HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2006-189
e
e
e
RESOLUTION NO 2006-189
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR 05-02) FOR
THE EASTLAKE III SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT, MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATreJN MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, The EastLake Company submitted an application requesting approvals for
amendments to the General Plan, EastLake III General Development Plan and EastLake III
Sectional Planning Area Plan for the EastLake III Senior Housing Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR #05-02) was issued
for public review on April 14, 2006, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
Draft SEIR #05-02 on May 31, 2006 to close the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
the Draft SEIR #05-02 on June 14,2006, and
WHEREAS, a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR #05-02) was
prepared on the Project; and
WHEREAS, FSEIR #05-02 incorporates, by reference, the prior fIRs that address the
subject property including the Final EIR for EastLake III, Olympic Training Center, EastLake
Trails Prezone and Annexation (FEIR #89-09) certified in October 1989 and the Final
Subsequent EIR for the EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program and Subsequent
Addendum (FSEIR #01-01) certified in June 2001 as well as their associated Findings of Fact,
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated June 2006 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
FSEIR #05-02 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement
those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding
set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the
Project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program Section of FSEIR #05-02 are expressed as conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula 0
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: .
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on Draft SEIR #05-02 held on May 31, 2006 and JUlie 14, 2006, as well
as the minutes and' resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the
decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section
21167.6, subdivision(s}, shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code
S21000 et seq).
II. FSEIR #05-02 CONTENTS
That the FSEIR #05-02 consists of the following:
Subsequent EIR for the Project (including technical appendices);
2. Comments received during public review and Responses; and
3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
o
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FSEIR #05-02")
III. ACCOMP ANYING DOCUMENT TO FSEIR #05-02
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that FSEIR #05-02, the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is
on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources
Code, S21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 SI5000 et
seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
o
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 3
v
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the FSEIR #05-02 reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. CEQA 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, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and everyone of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact, Exhibit "'A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the Project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit
"'A," a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifying the
specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable
significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
C
Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR #05-02 and in the Findings of Fact
for this Project, which is Exhibit "'A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Coeje Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the
mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and
will become binding upon the entity (such as the Project proponent or the City)
assigned thereby to implement the same.
D
Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR #05-02 and in the Findings of
Fact Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "'A"' to this Resolution, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section,
15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in FSEIR #05-02,
were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the
project objectives.
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 4
E.
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
o
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 210816, the City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .set forth in
FSEIR #05-02. The City Council further finds that the Program is designed to
ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and
any other responsible parties implement the Project components and comply with
the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision-makers, induding documents specified in Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of
proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code 921000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista finds that
FSEIR #05-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "N' to
this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and Mitigation 0
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs.
Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista, and therefore should be certified.
Presented by
Approved as.to form by
, ,
1\'-\:1 Y'C'N\~I'.:1i'~"'\;"
Ann Moore '
City Attorney
o
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista,
California, this 20th day of June 2006 by the following vote:
AYES
Councilmembers:
Castaneda, Chavez, McCann, Rindone, and Padilla
NAYS
Councilmembers:
None.
ABSENT
Councilmembers:
None
4~Qdl/ -
/ Stephen C Padilla. Mayor
ATTEST
J~ t~
t- Susan Bigelow, MrVIC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2006-189 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 20th day of June 2006.
Executed this 20th day of June 2006
. tA,a j(~
t- Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 6
Exhibit A
o
,-
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
~.. ,
FOR THE
EASTLAKE III SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
o
June 7, 2006
o
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1
II. ACRONYMS
2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
6
IV. BACKGROUND
8
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
9
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
11
VII LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
11
VIII MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
13
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
14
LAND USE
15
LANDFORM ALTERATION AND AESTHETICS
15
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
15
WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
15
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
15
AIR QUALITY
16
NOISE
16
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
16
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
17
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
17
1
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 8
X CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 50
XI FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
o
60
NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATNE
63
ALTERNATIVE MIX OF LAND USES
65
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
66
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATNE
68
XII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
69
o
o
11
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006- 189
Page 9
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE. EastLake III Seruor Housing Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR); SCH
#2005091047; EIR 05-02
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Final Subsequent Envrronmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) prepared for the EastLake III
Senior Housing project addresses the potential environmental effects associated with
implementation ofthe project. In addition, the Final SEIR evaluates three alternatives (1) the no
development alternative, (2) existing land use designation alternative (commercial tourist), and
(3) reduced density alternative (single family residential similar to surroundmg development).
The Final SEIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with CEQA Section 21094, and tiers
off the Program EIR prepared for the EastLake Planned Community Master ElR (ElR #81-03).
These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines (CaJ.
Code Regs., Title 14, S 15000 et seq ).
I
Resolution No. 2006-] 89
Page ] 0
.:II.
o
ACRONYMS
"AAQS" means Ambient Air Quality Standards.
"AB" means Assembly Bill
"ADT" means average daily traffic
"AQIP" means Air Quality lmprovement Plan
"ASTM" American Society of Testing ofMateria]s
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
"BMPs" means best management practices
"CaIEP A" means California Environmenta] Protection Agency
"Caltrans" means California Department of Transportation
o
"CARE" means California Air Resources Board.
"CEQA" means California Environmenta] Quality Act
"cfs" means cubic feet per second
"City" means City ofChula Vista
"CMP" means Congestion Management Program
"CNEL" means community noise equivalent level
"CNPS" means California Native Plant Society
"CO" means carbon monoxide
"COz"means Carbon Dioxide
"CPF" means Community Purpose Facilities
o
2
e
Resolution No. 2006- 189
Page I I
"CPTED" means Crime Prevention TIrrough Environmental Design
"CT" means Commercial -Tourist
"CW A" means Clean Water Act
"dB" means decibels
"dB (A)" means A-weighted decibels
"dulac" means dwelling units per acre.
"EIR" means environmental impact report
"EP A" means Environmental Protection Agency
"EUC" means Eastern Urban Center
"FEMA" means Federal Emergency Management Agency
"FIRM" means Flood Insurance Rate Maps
e "FSEIR" means Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
"GDP" means General Development Plan
"GDP A" means General Development Plan Amendment
"GMOC" means Growth Management Oversight Committee
"HCM" means Highway Capacity Manual
"HLlT' means Habitat Loss and Incidental Take
"HOA" means Homeowners Association
"LOS" means level of service
"MRZ" means Mineral Resource Zone
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program.
e
"NOr' Notice of Intent
3
Resolution No. 2006- I 89
Page 12
"NOP" means Notice of Preparation
o
"NOx" means nitrogen oxides
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimrnation System
"03" means ozone
"OTC" means Olympic Training Center
"PAD Fee" means Park Acquisition and Development Fee
''PC'' means Planned Community
"PFDIF" means Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
"PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan
"PMjQ" means Particulate matter less than 10-microns III SIze
"ppm" means parts per million
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards
o
"RMP" means Resource Management Plan
"ROC" means Reactive Organic Compounds
"ROWs" means right-of-ways
"RTP" means Regional Transportation Plan
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Boards
"SANDAG" means San Diego Association of Governments
"SCAQMD" means South Coast Air Quality Management District
"SDAB" means San Diego Air Basin
"SDAPCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District
"SDCW A" means San Diego County Water Authority
o
4
~
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 13
"SEIR" means Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
"SIP" means State Implementation Plan
"Sax" means sulfur oxides
"SPA" means Sectional Planning Area
"SR" means State Route
"SUSMP" means Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
"SWPPP" means stonn water pollution prevention plan
"SWRCB" means State Water Resources Control Board
"SZA" Select Zone Alignment
"TDM" means Transportation Demand Management
"TM" means Tentative Map
"TMDL" means Total Maximum Daily Load
"UBC" means Uniform Building Code
"USDA" means United States Department of Agriculture
"USGS" means Uruted States Geological Survey
"USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
"UST" means Underground Storage Tank
"VOCs" means volatile organic compounds.
"WCP" means Water Conservation Plan
"WDR" means Waste rlischarge Requirements
"WTP" means Water Treatment Plant
5
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 14
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The EastLake III Senior Housing project presents a plan of development for the EastLake
Company within the Vistas area of the EastLake III GDP area. The EastLake III Senior Housing
project allows for a total of 494-unit senior housing project. The project will provide 25 -low and
25-IDoderate priced units offsite or pay in-lieu fee as established by the City Council n
accordance with the EastLake III Supplemental Phase N Mfordable Housing Program. Other
land uses designated by the EastLake III Senior Housing project include a 14,000 square foot,
single-story recreational facility, which includes fitness and activity spaces, meeting rooms, spa
and indoor pool. Outside recreational elements include an outdoor pool and spa, BBQ facility,
multifunctional passive green spaces and a pedestrian paseo around the outer perimeter The
EastLake III Senior Housing project would require an EastLake III General Development Plan
(GDP) Amendment to change 18.4 acre of "CT -Commercial Tourist" use to "Residential High
(18-27+ dulac)"
The proposed amendments to the General Plan, and EastLake III GDP and SPA would allow for
the development of an active seniors community. Additionally, the project will require a General
Plan Amendment, EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment, and EastLake III
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Amendment. The 494-unit senior housing project would consist
of 13 buildings, each four stories tall over a subterranean parking structure. The project would
also include a 14,000 square foot, single-story recreational facility, which includes fitness and
activity spaces, meeting rooms, spa and indoor pool. Outside recreational elements include an
outdoor pool and spa, BBQ facility, multifunctional passive green spaces and a pedestrian paseo
around the outer perimeter. This senior housing community would be restricted to 55 and over,
would be gated, and housing units would be "for sale." The densities and urnt numbers proposed
would result in approximately 1,235 new residents (based on 2.5 people/dwelhng urnt).
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (City)
include the following:
o General Plan Amendment to change 18.4 acres of "Visitor Commercial" use to
"Residential High",
o
EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment to change 18.4 acre of"CT-
Commercial Tourist" use to "Residential High (18-27+ dulac)";
EastLake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Amendment to change 18.4 acres of
"Commercial-Tourist" use to "VR-13, Multi-Family Seniors" and establish a new land
o
6
o
o
o
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 15
.
use district, "RMS, Multi-family Seniors> 15 dulacre" Amendments to the SPA would
also include amendments to the SPA's AQIP and WCP to ensure consistency with the
City's AQIP and WCP Guidelines. Additionally, an EastLake III SPA's Affordable
Housing Program would be amended to meet the City's affordable housing requirements;
Tentative Map for the EastLake III Senior Housing Project.
In addition, this SEIR will be used by other responsible agencies to implement the proposed
project. Actions required by other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the SEIR.
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency and has discretionary power of approval for all the
actions pertaining to this project. The Final SEIR is intended to satisfy CEQA requirements for
environmental review of those actions.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As specified in the Final SEIR, the objectives of this project include:
Assure a high quality of development, consistent with City and Community goals and
objectives, the Chula Vista General Plan and Ea>tLake III General Development Plan.
Create an economically viable plan that can be realistically implemented within current
and projected economic conditions.
. Provide for orderly planning and long-range development of the project to ensure
community compatibility.
. Establish the necessary framework for and identify financing mechanisms to facilitate
adequate community facilities, such as transportation, water, flood control, sewage
disposal, schools and parks and provide adequate assurance that approved development
will provide the necessary infrastructure, when needed, to serve the future residents of
EastLake III.
. Preserve open space and natural amenities.
Establish a planning and development framework which will allow diverse land uses to
exist in harmony within the community.
7
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 16
IV.
BACKGROUND
Development of the EastLake Planned Community has occurred in phases beginning with
EastLake I, fonowed by EastLake II and then finally EastLake ill (EastLake I and EastLake II
were later combined so in effect there are currently two planning areas - EastLake II and
EastLake III). The planning of each portion ofthe EastLake Planned Community began in 1982
and has occurred through several planning phases - starting with general parameters and
culminating with specific guidelines. A GDP was prepared for each development phase within
the EastLake community A GDP provides a policy bridge between the Chula Vista General
Plan and detailed project development planning provided in a SPA Plan. SPA Plans were then
developed for each of the speCIfic neighborhoods/development areas. SPA plans refine and
implement the development concepts outlined in the GDPs. In general, the EastLake SPA plans
define the land use mix, design criteria, primary circulation patterns, open space and recreation
concepts and infrastructure requirements.
