HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Reso 2007-008
CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-008
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR 06-01) FOR THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC
PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS, MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY EIR 06-01, AND RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE URBAN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM 07-01)
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2005 an update to the City's General Plan was approved
which provides a contemporary vision for the Urban Core, the traditional downtown of the City.
The General Plan Vision for the Urban Core of the City states that the Urban Core will contain
the greatest diversity of public, commercial, civic, financial, cultural, and residential uses
emphasizing its role as the hub ofthe City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Vision for the traditional residential neighborhoods that
surround the Urban Core states that the attractiveness ofliving in these areas will be enhanced by
the Urban Core's diversity in character and architectural style and enhanced access to facilities
and services; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan calls for the
Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), or other zoning regulations to implement the new land uses,
in particular mixed use and urban core residential zoning districts, to ensure the systematic
implementation of the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP will serve as the specific plan to direct and guide the development
of the Urban Core, including the Downtown and surrounding areas, towards this goal by directly
regulating land use and establishing a focused development scheme and process for the area; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07.010 adopts by reference
Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code that authorizes the local
legislative body to initiate the preparation of a specific plan to implement the policies of a
general plan; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to have zoning consistent with the City's General Plan is
established in CVMC Section 19.06.030 and California Government Code 65860. The UCSP is
the first in a series of significant zoning documents that are anticipated to implement the vision
established by the 2005 General Plan; and
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 2
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2003-236 to
initiate the preparation of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, in January 2004 the consulting firm of RRM Design Group was retained to
assist staff in the preparation of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004 the City Council appointed an 18 member Advisory
Committee to work with the City's staff and consultant team and the community in developing
some of the major components of the UCSP, and the UCSP Advisory Committee held it's first
meeting as a two day event on August 13 and 14,2004 to begin preparation of the draft UCSP;
and
WHEREAS, in September 2004, a community workshop was held to gather public input
on matters related to the preparation of the draft UCSP; and
WHEREAS, based on input from Committee members and the public at these meetings,
draft "Vision Plans" were created to set the framework for developing the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, the draft Vision Plans were presented to the UCSP Advisory Committee
followed by presentation to a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on November
17,2004, and a second community workshop. Based on the positive reaction to the Vision Plans
the staff and consultant team began developing major components of the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, monthly meetings of the UCSP Advisory Committee were held from
January through June 2005. These well attended meetings held with the UCSP Advisory
Committee provided direction on significant planning issues such as new permitted land uses,
development standards, design guidelines, and gateway design elements; and
WHEREAS, in September 2005, the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was released for public review, followed by public hearings and approval of the General
Plan on December 13,2005; and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the General Plan in December 2005, a preliminary
"Public Review Draft" UCSP was presented to the Advisory Committee in March 2006. In
addition, a third community workshop, jointly sponsored by the Northwest Civic Association and
Crossroads II, was held to provide the community with an overview of the UCSP and gamer
additional preliminary input on the draft UCSP. Feedback from both of these events was
considered and incorporated, as determined appropriate by staff and the consultant team, into a
"Public Review" Draft UCSP; and the Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared for a 45 day public
review period; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to the authority granted in the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans, and the California Government Code, Title
7, Division I, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory
elements identified in Government Code Section 65451; and
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 3
WHEREAS, Chapters V, IX, X, XI and Appendix D of the UCSP provide the plan and
mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services occur commensurate with subsequent
development; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP Environmental Impact Report 06-01 has been prepared as a
Program EIR and includes an evaluation of the growth management quality of life thresholds at a
programmatic level. The Final EIR (FEIR) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/or mitigation measures that address
provision of public services and facilities and requires subsequent development projects to
contribute to the provision of public services and facilities commensurate with their impact as
development occurs over the course of the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 06-01 for the Urban Core Specific Plan was issued for public
review on May 31, 2006, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period for the DEIR, information
sessions/workshops were held with the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to provide an overview of the UCSP to these advisory
bodies in preparation offuture public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held a duly noticed public
hearing for Draft EIR 06-01 on July 13,2006, to close the public review period, and following
the close of the public hearing, the public review period ended on July 13 2006; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-10) has been prepared and
incorporates revisions to the Public Review Draft UCSP, as described in the Public Hearing
Draft "Errata" based on public input and minor revisions to correct information; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 06-01) has been prepared on
the Urban Core Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated September 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 Final EIR 06-01 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn,
the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement those measures. These findings are not
merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted mitigation
measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "B" of
this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, are expressed as
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated
through the process of implementing the Urban Core Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2006 and March 28, 2007 hearings were held at the time and
place as advertised before the Planning Commission. Based on input received at these hearings,
additional minor modifications were recommended to the Public Hearing Draft UCSP. These
modifications were reviewed, in the context of the FEIR, and it was determined that the
recommended changes would not affect the impact analysis or significance conclusions of the
FEIR; and
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 4
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director set the time and place for a hearing
on said UCSP for April 26, 2007 and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
pursuant to California Government Code 65091 and 65092 at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on April
26,2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation and after receiving public testimony said hearing was thereafter
closed; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation considered all reports,
evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP, DEIR and FEIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the
Final EIR, does hereby certify Final EIR-06-01 and recommend that the City Council of the City
ofChula Vista find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation at their public hearing on Draft EIR-06-1 held on July 13, 2006, the minutes and
resolutions resulting from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation meetings of July 13,
2006, the minutes and resolutions resulting from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
meeting of April 26, 2007, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including
all documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(e(1)-(11)), shall
comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code g21000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(e), the City ofChula Vista specifies the Environmental Review Coordinator of the
City and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents, which constitute the records of
proceedings.
II. FEIR 06-01 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 06-01 consists of the following:
1. Final EIR for the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan (including all
technical appendices); and
2. Comments on the Draft EIR and the Lead Agency's Responses to Comments; and
3. Errata
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 06-01")
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 5
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 06-0 I
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WITH
CALIFORNIA
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby find that FEIR 06-01, 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 (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the
City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources
Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 915000 et seq.),
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation finds that the FEIR 06-0 I reflects the
independent judgment and analysis ofthe City of Chula Vista.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF
REPORTING PROGRAM
CONSIDERATIONS
FACT,
AND
MITIGATION
STATEMENT
MONITORING AND
OF OVERRIDING
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby approve,
accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and
every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 06-01 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 ofthe City Clerk, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described and specifically
identified 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.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 6
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives and Selected Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 06-01 and in the Findings of
Fact, Section XIII, for the Project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project which were
identified in FEIR -06-01, and selected mitigation measures, are determined to be
infeasible based on specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations. Section XIII identifies the factual basis for this conclusion, which
includes but is not limited to the determination that project alternatives and
selected mitigation measures do not reduce impacts to a less than significant level
or meet several project objectives.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any
feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental
effects caused by the Project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues and
approves, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit "A," a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifying the specific economic, legal,
social, technological and other considerations that render the unavoidable
significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during
project implementation, the City 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
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, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6,
subdivision( e)(1 )-(11), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 921000 et seq.).
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, having
considered the information contained in the Final EIR, certifies EIR-06-01 and recommends to
the City Council that FEIR-06-0l, the Findings of Fact and 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 (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a
copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with
the requirement ofCEQA (Pub. Resources Code, ~2l000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California
Code Regs. Title 14 915000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista and, therefore, should be certified.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the
City of Chula Vista, having independently reviewed and considered the information in the Public
Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No. 06-01 and all reports, evidence and
testimony presented at the public hearing recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista find, determine, resolve and order that the UCSP has been prepared pursuant to Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter's 19.07 and Government Code Sections 65450-65457; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the
City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP (PCM 07-01) recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find,
determine, resolve and order that the pursuant to Government Code Section 65854 - 65855 that
the UCSP is consistent with the 2005 General Plan as supported by the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP (PCM 07-01), Final EIR (No.06-01) and analysis including attachments to the agenda
statement to the City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, Redevelopment
Agency and City Council dated April 26, 2007 and is supported by public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the
City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information in the Public Hearing Draft
UCSP (PCM 07-01), Draft and Final EIR No. 06-01 and all reports, evidence and testimony
presented at the public hearing recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista find,
determine, resolve and order that the UCSP is in keeping with Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 19.80, as it requires subsequent new development to provide adequate public services
and facilities commensurate with their impact; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending
the zoning map and approving Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-01) with all amendments
including the additional recommendations made at the Planning Commission public hearing on
March 28, 2007. The zoning regulations contained in the Public Hearing Draft UCSP (PCM 07-
01), specifically Chapter VI, will replace existing Municipal Code zoning classifications for the
properties within the UCSP Subdistricts Area (Attachment I) and will introduce new zoning
classifications for mixed-use (retail/office), mixed-use with residential, and urban core
residential (high-density residential) as identified by the 2005 General Plan and provide
consistency between the 2005 General Plan and zoning as required by CVMC 19.06.030.
CVRe Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 8
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
Submitted by
(!)~
Approved as to form by
Ann Hix
Acting Community Development Director
~ \(,"<0t\~l^~\l
\
Ann Moore
General Counsel
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
of the City ofChula Vista, California, this 26th day of April 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
Directors:
Desrochers, Lewis, McCann, Paul, Rindone, Rooney, and
Cox
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Directors:
Ramirez
Directors:
Castaneda
Chery~~~Son
ATTEST:
Q
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
)
)
~ULA 11/15'
v~
* ~( CVRC '\ *
~ 06/15/2005 J B
o ~~~
O,o4t. O~a
I, Ann Hix, Secretary of the Chula Vista Redevelopment City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Re o. 2007-008 was duly
passed, approved, and adopted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular
meeting ofthe Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held on the 26th day of April 2007.
Ann
Executed this 26th day of April 2007.
~/)?
Ann Hix, Secretary
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 9
txhi bit A
Final
CEQA Findings of Fact
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the
City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
EIR #06-01
SCH #2005081121
Lead Agency
City ofChula Vista
City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
December 2006
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .....................:...........................................................................1
1.1 Project Summary .............................................................................................1
1.2 Findings Required Under CEQA ...................................................................4
1.3 Record of Proceedings .....................................................................................6
2.0 Findings on Significant Project Impacts......................................................... 8
2.1 Landform Alterationl Aesthetics .....................................................................8
2.2 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................11
2.3 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................16
2.4 Paleontological Resources .............................................................................17
2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................20
2.6 Traffic, Circulation "and Access ....................................................................22
2.7 Noise . .............................................................................................................30
2.8 Air Quality ......................................................................................................34
2.9 Public Services................................................................................................38
2.10 Public Utilities ...............................................................................................44
2.11 Hazards/Risk of Upset ...................................................................................46
3.0 Findings on Significant Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 47
3.1 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................48
3.2 Traffic, Circulation and Access ..................................................................49
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................50
3.4 Energy ............................................................................................................50
4.0 Findings on Feasibility of Project Alternatives Considered in tbe
FEIR .. ... ............. ........ ... ............ .................... ...... ... .......... ... .......51
4.1 No Project Alternative ...................................................................................54
4.2 Reduced Project Alternative.........................................................................56
4.3 Automobile Priority Alternative...................................................................58
5.0 Project Effects Found Not to be Significant................................................ 61
6.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations...................................................... 63
6.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...................................................63
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page II
6.2 Considerations in Support of Overriding Considerations
63
1. Introduction
This document presents findings that must be made by the City of Chula Vista prior to
approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan, pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the
Public Resources Code. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency (City of Chula Vista) is
required to make written findings concerning each significant environmental impact
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
The FEIR prepared for the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan assessed the
environmental impacts of all the discretionary actions related to the adoption of the
Urban Core Specific Plan. In addition, the FEIR evaluated three CEQA alternatives to
the proposed project: the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative, and the
Automobile Priority Alternative.
The FEIR constitutes a Program EIR under the provisions of Section 15168 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. A Program EIR allows for review of a series of contemplated actions.
The City of Chula Vista and other agencies will be able to use information presented in
the Program FEIR to determine if additional environmental review is required for
subsequent actions linked to the project. The Program FEIR for the UCSP was prepared
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as
amended and the guidelines of the City ofChula Vista.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Urban Core Specific Plan, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on
this matter, the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Chula Vista (City) in its capacity as the
CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and
subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies
for the implementation of the Urban Core Specific Plan.
1.1 Project Summary
The proposed project is the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) which is intended to
govern the development and revitalization of the urban core of the City of Chula Vista.
The proposed UCSP was prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code
(Section 19.07, Specific Plans) and the California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1,
Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457), and contains chapters pertaining to
Mobility Recommendations, Land Use and Development Regulations (zoning),
Development Design Guidelines, Public Realm Design Guidelines, Infrastructure and
Public Facilities, a Community Benefits Program, and Plan Implementation. Additional
chapters include information pertaining to the UCSP's background, vision, and existing
conditions.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 12
The proposed UCSP refines and implements the ViSIOn for downtown Chula Vista
expressed in the City's General Plan Update (GPU, 2005). The proposed UCSP fulfills
the role of providing detailed neighborhood-specific land use and development
regulations (zoning), development design guidelines, and numerous other mobility and
public realm guidelines, incentives and programs to revitalize the urban core in accord
with the general goals stated in the GPU. The UCSP additionally serves as the basis for a
variety of other actions, such as parkland acquisitions and transportation improvements.
