assumed for the site that would rely on a septic system.
A secondary emergency access road through the residential development to the east would not be
required under this alternative. Considering the minimal development area needed, off-site remedial
grading in the Davies property would likewise not be required.
Potentially Significant Effects: The No Project (Development Under the Existing General Plan)
Alternative would avoid all of the significant and potentially significant impacts associated with the
Project, including significant and unmitigated Land Use (Consistency with City of San Diego Housing
Element), Transportation (VMT) and GHG (emissions and consistency with plans) impacts. Specifically,
these significant impacts would all be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impacts that would be the same or similar under this alternative compared to the proposed Project
would include: Land Use (physical division of community and consistency with MSCP); Air Quality (air
quality plan implementation); Biology (wildlife corridors and conflicts with plans); Geology (all
thresholds); Health and Safety (airport, emergency plans, and wildfire); Historical and Tribal Cultural
Resources (all thresholds); Noise (all thresholds); Transportation (circulation, hazards, and emergency
access); Aesthetics (light/glare); Public Services; and Wildfire (all thresholds).
Potential impacts related to the following issue areas would result in incrementally reduced impacts
compared to the proposed Project, with or without mitigation: Land Use (land use plan consistency);
Air Quality (air quality standards, sensitive receptors, and odors); Biological Resources (sensitive
species and habitats and wetlands); GHG (all thresholds); Health and Safety (hazardous materials);
Transportation (VMT); Aesthetics (scenic vistas/views, scenic resources, and visual character); and
Hydrology and Water Quality (all thresholds); and Utilities.
Page 46
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
None of the impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than those resulting from the
proposed Project.
Finding: The No Project (Development Under the Existing Plan) Alternative would only meet a single
Project objective (Objective 5), providing amenities that contribute to the nearby OVRP recreational
uses, including an overlook to the park and multi -modal connections. None of the other Project
objectives would be met. Primarily, this alternative would not provide housing in response to regional
housing needs, including affordable housing consistent with the City's Housing Element goals. The
City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, rejects the No Project
(Development Under the Existing General Plan) Alternative as it fails to satisfy the Project's underlying
purpose and fails to meet most of the Project objectives. The City finds that any of these grounds are
independently sufficient to support rejection of this alternative.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 9.3, No Project (Development Under the Existing General Plan) Alternative.
C. Reduced Footprint Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative
This alternative would reduce Project impacts to wetlands that would occur from construction of the
proposed main entrance road from Dennery Road and a gated secondary emergency access road. To
reduce Project impacts to wetlands from the proposed access roadways, the access would be
redesigned to include bridging over the wetlands. To allow for bridging to reduce wetland impacts,
and to provide a 100 -foot buffer around the wetland area, the development footprint would be
reduced and shifted to the west. This alternative would develop up to 221 dwelling units of the same
design on a reduced footprint compared to the Project. To accommodate the reduced footprint, a
combination of the unit types would be constructed to three stories instead of two stories. The same
deviations to the City of San Diego Land Development Code would be required under this alternative,
with an additional deviation for the increased building height. Additional details of this alternative are
provided in Final EIR Section 9.5.
Potentially Significant Effects: Under this alternative, all impacts would be the same, except that the
following would be incrementally reduced: Biological Resources (wetlands); Geological
(paleontological resources); and Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources (prehistoric and human
remains).
None of the impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than those resulting from the
proposed Project.
Finding: The Reduced Footprint Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative would reduce the severity of
the Project's impacts related to biological resources due to a reduction in wetland impacts; however,
impacts to other biological resources would remain significant, the same as Annexation Scenario 2a.
Potential impacts related to the following issue areas would be less than those resulting from the
proposed Project, with or without mitigation: Paleontological Resources, Historical Resources, and
Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Reduced Footprint Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative would meet Objective 1, as it would
redevelop an underutilized property to provide housing in response to housing needs. This alternative
Page 47
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
would also meet Objective 2 because it would require LAFCO action to annex into the City of San
Diego. Objectives 3 and 5 would be met because, although the footprint of the development would
be reduced, this alternative would provide a residential community conducive to walking and bicycling
and provide amenities that contribute to the nearby OVRP recreational uses. Additionally,
construction of this alternative would generate some financial benefits and meet Objective 6.