Environmental documentation pursuant to the C~lifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has
mirrored the tiered planning approach described above. Because of the size, complexity of
issues and extended build-out time frame of the EastLake development, both the planning and
environmental documentation associated with EastLake were tiered from the general to the
specific. The first tier of planning and approvals included the EastLake Planned Community
Master EIR (EIR #81-03) in February 1982. Subsequent EIRs have been prepared for GDP
Amendments and SPA Plans. within Eas.tLake I, II and ill, including the Final EIR for EastLake
Greens SPA and EastLake Trails Pre-zone and Annexation (EIR #86-04) in 19&9 and the Final
EIR for the EastLake Greens and EastLake Trails Replanning Program (EIR #97-04) in 1998.
The Final EIR for EastLake III, Olympic Training Center (OTC) (EIR #89-09) was prepared in
October 1989 and included the SPA plan for the OTC. It also included the GDP for all of
EastLake III as well as a proposal to annex EastLake II and the Trails (EastLake II) from the
unincorporated area of San DIego County into the City of Chula Vista. The most recent
environmental document prepared for the site is the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for the EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program (FSEIR #01-01) dated June
2001 and addendum dated May 2001. This Subsequent EIR addressed the EastLake ill GDP and
SPA.
The proposed project is located in the Vistas community of the EastLake ill SPA pian area. This
analysis tiers from the June 2001 FSEIR#Ol-Ol which in turn tiers off the original October 1989
Final EIR for EastLake III, Olympic Training Center, EastLake Trails Prezone and Annexation
(hereinafter referred to as EIR #89-09). Therefore, this EIR is a Subsequent EIR to the June
2001 FSEIR (FSEIR #01-01). Under such tiering principals, the proposed GDP Amendment
analysis is presented and should be reviewed at a subsequent, first-tier level of review The SPA
8
o
o
o
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 17
Amendment analysis' is presented and should be reviewed at a second-tier EIR level of review
(proj ect-Ievel).
While a second-tier analysis can rely on a first-tier analysis, it has the obligation to discuss any
changed circumstances or new information that might alter the firsHier analysis. Under
principals of tiering, if a fust-tier document found significant impacts, then the second-tier EIR
must require the mitigation measures unless the analysis explains that the measures are not
applicable or that other mitigation measures can replace the previous measures and similarly
reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. As such, each enviromnental analysis section in
this SEIR identifies the avoidable and unavoidable significant environmental impacts previously
identified in FSEIR #01-01 and EIR #89-09 and the required mitigation measures. This SEIR
also evaluates whether the previously required mitigation measures pertaining to this portion of
the SPA plan are still applicable, or whether there are other feasible mitigation measures that
were not previously considered that might similarly reduce the stated impacts to less than
significant. The Executive Sunrrnary and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program list all
mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project from previous tiers of enviromnental
review as well as new measures required by this analysis.
v.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the enviromnental analysis of this project shall consist of the following:
. The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the pro] ect;
· The Draft and Final SEIR for the project (EIR #05-02) including appendices and
technical reports;
· All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
comment period on the Draft SEIR,
. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating
to the proposed project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and with respect to the City's actions on the proposed project;
9
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 18
. All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and 0
public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the SEIR for .
the proJect;
. AJl documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connectIOn with the SEIR, up through the close of the public hearing;
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public
meetmgs, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings for this proj ect; ,
. All findings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this
proj ect, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and
. Matters of common knowledge to the City, which the members of the City Council
considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
and including but not limited to the following:
. Chula Vista General Plan;
o
. Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
. EastLake General Development Plan (GDP);
. EastLake ill SPA Plan;
. City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Act Subarea Plan;
. EastLake ill Woods and Vistas Replanning Program (FSEIR #01-01) Any other materials
required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 211676,
subdIVision ( e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to
the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910.
The City Council has relied on all ofth(( documents listed above in reaching its decisi~n on the
EaslLake III Senior Housing project, even if every document was not formally presented to the
City Councilor City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the EaslLake III
Senior Housing project. Without exception, any documents set forth above but not found in the
o
10
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 19
project files fall into two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions
with which the City COlll1cil was aware in approving the EastLake III SPA Plan (see City of
Santa Cruz v Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 CaLApp.3d 381, 391-392 [142
Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v Department of Personnel Administration (1988)205 CaLApp.3d 729,
738, fu. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620]. Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City
Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City CounciL For that reason, such
documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to
the adoption of the EastLake III SPA Plan (see Pub Resources Code, section 211676, subd.
(e)(10); Browing-Ferris Industries v City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 CaL App.3d
852,866 [226 CaLRptr. 575], Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v County of Stanislaus (1995) 33
CaLAppAth 144, 153, 155 [39 CaLRptr.2d 54]).
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that ''public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Emphasis
added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and
the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen
such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event
[that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or
such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more
significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
'approving projects for which ElRs are required (see Pub Resources Code, S 21081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, S 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an
ElR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect <!S identified in the final ElR" (CEQA Guidelines, S 15091,
subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible fmding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and no.t 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, S 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential finding is that
"[ s ]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
11
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 20
project alternatives identified in the final ErR" (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd. (a)(3)). 0
.Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defmes "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del
Mar V. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 ['83 Cal.Rptr 898]). "'[F]easibility'
under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of thyse terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on wbich CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses
the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA yuidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is
consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (pub. Resources Code, 9 21002).
o
For purposes of these fmdings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less
than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills
Homeowners Association v City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr.
842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not
all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantially lessen[ ed]," these fmdings, for
purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a
less than significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
o
12
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 21
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings
wi]] nevertheless fully account for all such effects Identified in the Final SEIR (FSEIR).
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modi tying the project lies with some other agency
(CEQA Guidelines, S 15091, subd. (a), (b)).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse envlTonmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, SS 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Resources Code, S 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated
that, "[t)he wisdom of approving. any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of mterests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Ca1.3d 553,
576).
VII.
LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
SEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City (or "decision
makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the applicant- and its
successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures.
These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a
binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s)
approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting .program adopted concurrently with these
findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program,
adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated both through the process of
13
Resolution No. 2006- 189
Page 22
implementing the EastLake GDP and through the process of constructing and implementing the
EastLake III Senior Housing Project.
_ I
o
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l), the City, in adopting these
[mdings, also concurrently adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as
prepared by the environmental consultant under the directIOn of the City The program is
designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible
parties comply with t4e feasible mitigation measures identified below The program is described
in the document entitled EastLake III Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures.
The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period.
The monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation
measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
throughout the project approval process. The monitoring program will serve as a dual purpose of
verifYing completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating
information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The
program includes monitoring team qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting
system, and cnteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures.
o
IX.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Pinal SEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the proj ect will cause. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided
through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated or
avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in
Section xn below This Section (IX) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with
respect to the environmental effects of the project.
The project will result in significant environmental changes with regard to tlje following issues:
land use; landform alterationJaesthetics; geology/soils; v-:ater qualitylhydrology; traffic/
circulation; air quality; noise; public se~ices and utilities; biological resources and
paleontological resources. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in
Final EIR 05-02 in Table 1:1 on pages 1-10 through 1-30 and ill Chapter 5, Environmental 0
14
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 23
Impact Analysis, pages 5 I-I through 5.1 0-4 No significant effects were identified for mineral
resources, biological resources (for main project site), cultural resources, hazards/risk of upset,
mineral resources, populationlbousing, The proposed project will result in unmitigable changes
to landform alteration/aesthetics (cumulative), traffic/circulation (cumulative) and air quality
(cumulative).
Land VselPlanning
Impacts related to land use and planning issues including incompatibility with the surrounding
community and inconsistencies with plans and policies adopted for purposes of aVOIding an
environmental impact would not occur
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
The proposed project would not have a significant impact on visual resources or aesthetics.
However, in FSEIR #01-01, significant unmitigable impacts to visual quality were identified as a
result of landform alteration. Because this document is tiered from FSEIR #01-01, this impact
must therefore be carried forward. This project would have an incremental contribution to the
cumulative impact identified in FSEIR #01-01. In addition, the proposed project will result in
significant direct impacts associated with the increase in light and glare from the new
development area.
Geology/Soils
Impacts associated with slope instability would potentially be significant. Erosion during
construction, although short-term in nature, could be significant without erosion control
measures. Structures will be located over underground parking. PotentiaJly significant impacts
to foundations and structures could occur if expansive soils are encountered. Potential impacts
resulting from other geological hazards such as seismic activity may also occur.
Water QnalitylHydrology
Project implementation wiJl introduce landscaping, impermeable surfaces and urban activities to
an area that is currently unoccupied by urban uses. Further, new poJlutant sources, such as
automobiles and household products would also be introduced into the area. Drainage of runoff
would be a concern particularly due to the project's location adjacent to Lower Otay Reservoir
Traffic/Circulation
The level of service at the project driveway and Olympic Parkway will degrade to F as a result of
the proj ect from vehicles entering and exiting the project, which would be a significant direct
15
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 24
Impact of the proposed project. The potential conflict between construction-related traffic and O.
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Wueste Road and the adjacent trail would be a
significant direct impact of the optional construction access road. In FSEIR #01-01, significant
unmitigable impacts to traffic and circulation patterns were determmed for 2005, 2010, 2015,
2020 and build-out conditions. Impacts to freeway operations were also identified as significant.
This impact from FSEIR #01-01 must therefore be carried forward. Because the proposed
project is part of the buildout of the overall EastLake III community, a significant cumulative
unmitigable traffic impact was identified for buildout of the conununity, and the proposed
project would result in an incremental contribution to the traffic from buildout ofthe community,
therefore a significant cumulative unmitigated traffic impact would occur.
Air Quality
During construction, ROC emissions would exceed the daily standard. This impact is considered
significant. Although construction-related emissions would not surpass PMIO thresholds, the
project will generate nuisance dust and fine particulate matter. In FSEIR #01-01, significant
unmitigable impacts to air quality were documented as a result of nonconformance with regional
air quality plans and overall project (entire EastLake III development) impacts on regional air
quality. This impact identified in FSEIR #01-01 must therefore be carried forward. While the
proposed project would generate less than half of the projected traffic for the site under the
existing land use designation, it would still contribute incrementally to overall cumulative 0
vehicular emissions generated by buildout of the area.
Noise
The project will result in potential exposure to interior noise levels greater than the City's
allowable limit of 45 dB CNEL would be considered significant. Further, the project will result
in potential exposure of future residents to exterior noise levels (from patio and balcony aTeas)
greater than the City's allowable limit of 65 dB CNEL which would be considered significant.
Public ServicesfUtilities
The proposed SPA Plan would result in an incremental increase in public facilities if they are not
provided commensurate with demand. The incremental contribution of solid waste, and demand
on water and sewer service, parks, fire, police, emergency services, libraries and schools would
be significant. Safety issues for recreational trail users directly exposed to crossing construction
traffic due to the optional temporary construction access road are considered significant.
Potential indirect impacts to lands intended for conservation adj acent to the proj ect site
(associated with Otay Valley Regional Park) are considered significant.
o
,
16
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006- 189
Page 25
Biological Resources
Potential indirect impacts to lands intended for conservation adjaceut to the project site
(associated with Otay Valley Regional Park) are considered significant. Potential direct impacts
to narrow endemic plant species that may occur within the optional off-site trail and optional
construction access road are considered significant. The project could potentially be inconsistent
with the HUT Ordinance which would constitute a significant impact.
Paleontological Resources
Impacts to prevIOusly undisturbed soils as a result of column borings would result in a significant
impact.
DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION
Land UselPlanning
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold I: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Threshold 3 Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Impact: None Identified. Impacts related to traffic and biological resources are discussed in
those relevant EIR sections and not in land use and planning.
Explanation:
N/A
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation for the potential temporary conflict between the construction access road, Wueste
Road and the pedestrian trail is provided in under Traffic and Circulation. Mitigation for
potential trail and construction road incompatibilities with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan are
included under biological resources.