Under the proposed UCSP, downtown Chula Vista at buildout would consist of an
integrated and connected network of three distinct neighborhoods and districts: the
Village, Urban Core and Corridors. (For planning purposes each of these three districts
are divided into a total of 26 subdistricts). Each district would contain a mix of primarily
low- to mid-rise (45 to 84 feet in height) high-density commercial, office, and residential
uses and various public amenities such as improved pedestrian streetscapes, bicycle and
transit facilities, public art, and parks, plazas and paseos. Two high-rise (up to 210 feet in
height) Transit Focus Areas would be permitted in the areas surrounding the existing E
and H Street trolley stations.
The new zoning, development standards, and design guidelines proposed in the UCSP
apply only to the 690-gross-acre UCSP Subdistricts Area (The UCSP Subdistricts Area
lies within the larger 1700-acre UCSP study area The existing stable residential
neighborhoods within the study area, outside of the Subdistricts Area, are exempt from
the regulatory provisions of the proposed UCSP.) The proposed UCSP regulatory
provisions would allow an ultimate buildout of 7,100 net new residential units over the
existing 3,700 for a total of up to 10,800 dwelling units in the Subdistricts Area by year
2030. Commercial retail square footage would increase by up to I million square feet
over the existing 3 million square feet for a total of up to 4 million square feet by 2030.
Commercial office space would increase by up to 1.3 million square feet over the existing
2.4 million square feet for a total of up to 3.7 million square feet by 2030. In addition, up
to 1.3 million square feet of new corrunercial visitor-serving uses would be allowed in the
Subdistricts Area by 2030.. This intensification of land use in the Subdistricts Area is
planned to accorrunodate GPU-projected resident and employment populations.
Discretionary Actions
The UCSP land use regulations would supersede existing Municipal Code Zoning as well
as the existing land use guidelines of the redevelopment plan areas that overlap the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. The specific discretionary actions to be considered by the Chula Vista
City Council associated with adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan are identified
below.
- -. ~
eVRe Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 13
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
REQUIRED FOR UCSP
ADOPTION
Action
Urban Core Specific Plan
Adoption
Agency
City of Cbula Vista
City Council
Urban Core Specific Plan City of Chula Vista
Final EIR Certification City Council
Town Centre
Redevelopment
Amendments
1 City of Chula Vista
Plan City Council!
Redevelopment
Agency
Town Centre I Land Use
Policy Repeal
City of Cbula Vista
City Council!
Redevelopment
Agency
City of Chula Vista
City Council!
Redevelopment
Agency
Town Centre I Design
Manual Repeal
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Purpose
To implement the objectives and policies of the
recently updated Chula Vista General Plan
To comply with State-required environmental
review of the proposed Urban Core Specific
Plan
To delete existing land use regulations and
instead defer to the land use development and
design provisions of the Urban Core Specific
Plan
To defer regulation of permitted land uses
within the Chula V isla urban core to the Urban
Core Specific Plan Land Use Matrix
To defer the guidelines for design of
development within the Chula Vista urban core
to the Development Design Guidelines of the
Urban Core Specific Plan
Project Objectives
The Urban Core Specific Plan follows the direction provided in the City's General Plan
Update by establishing a more detailed vision, regulations, and guidelines for future
development and beautification of the traditional downtown area The following .are the
primary obj ectives of the Urban Core Specific Plan:
. Create the tools necessary to implement the General Plan Update's vision for the
urban core through preparation of a comprehensive set of new zoning classifications
and updated development regulations and standards for mixed-use developments.
· Develop updated design guidelines unique to the individual districts in the urban core
that implement the urban form and create the active urban environment envisioned by
the General Plan Update.
· Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of co=unity benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality oflife for the co=unity.
· Facilitate revitalization of the downtown and surrounding co=ercial and residential
areas by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that assures
quality outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
CYRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 14
1.2 Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides in relevant part, that "it is the policy of
the state 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 thereof." The mandate and
principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part,
through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for
which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a).)
For each significant environmental effect identified in an ErR for a proposed project, the
approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible
conclusions, together with a brief of the rationale for each finding.
· The first such finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final ErR." (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (aXl).)
· The second permissible finding is that "[ s ]uch changes or alterations are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
making the fmding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091,
subd. (a)(2).)
· The third potential finding is that "[ s ]pecific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final ErR." (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (aX3).)
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines
section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta IT') (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. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183
CaLRptr. 898].) '''[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent
that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 15
environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills
Homeowners Assn v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d
182].)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA
Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve proj ects 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, section 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to
reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be
mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978)
83 Cal.AppJd 515,519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842J, 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 (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question
has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened
but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not explicitly require findings to
address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant,"
these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final
EIR.
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 modifying the project
lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, section 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
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 16
environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper fIndings,
may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding
considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's
"benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects."
(CEQA Guidelines, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code,
section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he wisdom of
approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of
interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it
simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52
CaJ.3d 553, 576.)
Legal Effect of Findings
To the extent that these fIndings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the EIR are feasible and have not been modifIed, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties, require implementation of those measures. These findings, in other words,
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.
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l), the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the
City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the
applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identifIed below. The program is described in the document entitled City of Chula Vista
Urban Core Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The MMRP will
remain available for public review during the compliance period.
1.3 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the fIndings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall include but not
be limited to the following:
. The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the project;
. The Draft EIR for the project (EIR #06-01), including appendixes and technical
reports, as circulated for Public Review on May 30, 2006;
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 17
. Comments received from members of the public and public agencies regarding the
Draft EIR that was circulated for Public Review on May 30, 2006 and responses
thereto;
. The Final EIR for the project (EIR #06-01), including appendixes and technical
reports, and documents incorporated by reference, and the;
. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the project;
. All documents and comments and correspondence submitted by members of the
public and public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on
the EIR for the project;
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate, with respect to this project or the EIR for the project;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public hearings for this project;
. All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with this
project, including all resolutions by the Planning Commission and City Council, and
all documents cited or referred to therein;
. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which the members of the
City Council consider regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws
and regulations, and including but not limited to the following:
. City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, 2006.
. Water Supply Assessment for the Urban Core Specific Plan, 2005.
. City of Chula Vista General Plan Update ErR, 2005.
. City ofChula Vista General Plan Update, 2005.
. City of Chula Vista Municipal Code - Zoning, 2001.
. City of Chula Vista Merged Redevelopment Plan, 2004.
. City ofChula Vista Town Center I Redevelopment Plan, 1978.
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code
section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record
of proceedings is the Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chu1a Vista, California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision
on the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, even if not every document was
formally presented to the City Councilor City Staff as part of the City files generated in
connection with the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan. Without exception,
any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two
categories. The first category is those documents that reflect prior planning or legislative
decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the City of Chula Vista
Urban Core Specific Plan. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation
Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v.
Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252
CaI.Rptr. 620].) The second category are those documents thai influenced the expert
advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 18
Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of City of Chula Vista Urban Core
Specific Plan. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-
Ferris Industries Y. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866
[226 Ca1.~tr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. Y. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33
Cal.App.4 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)
2.0 Findings on Significant Project Impacts
The FEIR identified the following significant enviroumental impacts that the proposed
UCSP would potentially cause: visual quality (aesthetics), cultural resources, geology
and soils, paleontological resources, water quality, traffic/circulation, noise, air quality
(plan inconsistency and cumulative net increase in pollutants), noise, public services,
public utilities (water treatment capacity and energy), and hazards/risk of upset. These
significant enviroumental changes or impacts are discussed in FEIR #06-01 in Table I-I
and in Chapter 5. Some of the impacts can be reduced below a level of significance with
the mitigation measures described in the FEIR and below. Certain impacts cannot be
substantially lessened or avoided with mitigation; but, as described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section 6.0 of this document), the City Council has
determined that the impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
As surumarized in Section 5.0 of this document, potential impacts were evaluated in the
FElR for the following issues and found not to be significant: land use, population and
housing, hydrology (groundwater depletion, drainage/flooding), public utilities (water
supply, waste management) biology, agriculture, and mineral resources.
The FEIR concluded that the proposed UCSP would be growth inducing because it
establishes land uses that can accommodate growth. Based on GPU projections, the
proposed UCSP would accommodate a population increase of 18,318 and a housing unit
increase of up to 7,100 units over existing conditions. The direct and indirect effects of
this growth are evaluated in each of the topical issue analyses. By extension, the
mitigation measures for the growth-inducing impacts of the UCSP are set forth in each of
the topical issue mitigation measures. The findings made below thus address the impacts
resulting from growth. The following subsections describe specific impacts as evaluated
in accordance with established criteria; the reasons why they are significant; and where
applicable, unavoidable; the mitigation measures, and/or why the mitigation measures
proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other considerations.
2.1 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
The Final ElR examined the Project's potential impact on Landform Alteration and
Visual Quality in Section 5.2.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed project would result in a significant impact to
landform alteration/aesthetics if it would:
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 19
. Criterion I: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or SUbstantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, and rock outcroppings
and historic buildings within a scenic highway.
. Criterion 2: Result in architecture, urban design, landscaping, or landforms that
negatively detract from the prevailing aesthetic character of the site or surrounding
area; or that substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of the site
(including blue sky views and solar access) and its surroundings.
. Criterion 3: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Impact (Criterion 2): The proposed project will result in architecture, urban design
or landscaping that potentially degrades existing visual character or quality of the
site (including blue sky views and solar access) and its surroundings. (FEIR Section
5.2.3.2, pages 5-60 - 5-72)
The UCSP was determined not to have significant impacts related to scenic vistas or
resources in accordance with Criterion I. However, the UCSP was determined to have a
potential significant impact resulting from the degradation of the visual character of the
Chula Vista urban core as evaluated in accordance with Criterion 2. The UCSP has the
potential to impact the visual environment through fundamental changes in land use
and/or to components of the landscape that contribute to visual quality. The proposed
UCSP allows for substantial intensification of existing land use and resulting urban visual
character, through greater building heights and mass, to accommodate the three-fold
increase in population projected for the urban core by the year 2030. Redevelopment and
new development within the Subdistricts Area as allowed in the UCSP would change the
existing visual character from mostly low-rise (up to 48 feet in height) single-use
commercial blocks surrounded by multi-family residential blocks, to a mix of low-rise
(up to 45 feet in height) and mid-rise (up to 84 feet in height) mixed-use
commercial/office and residential blocks, with high-rise structures (up to 210 feet in
height) allowed in the areas surrounding the existing E Street and H Street trolley
stations. Existing visual character, blue sky views, solar access, ventilation, and
glare/lighting conditions would be affected by this intensification in land use.
To ensure avoidance of potential visual character impacts, all subsequent development
projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be required to comply with relevant UCSP
provisions as outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5- I .
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.2.5-1: All subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area shall
comply with UCSP development regulations and design guidelines which are
necessary to reduce or avoid potential impacts to landform alteration and visual
quality (including blue sky views, solar access, and ventilation), and which may
include but not be limited to the special development regulations for mixed-use
projects (p. V1-43), the NTCD and IF A regulations (p. V1-40), and the siting and
architectural design guidelines for each district (Chapter V1I). Prior to approval
of a subsequent development project, the Community Development Director or
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 20
Planning and Building Director of the City shall identify the specific provisions
of the UCSP which shall be included in the conditions of approval in order to
avoid or to reduce potential impacts to below significance.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: As identified in Section 5.0, Subsection 5.2 of the ErR., pursuant to section
15091 (a) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in. or are
incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
identified in the EIR to a level below significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed UCSP contains urban development
regulations and design guidelines to achieve a high quality pedestrian-scaled environment
consistent with policies in the GPU for the urban core. As stated in Mitigation Measure
5.2.5-1, all subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be
required to comply with the UCSP development regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and
development design guidelines (UCSP. Chapter VII) and other relevant provisions of the
UCSP, as part of the design review process, in order to avoid or reduce potential visual
character impacts to a level below significance. The design review process would occur
for new development and redevelopment within the UCSP Subdistricts Area to determine
their compliance with the objectives and specific requirements of the Plan.
Impact (Criterion 3): The proposed project will create a new source of light and
glare which will potentially adversely affect light sensitive resources. (FEIR Section
5.2.3.3, pages 5-72 - 5-75)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 3, the proposed UCSP would allow for a
substantial intensification of existing land uses through taller building heights and greater
building massing. Light sensitive activities (e.g. sleeping) could potentially be adversely
impacted by light or glare in excess of baseline conditions due to buildout of the UCSP
and intensification of land use. To ensure avoidance of potential light and glare impacts,
all subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be required to
comply with the relevant UCSP provisions outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-2.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.2.5-2: All subsequent development projects in the UCSP Subdistricts Area shall
comply with UCSP development regulations and design guidelines which are
necessary to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts to light or glare and
which may include but not be limited to the provisions included in section
5.2.3.3 a through e of this ErR. Prior to approval of a subsequent development
project, the Community Development Director or Planning and Building
Director of the City shall identify the specific provisions of the UCSP which
shall be included in the conditions of approval in order to avoid or to reduce
potential light and glare impacts to below significance.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 21
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: As identified in Section 5.0, Subsection 5.2 of the FEIR., pursuant to section
15091 (a) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or are
incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
identified in the EIR to a level below significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Various provisions in the DeSp development regulations
and design guidelines (DCSP Chapters VI and VII) serve to control light and glare
sources and ensure that light pollution and glare would be minimal. For example, the
special regulations for mixed-use projects require that all mixed-use projects "minimize
the effects of any exterior noise, odors, glare, and other potentially significant effects"
(DCSP, Chapter VI, Section H, p. VI-44). For each DCSP District, a set of private
development and public realm design guidelines (DCSP, Chapter VIII) include lighting
requirements to reduce glare, exposure or brightness, angle and depth of field, and
duration. Many lighting sources are encouraged to be timed or motion-sensitized. As
stated in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-2, all subsequent development projects in the DCSP
Subdistricts Area will be required to comply with the DeSp development regulations
(DCSP, Chapter VI) and development design guidelines (DCSP. Chapter VII) and other
relevant provisions of the DCSP, as part of the design review process, in order to avoid or
reduce potential light and glare impacts to a level below significance. Therefore, the
proposed DCSP would not result in a significant impact to the prevailing light and glare
conditions of the site or surrounding area.