Due to the reduced development footprint and the need to construct three-story residential
structures, housing under this alternative would be constructed as a single product: rowhomes. This
would not meet Objective 4, which is to provide a variety of housing. Overall, the Reduced Footprint
Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative would meet five out of six objectives and would meet the basic
Project objectives. The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIR, rejects the Reduced Footprint Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative as it fails to satisfy the
Project's underlying purpose associated with the provision of housing. The City finds this sufficient
grounds to support rejection of this alternative.
Reference: These Findings incorporate by reference the information and analysis included in Final
EIR Section 9.5, Reduced Footprint Wetland Impact Reduction Alternative.
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, when
the lead agency approves a project that may result in significant effects that are identified in the Final
EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons
to support its action, based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The City has adopted Findings Regarding Significant Effects for the Project, which conclude that the
Project will have the following significant effects that are unavoidable even after incorporation of
feasible mitigation measures associated with GHG (emissions and conflicts with plans) and
Transportation (VMT). Additionally, because development under Annexation Scenario 2a would be
under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego, the Project would also result in significant and
unavoidable Land Use impacts due to conflicts with City of San Diego Housing Element goals and
policies. The City has balanced the proposed Project's benefits against these unavoidable significant
effects and determined that they are acceptable due to each of the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits listed below that will result from approval and implementation of the
Project. All benefits are based on the facts in the CEQA Findings Regarding Significant Effects, the Final
EIR, and the Record of Proceedings for this Project. Each of these benefits is a separate and
independent basis that justifies approval of the Project so that if a court were to set aside the
determination that any particular benefit will occur and justifies Project approval, the City determines
that it would stand by its determination that the remaining benefits is or are sufficient to warrant
Project approval.
Overriding Benefits
The City therefore finds that, for each of the significant impacts subject to a finding under Public
Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), each of the following social, economic, and environmental
benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant
Page 48
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts:
Public Services Benefits
• Annexation of the Project site into the City of San Diego would allow for the more efficient
provision of public services.
• With the Project site being accessed from City of San Diego public roads and served by City of
San Diego water and sewer facilities, annexation of the Project site would alleviate the City of
Chula Vista from the potential necessity and administrative/fiscal burden of needing out -of -
agency agreements for services. It would additionally alleviate the likely need for tax -sharing
agreements with the City of San Diego to ensure the tax revenue from development in the
City of Chula Vista appropriately funds the City of San Diego services upon which it relies.
Recreational Benefits
• The Project would construct on-site community facilities and other recreational amenities,
including public trails with access to the OVRP.
• Even under Annexation Scenario 2a, the City of Chula Vista is one of the joint powers of the
OVRP and would benefit from the proposed recreation improvements.
Biological Benefits
• The Project would preserve biological resources, including upland and wetland habitats and
sensitive plants in perpetuity.
Regional Housing Benefits
• The Project would accommodate the need for housing to support the anticipated regional
growth.
XII. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. Growth Inducement
1. Short-term Growth Inducement
Short-term growth could occur due to the increased demands for trade skills and labor during
construction. It is anticipated that this demand would be met predominantly by the local labor force
and would not require importation of a substantial number of workers or cause an increased demand
for temporary or permanent local housing. Further, construction of the Project is expected to take
approximately 48 months. Since construction would be short-term and temporary, it would not lead
to an increase in employment on-site that would stimulate the need for additional housing or services.
Accordingly, no associated substantial short-term growth -inducing effects would result.
Page 49
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
2. Induce Population Growth
The Project would result in greater population growth than originally assessed under the City's
General Plan. The proposed construction of 221 units is not anticipated to result in an unplanned
population increase beyond the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional
Population and Housing Forecast, considering there is a shortage of housing to accommodate the
existing and planned population. Although the Project would increase the residential density of the
site, the proposed housing would be growth accommodating because of the need for housing to
support the anticipated regional growth that would occur with or without development of the Project.
Thus, the Project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth to the area. The
population would be accommodated in proximity to a major transit stop, regional shopping, medical
uses, and parks. The Project site is not located in a Transit Priority Area, as defined by SANDAG's San
Diego Forward: 2021 Regional Plan.