17
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 26
Finding:
o
Implementation of mitigation measures in Section 5.5, Traffic Circulation and Section
Biological Resources would reduce significant impacts to a level below significance.
5.9
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
Threshold 4 Creates a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.
o
The project would introduce a new source of light and glare which would be potentially
significant.
Explanation:
The proposed project would introduce a new source oflight and glare into the local community.
However, this site has previously been planned for development. The difference in night lighting
as compared to the Commercial-Tourist use would not be a substantial change. Therefore, there
would be nD direct impact with regard tD substantial light and glare. In order to assure that
indirect lighting affects on neighboring uses is minimized, a lighting plan will be required as part
of design review to mitigate this potential impact.
Mitigation Measures:
5.2-a Prior to approval of the Tentative Parcel map, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan as
a part of the Design Review application for the project. The lightmg plan shall
demonstrate that project lighting is shielded from surrounding properties and that only the 0
minim~ amount of lighting required for safety purposes is provided to avoid adverse
18
.
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 27
effects on surrounding areas. 1n general, lighting fixtures shall be shielded downward
and away from adjacent residential land uses, MSCP Preserve areas and Lower Otay
Reservoir.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5.2 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section l509l(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. to
a level of insignificance.
Impact: Initial site grading (as analyzed by FSEIR #01-01) would result in significant
visual and landform alteration impacts.
Initial site grading caused. significant visual changes to the EastLake area.
Explanation:
In FSEIR. #01-01, significant unmitigab1e impacts to visual quality were identified as a result of
landform alteration. This impact must therefore be carried forward. This project would have an
incremental contribution to the cumulative impact identified in FSEIR #01 -01
Mitigation Measures:
None
Findmg:
Pursuant to Sections 15043 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social
or other considerations were made at the time initial site grading occurred and a Statement of
Oveniding Considerations was adopted.
Geology/Soils
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1 Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
a)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
19
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 28
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines 0
and Geology Special Publication 42.
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Landslides?
Threshold 2. Would the project result in substantJal soil erosIOn or the loss of topsoil?
Threshold 3 Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstaole as a result of the project, .and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Threshold 4: Would the projeci be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Threshold 5 Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
o
Impact: Exposure of people or structures to substantial hazards as a result of landslides.
Impacts associated with slope instability would potentially be significant for the proposed project
and optional construction road. The optional pedestrian trail would not result in potential
landside hazards due to minimal surface disturbance.
(
Explanation:
Slope instability could occur as a result of steep fill slopes generated during recompaction of the
existing pad and/or optional construction road. Soil saturation from over watering landscaping,
natural precipitation, and TIm-on from adjacent sites would also contribute to slope instability
Slope instability could lead to localized landslides. Impacts related to slope instability would be
considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
5.3-a Prior to approval of grading plans, the following conditions are required to be on the
plans. The proposed project's grading plans shall demonstrate compliance with
remediation recommendations in the June 10, 2005 Geotechnical Investigation for the
project prepared by Geotechnics lncorporated, including but not limited to.
o
20
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 29
e
a)
Upper soil layers shall be removed to a depth of two to three feet during initial
construction periods and replaced with competent compacted fill.
b) Replacement of native soils with compacted fill shall be required to eliminate the
potential for liquefaction.
c) Any areas subjected to new fill or structural loads shall be prepared with
comp acted fill.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified m the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
Impact: Project would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Erosion during construction, although short-term in nature, could be significant without erosion
control measures.
e Explanation:
The potential for erosion would increase during construction as a result of vehicles and heavy
equipment accelerating the erosion process. Additionally, wind erosion could occur on bare soils
or where vehicles and equipment cause dust. While these impacts would be considered short-
term in nature, they would be significant due to the potential to result in substantial soil erosion
or loss of topsoil.
Mitigation Measures:
>-
5.3-b Prior to approval of grading plans, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared for the project that identifies specific Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to minimize erosion and control sedimentation. A copy of the SWPPP will be
kept onsite and issued to all supervisory staff working on the project. Project activities
resulting in excess erosion shall be halted and BMPs adjusted to ensure off-site
sedimentation is avoided.
e
5 4- f Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the Applicant shall verify that runoff diversion
facilities (e.g., inlet pipes md brow ditches) have been be used to preclude runoff flow
down graded slopes. Drainage terraces for slopes in excess of 40 feet in vertical height
21
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 30
shall only be required for stabilization purposes. Slopes in excess of 40 feet in height
may not require terraces provided that slope-specific analysis demonstrates that such
measures are not needed in order to achieve the intent of the City's grading ordinance.
Energy-dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap, or drop structures) shall be
used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings, and/or downstream of all culverts, pipe
outlets, and brow ditches to reduce velocity and prevent erosion. The applicant shall
demonstrate compliance in grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.
o
Prior to issuance of the grading permit for any site in the drainage area, the Applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposed detention facilities would reduce 50-year post-
development peak flows to equal to or less than pre-development conditions. The
proposed onsite detention (acilities shall be designed to ensure that there is no increase in
downstream (i.e., south of Olympic Parkway) velocities in Salt Creek. For areas with the
greatest potential for groundwater seepage, impacts could be reduced to a less than
significant level through installation of subsurface drains as determined by the Soils
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Implementation of these measures is the
responsibility ofthe applicant.
Prior to the start of grading activities, the brow ditch located at the base of the slope
between the Lower Otay Reservoir and the project site shall be inspected and sediment
that could cause runoff to breach the ditch shall be removed. The brow ditch shall be 0
inspected after each 0.5 inch.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
I
Impact: Project may be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building code (1994).
I
Structures will be located over underground parking. Potentially significant impacts to
foundations and structures could occur if expansive soils are encountered.
Explanation:
Soil samples taken at various depths indicated that soils onsite have very low to low expansion
potential. During inihal SIte preparation and compaction, alluvial material from nearby canyon
formations was utilized at the interior/base of the site. Alluvial material is generally expanSIve,
J
o
22
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 31
therefore during subterranean parking structure excavation, expansive soils could be exposed.
Potential exposure to expansive soils would result in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
5.3-a Prior to approval of grading plans, the following conditions are required to be on the
plans. The proposed project's grading plans shall demonstrate compliance with
remediation recommendations in the June 10,2005 Geotechnical Investigation for the
proj ect prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated, including but not limited to
a) Upper soil layers shall be removed to a depth of two to three feet during initial
construction periOdS and replaced with competent compacted fill.
b) Replacement of native soils with compacted fill shall be required to eliminate the
potential for liquefaction.
c) Any areas subjected to new fill or structural loads shall be prepared with
compacted fill.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section l5091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant enviromnental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
Impact: Potential impacts resulting from other geological hazards such as seismic activity
would occur.
Potential impacts resulting from other geolOgical hazards such as seismic activity would be
significant.
Explanation:
Ground shaking could occur as a result of a seismic activity on a nearby active fault. Risk
associated with seismic ground shaking could potentially be significant. However, conformance
to standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California and compliance the
Title 24 of the California code of Regulations and the Uniform Building Code, would reduce
impacts from ground motion.
23
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 32
Mitigation Measures:
o
5.3-a Prior to approval of grading plans, the following conditions are required to be on the
plans. The proposed project's grading plans shall demonstrate compliance with
remediation recommendations in the June 10, 2005 Geotechnical Investigation for the
project prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated, including but not limited to.
a) Upper soil layers shall be removed to a depth of two to three feet during initial
construction periods and replaced with competent compact:d fill.
b) Replacement of native soils with compacted fill shall be required to eliminate the
potential for liquefaction.
c) Any areas subjected to new fill or structural loads shaH be prepared with
compacted fill.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section l509l(a)(J) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
wiH substantially lessen or avoid the sigrnficant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
o
Hydrology/Water Quality
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1
Threshold 2.
Threshold 3.
Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby weHs would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
o
24
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 33
Threshold 4 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff?
Threshold 5
Threshold 6.
Threshold 7
Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Would the project place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Would the project place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Threshold 8.
Threshold 9'
Threshold 10:
Would the project be exposed to inundation by seiche, tsunami or
mudflow?
Impact: The project would result in significant water quality impacts resulting from
construction and operational activities.
Explanation:
Construction of the proposed project haS the potential to impact surface water quality due to
increased runoff and sediment transport from the site. Short-term water quality impacts may
occur to nearby water resources, including storm drains, from sediment-laden runoff from project
areas. Runoff from the parking lot, sidewalks, and landscaping could carry pollutants such as
bacteria, oil and grease, sediment, nutrients and heavy metals to the City's storm drain system.
Mitigation Measures:
5 4-a
Prior to approval of a grading permit the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No.
CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff
Associated with Construction Activity In accordance with said Permit, a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Monitoring Program Plan shall be
developed and implemented concurrent with the commencement of grading activities.
The SWPPP shall specifY both construction and post-construction structural and non-
25
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 34
structural pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall also address operation 0"
and maintenance of post-construction pollution prevention measures, mcluding short-
term and long-term fundmg sources and the party or parties that will be responsible
for the implementation of said measures.
54-b
54-c
5 4-d
A complete and accurate Notice-of-lntent (NOl) shall be filed with the SWRCB. A
copy of the acknowledgement from the SWRCB that a NOr has been received for this
project shall be filed with the City of Chula Vista when received. Further, a copy of
the completed Nor from the SWRCB showing the Permit Number for this project
shall be filed with the City of Chula Vista when received.
Prior to approval of grading and construction plans, the Applicant shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer compliance with all of the apphcable
provisions of the Municipal Code and the City of Chula Vista SUSMP. The
Applicant shall incOJporate into the project planning and design an effective
combination of site design, source control, and treatment control post-construction
BMPs and provide all necessary studies and reports demonstrating compliance with
the applicable regulations and standards. Post-construction BMPs shall be identified
and implemented as to abate identified pollutants of concern to the maximum extent
practicable standard described in the City of Chula Vista SUSMP.
o
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any area of the project (including offsite
areas) draining towards the Lower Otay Reservoir, the applicant shall:
1) Obtain the approval of the City of Chula Vista and all other applicable
agencies for any proposed structural drainage runoff detention and/or
diversion facilities within the Otay Lakes Watershed.
. .
2)
Obtain the approval of the City of Chula Vista and all other applicable
agencies of all operational and maintenance agreements associated with
any proposed structural drainage runoff detention and/or diversion
facilities within the Otay Lakes Watershed.
,
Prior to approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall verify that surface drainage
has been designed to collect and discharge runoff into natural stream channels or
drainage structures. In order to avoid indirect impacts to the Lower Otay Reservoir,
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides shall not be applied to the manufactured slopes
along the northern property ofthe property Potable water shall be.used for irrigation.
All drainage systems shall be designed in accordance with the City's Engineering
Standards and to the City of San Diego's Source Water Protection Guidelines for
New Developments (2004).
o
26
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 35
5.4-e
I
,
[
\5.4-f
The applicant shall design surface and subsurface drainage to preclude ponding
outside of designated areas, as well as flow down slopes or over disturbed areas.
Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the Applicant shall verify that runoff
diversion facilities (e.g., inlet pipes and brow ditches) have been be used to preclude
runoff flow down graded slopes. Drainage terraces for slopes in excess of 40 feet in
vertical height shall only be required for stabilization purposes. Slopes in excess of
40 feet in height may not require terraces provided that slope-specific analysis
demonstrates that such measures are not needed in order to achieve the intent of the
City's grading ordinance. Energy-dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap,
or drop structures) shall be used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings, and/or
downstream of all culverts, pipe outlets, and brow ditches to reduce velocity and
prevent erosion. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance in grading plans prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
Prior to issuance of the grading permit for any site in the drainage area, the Applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposed detention facilities would reduce 50-year post-
development peak flows to equal to or less than pre-development conditions. The
proposed onsite detention facilities shall be designed to ensure that there is no
increase in downstream (i.e., south of Olympic Parkway) velocities in Salt Creek. For
areas with the greatest potential for groundwater seepage, impacts could be reduced
to a less than significant level through installation of subsurface drains as determined,
by the Soils Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Implementation of these
measures is the responsibility of the applicant.