2.2 Cultural Resources
The FEIR examined the DCSP's potential impact on Cultural Resources in Section 5.3.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed Drban Core Specific Plan would result in a
significant impact to cultural resources if it would:
. Criterion I: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
architectural resource that is listed on, or determined to be eligible for listing on, the
National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources;
is listed on or determined to be eligible for listing on the Chula Vista List of Historic
Sites; or that meets any of the following Criterion:
o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of history at the local, regional, state, or national level;
o Is associated with the lives of significant persons in the past on a local, regional,
state, or national level;
o Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values;
or
o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 22
. Criterion 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an important
archaeological resource or disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Impact (Criterion 1): The proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical architectural resource. (FEIR Section 5.3.3.1, pages
5-95 - 5-99)
As evaluated pursuant to Criterion 1, future development in accordance with the UCSP
could have a significant impact on historic architectural resources through demolition or
substantial alteration of identified or as yet unidentified historic resources. A total of
eleven sites within the U CSP Subdistricts Area have thus far been locally designated or
determined to be eligible for local designation as historically significant. Six of the
eleven sites are currently listed on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. These six sites
comprise the homes or sites of early prominent Chula Vista persons (Greg Rogers House,
Orchard House, Mark Skinner House) or the sites of early important civic and business
functions (First Congregational Church, the First Women's Clubhouse, the Melville
Block). The other five sites were determined to be eligible for local listing in September
2005 by having met the National and California Register eligibility Criterion and the
CEQA Guidelines Criterion of historic significance. These five eligible sites are
commercial properties concentrated along Third Avenue in the UCSP Village District
and are representative of commercial development of the 1920s, 40s or 50s. The physical
demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of any of these eleven historic resources
or their immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would
be materially impaired under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2) would constitute a
significant and direct impact.
The potential for the existence of other as yet unidentified significant historic properties
within the UCSP Subdistricts Area is also considered potentially significant given the
number of older commercial structures and homes throughout the UCSP Subdistricts
Area.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings.
5.3.5-1 For a structure listed on, or eligible for listing on, the Chula Vista List of
Historic Sites or State and Federal historic registers, the project applicant shall
retain the structure in-place and maintain, repair, stabilize, rehabilitate, restore,
preserve or reconstruct the structure in a manner consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer ("Secretary's Standards").
Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit (UCDP) or other
discretionary permit, the project applicant shall prepare detailed construction
plans under the supervision of a qualified architectural historian or historic
architect for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
The Community Development Director shall retain, at the project applicant's
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 23
expense, a qualified historic architect to review the plans and to certify that the
project will comply with the Secretary's Standards and would not result in the
loss of the structure's listing, or eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
Federal register of historic resources.
5.3.5-2 Where there is substantial evidence that it is not feasible for a structure listed
on, or eligible for listing on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or State or
Federal historic registers to be retained in-place, the project applicant shall
provide for relocation and maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation,
restoration or preservation of the structure in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks
and Grimmer ("Secretary's Standards") at a new location subject to the approval
of the City. Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit (UCDP) or
other discretionary permit, the project applicant shall prepare detailed relocation
plans under the supervision of a qualified architectural historian or historic
architect for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
The Community Development Director shall retain, \11 the project applicant's
expense, a qualified historic architect to review the plans and to certify that the
project will comply with the Secretary's Standards and would not result in the
loss of the structure's listing, or eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
federal register of historic resources.
5.3.5-3 Where there is substantial evidence that it is not feasible, as determined by
CEQA Section 15064.5, (b) (4), for a structure listed on or eligible for listing on
the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or State or Federal historic registers to be
retained in-place or to be relocated to another location satisfactory to the City,
the proj ect applicant shall:
Provide for documentation of the historical structure before it is removed from
the development site, including but not limited to photographic documentation
of the exterior and interior of the structure, and "as built" drawings of the
structure according to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey
(HABS, Level I). Such historical documentation shall be provided to the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRe) or Resource Conservation
Commission (RCC), as applicable, before a demolition permit is issued by the
City for the structure.
5.3.5-4 For those structures 45 years or older and not previously evaluated, a
determination of historic significance shall be made based on the significance
Criterion in Section 5.3.2 of this EIR (and repeated below) prior to the issuance
of a demolition permit.
A site or structure may be listed on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites if it
possesses integrity (oflocation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
and association) and meets at least one of the following criteria:
· Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of history at the local, regional, state, or national
level;
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 24
. Is associated with the lives of significant persons in the past on a
local, regional, state, or national level;
. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period., or method
of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values; or
. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important ill
history or prehistory.
If a resource is determined by the City to be historically significant pursuant to
the above listed criteria, Mitigation Measure 5.3.5-1, 5.3.5-2, or 5.3.5-3 shall be
implemented as applicable and determined by the Lead Agency in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a) and (b).
Significance After Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the EIR. While mitigation measure 5.3.5-3 is feasible
and will be completed, it may in some cases not lessen impacts to a level below
significance. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required
should the decision makers choose to approve the proposed proj ect.
Facts in Support of Finding: hnplementation of mitigation measures 5.3.5-1, 5.3-5-2,
and 5.3.5-4 would reduce potential impacts to historic resources to below a level of
significance. In some circumstances, such as where economic constraints or social
considerations render implementation of mitigation measures 5.3.5-1, 5.3.5-2 infeasible,
implementation of mitigation measure 5.3.5-3 which provides for documentation of an
historic resource, may not mitigate significant impacts to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur. In that event, a potential impact to
historic resources may be significant and unavoidable. In the absence of site specific
development proposals the extent of impact as a result of implementation of mitigation
measure 5.3 .5-3 (photo documentation) is speculative at this time.
Impact (Criterion 2): The proposed project would potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource or disturb human
remains. (FEIR Section 5.3.3.2, pages 5-99 - 5-100)
The UCSP Subdistricts Area is mapped as having low sensitivity for the occurrence of
archaeological resources. Although the likelihood of encountering significant
archaeological resources and human remains is low, the potential does exist. In the
unlikely event that prehistoric cultural materials are found during subsurface disturbance
resulting from future developments, there would be a significant archaeological impact as
evaluated in accordance with Criterion 2.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 25
Mitigation Measure: The following archaeological mitigation measure is feasible and is
required as a condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.3.5-5 The likelihood of encountering archaeological resources is low within the Desp
Subdistricts Area. The following mitigation shall only be applied to projects
which involve subsurface excavation to the depth of greater than or equal to six
feet, or for any proj ect site that has not had substantial previous excavation.
Prior to approval of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the
first Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core Development Permit,
the Community Development Director shall verify that the requirements for
Archaeological Monitoring and Native American monitoring, if applicable,
have been noted on the appropriate construction documents.
. The applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Community
Development Director identifying the qualified Principal Investigator (PI)
for the project and the names of all persons involved in the archaeological
monitoring program, the areas to be monitored, and a construction schedule
indicating when and where monitoring will occur.
. During construction, the monitor shall be present full-time during soil
remediation and grading/excavation/trenching activities which could result
in impacts to archaeological resources, and shall document field activity and
in the case of any discoveries.
. In the event of a discovery, the Archaeological Monitor shall direct the
contractor to temporarily divert trenching activities in the area of discovery
and immediately notify the resident engineer or building. inspector, as
appropriate. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless the
Monitor is the PI) of the discovery and the PI and Native American
representative, if applicable, shall evaluate the significance of the resource.
. Once encountered, artifacts associated with an archaeological feature or
deposit are required to be documented in place, analyzed in a laboratory
setting and prepared for curation in accordance CEQA provisions and local
guidelines.
. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and the
procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98)
and State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be undertaken.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 1509l(a)(l) of the State 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 FEIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources
would be avoided or reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of
an archaeological monitoring program, described above, during future projects'
subsurface excavation.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 26
2.3 Geology and Soils
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Geology and Soils in Section 5.4.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would have a significant impact on
geology and soils if it would:
. Criterion 1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk ofloss, 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
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault,
(b) Strong seismic ground shaking,
(c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or
(d) Landslides; or
. Criterion 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
. Criterion 3: Is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become
unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
. Criterion 4: Is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table l8-l-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property; and
. Criterion 5: Has soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal
of waste water.
Impact (Criteria 1, 3 and 4): Implementation of the proposed project would
potentially expose people or structures to substantial risk or injury or loss of life or
destruction of property caused by soils, seismic, or other geologic hazards. (FEIR
Section 5.4.3, pages 5-111- 5-113)
The UCSP area is potentially subject to strong ground shaking by an earthquake along the
active Rose Canyon fault zone, or other active faults in the region. The Subdistricts Area
may additionally be subject to liquefaction along its western boundary. Compressible and
expansive soils also have the potential to be encountered by future development
throughout the UCSP Subdistricts Area As evaluated in accordance with Criteria 1, 3
and 4, buildout of the UCSP would result in an increase in housing, office space, retail
space, and hotels that would be subj ect to these potentially significant seismic and soils
hazards. Therefore, there would be a proportionate increase in the risk of personal and
property damage as the population within the urban core' increases. The proposed
project was determined not to have significant impacts related to soil erosion or septic
tank use, as evaluated in accordance with Criteria 2 and 5.
Mitigation Measures: Tbe following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.4.5-1 Prior to the approval of each subsequent development project, the project
applicant shall submit a comprehensive soil and geologic evaluation of the
project site to the City Engineer andlor Building Official for review and
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 27
approval. The evaluation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer
in order to identify site-specific conditions and to determine whether potential
soil and geologic hazards exist on the site. The evaluation shall include, but not
be limited to, a delineation of specific locations where liquefiable, compressive,
and expansive soils would affect structural stability and where graded slopes
would expose bedrock susceptible to instability. Liquefiable, expansive, or
compressive soils shall be removed from the site and shall be replaced with
compacted fill.
5.4.5-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each subsequent development
proj ect, the City Building Official shall verify that the design of all structures
proposed for a specific site comply with the requirements of all federal, state and
local building codes and regulations governing earthquake safety and structural
stability and with the standard practices of the Association of Structural
Engineers of California.
Significance After Mitigation: Not significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures
5.4.5-1 and 5.4.5-2 requiring comprehensive site-specific soil and geologic evaluations
and verification of building code and seismic safety compliance would reduce or avoid
potentially significant impacts resulting from groundshaking, liquefaction, and
compressible and expansive soils.
2.4 Paleontological Resources
The FEIR examined the DCSP's potential impact on Paleontological Resources In
Section 5.5.
Criterion of Significance: The proposed DCSP would have a significant impact on
paleontological resources if it would:
. Criterion I: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
Impact (Criterion 1): Implementation of tbe Urban Core Specific Plan would
potentially destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature. (FEIR Section 5.5.3, pages 5-118 - 5-119)
The DCSP area contains a large expanse of moderate paleontological resource sensitivity.
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 1, exposure or disturbance of unnamed
nearshore marine sandstone and the Linda Vista Formation would potentially
significantly impact paleontological resources. Because the DCSP area is fully developed
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 28
with urban uses, future grading would typically be minimal except in areas with sub-
garages and sub-floors. Development proposed in areas of moderate sensitivity that
propose to grade in excess of 2,000 cubic yards and five feet deep require mitigation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval, and is made binding through these findings.
5.5-1 Subsequent development projects that propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic
yards and five feet depth in areas of moderate sensitivity for paleontological
resources shall be required to implement a pre-construction or construction
monitoring program, or both, as a condition of approval. All mitigation programs
shall be performed by a qualified professional paleontologist, defined here as an
individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who has proven
experience in San Diego County paleontology and who is knowledgeable in
professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be
conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defmed here as an individual
who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
Pre-construction mitigation. Tbis method of mitigation is only applicable to
instances where well-preserved and significant fossil remains, discovered in the
assessment phase, would be destroyed during initial clearing and equipment
move-on. The individual tasks of this program include:
1. Surface prospecting for exposed fossil remains, generally involving inspection
of existing bedrock outcrops but possibly also excavation of test trenches;
2. Surface collection of discovered fossil remains, typically involving simple
excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing of
large and/or fragile specimens or more elaborate quarry excavations of ricWy
fossiliferous deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the
recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of
fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic
section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting;
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains,
generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving
scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of
catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains paleontological collections (including
the fossil specimens, copies of all field notes, maps, stratigraphic sections, and
photographs); and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods
used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered., and the
significance of the curated collection.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 29
Construction mitigation. Under this program, IDltlgation occurs while
excavation operations are underway. The scope and pace of excavation generally
dictate the scope and pace of mitigation. The individual tasks of a construction
mitigation program typically include:
1. Monitoring of excavation operations to discover unearthed fossil remains,
generally involving inspection of ongoing excavation exposures (e.g., sheet
graded pads, cut slopes, roadcuts, basement excavations, and trench
sidewalls);
2. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of
the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing .of large andlor
fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous
deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the
recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of
fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic
section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting;
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains,
generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving
scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of
catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains paleontological collections, including
the fossil specimens, copies of all field notes, maps, stratigraphic sections and
photographs; and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods
used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the
significance of the curated collection.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Exposure or disturbance of potentially significant
paleontological resources has the potential to occur in areas that are proposed to be
graded in excess of 2,000 cubic yards and five feet deep. Future projects that propose
grading in excess of these thresholds shall be required to implement a pre-construction or
construction monitoring program, or both, as a condition of subsequent project approval.