As detailed in Section 4.2.3.2 of the Final EIR, SANDAG Series 13 estimates the population in the City
of San Diego would grow from 1,453,267 in 2020 to 1,665,609 in 2035. This would equate to an
additional 14,156 persons per year from 2020 to 2035. Furthermore, SANDAG Series 13 estimates that
the City of San Diego would have 559,143 residential units in 2020 and 640,668 residential units in
2035. This would equate to an additional 5,435 units per year from 2020 to 2035. Implementation of
the Project would result in an increase in 221 residential units in a location assumed to be open space
in SANDAG's growth projections. While the Project would include residential in an area previously
planned for open space, this would be accommodated in the regional growth projections. As
discussed in the City of San Diego General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029 the City of San Diego is
currently experiencing a housing shortage and, as a result, in urgent need of additional housing. The
City of San Diego's assigned target of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target for the
2021-2029 RHNA Cycle is 108,036 homes. Although the City of San Diego is planning for additional
housing to meet current need, during the fifth RHNA Cycle (2010-2020), the City of San Diego was
assigned a target of permitting 88,096 new housing units and less than half of those units were
constructed (42,275) as of December 2019. The proposed construction of 221 units is not anticipated
to result in an unplanned population increase beyond SANDAG Regional Population and Housing
Forecast considering there is a shortage of housing to accommodate the existing and planned
population. Therefore, the Project would not induce unplanned population growth.
3. Induce Extension of Roads
As discussed in Final EIR Section 4.14.3.2, the Project would connect to existing utility connections that
serve the surrounding community to accommodate the internal utility infrastructure needs of the
development. No new major infrastructure facilities are required specifically to accommodate the
Project. No existing capacity deficiencies were identified for water, wastewater, or storm drain
facilities that would serve the Project. Furthermore, the Project would not generate sewage flow or
stormwater that would exceed the capacity already planned for the sewer line or storm drain. Lastly,
the internal roadway network proposed to be constructed within the Project site would connect to the
existing roadway network surrounding the Project site.
Since the Project site is surrounded by existing development and would connect to existing utility
infrastructure, implementation of the Project would not remove a barrier to economic or population
Page 50
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
growth through the construction or connection of new public utility infrastructure. The Project would
not induce road extensions or the need for new infrastructure.
Overall, the Project would not remove barriers to growth and would not be considered
growth -inducing.
B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to address any significant irreversible
environmental changes that may occur because of Project implementation. Consistent with the
analysis in Section 5.2 of the Final EIR, the City finds that implementation of the Project would result
in significant irreversible impacts to non-renewable resources. Construction and operation of future
housing sites would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and
nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future
generations or for other uses. Implementation of the Project would require the irreversible
consumption of natural resources and energy. Natural resource consumption would include lumber
and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, other metals, and water. Building
materials, while perhaps recyclable in part at some long-term future date, would for practical
purposes be considered permanently consumed. Energy derived from non-renewable sources, such
as fossil and nuclear fuels, would be consumed during construction and operational lighting, heating,
cooling, and transportation uses. However, through required compliance with the regulations in effect
at the time of development, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result
in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.
XIII. DECISION AND EXPLANATION REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE EIR
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5(a), an agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR
when significant new information is added to the Draft EIR after public review of the Draft EIR, but
before certification. Significant new information can include changes in the project or environmental
setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to a Draft EIR is not
significant unless the Draft EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate
or avoid such an effect (including feasible alternatives) that the project's proponents have declined to
implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies
or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
As described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), "Significant new information" requiring
recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
Page 51
Docusign Envelope ID: 6AE62729-9881-43C8-89ED-A6F0283ED5AE
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the
project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and
Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
The City hereby finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required for the following reasons:
• Changes to the Draft EIR were made to clarify, correct, or add to the environmental impact
analysis for the proposed Project. Such changes are a result of public review comments and/or
further review of the Draft EIR. The changes do not constitute significant new information
that alters the outcome of the environmental analysis or require recirculation of the
document.
• All feasible mitigation measures and alternatives have been identified that could reduce
environmental impacts. No feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures have been
identified that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the Project, and no major flaws
or inadequacies have been identified in the EIR based on comments received from public
review. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is
not required.
Page 52