Prior to the start of grading activities, the brow ditch located at the base of the slope
between the Lower Otay Reservoir and the project site shall be inspected and
sediment that could cause runoff to breacp the ditch shall be removed. The brow ditch
shall be inspected after each 0.5 inch.
5 4-g Prior to approval of the final map, and/or building permits (as determined by the City
Engineer), the Applicant shall submit a maintenance program for the proposed post-
construction BMPs and all private drainage facilities within common development
areas to the satisfaction of the City Engineer The maintenance program shall
,
include, but not be limited to: (1) a manual describing the maintenance activities of
said facilities, (2) an estimate of the cost of such maintenance activities, and (3) a
funding mechanism for financing the maintenance program. In addition, the
Developer shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with tbe City to ensure the
maintenance and operation of said facilities.
"
27
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 36
5 4-h Regular maintenance of the Greenbelt and Community trails shall be the
responsibility of the Eastlake ill BOA, depending on designation, to minimize the
potential for erosion into Lower Otay Reservoir. Prior to the approval of the TM, the
applicant shall submit a Landscape Responsibility map to 'identify funding for all
areas within the project. .
5 4-i The following urban runoff control measures shall be shown as notes on the Tentative
Map These measures shall be made a condition of the Tentative Map and shall be
implemented on the final grading and improvement plans. Implementation of these
measures is the re~ponsibility ofthe app lican!.
54-j
5.4-k
1) Per the Clean Water Act, BMPs to control pollutants and sediment from entering
storm water runoff are required for the project area. Source control BMPs via
landscaping of all slopes and street rights-of-way shall be provided to prevent
erosion. Any other applicable source control or BMPs which may be
implemented on a city-wide basis in conjunction with the City's Municipal
NPDES permit shall be incorporated into the specific plan. The size, capacity,
and location of any other pollution control devices which would be used to
capture urban pollutants onsite will be determined as part of the project-specific
drainage studies prior to the approval of future subdivision maps.
2) The City's Department of Planning and Building shall verify that the mitigation
measures are conditions for the approval of the tentative map and that they are
implemented on the grading plans fOT the project.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building that hazardous materials shall
not be stored along the eastern edge of the site. All hazardous materials shall be
stored within secondary containment capable of holding 150 percent of the largest
container. Hazardous materials shall be stored in a secure area that can be locked
during non-working hours. This will help prevent any unintended hazardous material
spills which could impact quality of runoff water from the site.
Silt fence or a similar approved sediment barrier shall be installed along the eastern
perimeter of the project site, or as directed by a qualified erosion control specialist, to
prevent sediment transport into the Lower Otay Reservoir. Spoil stockpiles shall be
stored at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the site. A qualified monitor shall inspect
all erosion and sediment control devices onsite prior to anticipated storm events,
during extended storm events, and after each storm event to ensure that tt;structures
are functioning properly. Inspection logs shall be kept onsite and submitted to the
City upon request.
28
o
o
~
o
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 37
Finding:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5 4 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
Traffic/Circulation
Thresholds of Significance:
Traffic impacts are defined as either project specific impacts or cumulative impacts. Project
specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition ofproject trips results in an identifiable
degradation in level of service on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections,
triggering the need for specific project-related improvement strategies. Cumulative impacts are
those in which the project trips contribute to a poor level of service, at a nominal level.
Study horizon year describes a future period of time that corresponds to SANDAG's traffic
model years, and are meant to synchronize study impacts to be in line with typical study years of
2005,2010,2015 and 2030.
The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is Level of Service (LOS). In the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay
The LOS analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of l,etters A through F. Delay is
a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.
For SIgnalized intersections, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle
for a l5-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-
up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay For unsignalized intersections, LOS is
determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defmed for each minor movement.
Table 5.5-4, Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections, depicts
the LOS criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
0.0 < 10.0
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 55.0
55.1 to 80.0
> 80.0
0.0 < 10.0
10.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 50.0
?50.0
29
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 38
Criteria for determining whether the project results in either project specific or cumulative 0
impacts on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections are as follows:
Short-Term (Study Horizon Year 0 to 4)
For purposes of the short-term analysis roadway sections may be defined as either links or
segments. A link is typically that section of roadway between two adjacent Circulation Element
intersections, and a segment is defined as that combination of contiguous links used in the
Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program. Analysis of roadway links under short-
term conditions may require a more detailed analysis using the Growth Management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) methodology if the typical planning analysis using volume to capacity
ratios on an individual link indicates a potential impact to that link. The GMOC analysis uses
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology of average travel speed based on actual
measurements on the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring
Program.
Intersections
a) Project specific impact ifboth the following criteria are met:
1.
Level of service if LOS E or LOS F
o
11. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
,
b) Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
If the planning analysis using the :v01urne to capacity ratio indicated LOS C or better, there is no
impact. lfthe planning analysis indicates LOS D, E or F, the GMOC method should be utilized.
The following criteria would then be utilized.
a) Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
1. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF for 1 hour
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume.
iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
b)
Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
o
30
e
e
e
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 39
Freeways
a)
Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
1. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
11. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway
segment.
b) Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Long-term (Study Horizon Year 5 and Later)
Intersections
a) Project specific impact If all the following criteria are met:
1. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
11. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b)
Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
Use the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio methodology only The GMOC
analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon.
a) Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
1. Level of service is LOS D1 LOS E or LOS F
11. Project trips comprise 5% or more of total segment volume.
lll. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
b) Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or
LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not
significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system
operations than street segment analysis. Jf segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is
significant regardless of intersection LOS.
31
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 40
c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above occurs at
study horizon year 10 or later, and is off site and not adjacent to the proJect, the impact is
considered cumulative. Study year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is
between 8 and 13 years in the future. In this case of a traffic study being performed in
the .period of 2003 to 2004, because the typical model will only evaluate traffic at years
diVIsible by 5 (i.e. 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020). Year 2010 is onJy 5 years in the future.
Since the model year is less than 7 years in the future, study horizon year 10 (Year 2015)
IS 11 years in the future.
o
d) In the event a direct identified project specific impact in paragraph a. above occurs at
study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is offsite and not adjacent to this project,
but the property immediately adjacent to the identified project specific impact is also
proposed to be developed in approximately the same time frame, an additional analysis
may be required to determine whether or not the identified project specific impact would
still occur if the development of the adjacent property does not take place. If the
additional analysis concludes that the identified project specific impact is no longer a
direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative.
Freeway Analysis
a)
Proj ect specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
o
!. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F .
11. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway
segment.
b)
Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
"-
Impact: The project would result in unacceptable service levels at an intersection.
The level of service at the project driveway and Olympic Parkway will degrade to an
unacceptable level of service.
Explanation:
The level of service at the project driveway and Olympic Parkway win degrade to F as a result of
the project from vehicles entering and exiting the project, which would be a significant direct
impact of the proposed proj ect.
o
32
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006- I 89
Page 41
Mitigation Measures:
5.5-a Prior to approval of the grading plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring,
mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards
and luminaires at the Olympic ParkwaylProject Driveway intersection. The design of the
signal shall be to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer and conform to City standards.
The applicant shall provIde the following intersection geometry:
Westbound: One left-turn lane (with 100 feet of storage) and two through lanes
Southbound. None
Northbound. One left-turn lane and one right-turn lane (With a storage length of 75 feet
in each)
Eastbound. One shared through/right lane and one through lane.
A signal shall be installed at the project driveway and two outbound (northbound) lanes,
one left-turn and one right-turn lane, and two inbound (southbound) lanes be provided.
5.5-b Prior to approval of building permits, the median opening on Olympic Parkway further
shall be relocated west from its current location to accommodate the proposed project
driveway
5.5-c Prior to approval of building permits, a "No U Turn" sign for eastbound traffic on
Olympic Parkway at the Olympic ParkwayIWueste Road intersection shall be installed.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section l509I(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
Impact: Optional construction road would result in potential hazards to pedestrians and
Wueste Road traffic.
The potential conflict between construction-related traffic and vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
traffic on Wueste Road and the adjacent trail would also be a significant direct impact of the
optional construction access road.
33
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 42
Explanation:
o
It is estimated that approximately 25 percent of construction related traffic would access the
project site through this access point once the first four buildillgs are constructed along Olympic
Parkway. This optional construction access road would help alleviate construction-related traffic
along Olympic Parkway and construction-related traffic interaction with onsite residents.
Construction traffic would be minimal and sporadic in nature therefore LOS conditions on
Wueste Road would not be significantly impacted. However, traffic safety issues may result as
the temporary road outlets into a sharp curve in Wueste Road and would cross an existing
bicycle and pedestrian trail.
Mitigation Measures:
5.5-d Prior to approval of the grading permit for the temporary construction access road, a
Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for the
Wueste Road/access road intersection. The Traffic Control Plan shall be implemented
for the duration of the use of the temporary access road. The Traffic Control Plan shall
address methods to avoid conflicts between vehicles on Wueste Road/pedestrians and
bicyclists on the trail adjacent to Wueste Road and construction vehicles entering and
exiting the site.
Finding:
. ,
o
.f
As identified in Section 50, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the. significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
, .
a level of insignificance. ."
Impact: Initial site preparation and programmatic environl1}ental analysis of the larger
EastLake community resulted in significant traffic impacts.
"
Original programmatic traffic analysis determined that the larger EastLake area, of which this
project is a component, would result in significant impacts.
Explanation:
In FSEIR #01-01, significant unmitigable impacts to traffic and circulation patterns were
determined for 2005,2010,2015,2020 and build-out conditions. Impacts to freeway operations
were also identified as significant. Because this environmental document is tiered off FSEIR
#01-01, this significant, unmitigable impact must be carried forward as the project would
contribute an incremental amount to these traffic impacts. A traffic impact was identified for 0
34
e
e
e
, Resolution No, 2006-189
Page 43
buildout of the co=mnity, and the proposed project would result in an incremental contribution
to the traffic from buildout of the communIty, therefore a significant cumulative unmitigated
traffic impact would occur.
'>
Mitigation Measures:
Specific mitigation measures were identified in FSEIR #OJ -01 to reduce potential ,significant
impacts, however cumulative impacts would be unmitigable.'
Finding:
Pursuant to Sections 15043 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic social
and other considerations warranted adoption of the previous EIR. While mitigation measures
5.5-a - 5.5-c are feasible and will be completed to handle the local circulation issues, these
improvements wiJl not lessen the cumulative impact of the regional development of eastern
Chula Vista to level below significant. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the proposed project.
Air Quality
Significance Thresholds:
Threshold 1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct the implement~tion of the applicable
air quality plan?
Threshold 2. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
~
Threshold 3 Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitatIve thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Threshold 4 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Threshold 5. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
peop Ie?
35
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 44
Impact: Expose people or sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations.
o
During construction, Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) emissions w?uld. exceed the daily
standard.
Explanation:
Many interior and outdoor painting supplies contain high levels of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), which are a type of ROes, to help them dry faster. VOCs emit smog-forming
chemicals into the air that are a major contributor to ground-level ozone pollution. Maximum
constructlon-generated ROC emissions of 360.27 pounds per day are anticipated to be associated
with project construction in 2008 (time period when painting of buildings and interiors would
occur) and would exceed the ROC threshold of 137 pounds per day. The exceedance of the daily
ROC standard is considered significant as this would result in the release of a substantial
concentration of pollutants.
Mitigation Measures:
56-a To the maximum extent feasible, the project developer shall use zero-Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)-content architectural coatings during project construction/application
of paints and other architectural coatings to reduce ozone precursors. If zero- VOC paint
cannot be 1.1tilized, the developer shall avoid to the maximum extent feasible, application
of architectural coatings during the peak smog season: July, August, and September.
o
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5.3 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or av~id the significant environmental effect as identified in'the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
/
Impact: The project violates an air quality standard or contributes substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation
Although construction-related emissions would not surpass PM10 thresholds, the project will
generate nuisance dust and fine particulate matter.
Explanation:
Although construction-related emissions would not surpass PM10 thresholds, the project will
generate nuisance dust and fine particulate matter Dust and particulate matter must remain 0
36
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-] 89
Page 45
below an 100 pounds per day threshold. In the year 2006, the project would generate
approximately 26.11 pounds per day which is well within the allowable limit. Further, in 2007,
the project would result in 5.67 pounds per day and in 2008 it would be 7.33 pounds per day
While this would not constitute a significant impact, mitigation has been included.