All mitigation programs are required to be performed by a qualified professional
paleontologist. Potential paleontological impacts arising from DCSP implementation
will thus be avoided or reduced to below significance.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 30
2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
The FEIR examined the Project's potential impact on Hydrology and Water Quality in
Section 5.7.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in a significant impact to
hydrology and water quality if it would:
. Criterion I; Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
. Criterion 2: Substantially deplete groundwater resources or aquifer recharge areas.
. Criterion 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or
substantially increase surface runoff in a manner which would result in on- or off-site
flooding or exceed capacity of existing drainage systems.
Impact (Criterion 1): The proposed DCSP would have potentially significant long
term and short term construction impacts to water quality. (FEIR Section 5.7.3.1,
pages 5-138-140)
The Plan was determined to have a significant impact resulting from the potential to
degrade water quality as evaluated in accordance with Criterion 1. No significant
hydrology/water quality impacts would result in accordance with Criteria 2 and 3.
Implementation of the proposed UCSP would allow for a three-fold increase in
population and associated intensification of existing urban land uses which will result in
an increase in direct runoff to drainage basins, municipal storm sewer systems, and
eventual drainage to surface water and/or the ocean. This runoff will contain typical
urban runoff pollutants such as sediment, pathogens, heavy metals, petroleum products,
nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) and trash. Therefore, this comprises a potentially
significant long-term water quality impact.
The construction activities of subsequent individual projects would also potentially cause
short-term water quality impacts through direct discharge of pollutants, soil
excavation/sedimentation, and through encountering of shallow groundwater during
subfloor grading. This comprises a potentially significant short-term water quality
impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.7-1 Prior to approval of subsequent individual development projects, compliance with
all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding water quality
(e.g. Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP), Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
and City Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Manual) shall
be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 31
5.7-2 Prior to approval of subsequent individual development projects, project
applicants are required to identify storm water pollutants that are potentially
generated and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
proposed on-site storm drain systems fully mitigate drainage impacts and meet all
federal, state, and regional water quality objectives and all City standards and
requirements. Land development construction drawings and associated required
reports, i.e., a hydrology and water quality study, shall include details, notes, and
discussions relative to the required or reco=ended retention measures and Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Permanent storm water BMP requirements shall
be incorporated into the project design and all subsequent individual development
projects are required to complete the applicable Storm Water Compliance Forms
and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual.
5.7 - 3 The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant
redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal
Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said permit, all projects falling under
the Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing
Criterion. Future projects shall comply with all applicable regulations,
established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), as
set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations
adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and
requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (Nor) with the
State Water Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall
include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution
control measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for the maintenance of
post-construction control measures.
5.7-4 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development proj ecls shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, conformance with
Mediterranean/indigenous landscaping and other relevant design
recommendations provided in UCSP Chapter VII Development Design
Guidelines.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 32
Facts in Support of Finding: Potential short-t= (construction) and long-term
(intensified urban runoff) water quality impacts would be avoided or reduced to below
significance through mitigation measures 5.7-1 through 5.7-4 which require future
project's demonstration of compliance with all applicable federal, state and local water
quality regulations, including preparation of project-specific hydrology and water quality
studies, implementation of pollution prevention design measures, construction and post-
construction pollution prevention and control measures, and compliance with relevant
landscaping design requirements.
2.6 Traffic, Circulation, and Access
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Traffic, Circulation, and Access in
Section 5.8.
Criteria of Significance: The significance criteria to evaluate the proj ect impacts to
intersections are based on the City of Chula Vista's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies
in the City of Chula Vista, February 13, 2001 and on the City of Chula Vista's adopted
General Plan. At intersections, the measurement of effectiveness (MOE) is based on
allowable increases in delay. At roadway segments, the MOE is based on allowable
increases in the average daily traffic (ADT).
Intersections Criteria. Within the Urban Core of the City of Chula Vista, the goal is to
achieve level of service (LOS) D or better at all signalized and unsignalized intersections.
· A project-specific impact would occur if the operations at intersections are at LOS E
or F and the project trips comprise five percent or more of the entering volume.
. A cumulative impact would occur if the operations at intersections are at LOS E or F
only.
Roadway Segments Criteria. The impact Criterion for Urban Core Circulation Element
roadways (Gateway Street, Urban Arterial, Commercial Boulevard, Downtown Promenade) are
as follows:
· A roadway segment tiJat currently operates at LOS D or better and with the proposed
changes would operate at LOS E or F at General Plan buildout is considered a
significant impact.
· A roadway segment that currently operates at LOS E would operate at LOS F at
General Plan buildout, or which operates at LOS E or F and would worsen by 5
percent or more at General Plan buildout is considered a significant impact.
Impact: The UCSP will cause significant circulation impacts to intersections and
roadway segments. (FEIR Section 5.8.3.1 - Pages 5-164 - 5-173)
As evaluated in accordance with intersections and roadway segments criteria, the
proposed UCSP would result in significant impacts to traffic. A substantial increase in
traffic on area roadways and at area intersections will result from planned population
growth in the urban core area over the next 25 years. For the year 2030 condition, 19
intersections (including nine freeway on/off ramps) are calculated to operate at LOS E or F.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 33
In addition, two roadway segments are calculated to operate at LOS E or F for the 2030
condition.
Mitigation measures are identified in the FEIR to avoid or reduce significant impacts to all
but three intersections and one roadway segment Impacts to the three intersections and one
roadways segment would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval and are made binding through these findings.
5.8.5 -1 Intersection Improvements. Impacts to the 19 affected intersections will be
mitigated to below significance by the implementation of improvements that
have been divided into three tiers for phased implementation based on need
and enhancement of the overall street network. Generally, time frames
associated with the tiered improvements are anticipated as short-, mid- and
long-term. In each tier, the City's existing IMP will determine the order in
which projects are implemented during the biannual Capital Improvement
Program (eIP) review. The Tier 1 improvements would be included in the
current CIP and subsequently monitored for improvement within the first five
years of implementation of the UCSP. It should be noted that three of the
intersections (#7, #16, and #21) are proposed as project features rather than as
needed to improve intersection LOS and most likely will be related to and
timed with implementation of streetscape improvements aJong Third Avenue.
The intersection numbers in the improvements described below correspond to
the intersection numbering system used in the TIA (Appendix C of the EIR):
a. Tier 1 Improvements
. #1 Bay BouJevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street: Add an eastbound through
and right-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, and northbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) will be required for this improvement.
. #2 1-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a westbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with CaJtrans will be required for this improvement
. #7 Third A venue/E Street: Convert the northbound and southbound shared
right-through lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
. #16 Third AvenueJF Street: Separate the southbound shared through-right
lane into an exclusive through and right -turn lanes, convert the northbound
shared through-right lane into an exclusive right-turn lane.
. #21 Third AvenueJG Street: Convert the northbound/southbound shared
through-right lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
. #24 1-5 Southbound RamplH Street: Add a southbound left, eastbound
through and right-turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans will be required
for this improvement.
. #25 1-5 Northbound RamplH Street: Add a westbound through and right-
turn lane and restrlpe south approach to acco=odate dual left-turn lanes.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
. #26 Woodlawn AvenueIH Street: Change Woodlawn Avenue to a one-
way couplet. This improvement is required to serve 'the intense
/
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 34
redevelopment occurring on both sides of H Street. The couplet
improvement is not required mitigation further north toward E Street.
. #27 BroadwaylH Street: Add an eastbound transit queue jumper lane and
westbound through and right-turn lanes.
. #28 Fifth AvenuelH Street: Change the northbound/southbound
approaches to include protective plus permissive phasing and add a
westbound right-turn lane.
. #29 Fourth A venueIH Street: Add an eastbound/westbound right-turn lane.
. #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-S4 Eastbound Ramp: Add an eastbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
b. Tier 2 Improvements
. . #34 Broadway/SR-S4 Westbound Ramp: Add a westbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
. #59 J Street/I-5 Northbound Ramp: Add an eastbound left-turn and
westbound right-turn lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for
this improvement.
. #61 L Street/Bay Boulevard: Signalize the intersection, add a southbound
left-turn lane, and a northbound right-turn overlap phase to the traffic
signal.
. #63 Bay Boulevardll-5 Southbound Ramp: Signalize the intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
. #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-S Northbound Ramp: Signalize the
intersection. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
H Street from four lanes to six lanes from 1-5 to Broadway
c. Tier 3 Improvements
. #13 Broadway/F Street: Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
. #45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street: Add a southbound right-turn overlap
phase to the traffic signal.
. #57 Second Avenue/D Street: Convert to an all-way stop controlled
intersection.
On an annual basis during buildout of the UCSP, the City shall apply the TMP
to monitor actual performance of the street system in the Subdistricts Area by
conducting roadway segment travel time studies in accordance with the City's
Growth Management Program and Traffic Threshold Standards. The results of
the annual study under the TMP will be used by the City to determine the
timing and need for implementation of improvements to the nineteen
intersections identified above as having potential significant impacts. The City
shall implement the intersection improvements in phases based on the results
of the annual TMP and on need and enhancement to the function of the overall
street network. In addition to determining timing and need, this systems and
operations monitoring approach should also be used to further ascertain final
design details of the intersection improvements and may include consideration
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 35
of the effects on traffic flow as well as the impactslbenefits to other travel
modes (e.g., pedestrians and bicycles) that are foundational to the successful
implementation of the Specific Plan.
5.8.5-2 Roadway Segment Improvements. During build-out of the UCSP, the City
shall apply the Traffic Monitoring Program (IMP) to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the Subdistricts Area by conducting
roadway segment travel time studies in accordance with the City's Growth
Management Program and Traffic Threshold Standards. The results of the
annual study under the IMP will be used by the City to determine the timing
and need for implementation of improvements to the street segments identified
as having potential significant impacts. The City shall implement the following
street segment improvements: I) based on the results of the annual TMP; or 2)
based on need and enhancement to the function of the overall street network;
and 3) in a manner that efficiently implements with phasing of necessary
adjacent intersection improvements.
I) H Street between 1-5 and Broadway would be reclassified as a six-lane
gateway. As a result, the acceptable ADT would increase and result in an
acceptable LOS.
2) Third Avenue between E Street and G Street would be constructed as a
two-lane downtown promenade to facilitate an enhanced pedestrian
environment along the traditional commercial village. As a result, the
acceptable ADT along the segment would decrease and result in an
unacceptable LOS. As such, impacts to Third Avenue will be significant
and unavoidable. However, the Third Avenue corridor intersections at E, F
and G Streets would all operate at an acceptable LOS.
5.8.5-3 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall prepare a traffic assessment to quantify the
projects' potential traffic impacts. Subsequent projects will be required to
contribute their fair share to the Tiered Improvements listed above under
Mitigation 5.8.5.1. Mitigation may be in the form of:
I) Payment of Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as may be
established in the future for the western portion of the City;
2) Payment of existing Traffic Impact Signal Fee;
3) Construction of improvements within the project boundaries; and/or
4) Early advancement of improvements beyond the project boundaries,
subject to a reimbursement agreement.
The City's TDIF program for the west side of the City, including the Urban
Core is anticipated to be developed within the subsequent twelve months
following adoption of the UCSP. The TDIF will clearly establish the costs of
the improvements identified above as wen as the fair share costs to be applied
to aU subsequent development projects. Once the IDIP has been established,
the fee win be consistently applied to all subsequent development projects,
until such time that the ID IF is amended or rescinded. In the interim, if
subsequent development projects are processed and approved prior to the
establishment of a TDIF, a condition of approval will be included that prior to
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 36
issuance of building permits the project will contribute to the IDIF, as may be
established.
In addition, the City will participate in multi-jurisdictional efforts to improve freeway
ramps and segments in the Urban Core area as follows:
5.8.5-6
The City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional effort conducted by Caltrans
and SANDAG to assist in developing a detailed engineering study of the
freeway right-of-way that will identify transportation improvements along
with funding, including federal, state, regional, and local funding sources, and
phasing, that would reduce congestion consistent with Caltrans Standards on
the 1-5 South corridor from the State Route 54 (SR-54) interchange to State
Route 75 (SR-75)/Palm Avenue (the "1-5 South Corridor") (hereinafter, the
"Plan). Local funding sources may include fair share contributions by private
development based on nexus as well as other mechanisms. The Plan required
by this mitigation shall include the following:
I) The responsible entities (the "Entities") included in this effort will include,
but may not be limited to the City, the Port, SANDAG, and Caltrans.
Other entities may be included upon the concurrence of the foregoing
Entities.
2) The Plan will specifically identify physical and operational improvements
to 1-5, relevant arterial roads and transit facilities (the "Improvements"),
that are focused on specific transportation impacts and will also identify
the fair share responsibilities of each Entity for the construction and
fmancing for each Improvement. The Plan may also identify other
improvements necessary to address regional transportation needs, but for
purposes of this mitigation measure, the Improvements included in the
Plan need only be designed to mitigate the impacts created by the
Proposed Proj ect.
3) The Plan will set forth a timeline and other agreed-upon relevant criteria
for implementation of each Improvement.
4) The Plan will identify the total estimated design and construction cost for
each Improvement and the responsibility of each Entity for both
implementation and funding of such costs.
5) The Plan will include the parameters for any fair-share funding
contributions to be implemented, that would require private and/or public
developers to contribute to the costs, in a manner that will comply with
applicable law.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 37
6) In developing the Plan, the Entities shall also consider ways in which the
Improvements can be coordinated with existing local and regional
transportation and facilities financing plans and programs, in order to
avoid duplication of effort and expenditure; however, the existence of
such other plans and programs shall not relieve the Entities of their
collective obligation to develop and implement the Plan as set forth in this
mitigation measure. Nothing in the Plan shall be construed as relieving
any Entity (or any other entity) from its independent responsibility (if any)
for the implementation of any transportation improvement.
7) The City shall seek adoption of the Plan before the City Council upon the
completion of the multi-jurisdictional effort to develop the Plan. The City
shall report, to their governing bodies regarding the progress made to
develop the Plan within six months of the first meeting of the Entities.
Thereafter, the City shall report at least annually regarding the progress of
the Plan, for a period of not less than five years, which may be extended at
the request of the City Council.
8) The Plan shall also expressly include each Entity's pledge that it will
cooperate with each other in implementing the Plan.
The failure or refusal of any Entity other than the City to cooperate in the
implementation of this mitigation measure shall not constitute failure of the
City to implement this mitigation measure; however, the City shall use its best
efforts to obtain the cooperation of all responsible Entities to fully participate
in order to achieve the goals of the mitigation measure.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The mitigation measures listed above are feasible and will
be completed, however they do not substantially lessen all of the significant traffic
impacts identified in the FEIR. The significant impacts to roadways and intersections
will be mitigated to below significance by implementation of the improvements
reco=ended in Mitigation Measures 5.8.5-1, 5.8.5-2 and 5.8.5-3, to all impacted
intersections and roadway segments except three intersections (#27 Broadway/H Street,
#33 Hilltop Drive/H Street and #54 Third AvenuelJ Street) and one roadway segment
(Third Avenue between E and G Streets). Impacts to these 3 intersections and I roadway
segment would remain significant and unavoidable.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 38
Recommendations at intersections #27 Broadway/H Street, #33 Hilltop Drive/H Street,
and #54 Third AvenuelJ Street, do not improve conditions to an acceptable LOS due to
right-of-way (ROW) and design constraints. Measures to reduce these intersection
impacts to below significance are infeasible given the overriding social consideration of
an enhanced pedestrian environment The following describes the constraints to
mitigating these three intersections:
. At the Broadway/H Street intersection (#27), an additional northbound and
southbound through lane would be required in Ofder to achieve an acceptable LOS D
condition. However, this improvement would require extensive widening of
Broadway and H Street, beyond the existing 82-foot public right-of way, to allow
for lane' drops. Up to an additional 22 feet (11 feet per lane) would be required to
accommodate an additional northbound and southbound lane in an area currently
developed with commercial and office uses and where m:w development is planned
to maintain the same street wall frontage. Furthermore, the widening would create
longer pedestrian crossings (l04-feet wide) which are contrary to the Project
Objective of creating a safe, walkable urban environment. As such, the
recommended improvements of the eastbound queue jumper lane and the additional
westbound through and right-turn lanes would improve the intersection from LOS F
to LOS E conditions.
. At the Hilltop Drive/H Street intersection (#33), no improvements would be
recommended due to ROW constraints. The poor LOS at this intersection is
primarily caused by the high traffic volumes in the eastbound/westbound
movements. Additional through and/or turn lanes would be required in order to
improve this intersection to an acceptable LOS. With no improvements, this
intersection would remain at LOS E during both peak periods.
. At the Third Avenue/J Street intersection (#54), the required improvement of an
additional southbound right-turn lane would impact the existing commercial building
(Henry's Marketplace), which is built adjacent to the sidewalk. Therefore, this
improvement is not recommended. As a result, the LOS would remain at LOS E.
However, if the property were to redevelop in the future, additional ROW could be
obtained for the southbound right-turn lane.
The significant and unavoidable impact to the roadway segment of Third Avenue
between E and G Streets results from the design of the project, which is intended to
reduce Third A venue to a two-lane downtown promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the traditional commercial village. Although the planned
improvements would result in an unacceptable LOS, the planned improvement to Third
A venue has overriding benefits towards meeting the project objectives of creating a more
pedestrian friendly and active streetscape that accommodates multi-modes of
transportation rather than just accommodating the automobile. Although the turning
volumes in this segment of Third Avenue are less than other segments in the corridor,
turning lanes are proposed to remove turning traffic from the through traffic. Turning
vehicles would yield to anticipated high pedestrian traffic volumes and the turn lanes
allow these yielding vehicles to pull out of the through travel lanes and allow a right-turn
lane and a left turn lane to be provided. The intersection configuration would adequately
accommodate future traffic demands along Third Avenue while providing a significantly
-
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 39
enhanced pedestrian friendly streetscape. Measures to reduce traffic impacts to this
roadway segment to below significance would be counterproductive to achieving the
socially beneficial goal of safe, walkable streetscapes.
Issue (Nonautomotive Modes of Transportation): The proposed UCSP has the
potential to impact pedestrian, bicycle and public transit services. (FEIR Sections
5.8.3.2 through 5.8.3.4, pages 5-173-178)
While some intersection and street segment improvements may lower automotive LOS
for the segments, they serve to increase alternate forms of mobility by introducing traffic
calming elements, pedestrian improvements and paseos. The UCSP and City of Chula
Vista Bikeway Master Plan address deficiencies in the bikeway network and makes
recommendations for new and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both
recreational and commuting users.
The three-fold increase in population projected for the UCSP Subdistricts Area by 2030
would place greater demands on public transit services. A number of new and better
regional transit improvements are already planned that will adequately serve the UCSP
area. In addition, the UCSP incorporates smart growth strategies to lessen automobile
use and increase public transit and other mobility use by providing a mix of compatible
land uses, locating highest density near transit stations, utilizing compact building design
and creating walkable and bikeable communities. A West Side Shuttle is also proposed
to serve both the UCSP and the nearby Bayfront, which would complement existing and
planned future transit improvements.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval, and is made binding through these findings.
5.8.5-4 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit for subsequent
development projects, the traffic assessment prepared to quantify the projects'
potential traffic impacts will also identify how alternative modes of
transportation will be accommodated. Mitigation may be in the form of:
I) Compliance with the development regulations and design guidelines of the
UCSP to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and public transit; and
2) Where applicable, construction of improvements within the project
boundaries; and/or
3) Early advancement of improvements beyond the project boundaries, subject
to a reimbursement agreement.
Significance After Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State 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 ElR to below a level of
significance.
eVRe Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 40
Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to mitigation measure 5.8.5-4, future individual
projects within the Desp will be required to identify how alternative modes of
transportation will be affected and accommodated. They will additionally be required to
comply with applicable pedestrian, bicycle and public transit regulations and design
guidelines of the DeSp as well as to possibly construct or contribute towards the
construction of relevant improvements.
Issue (parking): The proposed DCSP has the potential to significantly increase
demand for off-street parking. (FEIRSection 5.8.3.5, pages 5-178-180)
The DeSp allows for an intensification of development in the urban core which will
create an increased demand for off-street parking. The Land Use and Development
Regulations of the uesp include parking requirements that specifY parking locations and
the number of parking spaces per land use. A projected total of 18,560 parking spaces
would be required to serve future development of the proposed DeSp at buildout. While
the maj ority of new development will provide on-site parking, there are specific location
such as within the Village District and transit focus areas that allow some parking needs
to be met off-site and/or through alternative means such as in-lieu fees and shared
parking arrangements. In addition, a number of other parking improvement strategies are
included in the uesp including raking buffers, parking districts and parking structures.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval, and is made binding through these findings.
5.8.5-5 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall comply with the parking standards set forth in the
uesp development regulations and design guidelines for the type and intensity
of development proposed.
Significance Alter Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
signifi cance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measure 5.8.5-5 requires subsequent
development projects to comply with uesp parking standards in order to avoid or reduce
parking impacts to below significance.
2.7 Noise
The FEIR examined the uesP's potential impact on Noise in Section 5.9.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed DCSP would result in significant noise impacts
if it would:
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 41
. Criterion I: Result in exposure of receivers in the UCSP to exterior noise levels that
exceed the levels established by the GPU.
. Criterion 2: Result in interior noise levels that exceed 45 dB Community Noise
Equivalency Level (CNEL) due to exterior sources for habitable rooms in residences;
or
. Criterion 3: Result in noise levels that violate the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter
19.68.010 of the Municipal Zoning Code).
Impact (Criterion 1): The UCSP would result in exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise that exceeds the levels established by the GPU and the City's
noise control ordinance. (FEIR Section 5.9.3.1 - Pages 5-203 - 5-207)
Noise levels could exceed the standard established by the GPU for areas immediately
adjacent to circulation element roadways, freeways, and train and trolley lines.
Development pursuant to the UCSP would result in exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL in residential areas, if existing or
planned exterior use areas are adjacent to those roadways, and are unshielded by
buildings or other barriers. This comprises a significant exterior noise impact as
evaluated in accordance with Criterion 1. At such time that projects are proposed,
specific design review would be needed to assess compliance with the noise limits set by
the GPU.
Office and professional areas immediately adjacent to Interstate 5 would be exposed to
noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL, or 75 decibels for retail and wholesale commercial
areas, restaurants, and movie theaters. Therefore, impacts are significant.
. The siting of future parks has the potential to result in significant impacts. While park
sites have not been designated, it is possible that parks could be sited next to circulation
element roadways which generate noise in excess of 65 [to 70] decibels. This would be a
significant impact and would require mitigation.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.9-1 Prior to the approval of individual development projects, projects within the UCSP
area shaH demonstrate that required outdoor usable open space areas are
adequately shielded from transportation related noise sources so that noise levels
fall below the standards set by the General Plan Update or do not cause an increase
of greater than 3 dB(A) (A-weighted decibels) on an existing roadway. Noise
reduction measures may include building noise-attenuating berms, walls or other
attenuation measures. Future development of park facilities shall also, to the
extent feasible, incorporate mitigation measures such as siting, berms, walls or
other attenuation measures to reduce impacts to acceptable levels of 65-70 CNEL
or less. Indication that noise levels fall below this limit shall be made to the
satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, Building Official or
Community Development Director.
CYRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 42
Because the only mitigation available to reduce exterior noise impacts to parks
resulting from roadway traffic is the insertion of a barrier between the source
(traffic) and receiver (park), and because parks are intended to remain open (i.e.,
not surrounded by walls) to the commurrity, exterior noise impacts cannot be fully
mitigated. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate for the
potential for parks that are to be sited next to circulation element roadways which
generate noise in excess of 65-70 CNEL. Therefore, exterior noise impacts remain
significant and unmitigated.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the EIR to reduce noise impacts to below a level of
significance. While the mitigation measure made binding through this finding is feasible
and will be completed, it does not lessen the significant environmental effects of exterior
noise on future parks to below significance. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The siting of future parks has the potential to result in
significant exterior noise impacts. While park sites have not been designated, it is
possible that parks could be sited next to circulation element roadways which generate
noise in excess of 65 [to 70] decibels. Mitigating this impact would require the
construction of noise barriers. Required barrier heights may be achieved through the
construction of walls, berms, or walI/berm combinations. While noise levels at a park
site could be reduced by the construction of such noise barriers, these barriers are
considered to be incompatible with park uses. The overriding social consideration of the
benefit of exterior park spaces, free of obtrusive barriers, outweighs the noise-attenuating
benefit that would arise from the construction of massive noise barriers surrounding
outdoor parks.
Impact (Criterion 2): The UCSP would result in interior noise levels that exceed 45
dB CNEL due to exterior sources for habitable rooms in residences. (FEIR Section
5.9.3.2 - Pages 5-207 - 5-208)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 2, the adoption of the UCSP would have a
significant noise impact prior to mitigation because it would result in interior noise levels
that exceed 45 dB CNEL due to exterior sources for habitable rooms in residences along
major transportation facilities.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.9-2 Prior to the approval of subsequent individual development projects, for any
residential use immediately adjacent to a circulation element roadway, trolley or
rail line, or Interstate 5, an acoustical analysis shall be completed demonstrating
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 43
to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, Community
Development Director or Building Official, that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources are 45 CNEL or less in any habitable room. For residential
projects where interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources exceed 45
C1'<'EL, architectural and structural considerations such as improved window and
door acoustical performance, shall be identified.
5.9-3 Prior to the approval of individual development projects, projects where it is
necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City's and the Building Code interior standard of 45 CNEL shall
demonstrate that the design for these units includes a ventilation or air
conditioning system which provides a habitable interior environment with the
windows closed.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: To ensure that interior noise levels in habitable rooms do
not exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation measures 5.9-2 and 5.9-3 require subsequent individual
development proj ects to conduct acoustical analyses demonstrating compliance with
interior noise standards, and the inclusion of appropriate ventilation or air conditioning
systems into proj ect design where it is deemed necessary for windows to remain closed.