Mitigation Measures:
5.6-b Prior to approval of any grading permit, the following measures shall be placed as notes
on all grading plans and implemented during grading to reduce dust and exhaust
emissions (PM! 0) and ozone precursors (ROC and NOx)'
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Use low pollutant-emitting; equipment
c) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
d) Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment
e) Water the grading areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
f)
Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust
g) Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within
the construction site prior to public road entry
h)
Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public
roads
"
i) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence
j) Wet wash the construction access point at the end of the workday if any vehicle
travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred
k) Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material
onto public roads
I) Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off
during hauling
37
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 46
m) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25
mph
o
n) Cover! water onsite stockpiles of excavated material; and
0) Enforce a 20 mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5.6 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SElR to
a level of insignificance.
Impact: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment
The project would contribute to regional, cumul~tive a!r qualIty violations as a ,component of
EastLake communities buildout.
Explanation:
o
In FSElR #01-01, significant unmitigable impacts to air quality were documented as a result of
nonconformance with regional air quality plans and overall project- (enme EastLake ill
1
development) impacts on regional air quality This impact identified in FSEIR #01-01 must
therefore be carried forward. While the proposed project would generate less than half of the
projected traffic for the site under the existing land use designation, it would still contribute
incrementally to overall cumulative vehicular emissions generated by buildout of the area.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible measure are available to mitigate this impact.
Finding:
Pursuant to Sections 15043 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic social
and other considerations warranted adoption of the previous EIR. While mitigation measures
5.6-a - 5.6-b are feasible and will be completed to handle project specific impacts, these
improvements will not lessen the cumulative impact to air quality due to the regional
development of eastern Chula Vista. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will
be required should the decision makers choose to approve the proposed project.
)
o
38
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 47
Noise
Significance Thresholds:
Threshold 1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Threshold 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Threshold 3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Threshold 4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Threshold 5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Threshold 6. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact: The project will result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.
"
Potential exposure to interior noise levels greater than the City's allowable limit of 45 dB CNEL
would be considered significant.
'Explanation:
The project would generate approximately 1,976 ADT and would increase the traffic volume by
up to approximately 1,720 ADT along Olympic Parkway. The future buildout traffic volume
along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site is projected to be approximately 31,800
ADT. The additional project-generated traffic would increase the existing noise levels along
Olympic Parkway by less than one dB CNEL (from 52 dB to approximately 53 dB). A one dB
CNEL increase in the noise level would not be perceptible to the human ear. A noise level
increase of up to three dB is g~nerally not considered significant. Typically, a three dB change
39
Resolution No. 2006-] 89
Page 48
in community noise is considered a just-noticeable difference. The nOIse level increase
associated with the project, shown in Tab]e 5 7-6, Summary of Project Related Off-SIte Traffic
Noise Impacts, would be less th<U1 significant. It should be noted that the SEIR reflects the
worse-case scenario from a project traffic noise contribution standpoint. Once the community is
built-out (i.e., ambient traffic levels increase due to more residents, traffic, etc.), the project's
audible contribution to the overall noise environment would be less compared to the existing
setting (due to less traffic, residents, etc.).
o
The future traffic noise levels would ~ange up to approximately 69 dB CNEL at the patio and
balcony areas. These noise levels would exceed the City's exterior noise criterion which would
result in a significant impact.
The City and State require that interior noise levels not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within multi-
family homes. Typically, with the windows open, building shells provide approximately 15 dB
of noise reduction. Therefore, rooms exposed to an exterior CNEL greater than 60 dB could
result in an interior CNEL greater than 45 dB. The upper floors of Buildings 1,2 and 13, which
are adjacent to Olympic Parkway, would be exposed to traffic noise ranging up to 70 dB CNEL.
Because rooms in Buildings 1, 2 and 13 would be exposed to exterior noise levels of greater than
60 dB CNEL, it is anticipated that interior noise levels would exceed City and State requirements
of 45 dB CNEL which essentially exceeds allowable limits for operational activities. Therefore,
~~~~~~= 0
Mitigation Measures:
5.7-a Prior to issuance of building permits, where exterior noise levels on internal roadways
exceed 60 CNEL, additional measures shall be required to attenuate interior noise to the
City's 45 CNEL standard, such as inoperable or doub1e-pahed windows. For those units
that require the windows to be closed to achieve the interior noise standard, forced-air
circulation or air conditioning shall be provided by the applicant. An acoustical analysis
shall be conducted for Bui]dings 1, 2 and 13 that are adjacent to Olympic Parkway
concurrent with the submittal of construction drawings and shall be approved by the
Director of Planning and Building and the Environmental Review Coordinator prior to
appro va] of building permits. The acoustical analysis shall demonstrate that interior
noise levels due to exterior noise sources would be below the 45 CNEL standard.
5 7-b Five foot high noise barriers around the perimeter of the individual private patio and
balconies at some of the dwelling units in Buildings 1, 2 and 13 (adjacent to Olympic
Parkway) would be required to mitigate for traffic noise impacts. S~:lUnd ?falls may be
constructed of.any masonry materia], .or materia] such as tempered glass or Plexiglas with
a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot.' The s~und wall should have no 0
openings or cracks. The table below (Dwelling Units Requiring Sound Walls around
40
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 49
Patios OT Balconies), provides a summary of required waJls that would achieve 65 CNEL
at the exterior patioslbalconies.
Dwelling Units Requiring Sound Walls Around Patios or Balconies
104
1
204
2
302-306
3
402-406
4
2
409
4
Finding:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5 7 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as ide~tified in the SElR to
a level of insignificance.
Public Services and Utilities
Significance Thresholds:
'.
Threshold 1 Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Threshold 2. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 3 Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
41
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 50
Threshold 4 Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 0
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
Threshold 5. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Threshold 6. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Threshold 7 Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Threshold 8 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance obj ectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
, ,j. . ~
o
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
In addition, the City has adopted Growth Management Thresholds specific to the needs to the
,City These thresholds are consistent with the intent of CEQA and in effect, provide more
specific guidelines for significant findings. Therefore, the following significance thresholds are
used.
Threshold A. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the
Water District for each project.
Threshold B Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Threshold C The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library
space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
o
42
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-] 89
Page 51
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will
not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
Threshold D' Stormwater flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards.
Threshold E. Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities
shall be provided per 1,000 residents east ofI-805
Threshold F Police Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall
respond to 81 % of the Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within seven
(7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of
five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually).
Threshold G' Police Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond
to 57% of the Priority ill, urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7)
minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of
seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually).
Threshold H. Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall
respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% of the cases.
Impact: The proposed SPA Plan would result in an incremental impact on pnblic
facilities if they are not provided commensurate with demand. The incremental
contribution of solid waste, and demand on water and sewer service, parks, fire,
police, emergency services, libraries and schools would be significant.
Explanation:
The project would not result in the need for new water, wastewater, storm drain, school, fire
station, police or library facilities beyond those that are already constructed or planned for
construction due to the planned build-out of the EastLake area of which this project is a
component. That said, the project's future residents would bave an incremental effect on the
City's ability to maintain adequate public services, therefore the project must pay a fair-share
development impact fee to help off-set this cost.
Mitigation Measures:
5.8-a Prior to approval the Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
recycling policies in the City's General Plan and- Municipal Code_ Demonstration of
43
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 52
compliance with these policies shall include construction of onsite recycling facilities,
recycling program establishment, etc.
o
5.8-b Prior to approval of the Final Map, a mInllnum of 3.86 acres of parkland will be
established within the project area in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal
Code Section 17 1040 Any shortfall in parkland acreage dedication shall result in
payment of the park acquisition component of the Park Acquisition and Development
(PAD Fee). Given the lack of available acreage that could be acquired to serve the
development, the acquisition component of the PAD Fee will be waived and a payment
of $4.1 million (including the developmenfportion of the fee and land acquisition fee
adjusted over dedication at Eastlake Vistas neighborhood park) will be made which can
be utilized to fund cons1;ruction of park and public facilities serving the EastLake
Community Any excess funds that remain once these facilities are complete can be
utilized on other park or public facilities serving the Eastern Territories of Chula Vista.
The Developer will pay the development component of the PAD Fee as required by the
City (EastLake ill SPA Plan, February 20, 2006 and personal communication with Jack
Griffin, City of Chula Vista April 3, 2006).
5.8-c Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to pay the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDlF) at the .rate in effect at the time building 0
permits are issued as determined by the City Engineer, to offset impacts on City fIre,
police, emergency services and libraries.
5 8-d Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, the applicant shall submit plans showing fIre flow
and fire hydrant locations to the City of Chula Vista Fire Prevention Division for review
and approval.
5.8-e Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall pay aU required school
mItigation fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued or enter into an
agreement to help finance the needed facilities and services for the Chula Vista
Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District.
5 8-f Water and sewer facility improvements shall be fInanced or installed on- and off-site in
accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Financing Plan for
the SPA Plan.
5.8-g The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor Police and Fire Departllent responses
to emergency calls and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight
Committee on an annual basis.
d
44
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 53
Impact: The project would poteutially impact recreational facilities.
Safety issues for recreational trail users directly exposed to crossing construction traffic as a
result of the optional construction road will be significant.
Explanation:
The construction road will directly affect the existing trail along the west side ofWueste Road.
Construction vehicles would cross directly over the trail and would pose a safety risk to
pedestrians, bicyclists and other recreational trail users during construction activities. For this
reason, mitigation, in the form of a Traffic Control Plan, will address safety issues related to
recreational trail users throughout, proj eet construction.
Mitigation Measures:
5 8-h Prior to approval of the grading permit for the optional construction access road, a traffic
control plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that addresses
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety during construction at the intersecti?n of Wueste
Road and the option construction access road.
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 5 8 of the SElR, pursuant to Section l509l(a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SElR to
a level of insignificance.
Biological Resources
Significance Thresholds:
Threshold 1 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
Threshold 2. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service?
45
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 54
Threshold 3 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 0
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold 4: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
Threshold 5 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Threshold 6 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact: The project (including the optional pedestrian trail and construction access
road) would result in potential indirect impacts to sensitive.species and habitats
within adjacent Preserve areas. . .,
Potential direct impacts to narrow endemic plant species and potential indirect impacts to habitat
and reserve features may occur within the optional pedestrian trail and optional construction
access road should they be implemented.
o
Explanation:
The optional construction road and trail would impact areas that could support narrow endemic
plants. Although none were identified during winter 2005-2006 surveys conducted for the
project, surveys were not conducted within the optimal season for some of the annual narrow
endemic plants. Potentially suitable habitat for these plants exist onsite, and therefore, there is a
potential for impacts to narrow endemic plant species. This potential impact to narrow endemic
plants within the optional pedestrian trail and temporary construction roadway aligrunents would
result in a significant impact.
r
The proposed project and optional features would also be located adjacent to areas intended for
conservation, therefore indirect impacts related to urban pollutant runoff, toxic substances, new
light sources and invasive landscaping would occur and be considered significant.
Finally, without implementation of required mitigation, the project could potentially be
inconsistent with the City's HLIT Ordinance which would constitute a sIgnificant impact.
o
46
6
e
e
e
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 55
Mitigation Measures:
5.9-a In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the Subarea Plan, mitigation to
minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant communities and
functions of the Preserve as envisioned in the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
Drainage and Toxic Substances
Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed in all
drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of contaminants into
the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading plans and approved by the
City prior to issuance of any land development permit, including clearing and
grubbing and grading permits. The installation of these pollution reduction measures
shall be verified by the City during project construction.
Additional best management practices for reduction to impacts to drainages include:
slopes and channels will be protected from erosion; storm drain stenciling and
sigoage will be employed, and control of post-development peak storm water runoff
discharge rates and velocities will be enacted to maintain or reduce downstream
erosion and to protect stream habitat. These measures shall be further outlined in the
project Swppp
Lighting
Light shielding to protect the Preserve from spill-over during construction activ~ties
shall be required. In addition, lighting proposed for the residential development shall
be directed away and shielded from the Preserve. Low sodium lighting shall also be
utilized. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan shall be subrnitted to
the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. The lighting
plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and type of
shielding measures. Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used if feasible and shall
be subject to the approval of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator and City
Engineer
Noise
Construction activities shall include noise reduction measures or be conducted outside
the breeding season of sensitive bird species. In particular, grading restrictions shall
be implemented during the breeding season (February 15 through August 15) of the
California goatcatcher, and if construction is proposed during the breeding season,
47
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 56
noise levels shaIl not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq within 500 feet of an active gnatcatcher
nest.