Impact (Criterion 3): The UCSP could result in noise levels that violate the City's
Noise Ordinance. (FEIR Section 5.9.3.3, page 5-208)
Currently, specific uses at specific locations are unknown within the UCSP area. Much
of the proj ect area is considered mixed use, and as such, there is the potential that
allowable commercial uses will occur in the same building as residential uses. These
commercial uses could encompass noise producing activities, such as live music. To the
extent that these activities are conducted within the allowable parameters of the
municipal code, adverse noise impacts will not occur. Until specific uses are identified,
conformance to the City's noise control ordinance code cannot be assured and impacts
associated with Criterion 3 may be significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.9-4 Prior to the approval of individual development projects, commercial uses that may
involve noise producing activities shall demonstrate compliance with the existing
performance standards provided in the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter
19.68.010 of the Municipal Zoning Code). Prior to project approval, subsequent
projects shall also demonstrate compliance with the mixed-use provisions of
Chapter VI of the UCSP that include minimization of the effects of any exterior
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 44
noise impacts and provision of "internal compatibility between the different uses
within the project" (UCSP, VI-44).
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Future commercial development proposals in accordance
with the UCSP could include noise producing activities. Mitigation measure 5.9-4
requires that these activities be conducted within the allowable parameters of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code and demonstrate compliance with applicable noise performance
standards in order to avoid adverse noise impacts.
2.8 Air Quality
The FEIR. examined the UCSP's potential impact on Air Quality in Section 5.10.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in a significant impact to air
quality if it would:
o Criterion I: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.
o Criterion 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
o Criterion 3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative criteria for ozone precursors).
o Criterion 4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
o Criterion 5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact (Criterion 1): The Plan will conflict with the implementation of the
applicable air quality plan. (FEIR. Section 5.10.3.1, pages 5-220 - 5-222)
The land uses proposed in the UCSP conform to the adopted GPU and are inconsistent
with the former General Plan upon which the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) were based. By changing land use designations
in certain areas, the recently adopted GPU failed to conform to the growth projections
used by SANDAG in their generation of the air quality management plan. Thus, adoption
of the proposed UCSP would result in significant conflict with an applicable air quality
plan as evaluated in conformance with Criterion I.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 45
Mitigation Measure: The City will cooperate with SANDAG and APCD in developing
updated RAQS to insure their conformance with the adopted GPU and mitigation
measure 5.10.5-1 is provided as an advisory measure.
5.10.5-1 The City of Chula Vista shall recommend to SANDAG to update the RAQS in
the next triennial cycle to incorporate the increased land use densities of the
GPU and UCSP.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific changes
or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and
not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding: The only measure that can lessen the significant impact of
DCSP inconsistency with the adopted RAQS, is the review and revision of the RAQS
based on the recently adopted GPD. Because the updating of the RAQS is the
responsibility of SANDAG and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD), it
is outside of the authority of the City and thus no mitigation is available to the City to
avoid this impact.
Impact (Criterion 3): The UCSP would result in a significant impact as a result of a
cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. (FEIR Section 5.10.3.3,
pages 5-218-5-221)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 3, the UCSP would result in a significant
impact as a result of a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants.
Because the San Diego Air Basin is not in compliance with the 2.5-micron particulate
matter (pM2.5) and 10-micron particulate matter (PMIO) standards, and because the
average daily particulates emission is anticipated to increase with implementation of the
DCSP, impacts to criteria pollutants are considered significant, until the region is found
to be in compliance with all criteria pollutants.
Cumulative increases in emissions in criteria pollutants for which the San Diego Air
Basin (SDAB) is not in attainment, would result from short-term construction of projects
in conformance with the UCSP and from long-term emissions generated by both
stationary and mobile sources within the DCSP area. Stationary source pollutant
emissions would include those generated by the consumption of natural gas and
electricity and the burning of wood in residential fireplaces. Vehicle traffic on area roads
would generate mobiles source emissions including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
and hydrocarbons.
Mitigation is achievable for fugitive dust from short-term construction activities, but the
only measures that would effectively reduce those emissions from long-term daily
operations are those that reduce vehicle miles traveled on area roads. The DeSp includes
measures aimed at promoting alternative modes of travel including enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle activity, use of transit and reducing trip lengths by siting highest density
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 46
adjacent to key transit nodes. Mitigation measures 5.10.5-2, 5.10.5-3 and 5.10.5-4 ensure
that conformance to these provisions of the UCSP is satisfied prior to issuance of
subsequent project development permits.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.-10.5-2 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development projects shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, conformance with the
relevant land use and development regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and
development design guidelines (UCSP, Chapter VII) of the UCSP which
support smart growth principles such as providing a mix of compatible land
uses; locating highest density near transit; utilizing compact building design
and creating walkable communities; providing a range of infill housing
opportunities; and increasing transportation choices.
5.10.5-3 Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development projects shall demonstrate
compliance with relevant land use and development regulations contained in
the UCSP to minimize air pollutant emissions. These include, but are not
limited to: measures aimed at promoting pedestrian activity (Chapter V, pp. V-
2- V-5); bicycle activity (Chapter V, pp. V-5 - V-7, V-9 - V-IO); public
transit facilities (Chapter V, pp. V8 - V-9), including the West Side Shuttle
(Chapter V, pp. V-II - V-12); and reintroduction of the traditional street grid
(Chapter V, pp. V-16 - V-19).
5.10.5-4 Prior to issuance of construction permits, including but not limited to, the first
Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core Development Permit, the
Community Development Director shall verify that the following active dust
control practices are to be employed during construction:
I. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other
acceptable San Diego APCD dust control agents during dust-generating
activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable APCD
dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce
windblown dust and spills.
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded., landscaped., or developed as quickly
as possible and as directed by the City and/or APCD to reduce dust
generation.
7. To the maximum extent feasible heavy-duty construction equipment with
modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 47
utilized during grading and construction activities and catalytic reduction for
gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
8. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible.
9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible.
10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall
be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the ElR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: With the application of mitigation measure 5.10.5-4
significant impacts resulting frOID projected short-term PMl 0 impacts from construction
would be mitigated. Long-term impacts resulting from daily operation would remain
significant despite implementation of mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 and 5.10.5-3, until the
region is determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards. Until
the region is determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards, no
other mitigation measures are applicable or feasible, as the UCSP's contribution,
regardless of volume, comprises a contribution to an existing regional condition of
noncompliance. Thus, operation-related impacts to cumulative air quality would remain
significant and unmitigated.
Impact (Criterion 4): The UCSP would expose sensitive receptors to air quality
impacts from diesel particulates emanating from Interstate 5 (FEIR Section 5.10.3.4,
pages 5-221-5-234)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion 4, although there is no adopted standard for
sensitive receivers adjacent to Interstate 5, it was determined that air quality impacts from
diesel particulates emanating from Interstate 5 would be cumulatively significant given
current basin-wide noncompliance with particulate standards and projected future levels
of diesel particulates emanating from Interstate 5.
Mitigation Measures: Cumulatively significant diesel particulate impacts would be
reduced through mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 through 5.10.5-4 but not to below a level
of significance.
In addition, special design guidelines are provided in the UCSP Development Design
Guidelines (Chapter VII, Section G.5) to be considered by future redevelopment adjacent
to 1-5, where possible. These site design measures would help to minimize effects and
include siting residential uses away from the freeway to the extent possible, tiering
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 48
residential structures back from the freeway, and incorporating mechanical and structural
measures into the building design. While these measures may serve to reduce the severity
of diesel particulate emissions impacts, implementation of diesel vehicles source control
measures by State authorities would be required to reduce cumulative impacts to below
significance.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a) (2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, any changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
Facts in Support of Finding: While mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 through 5.10.5-4 are
feasible and will be completed, they do not substantially lessen the severity of diesel
particulate emissions impacts as identified in the FEIR. As stated in Mitigation Measure
5.10.5-2 "Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development projects shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, conformance with the relevant
land use and development regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and development design
guidelines (UCSP, Chapter VII)." Therefore, site design measures would be considered
prior to the approval of future redevelopment adjacent to 1-5, where possible, to help
. minimize effects. A mandatory application of the recommended design measures, such as
a 350-500 foot buffer zone, cannot be made at this time without consideration of the
implications on future development of the affected sites adjacent to the freeway. The
mandatory application of a 350-500 foot setback would unfairly and indiscriminately
impact both existing uses and any future redevelopment of individual properties,
proposed in a manner consistent with the General Plan, as it would be speculative at this
time to determine the specific use (commercial, residential, office) and site design of
parcels within the 350-500 foot area. Further, the mandatory application of a setback
would not achieve mitigation of the source of the impact. The only measure that can
substantially lessen the significant impact of diesel emissions from vehicles on Interstate
5, is the implementation of source (vehicle) controls. Because the regulation and
enforcement of vehicle emissions controls is outside the authority of the City, no
mitigation is available to the City to effectively avoid this impact. Implementation of
diesel vehicles source control measures by State authorities would be required to reduce
cumulative diesel particulate emissions impacts to below significance.
2.9 Public Services
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Public Services in Section 5.11.
Impacts were evaluated for the services of law enforcement, fire protection, schools,
libraries, and parks and recreation.
Law Enforcement
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 49
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
police services if it would:
. Criterion 1: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of law
enforcement service in accordance with the adopted standards and thresholds as
follows:
For emergency response, police units must respond to 81 percent of Priority One
emergency calls within seven minutes and maintain an average response time of 5.5
minutes or less.
For Priority Two Urgent calls, the police units must respond to 57 percent of the calls
within seven minutes with an average response time to all Priority Two calls within
7.5 minutes or less.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact to law enforcement services. (FEIR Section 5.11.1.3, pages 5-247
- 5-248)
As evaluated in accordance with law enforcement Criterion l, future development in
accordance with the proposed UCSP would result in a significant impact to law
enforcement services because of the anticipated increase in calls for service and the
additional travel time required to answer these calls. While the police facility at Fourth
Avenue and F Street is sufficient to meet the law enforcement needs created by increased
demand resulting from development, more police officers will be needed in order to
maintain response times. Significant impacts would result if timing of these provisions
does not coincide with projected increase in demand for services and populations growth.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5. 1 l. 1 - 1 Subsequent development projects shall demonstrate that significant impacts to
police services resulting from an individual project are addressed prior to
approval of an Urban Core Development permit or other discretionary
approval. As part of project review, subsequent development projects shall
be evaluated for adequate access for police vehicles (pursuant to GPU Policy
PFS 6.1) and integration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) techniques (pursuant to GPU Policy PFS 6.3).
5.1 1 .1-2 As a condition of project approval, individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees (PFDIF) at the rate in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
5.11.1-3 As part of the annual budgeting process, the City shall assess the need for
additional police personnel to provide protection services consistent with
established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in
population.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 1509l(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 50
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measures 5.11.1-1, 5.11.1-2 and 5.11.1-3
ensure that timing of additional police personnel and facilities coincide with the increase
in demand for services associated with buildout of the UCSP. .
Fire Protection
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
fire protection services if it would:
. Criterion 1: Result in the inability for the City to provide an adequate level fire
protection service in accordance with the adopted standards and threshold:
For calls citywide, fire units must respond within seven minutes for 80 percent of
emergency calls.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact to fire protection services. (FEIR Section 5.11.2.3, page 5-251)
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for
response time for the City, including the UCSP Subdistricts area. Buildout of the UCSP
would increase demand for fire protection services. However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, additional fire protection personnel and fire protection equipment
and facilities would be provided. These provisions would help ensure adequate service
within the requirements of the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
threshold standards. As evaluated in accordance with fire protection Criterion 1,
significant impacts would result if timing of these provisions does not coincide with
projected increase in demand for services and population growth.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.11.2-1 Prior to approval, subsequent individual development projects in the UCSP
shall demonstrate provision of adequate access and water pressure for new
buildings.
5.11.2-2 As a condition of project approval, individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees at the rate in effect at the time building
permits are issued.
5.11.2-3 As part of the annual budgeting process, the City will assess the need for
additional fire personnel to provide protection services consistent with
established City service levels and commensurate with the increase in
population.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 51
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measures 5.11.2-1, 5.11.2-2 and 5.11.2-3
ensure that timing of additional fire protection and emergency services personnel and
facilities coincide with the increase in demand for services associated with buildout of the
UCSP.
Schools
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
schools ifit would:
. Criterion I: Result in the inability of the public school system to provide adequate
schools and fail to meet current student/teacher and facilities ratios established in the
Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District
standards and thresholds.
Impact: Future development in accordance with the proposed UCSP could result in
a significant impact on educational facilities. (Section 5.11.3.3, pages 5-254 - 5-255)
As evaluated in accordance with Criterion I, the land uses proposed for the UCSP would
result in a significant impact to schools unless construction of facilities coincide with
student generation and associated service demands. The proposed UCSP will result in a
three-fold increase in population within the Subdistricts Area at buildout and an
associated increase in demand for schools. The estimated number of students to be
generated by the proposed UCSP upon buildout was based on current student generation
factors of the two relevant school districts. At buildout, the UCSP is expected to generate
a net increase of approximately 3,877 students between elementary, middle school, and
high school grades. The generation of approximately 2,485 additional elementary
students would have a significant impact on existing elementary schools serving the area
because they are already at or near capacity. Using every available classroom seat, the
new development would require at least 59 additional elementary school classrooms.