Noise impacts adjacent to the preserve shall be minimized through installation of
berms or walls adjacent to the residential areas and any other use that may introduce
noises that could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization of the Preserve.
Invasives
Native vegetation shaH be used for revegetating the temporary access road, and shaH
be incorporated into the landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Building. Such me~sures shaIl be indicated on grading plans and approved by the
City prior to issuance of any land development permit, including clearing and
grubbing and grading permits. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, landscape plans
shaIl be submitted to the City for review and approval.
, ,
5.9-b Prior to issuance of any land development permit, including clearing and grubbing and
grading permits, for the optional trail and temporary construction access road, the
applicant shaIl retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a Narrow Endemic species
survey Once surveys have been completed, an impact analysis shall be prepared to
determine the impacts to any narrow endemic species found in those areas and include
mitigation measures in accordance with Section 5.2.3 of the City's Subarea Plan. FinaIly,
the impact analysis shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator
for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If a narrow
endemic plant population is discovered, impacts shaIl be limited to 20% of the population
within the project area, and appropriate mitigation shaH be provided to meet the
requirements of biological equivalency in Section 5.2.3.6 of the Subarea Plan. The City
shaIl prepare findings of equivalency to authorize "Take" of the portion of the plant
population.
If, after the comprehensive consideration of avoidance and minimization measures,
impacts exceed 20% of the covered Narrow Endemic Species population within the
project area, the City must make a determination of biologicaIly superior preservation
consistent with Section 5.2.3 7 of the Subarea Plan. This determination shall be based on
appropriate mitigation sufficient to meet the requirements established for biologically
superior preservation identified in Section 5.2.3 7 of the Subarea Plan. The City shall
process the appropriate findings in accordance with Section 5.2.3.3 of the Subarea Plan.
If such findings cannot be made for either or both of these optional project features, the
feature(s) that are not consistent with the policies related to narrow endemic species shall
not be implemented.
48
/
o
o
r
o
e
e
e
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 57
Finding:
As identified in Section 5 0, Subchapter 59 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section l509l(a)(l) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
Paleontological Resources
Significance Thresholds:.,
Threshold 1 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact: The project could potentially impact a unique paleontological resource.
The project may impact paleontological resources during grading and building piling excavation.
Explanation:
A majority of the grading activity onsite would impact the existing building pad structure which
is situated on already disturbed soils. However, during construction, boring of the building
column holes may result in impacts to previously undisturbed soils underneath the existing
building pad structure. This would result in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
5 10-a Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall confirm in writing to the City of
Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the mitigation
described herein. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a M.S. or
Ph. D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and
techniques. A paleontological monitor may be retained to perform the on-site monitoring
in place of the qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor is defined as an
individual who has expenence in the collection and salvage of fossil materials and who is
working under the supervision of a qualified paleontologist.
5 10-b The qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall attend preconstruction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. The paleontologist's
duties shall include monitonng of grading, salvaging, preparation of collected materials
for storage at a scientific institution that houses paleontological collections, and
49
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 58
preparation ofa monitoring results report. For each step below, the paleontologist should O.
present results to the City of Chula Vista for review These duties are defined as follows:
The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the Otay Formation to inspect cuts
for fossils contained therein. The Sweetwater Formation should be monitored on
an as-needed basis as determined by the paleontologist or paleontological
monitor. The frequency of inspections would depend upon the rate of excavation,
the materials excavated, and the abundance of fossils. The paleontologist would
work with the contractor to determine the monitoring locations and amount of
time necessary to ensure adequate monitoring of the project slte.
ill the event that fossils are encountered, the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt construction
activities in the area of discovery to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
fashion. Because of the potential for recovery of small fossil remains, it may be
necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on-site.
.
Fossil remains shall be cleaned, sorted, repaired, cataloged, and then stored in a
local scientific institution that houses paleontological collections, such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum. 0
A monitoring results report with appropriate graphics summarizing the results
(even if negative), analyses, and conclusions of the above program shall be
prepared and submitted to the City of Chula Vista within 90 days following the
termination of the paleontological monitoring program.
Finding:
,
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.10 of the SEIR, pursuant to Section l5091(a)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR to
a level of insignificance.
x.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFlCANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"
(pub Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (b)). Several development proposals have been 0
50
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 59
submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula in proximity of
the project site for the EaslLake III Senior Housing project. These "current or probable future"
development proposals can affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as
development of the EaslLake III Senior Housing project. Potentially significant cumulative
impacts are associated with development of the project in conjunction with these surrounding
development projects.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have
been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative
impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This reflects the inability of the
Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions (i.e., City of San
Diego, City of National City, and Caltrans) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to
cumulative impacts. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the following
lITeversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to
pages in the SEIR.
e
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the EastLake ill Woods and Vistas
Replarming Program EIR (#01-01) provided a comprehensive examination of the cumulative
impacts associated with buildout of the entire EastLake ill project in conjunction with other
related projects. The proposed EaslLake III Senior Housing project would not substantially
change the conclusions of the cumulative impact analysis from the FSEIR #01-01
Impact: Land Use, Planning and Zoning
Explanation:
FSEIR #01-01 stated that development that is consistent with the approved plans would not
result in any additional cumulative land use impacts. A significant land use impact would not
occur as long as basic planning principles are achieved. FSEIR #01-01 concluded that the
development of the EastLake ill Woods and Vistas parcels would generally be consistent with
and thus achieve the same basic planning principles as the City General Plan and General
Development Plan for EastLake ill proposed at ,that time. The loss of agricultural land
a~socjated with project development is a cumulative impact, however, it is not considered
cumulatively significant or cumulatively considerable because the land proposed for
development is neither prime agricultural land nor zoned for agricultural use.
Although the proposed EastLake ill Senior Housing project would require a General Plan
Amendment, and amendments to the EastLake ill GDP and SPA, the change in land use from
commercial tourist to high-density residential senior housing would not introduce a land use that
would be incompatible with the surrounding mixture of commercial, quasI-public and residential
e uses. The change in land use would also not create a significant cumulative loss of commercial
51
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 60
tourist use. Several other locations in eastern Chula Vista are planned for resortJhotel uses, 0
including the Otay Ranch Village 13 and Eastern Urban Center. Both sites are located within 2.5
miles of the site and could accommodate the visitors to eastern ChuJa Vista. Lastly, the proposed
project in conjunction with the buildout of other areas of Chula Vista will contribute to the
conversion of vacant land to urban uses in the eastern area of Chula Vista. However, the site is
planned for development, and is one of the last planned development parcels in the EastLake ill
Vistas community Further, the project site is surrounded by development, and services are
provided to the site. As such, the proposed project would be considered an "infill" development,
would not extend services or promote growth where none is currently planned, and would not
result in a cumulative loss of vacant land. The conversion of vacant land to residential uses and
change in land use from commercial tourist to high density senior housing is not considered
cumulatively significant.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
The project would not result in a significant cumulative land use impact.
Impact: Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
o
Explanation:
FSEIR #01-01 states that the City of Chula Vista General Plan, EastLake ill General
Development Plan and General Development Plan EIR anticipated the components of the
EastLake ill project. Open expanses of rolling hills used for agricultural purposes would be
developed with clustered residential and commercial areas separated by open space. Consistent
with other EIRs, a significant unmitigable, cumulative impact associated with landform alteration
and change in visual 'character was identified. The yhu1a Vista City Council .adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.
Because the proposed project's environmental analysis is tiered from FSEIR #01-01, this
significant cumulative impact related to landform alteration and _aesthetics "must be carried
forward in this document for.the decision makers' review
The proposed project will contribute to the change in visual character of the Lower Otay
Reservoir area. While the project site has been graded and is no longer natural open space, it is
an undeveloped vacant site. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to the
developed, suburban nature of the western rim of the Lower Otay Reservoir. These visual 0
52
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 61
changes win be most evident from the Lower Otay Reservoir, Olympic Parkway and Wueste
Road. In conjunction with other existing, developing or planned developments, the project's
contribution to the loss of open space would represent a cumulative impact. The mitigation for
the project impacts would be applicable for cumulative impacts to landform alteratIon and visual
quality associated with the proposed project. However, this impact would remain sIgnificant and
unrnitigable.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this project Impact to a less than
significant level. As a result, the project would contribute to the incremental effect of the
significant, unrnitigable landform alteration/aesthetic impact that resulted when the EastLake III
area was developed.
Finding:
The only mitigation available to avoid this impact is the No Project Alternative. Adoption of the
No Project Alternative does not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project discussed
in the SEIR. Therefore pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations made this alternative infeasible.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however the City Conncil has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Geology/Soils
Explanation:
FSEIR #01-01 did not identify cumulative impacts related to geology and soil conditions.
Geology and soil hazards associated with development on surrounding projects would be site-
specific and can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. The project would not involve the
pumping or depletion of groundwater resources, which would have the potential to result in
cumulative impacts to groundwater resources and soil stability Therefore, no significant
cumulative impacts related to geology and soil resources would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
53
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 62
Finding:
The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to geology and soil resources.
o
Impact: Water Quality/Hydrology
Explanation:
FSEIR #01-01 concluded that cumulative impacts to Otay Lakes Basin and the Salt Creek
Drainage Basin would occur as a result of development of the EastL'!ke :p:I.GDP and SPA Plan.
These impacts would be related to the potential for more channel and soil erosion into the
downstream areas. Increased erosion could negatively impact downst;ream water quality. To
reduce hydrological impacts to the Otay Lakes Basin, the master drainage system was designed
to divert surface flows from 243 acres to the Salt Creek Basin. Incorporation of this design
feature along with several Best Management Practices were determined to reduce potential
significant cumulative impacts to water quality and hydrology to a level below significant.
Runoff from project development areas, including surface parking lots and landscaped areas will
contribute to the incremental increase in urban runoff to the Otay River system. However, the
proposed project site currently drains to an existing storm drain system that funnels site drainage
to the Salt Creek Drainage Basin to avoid discharge into the Otay Reservoirs. The proposed
project would not alter this drainage pattern. Further, the project would implement Best
Management Practices to maintain water quality in the Salt Creek Drainage Basin. All drainage
that leaves the project site would be filtered through mechanisms designed to trap pollutants
which would eliminate the project's regional contribution to cumulative water quality issues.. In
compliance with City thresholds, onsIte runoff will not exceed pre-development volumes. The
project's compliance with appl1cable federal, state and city regulations for stormwater and
construction discharges, including the application of Best Management Practices, would reduce
the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to water quality to a level below significance.
o
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to water quality and hydrology
resources.
o
54
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 63
Impact: Traffic and Circulation
FSEIR #01-01 concluded that significant cumulative traffic circulation impacts at project area
intersections, street segments and freeway operations would occur through the years 2005, 2010,
2015,2020 and at build-out. Impacts to freeway operations at I-80S. wouJdremain significant
and unrnitigable. The ChuJa Vista City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for thIS impact.
Because the proposed project's environmental analysis is tiered from FSEIR OJ-Ol, this
significant cumulative impact related to transportation and circulation must be carried forward in
this document.
As discussed in Section 5.0, the proposed project would contribute 1,684 average daily trips less
than assumed for the site under the existing land use designation and as addressed in FSEIR #01-
01 The traffic analysis for the proposed project concluded that, in and of itself, the proposed
project would not result in a significant contribution to traffic on I-80S 'and would not result in a
sufficient contribution to regional road network to warrant a cumulative impact. The only traffic
impact identified was project specific. However, because the proposed project is part .of the
bui1dout of the overall EastLake ill community, a significant cumulative unrnitigable traffic
impact was identified for buildout of the community, and the proposed project would result in an
incremental contribution to the traffic from buildout of the community, a significant cumulative
unmitigated traffic impact is identified.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this significant impact to a less than
significant level.
Finding:
The only mitigation available to avoid this impact is the No Project Alternative. Adoption of the
No Project Alternative does not meet the goals and objectives ofthe proposed project discussed
in the SEIR. Therefore pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations made this alternative infeasible.
As describe din the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however the City Council has
determmed that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
.
55
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 64
Impact: Air Quality
o
Explanation:
FSEIR #01-01 concluded that development of the EastLake ill community will result in
significant, unmitigable air quality impacts. Compliance with regional air pollution rules and
regulations ,will reduce potential short-term impacts related to construction, however will not
completely mitigate for them. Project operations-related impacts, including those related to
stationary and mobile sources are projected to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management
District thresholds and would therefore result in significant regional air quality impacts.
Therefore, sIgnificant unmitigable cumulative air quality impacts would occur as a result of
buildout of EastLake m. The Chula Vista City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for this impact. .
Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts to air quality
associated with construction and long-term impacts assocIated with increased vehicle traffic.
The cumulative effect of the proposed project and other projects in the vicinity would
incrementally contribute to the San Diego Air Basin's levels ofPM-10, ROG, NOx, CO, 03 and
S02. Dust control measures implemented during grading operations would be regulated in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board, and, on a project level, not exceed O'
thresholds. However, the San Diego Air Basin is currently in non-attainment status for both
federal and state requirements for 03 and state requirements of PM-l 0; therefore, any emissions
would contribute to a significant impact. While the proposed project would generate less than
half of the projected traffic for the site under the existing land use designation, it would still
contribute incrementally to overall cumulative vehicular emissions generated by buildout of the
area. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to tlIe significant cumulative' air quality
impacts which are not be fully mitigable on a project level.
Mitigation Measures:
No feasible mitigation measures, are available to reduce this significant impact to a less than
significant level.
Finding:
The only mitigation available to avoid this impact is the No Project Alternative. Adoption of the
No Project Alternative does not meet tlIe goals and objectives of the proposed project discussed
in tlIe SEIR. Therefore pursuant to SectIOn 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations made this alternative infeasible.
o
56
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006- 1 89
Page 65
As describe din the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however the City Council has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Noise
Explanation.
FSElR #01-01 states that ambient noise levels in the project area would increase as a result of
new urban activities. Cumulative nOIse levels from EastLake ill and other development in the
Eastern Temtories would not exceed land use compatibility standards if mitigation measures for
impacts associated with development on a project-by-project basis are incorporated.
Cumulative noise impacts are discussed in terms of traffic-related noise and a general increase in
urbanization in an area. A project's contribution to cumulative traffic noise would be evaluated
on a project-by-project basis, and if significant impacts are identified (e.g., non-compliance with
noise standards) then mitigation requirements would be imposed. As described in Section 57,
Noise, anticipated interior noise levels warrant mitigation to reduce impacts to less than
significant due to the proximity of Olympic Parkway and anticipated traffic levels along this
roadway Once built, the project will contribute to the overall increase in ambient noise,
however similar to the conclusion described in FSEIR #01-01 for the entire EastLake ill
community, because the project and other projects' noise levels within the area would not exceed
land use compatibility standards, cumulative noise impacts would not OCCUT.
MitigatIOn Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
The project would not result III a significant cumulative impact to the surrounding nOIse
environment.
Impact: Public Services/Utilities
Explanation:
FSEIR #01-01 analyzed cumulative impacts to water supply and sewer service. FSEIR #01-01
states that development of the EastLake III project would incrementally increase regional water
consumption, however this increase represents a less than significant impact given current water
availability Further, this increase in water demand has been planned for within the City of
Chula Vista.
57
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 66
FSEIR #01-01 indicates that development of the Woods and Vistas would incrementally reduce 0
the capacIty in the Point Lorna Metro Sewer System. However, because the Metro system has
the capacity to accommodate future planned growth, the increased flows would not be
cumulatively significant. FSEIR #01-01 also noted the potential for increased sewer demand to
overwhelm the City's sewer infrastructure. Mitigation was contemplated and has largely been
completed to help convey flows within the City's system prior to its entrance into the Metro
facilities.
The project would involve an incremental increase in demand for public facilities. However, this
demand has been planned for by the City of Chula Vista. Sewer and water services are already
provided to the site, and the associated infrastructure is adequately sized to accommodate the
sewage generation and water demand. OWD has indicated that water supplies are available for
the proposed development. Because other projects considered as part of this cumulative arIalysis
would also be required to demonstrate sewer service and water availability, cumulative impacts
to sewer and water services would not be significant.
The proposed project would similarly increase demand on police protection and fire and
emergency services. The PFFP that has been prepared for the project addresses the need for
additional police services and recommends methods to maintain acceptable service levels. The
City will evaluate each project considered as part of this cumulative analysis on a similar level,
and each project will be required to pay fees to offset incremental increases in demand created by O.
the project. Therefore, cumulative impacts to law enforcement and fire protection are not
considered significant.
While the project is an age restricted facility, it may contribute to the cumulative need for
additional school facilities. The proposed project, as well as foreseeable future projects, will be
required to pay school fees to pay for school services and improvements commensurate with
need. Therefore, Impacts to schools would not be considered significant.
The proposed project would create a demand for library services to serve its residents, and,
when considered with past, present and future developments, the project would contribute an
incremental demand on libraries. However, the project would pay development fees that would
be used towards library facilities within the City, in accordance with the City's Growth
Management Ordinance. Other projects considered as part of this cumulative impact analysis
would also be required to contribute development fees, as necessary to offset incremental
demand for library services. Therefore, cumulative impacts to libraries would not be significant.
Buildout of the proposed project in conjunction with the cumulative projects analyzed in this
analysis would increase the amount of solid waste generated within the region. As indicated in
Section 5.8, the Otay Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project.
Additionally, the project, as well as other foreseeable future projects, would implement programs 0
58
e
e
e
Resolution No 2006-] 89
Page 67
and policies related to solid waste management and a recycling program. As a result, no
significant cumulative solid waste impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to public facilities and services.
Impact: Bio]ogica} Resources
FSEIR #0]-01 concluded that given the predominance of agricultural land and lack of sensitive
vegetation on the EastLake III project site, the project's contribution to cumulative biological
impacts would not be considered significant. The cumulative loss of sensitive habitats from the
project and other cumulative projects within the City is addressed in the MSCP and the City's
Subarea Plan which was intended to provide the City with a comprehensive plan for preservation
of key biological resources while allowing remaining areas to be developed.
Development of this project, combined with the others qescribed above, would contribute to the
increase in human presence within the eastern Chula Vista area. Continued development within
the eastern areas of Chula Vista and the extension of SR-125 would extend urban land uses into
vacant areas characterized by natural habitats and utilized by the region's sensitive plant and
wildlife species. As indicated in FSElR #01-01, approval of the MSCP and the City's Subarea
Plan was intended to mitigate for the cumulative loss of sensitive biological resources in Chula
Vista. The project is consistent with the MSCP and City's Subarea Plan. Therefore, the
proposed project, combined with existing, developing or planned projects would not result in
cumulative biological resource impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to biological resources.
59
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 68
Impact: Paleontological Resources
o
Explanation:
FSElR #01-01 concluded that the EastLake ill area contains slgnificant paleontological
resources. Fossils were recovered from the underlying Otay and Sweetwater Formations in
previous EastLake construction and represent significant contributions to California
paleontology This SEIR indicates that the presence of monitors during construction will
eliminate paleontological impacts on a project-by-project basis.
Monitoring for paleontological resources already occurred during grading of the site in 2002.
However, the proposed project may excavate below prevIOusly disturbed formation for the
subterranean parking. Therefore, this project may contribute to cumulative impacts to
paleontological resources during construction of the underground parking. This cumulative
impact will be mitigated through project-specific mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
o
The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to paleontological resources.
XI.
" ,
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must
consider the feasibility of any env1ronmentally superior alternative to the project as finally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the SElR, the
decision makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the SElR. Under these
circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting [mdings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the
significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption
of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of envIronmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe 0
60
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006- 189
Page 69
than those of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of
the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr 842]; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for
this project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers
only those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the
decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed
project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable
of eliminating" environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree
the attainment of the project objectives" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126).
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible"
pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies
to the findings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors" (pub. Resources Code, section 21061 1). The CEQA Guidelines
provide a broader defiuition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA
Guidelines section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an
alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental,
social, or technological factor" (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.410]).
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may be afforded a different
meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to
the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project
for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is .approved or carried out
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
"Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1)).
"Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
61
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 70
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, 0
subd. (a)(3)). .' " . .' ,
"Specific economic, legal, social: techn~logical, or other cOl1siderations, inclu"ding provisions of
employment opportunities for highly tl-aihed workers, nlake infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the ~nal EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, ~ection 1509,1, subd. (a)(3)).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives ofa project (City of Del Mar v
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility' under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing ofthe relevant economiy, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid., see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v City of Oakland (1993) 23 CaLAppAth 704, 715 [29
CaLRptr.2d 182]).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant enviroIlII).ental
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain
alternatives, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and
weighed the ability of the various alternative to meet objectives. The decision makers believe
that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental 0
impact.
The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but five significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through
the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal
mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the
following:
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics (cumulative - overall build-out of the EastLake
ill area)
Traffic (cumulative cumulative traffic and circulation pattern impacts were
determined for 2005,2010,2015,2020 and build-out conditions. Impacts to freeway
operations were also identified)
Air Quality (cumulative - nonconformance with regional air quality plans and overall
project [entire EastLake ill development] impacts on regional air quality)
..,
The FSEIR #01-01 also identified significant and not mitigated impacts for landform alteration
and aesthetics, traffic, and air quality. The EastLake III Senior Housing project would contribute 0
62
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 71
to the significant, unmitigated impacts identified above and by the FSEIR #01-01. A Statement
of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by City Council for the FSEIR #01-01,
from which the EastLake III Senior Housing SEIR tiers.
Thus, the City can fully satisfY its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives
identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts
listed above (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County
Farm Bureau v City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47
Ca1.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr 426]). Table 10-1 in the SEIR (SEIR, Chapter 10, page 10-
16) provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following discussion
will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with
respect to the unmitigated impacts.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular
alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings
will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits
of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts - even though such a far-
ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The findings will also assess whether each
alternative is feasible in light ofthe City's objectives for the project.
The City's review of project alternatives is guided pnmarily by the need to reduce potential
impacts associated with the project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the project.
Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement
development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in
Section ill. The City evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project, which are discussed
below (No ProjectINo Development Alternative, Existing Land Use Designation (Commercial -
Tourist) Alternative, and Reduced Density Alternative. A comparison of these alternatives is
included in the SEIRas Table 10-1 (SEIR, Chapter 10, page 10-16).
No ProjectJNo Development Alternative
Section 15126, subdivision(e), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the ''No
Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,
based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services."
Under the ''No ProjectINo Development" alternative, the project would not be developed, and
the project site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. No amendments to the
General Plan, EastLake ill GDP and SPA would be required.
63
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 72
With respect to the umnihgated impacts discussed in Section 5.0, Environmental Impact 0
Analysis, of this SEIR, the No ProjectINo Development altemative would not result in direct
impacts to landform alteration, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources,
paleontological resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, utilities and public services, and
hazards/risk of upset. Cumulative impacts to landform and aesthetics, transportation and access,
and air quality would not result. However, impacts to land use would occur because the project
would not implement the City's General Plan, EastLake III GDP, and would not provide housing
opportunities wIthin the City. With the No ProjectINo Development alternative, the site would
not be permanently removed from future development, since applicable plans for the site identify
its development.
Although the No ProjectINo Development alternative is considered enviromnentally preferable
to the proposed project because it would eliminate many direct and cumulative impacts, it would
not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the proposed project and is therefore not
feasible.
Findings:
The No ProjectINo Development alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives
as listed in Section 3.3, Project Objectives, of this SEIR, and in Section III of these Findings of
Fact.
o
The No ProjectINo Developinent alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the
housing goals of the General Plan, w!lich recommends that housing be provided for all income
groups.