(potentially fewer students may result from UCSP buildout or interim conditions due to
the nature of the allowable development under the UCSP. New residents of the
intensified urban environment of mid- to high-rise mixed uses may likely be single or
potentially childless young couples, or empty nesters. Therefore, the identified impacts
may be overstated. Monitoring of these trends will be necessary to accurately plan for
new student enrollment.)
Provision of school facilities is the responsibility of the school district when additional
demand warrants. School services are addressed in the City's Growth Management
Thresholds and State Senate Bill 50 (Governrnent Code 65995). Senate Bill 50 prohibits
local governrnents from requiring extra fees or the establishment of a Mello Roos from
new development to finance school The legislation provides that statutory fees are the
exclusive means of mitigating school impacts and payment of statutory fees constitutes
full and complete mitigation (Governrnent Code 65996). Therefore payment of project
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 52
development fees in compliance with statutory requirements reduce significant impacts to
school districts below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.11.3-1 Prior to approval, subsequent development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate that significant impacts to public educational services re~u1ting
from the individl,lal. project have been addressed. As a condition of project
approval, individual developers shall pay the statutory school impact fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: While provision of school facilities is the responsibility of
the school district, mitigation measure 5.1 1.3-1 ensures that subsequent individual
projects' effects on public educational services are addressed prior to project approval,
thereby avoiding or substantially lessening potential impacts to area schools.
Libraries
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
library services if it would:
. Criterion I: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of library
services and facilities in accordance with adopted City standards and thresholds as
follows:
500 square feet of library facilities per 1,000 population for new development.
3.0 books per person for new development.
Impact: Implementation of the UCSP could result in significant impacts to library
services in the UCSP Subdistricts Area and citywide. (Section 5.11.4.3, pages 5-256-
5-257)
As evaluated in accordance with library services Criterion I, buildout of the UCSP may
require additional library space in order to meet and maintain the City Criterion of 500
square feet per 1,000 population and 3 books per person for new development Based on
the expected net increase in population of 18,318 with buildout of the UCSP, increased
demand on existing library services would amount to approximately 9,159 square feet of
library facilities and 54,954 books. Existing library service conditions in the City are
inadequate and not in compliance with City standards. Additional library capacity is
planned by 2007, however, with the construction of the 30,000 square foot Rancho Del
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 53
Rey Library. In the absence of this or other new library construction, any additional
demand on library services would comprise a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.11.4-1 Prior to approval, subsequent individual development projects in the UCSP
shall demonstrate that significant impacts to the provision of library services
resulting from individual projects have been addressed. As a condition of
project approval, individual developers shall pay the public facilities
development impact fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are
issued.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 1509l(a)(1) of the State 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 ErR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Potentially significant library impacts would be avoided
or reduced to below significance through mitigation measure 5.11.4-1 which requires
subsequent individual development projects in the UCSP to demonstrate that significant
library impacts have been addressed prior to project approval.
Parks and Recreation
Criterion of Significance: Adoption of the UCSP would have a significant impact on
parks and recreation if it would:
. Criterion 1: Result in the inability of the City to provide an adequate level of park
and recreation service and facilities in accordance with the adopted standard of three
acres per 1,000 people; or as modified by the Growth Management Ordinance.
Impact: Fnture development in accordance with the proposed UCSP conld result in
a significant impact on park facilities. (FEIR Section 5.11.5.3, pages 5-260 - 5-261)
Implementation of the proposed UCSP would generate increased demand for parks and
recreation facilities. As evaluated in accordance with parks and recreation Criterion I, a
significant impact could occur if dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities
does not coincide with project implementation and project population growth.
Mitigation Measnre: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.11.5-1 Prior to approval of an Urban Core Development Permit, each subsequent
project shall establish to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director that the project meets the City's parkland dedication requirement. As
a condition of project approval, individual developers shall provide required
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 54
parkland and facilities on-site, if possible and consistent with potential site
locations identified in the UCSP and Parks Master Plan; or pay the applicable
parkland acquisition and parkland development fee and recreation facility
development impact fees at the rates in effect at the time building permits are
issued.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.10 (the Park
Development Ordinance - PDO) applies a standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000
people to all new development. Full buildout of the UCSP would be required to provide
up to approximately 55 acres of new parkland. TIlls additional parkland would be
required incrementally and commensurate with new development as required in
mitigation measure 5.11.5-1.
2.10 Public Utilities
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Public Utilities in Section 5.12. The
four public utilities evaluated in the FEIR include the provision of water, wastewater,
solid waste, and energy. The FEIR determined that the proposed UCSP would not have
significant impacts to the utilities of water or solid waste. However, impacts to
wastewater and energy were identified, as explained below.
Wastewater
Criterion of Significance: Impacts to wastewater services would be significant if the
proposed UCSP would:
. Criterion I: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate planned capacity to
serve projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
Impact: The UCSP will place a significant demand on wastewater treatment
services. (FEIR Section 5.12.2.3, pages 5-277 - 278)
A5 evaluated in accordance with wastewater Criterion I, impacts to the provision of
sewer service resulting from implementation of the proposed UCSP are considered
significant. Chula Vista owns capacity in the Metro system, which provides conveyance
of City wastewater flows. Increasing population will place additional demand on sewer
services. While it is the intent of the City to ensure that services are provided concurrent
with need, the provision of sewer services is not solely within its authority. Although the
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 55
City is in the process of acquiring additional capacity from Metro, that acquisition has not
yet been finalized. Based on GPU buildout proj ections, the City will be generating
approximately 26.2 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater citywide by 2030 and
would need to acquire additional 6.4 mgd of capacity rights by the year 2030 in order to
meet citywide projected demand. Of this total, 1.57 mgd are projected to be generated in
western Chula Vista, including a projected generation of 0.88 mgd for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. Therefore, impacts to the provision of sewer service are considered
significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.12.2-1 Prior to the approval of subsequent individual development projects, project
plans shall demonstrate that there is sufficient wastewater capacity available to
serve the proposed project. Conditions of approval may require sewer capacity
fees to be contributed to mitigate project-related impacts.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: To avoid significant impacts to the provision of sewer
service, mitigation measure 5.12.2-1 requires that all subsequent individual development
projects demonstrate that sufficient wastewater capacity is available to serve the project
prior to proj ect approval.
Energy
Criterion of Significance: Impacts to energy would be significant if the proposed
project would:
. Criterion 1 : Result in the available supply of energy to fall below a level considered
sufficient to meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities.
Impact: The DCSP has the potential to result in significant impacts to energy
supply as a result of anticipated growth. (FEIR Section 5.12.4.3, pages 5-282 - 5-284)
As evaluated in accordance with energy Criterion I, project impacts to energy are
considered significant because there is no long-term assurance that energy supplies will
be available at buildout of the UCSP.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
cOT\dition of approval and is made binding through these findings.
5.12.4-1 The City shall continue to implement the Energy Strategy Action Plan that
addresses demand side management, energy efficient and renewable energy
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 56
outreach programs for businesses and residents, energy acqUlSlllOn, power
generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, and
continue to implement the CO2 Reduction Plan to lessen the impacts on energy.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alt=atives identified in the FEIR. While mitigation measure 5.12.4-1 is feasible
and will be implemented, it does not substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the FEIR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Because there is no assurance that energy resources will
be available to adequately serve the proposed UCSP, energy impacts remain significant
and unmitigated. A voidance of energy impacts cannot be assured regardless of land use
designation or population size. Although subsequent individual projects would be subject
to the City's continuing Energy Strategy Action Plan and C02 (Carbon Dioxide)
Reduction Plan, and SANDAG's San Diego Regional Energy Plan and Transit First Plan
as stated in mitigation measure 5.12.4-1, implementation of the proposed land uses
identified in the UCSP has the potential to result in significant impacts to nonrenewable
and slowly renewable energy resources as a result of anticipated growth. The
environmental sustainability measures of the UCSP (Chapter VI, G.) may serve to further
reduce energy consumption associated with implementation of the UCSP, thereby
reducing energy demand and energy impacts; but not to below a level of significance.
2.11 Hazards/Risk of Upset
The FEIR examined the UCSP's potential impact on Hazards/Risk of Upset in Section
5.13.
Criteria of Significance: The proposed UCSP would result in a significant hazards/risk
of upset impact if it would:
· Criterion 1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials;
· Criterion 2: Place potential emitters of hazardous Dr acutely hazardous materials or
substances in close proximity to sensitive receivers or be located in close proximity to
a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5;
· Criterion 3: Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact (Criterion 1): Hazardous materials which occur within the UCSP area could
pose significant public health and safety risks during construction or long-term use
of proposed development. (FEIR Section 5.13.3.1, pages 5-303 - 5-307)
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 57
Hazardous materials occur within the DCSP area and pose significant public health and
safety risks during construction or long-term occupation of proposed development as
evaluated in accordance with Criterion 1. Exposure to hazardous materials that exceed
state and/or federal standards can occur through contact with contaminated soil or
groundwater, through ingestion, skin contact or the inhalation of vapors or dust.
An approximate total of 103 sites of potential hazardous concern have been identified
from various federal, state and local databases as occurring within the Subdistricts Area
In addition, due to the presence of numerous pre-1960s structures in the area, there is a
potential that during construction or demolition, workers may come into contact with
hazardous building materials (asbestos and lead).
Future development consistent with the proposed DCSP would result in significant
impacts if such development allows greater contact between humans and hazards.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required
as a condition of approval, and are made binding through these findings.
5.13-1 Prior to approval of subsequent individual development projects, any project
plans that propose land uses which use, transport, store, and dispose of
hazardous materials shall be conducted in compliance with the relevant
regulations of federal, state, and local agencies, including the EP A, California
Department of Heath Services (DHS), and California Department of
Transportation.
5.13-2 A risk assessment shall be performed at all sites within the study area where
contamination has been identified or is discovered during future construction
activities, and at which soil is to be disturbed, to address risks posed by any
residual contamination, and to establish appropriate mitigation measures (e.g.,
natural attenuation, active remediation, engineering controls) that would be
protective of human health and the environment. All assessment and
remediation activities shall be conducted in accordance with a Work Plan that
is approved by the regulatory agency having oversight of the activities.
Significance after Mitigation: Not Significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section l509l(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation measures 5.13.1 and 5.13-2 ensure that future
development consistent with the proposed DeSp would not result in significant adverse
contact between humans and hazards.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 58
3.0 Findings on Significant Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects" (Pub. Resources Code section 21082.2, subd. (b)). The analysis in the
EIR for the UCSP relies on regional planning documents, in accordance with Section
15I30(b)(I)(B), to serve as a basis for the majority of analysis of the cumulative effects
of the proposed General Plan Update. The cumulative impacts assessment in this section
primarily relies on the cumulative impact determinations in the Chula Vista GPU EIR.
Other regional plans used to assess cumulative impacts in this section include: the Chula
Vista General Plan; the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP); the Chula Vista
MSCP; the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin; the San Diego APCD
RAQS; and the Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. These plans are discussed in the
Environmental Impact Analysis, Section 5.0, of this EIR, and are incorporated by
reference in the cumulative analysis below. These documents are on file at the City of
Chula Vista and are available for review at the Chula Vista Planning Department at 276
Fourth Avenue and the Chula Vista Civic Center Library at 365 F Street in the City of
Chula Vista.
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 proj ect 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, Caltrans, and Mexico) and
the contribution of these jurisdictions to cumulative impacts.
Cumulative Impacts are discussed in Chapter 6.0 of the Final EIR. The UCSP will result
in the following irreversible cumulative environmental changes.
3.1 Cultural Resources
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIR.
Impact: Loss of cultural resources in the Urban Core Specific Plan area would
represent a cumulative impact.
The continued pressure to develop or redevelop areas would result in incremental impacts
to the historic record in the San Diego region. The RCP concluded that the loss of
historic or prehistoric resources from the past, present, and probable future projects in the
Southern California/Northern Baja areas would contribute to cumulatively significant
impacts to cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed UCSP, in conjunction with
other future projects, will result in a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 5.3.5-1 through 5.3.5-5 described above
would be required.
eVRe Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 59
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives to reduce cumulative cultural resources impacts to a level below significance.
While the mitigation measures to reduce direct cultural resources impacts are feasible and
will be completed, they do not substantially lessen the significant cumulative
environmental effect as identified in the FErR. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources remain
significant despite project-specific mitigation measures 5.3.5-1 through 5.3.5-5.
Regardless of the efforts to avoid impacts to cultural resources, the more that land within
the country that is converted to developed uses the greater the potential for impacts to
cultural resources. While any individual project may avoid or mitigate the direct loss of a
specific resource, the effect is considerable when considered cumulatively.
3.2 Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Cumulative impacts to traffic circulation and access are discussed in Section 6.6 of the
FEIR.
Impact: Cumulative impacts to roadway segments would occur with the adoption of
the Urban Core Specific Plan.