Retention of the project site in its existing stat~ as a graded development pad would be
inconsistent with the approved General Plan and existing EastLake GDP land use designations
for the site.
Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals of the General
Plan and would require re-evaluation of the existing GDP The reduction in dwelling units would
result in a loss of anticipated contributions into the Public Facilities Financing Plan (pFFP) from
the dwelling units/structures that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of
building permits. The loss of units under the No ProjectINo Development alternative would
result in a shortfall of contributions into the PFFP and potentially lead to insufficient funding for
the remaining public facilities currently identified in the PFFP for construction in this area.
-,.
The City and County would receive lower long-term revenues in the form of property and sales
tax resulting from the non-development of the proposed residential areas.
o
64
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-] 89
Page 73
Implementation of the No ProjectlNo Development Alternative would not achieve any of the
objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily
preserve land which is currently not developed, it would amount to a failure to plan the site for
eventual development, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General
Plan and GDP.
The No ProjectINo Development Alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan
the project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of
public services and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents, and to create
densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure. The alternative also fails to
meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area reasonable
close to future job-growth areas within the City.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes .that the No ProjectINo Development Alternative is
not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417, Sequoyah Hills, supa, 23
Cal.App.4th at 715).
Existing Land Use Designation (Commercial- Tourist) Alternative
The existing land use designation for the project site is for commercial-tourist uses. The existing
land use designation alternative would result in the continued development of the site for
commercial-tourist uses. No amendments to the general plan or EastLake ill GDP would be
necessary Since the FSEIR #01-01 addressed the development of the project site for
commercial-tourist uses; the impact characterization is a summary of conclusions from the
FSEIR #01-01. In cases where FSEIR #01-01 did not differentiate the impacts related to the
specific project site and instead referred to impacts from development of the larger Woods and
Vistas project, an independent analysis was provided.
Impact
The Existing Land Use Designation (Commercial- Tourist) Alternative would oe consistent with
the existing General Plan and EastLake III GDP and SPA. The site would be developed with a
commercial tourist use that would support the OTC. The commercial tourist use would be
compatible with the surrounding existing and proposed land uses, which include residential and
commercial uses. Implementation of the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would have
a similar effect on landform alteration as the proposed project because the site would change
from vacant land to urban development. Development of the site with a Commercial- Tourist use
would not directly impact biological resources. Indirect impacts on the adjacent MSCP Preserve
would still occur with this alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the Existing Land Use
Designation Alternative would not result in impacts to cultural resources. The Existing Land Use
Designation Alternative would result in the same geotechrrical impacts and require the same
65
Resolution No. 2006- 189
Page 74
mitigation measures that were provided in FSEIR #01-01 This Alternative would result in
. .
similar impacts on paleontological resources as those presented for the proposed project.
o
Previous analysis for construction related impacts t~ water quality, as presented in FSEIR #01-
01, indicated that impairment to receiving waters resulting from conventional construction
techniques could be reduced to a less than significant level through the use ofBMPs. This would
be similar to the impacts generated by the proposed proj ect.
FSEIR #01-01 evaluated the traffic impacts of implementation of the EastLake III SPA in its
entirety FSEIR #01-01 assumed development of the site with Commercial Tourist uses. The
generation rate for Commercial Tourist uses is 200 trips per acre of commercial development.
Therefore, the Existing Land Use Designation Altemative would generate 3,660 ADT. This
alternative would generate approximately 1,684 more ADT than the proposed project.
The Implementation of tourist-commercial uses at the project site would generate higher traffic
volumes than compared to the proposed project. Higher traffic levels will likely result in more
congestion which will in-turn contribute to the Region's current air quality non-attainment
levels.
Higher noise levels are anticipated to be generated from a Commercial-Tourist use as compared
to a senior housing development. A Commercial-Tourist use, such as a hotel with restaurant and 0
meeting spaces, would likely be very active, with a frequent turn over of guests. As noted above,
the Commercial Tourist use would generate more traffic which would result in higher noise
levels adjacent to Olympic Parkway. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the Existing Land
Use Designation Alternative will be greater than those generated by the proposed project.
The Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would result in a similar need for public
facilities would have impacts on public facilities or services similar to the proposed project.
Findings:
The Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would not reduce impacts in the environmental
issue areas analyzed, and would in some cases result in greater impacts. Therefore, pursuant to
sectIon 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Reduced Deusity Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would consist of single-family residential uses that are typical
of the surrounding environment. Consistent with surrounding densities, approxrmately 56
single-family units could be developed on the site. 0
66
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 75
hnpact
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would require a General Plan
Amendment and amendments to the EastLake ill GDP and SPA. If the optional temporary
construction access road and trail are implemented, similar land use impacts would be associated
with these features as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to land use, pI arming and zoning
would be the same as for the proposed project.
hnplementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would have a similar change in landform
from a vacant site to a residential community The scale, density and quantity ohesidential units
would be less than the proposed project. Aesthetically, the site would resemble single-family
neighborhoods to the west and north and therefore would blend better from a community
character perspective compared to the proposed project. Light and glare would be introduced to
the site, similar to the proposed proj ect.
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not have direct impacts on biological
resources. However, indirect impacts on the adjacent MSCP Preserve would still occur
According to FSEIR #01-01 and EIR #89-09, no cultural resources that meet the significance
criteria under CEQA are located within the project site or optional temporary access road or trail
location areas. Therefore, neither the proposed project nor the Reduced Density Alternative
would result in impacts to cultural resources.
The Reduced Density Alternative would require the same geotechnical mitigation measures that
were provided in FSEIR #01-01 and suggested for the proposed project. However, this
alternative would eliminate the need for basement parking excavation which is anticIpated to
expose unstable alluvium in the proposed project scenario.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts as those presented for the
proposed project. The potential for impacts to occur exists with the additional grading activities
that would be required from implementing future development on the project site. Mitigation
Measures from FSEIR #01-01 would therefore still be applicable.
The amount of runoff generated by this alternative would depend upon the area of impervious
surfaces as compared to the proposed project. Runoff from the site could carry contaminants to
the storm drain system. Similar to the proposed project, BMPs would be required to treat runoff
prior to entering the storm drain system or, in the case of the southern slope, prior to entering the
Lower Otay Reservoir. Similar to the proposed project and in accordance with City
requirements, the volume of runoff could not increase above existing volumes. Therefore, similar
water quality and hydrology impacts would be applicable to the Reduced Density Alternative.
67
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 76
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in approximately 56 single-family residential
units, which would generate approximately 560 ADT. This is 1,416 ADT less than what would
be generated by the 494-unit senior housing project. Therefore, traffic impacts from this
alternative would be less than those generated by the proposed proj ect. It is anticipated that the
level of service at the main drive;Nay into the site would still be at unacceptable levels and would
warrant a traffic signal. Reduced traffic levels would also result in a corresponding reduction in
air quality and noise impacts, when compared to the proposed project.
o
Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would decrease the amount of water,
electricity, sewer, solid waste, police services and fire serVices required. The Reduced Density
project would generate the need for 0.42 acres of parkland (3 acres/l,OOO people - 2.5 people per
single-family residential unit was assumed). Therefore, the amount of parkland generated by the
Reduced Density Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project.
Findings:
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to traffic, air quality, noise and public
facilities and services. However, significant impacts have been identified for landform
alteration/aesthetics, traffic and air quality, which would I).ot be reduced. to levels below
significance with this alternative. Tperefore, pursuant to section l509l(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, le&al, social, technological, or other considerations make this 0
alternative infeasible.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the
alternatives considered, including the proposed project. If the No Project/No Development
Alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of alternatives presented above and summarized in Table 10-1
indicates, through a comparison of potential impacts from each alternative to the proposed
project, that the No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. If left
in its current state, no new impacts would be introduced to the area. This alternative would result
in the least impact to area roadways, aesthetics, the noise environment, air quality, biological
resources and public services. However, the No Development Alternative would not implement
the General Plan, GDP or SPA for the site. Further, this alternative would not accomplish any of
the project objectives.
o
68
e
e
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 77
The Reduced Density Alternative could also be considered environmentally superior because it
would result in less traffic than the proposed project and would be less dense than the proposed
project. However, this alternative would not implement the General Plan, GDP or SPA for the
site and would not accomplish any of the project objectives, particu]arly related to providing a
diversity of housing types.
XII.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED
EASTLAKEIIl SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact:
. Landform Alterations/Aesthetics (cumulative)
. Traffic (cumulative)
. Air Quality (cumulative)
The City has adopted. all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen thes\, significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on this
examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives (I) meets project objectives,
and (2) is enviromnentally preferable to the proposed project.
As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections ]5043 and 15093. This provision allows
a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for
choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not
been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits
outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California
Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species
Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a
statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions.
Rather, the decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis
69
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 78
contamed in the Final SEIR, recogirizli;1g that other resource agencies have the ability to impose
more stringent standards or measures.
o
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs
are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (pub.
Resources Code Section 21068 ) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse"
impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be
addressed. (See, Wildlife Alive v Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190,206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377))
Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits
can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations. (CEQA Guidelines Section
15093.)
The City frods that the proposed project would have the following substantial, social,
environmental and economic benefits. Anyone of the reasons for approval cited below is
sufficient to justifY approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every
reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination
that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits
can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section,
and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section N
Community Planning and Development
o
The EastLake area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego Air Basin. Most of this pollution
is attributable to motor vehicles. The proposed EastLake ill concept and specifically the
proposed project's of including an optional pedestrian trail would benefit the health and well-
being of the senior community as well as provide a benefit in terms ofvolunteerism, community
involvement, support, etc. for the Olympic Traimng Center.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The GDP and the EastLake III SPA Plan project provide the opportunity to comprehensively
plan development that meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure, and
enviromnental preservation. These benefits area made possible by EastLake's size and scope.
The EastLake GDP includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that
area typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process
undertaken for the GDP involved long-range planning, ensuring maximum achievement of
policies and regulations of the City ofChula Vista.
The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the GDP include the following:
. Comprehensive consideration of the ODP cumulative effects;
o
70
e
Resolution No. 2006-189
Page 79
. Consistency in the 'approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, alr
quality, habitat preservation, infrastrutiture, and public services planning; and
. Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities.
Housing Needs
The GDP will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a wide
variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses
(e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the
EastLake area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The GDP will help reduce the
cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development.
The EastLake In Seniors Housing project increases the housing stock in the City by
approximately 494 dwelling units. The project represents a future housing supply for the region.
Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for
housing.
SANDAG has forecasted a need for an additional approximately 20,823 additional dwelling
units within the City of Chula Vista by 2005 The project will enact the SANDAG policies by
preserving existing pedestrian and trail systems adjacent to the site, preserving open space,
e offering new homes and increasing the tax base for the City.
Fiscal Benefit
The project would generate new temporary construction-related jobs that would enhance the
economic base of the region.
The fiscal analysis identifies the estimated fiscal impact that the proposed amendment from
Tourist Commercial to High Density Residential will have on the City of Chula Vista operation
and maintenance budgets. This analysis is an amendment to the previous EastLake III SPA Plan
adopted on July 17, 2001 The amended fiscal analysis includes the 18.4 acre EastLake Seniors
proj ect.
The fiscal analysis presents future revenues and expenditures in current (2005) dollars. Also,
revenues and expenditures are presented annually, reflecting a conservatively projected
development absorption schedule based on information provided by the city and the developer
This approach identifies annual project fiscal surpluses and deficits and represents a more
realistic approach when compared to assumed instant build-out.
e
71
Resolution No 2006-189
Page 80
The fiscal revenues to the City associated with Eastlake III, for the proposed Seniors project, o.
range from $352,700 in the first year of development to $2,687,600 at build-out. Fiscal
expenditures by the City range from $273,000 in year one to $2,314,900 at build-out. The net
fiscal impact to the City from Eastlake III is positive in year one ($79,700) and remains so
throughout. At build-out (estimated 2007) the net fiscal impact to the City from EastLake III is
estimated to result in a surplus to the City of $372,700.
For these reasons, on balance the City Council finds there are environmental, economic, social,
and other considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the
project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable effects
are considered acceptable.
..
o
o
72