The long-term traffic analysis conducted for the proposed UCSP employed the regional
traffic database and modeling used by SANDAG and assumed 2030 buildout conditions
under the GPU. As such, it included the projected growth for the region, including both
growth in regional trips and anticipated expansion of the circulation system. Traffic
effects identified in Chapter 5.8 of the FEIR are significant. Nineteen intersections and
three roadway segments within the UCSP area would operate at unacceptable levels of
service. The traffic analyses included mitigation measures to reduce significant
cumulative traffic impacts. However, not all impacts would be mitigated to below a level
of significance. Therefore, significant and unmitigated cumulative traffic impacts are
noted for the street network.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 5.8.5-1 through 5.8.5-3 and 5.8-6 described
above would be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
proj ect alternatives identified in the FEIR. While the mitigation measures to reduce
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 60
direct traffic impacts are feasible and will be completed, they do not substantially lessen
the significant cumulative environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. Adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers
choose to approve the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The mitigation measures presented above would reduce
some of the incremental cumulative impacts associated with the proposed UCSP;
however, these measures would not reduce the cumulative traffic impacts to below a level
of significance.
The Automobile Priority Alternative increases the roadway capacity for the impacted
intersections and roadway segment to acceptable LOS. As such, it would lessen
cumulative traffic impacts to below a level of significance. As discussed in Section 4.3
of these Findings, however, this alternative is infeasible. Pursuant to section 15091(a) (3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the Automobile Priority Alternative identified in the EIR. The alternative is
not considered environmentally preferable to the proposed Plan, nor would accomplish
some ofthe Plan's goals and objectives. The overriding social goals and objectives that
the Automobile Priority Alternative would not meet are detailed in Section 4.3 and 6.0 of
these [mdings.
3.3 Air Quality
Cumulative impacts to air quality are discussed in Section 6.7 of the FEIR.
Impact: Implementation of the Urban Core Specific Plan would contribute to a
significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.
The San Diego Air Basin is in non-attainment for federal and state ozone standards,
federal and state PM2.5 standards, and state PM 10 standards. Because the air basin is in
non-attainment for ozone, PM2.5, and PMlO, the allowable increase in residential units and
the activities associated with population growth, even as mitigated by the City in its CO2
Reduction Plan and Growth Management Program and by the Interstate 5 site design
recommendations in the UCSP, represents a cumulatively considerable and significant air
quality impact.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 5.10.5-1 through 5.10.5-4 described above
would be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives to reduce cumulative net increases to regional criteria air pollutants to below
significance. v.'h.ile mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 through 5.10.5-4 to reduce the UCSP's
emissions and severity of impact are feasible and will be completed, they would not
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 6]
reduce the significant cumulative enviromnental effect as identified in the FEIR to below
significant. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should
the decision makers choose to approve the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant
despite implementation of mitigation measures 5.10.5-2 and 5.]0.5-3, until the region is
determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards. Until the region
is determined to be in compliance with all applicable air quality standards, no other
mitigation measures are applicable or feasible, as the UCSP's contribution, regardless of
volume, comprises a contribution to an existing regional condition of noncompliance.
3.4 Energy
Cumulative impacts to energy are discussed in Section 6.9.4 of the EIR.
Impact: Implementation of the proposed DeSp has the potential to result in
cumulative impacts to energy resources.
Buildout of the UCSP would directly increase the demand for both electricity and natural
gas, and would contribute to significant cumulative demands on energy. Impacts to
energy are considered significant because there is no long-term assurance that energy
supplies will be available at build out of the DCSP. Avoidance of energy impacts thus
cannot be assured regardless ofland use designation or population size.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 5.12.4-1 described above would be required.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
proj eet alternatives identified in the FEIR. While mitigation measure 5.] 2.4-] is feasible
and will be completed, it does not reduce the significant environmental effect as
identified in the FEIR to below a level of significance. Adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve
the proposed proj ect.
Facts in Support of Finding: The UCSP has the potential to add incrementally to the
demand for energy supplies which cannot be assured in the future, thus representing an
unavoidable significant cumulative impact. The energy mitigation measures identified in
Section 2.10 of this document would reduce significant energy impacts, but not to below
a level of significance. Because future energy supplies cannot be assured, cumulative
energy impacts would remain significant and unmitigated..
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 62
4.0 Findings on Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Considered in the Final EIR
Because the project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as
outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternative to the project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or
more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant
environmental effects. Where, as in this project, significant environmental effects remain
even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, the
decision makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Under
these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where
the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation
to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts
would be less severe than those of the project 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]; see also 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 fmdings conceming project alternatives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved proj ect, are significant and
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are infeasible, 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 a reasonable range of project
alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition
of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "Feasible" means capable
of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." [pub.
Resources Code section 21061.1] The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of
"feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364
states, "The lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or
mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social,
or technological factor." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].)
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 63
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a
different meaning as it 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 fmdings:
(1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proj ect which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd.
(a)(l)]
(2) "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency. [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(2)]
(3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the fmal EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3)]
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,417 [183
Cal.Rptr. 898]) '" [F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v.
City afOakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182])
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the fmally approved project, while still resulting in
significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and
other benefits. 10 rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the
finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to
meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the project best meets the finally
approved proj ect 0 bj ectives with the least environmental impact.
The detailed discussions in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 demonstrate 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 FEIR The remaining unmitigated
impacts include the following:
. Cultural resources
. Traffic
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 64
. Noise
. Air quality
. Energy
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any
alternatives identified in the FEIR 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.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650); and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr.
426).) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both
feasible and environmentally superior with respect to 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 of the City's
objectives for the Urban Core Specific Plan.
The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce
potential impacts associated with the UCSP, while still achieving the basic objectives of
the project. The City's primary objectives are included in Section III above. The City
evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative, the
Reduced Project Alternative, and the Automobile Priority Alternative. Each of these
alternatives is discussed below.
4.1 No Project Alternative
Section 15126, subdivision (d)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the
"No Project" Alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as
well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services."
The No Project alternative would continue to implement the current adopted Municipal
Code Zoning in the Subdistricts Area of the DCS? Under the No Project Alternative, it
is estimated that approximately I ,000 additional residential units could be built in the
690-acre Subdistricts Area. This number was estimated from the GPU FEIR No Project
alternative (page 617) which identified capacity for approximately 1,429 additional
residential units allowed under the "former" 1989 General Plan and implementing zoning
when compared to the existing condition. This remaining residential capacity of 1,429
related to the Urban Core Subarea of the Northwest Planning Area of the GPU. The
extent of the UCSP Subdistrict Area is approximately 67 percent of the larger Urban Core
eVRe Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 65
Subarea described in the GPU FEIR as 1,031 acres. In addition, the No Project
Alternative is anticipated to allow additional commercial and office growth compared to
the existing condition, considering the underutilized extent of many of the commercially
zoned properties throughout the UCSP Subdistricts Area.
Imoacts:
The current zoning conforms to the former General Plan, rather than the currently
adopted General Plan Update (GPU). California law requires zoning ordinances to be
consistent with the adopted GPU. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in
the zoning for the Subdistricts Area of the uesp being inconsistent with the GPU.
Impacts to land use resulting from implementation of the No Project Alternative would
thus be greater than those identified for the proposed uesp because of inconsistency of
existing Municipal Code Zoning with the adopted GPU.
Proportional to the decrease in allowable population and building intensity, the No
Project Alternative would reduce impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics, hydrology
and water quality, traffic circulation and access, air quality, noise, and public services and
utilities compared to the proposed uesp. Impacts associated with cultural resources,
geology and soils, paleontological resources, and hazards/risk of upset would be roughly
equivalent to those identified for the proposed UCSP given that the footprint of the
impact area is roughly the same for both scenarios. The basis for concluding no
significant population and housing impacts for the No Project Alternative would be the
same as that for the proposed uesp. In both scenarios, displacement of people and
housing which might occur during new development and redevelopment would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Because the No Proj ect
Alternative still entails growth within the City, cumulatively significant impacts to
cultural resources, air quality and energy, although reduced, would remain significant and
unavoidable. And while direct significant unavoidable impacts to air quality and energy
may be lessened in the No Project Alternative compared to the proposed UCSP, these
environmental effects would remain significant and unmitigable given existing
noncompliance and resource limits.
Findin!!s:
Although the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the
proposed project given the reduction in impacts to aesthetics, water quality, traffic, noise,
air quality, public services, and public utilities, it would not accomplish any of the
primary obj ectives of the proposed proj ect and it would be inconsistent with the adopted
General Plan Update. The No Project Alternative would not meet the following
objectives:
. Create the tools necessary to implement the General Plan Update's vision for the
urban core through preparation of a comprehensive set of new zoning classifications
and updated development regulations and standards for mixed-use developments.
The No Project Alternative comprises zoning which implements the former, outdateel,
General Plan and not the adopted General Plan Update. In order to accomplish the
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 66
GPU vision for the urban core, new mixed-use zoning classifications and land use
development regulations are needed. Current zoning classifications and development
regulations prohibit mixed use and are thus in conflict with the adopted General Plan
Update and California law which requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the
relevant adopted general plan.
. Develop updated design guidelines unique to the individual districts in the urban core
that implement the urban form and create the active urban environment envisioned by
the General Plan Update.
Updated design guidelines for implementing the GPU vision for the urban core are
not provided in the No Project Alternative. In the absence of the proposed project,
development design for the urban core is guided by the outdated former general plan
and/or, for the portion of the project area overlain by a redevelopment plan, the
existing Town Centre I Design Manual and guidelines in the Merged Plan Summary.
In either case, guidelines are not provided that implement the urban form envisioned
in the GPU for the urban core or create a vibrant, distinct, pedestrian-friendly urban
environment, a key objective of the GPU and UCSP.
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
The No Project Alternative represents less mixed use than the proposed UCSP. As
such, it fails to provide the necessary mix of land uses sufficient to support exemplary
community services, facilities, and amenities. The proposed UCSP represents a
substantial increase in commercial square footage and multi-family residential units
over the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative provides less
of an opportunity for the expansion of the local economy and makes it more difficult
to sustain a strong economic base. Furthermore, a Reduction in density, as allowed
under the No Project Alternative, would provide insufficient density in the urban core
to support transit facilities and to promote pedestrian-oriented land use design.
. Facilitate revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and
residential areas by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that
assures quality outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
The No Project Alternative would retain the existing land use zoning classifications in
the urban core. This results in land use regulations that support substantially fewer
residential units and commercial square footage in the urban core relative to the
proposed Plan thereby making it less likely that redevelopment and revitalization
would occur.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes thai the No Project Alternative is not
feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d ai 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 67
Ca1.App.4th at 715.) For additional discussion regarding the No Project Alternative, see
Chapter 10.1 of the FEIR.
4.2 Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative represents less residential development than the
proposed project in areas currently restricted to retail use along the downtown segments
of Third Avenue, along E Street in the vicinity of Third and Fourth Avenues, and
decreased residential and transit-oriented uses in the vicinity of major transit corridors,
over the proposed UCSP.
The Reduced Project Alternative comprises a 25 percent reduction in the projected
buildout of the proposed UCSP through 2030. This alternative does not change the
proposed land uses, nor affect land use density. Under this alternative, a total of 9,025
residential units could be built in the UCSP Subdistricts Area rather than the 10,800
projected under the GPU and implemented by the proposed UCSP. This would result in a
net increase of 5,325 residential units within the UCSP Subdistricts Area, compared to
the net increase of 7,100 allowed in the proposed UCSP. Table 10-2 provides a
comparison of projected buildout under the Reduced Project Alternative and the proposed
UCSP.
The purpose of this alternative is to reduce the impacts that would result from the
adoption of the proposed plan as they relate to intensity of use.
Imoacts:
Proportional to the decrease in intensity proposed under the Reduced Project Alternative,
impacts would be reduced to landform alteration/aesthetics, traffic circulation and access,
noise, air quality, public services, and public utilities. Significant impacts associated with
cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, and hazards/risk of upset
would be equivalent to those identified for the proposed UCSP given that the footprint of
the impact area is roughly the same in both scenarios. Significant water quality impacts
would also be roughly equivalent, given the approximate sameness in impermeable
surface area. As with the proposed UCSP, the Reduced Project Alternative would not
result in significant land use or population and housing impacts. In both scenarios, new
zoning would conform to the adopted General Plan and displacement of people and
housing which might occur during new development and redevelopment would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. While significant direct
impacts to cultural resources, traffic, air quality, noise and energy may be lessened in the
Reduced Project Alternative, environmental effects would remain significant and
unmitigable for cultural resources, air quality and energy given existing noncompliance
and resource limits. Because the Reduced Project Alternative accommodates growth
within the City, cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources, air quality and
energy, although reduced, would also remain significant and unavoidable.
Findine:s:
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 68
This alternative would specifically reduce impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics,
traffic, air quality, noise, and public utilities and services. Although the Reduced Project
Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project, it would fail
to meet the most critical Project Objectives related to smart growth principles such as
infill development and reduction of urban sprawl as described below. The City rejects the
Alternative because it does not meet most of the basic Project Objectives as effectively as
the Project.
. Create the tools necessary to implement the General Plan Update's vision for the
urban core through preparation of a comprehensive set of new zoning classifications
and updated development regulations and standards for mixed-use developments.
In order to accomplish the GPU vision for the urban core, new mixed-use zoning and
higher density residential classifications and land use development regulations as
outlined in the GPU are provided for in the uesp. While the Reduced Project
Alternative would retain similar land use classifications, it would not provide for
buildout as envisioned by the adopted General Plan Update. The Reduced Project
Alternative would be unlikely to achieve some of the most critical objectives of the
entire Project. Specifically, this alternative would make it more difficult to achieve
the infill/smart growth objectives of the Project. The lowering of allowable intensities
could slacken development interest in the community becauseallowing for higher-
density development is a key factor associated with successfully achieving infill
development. If allowable development capacity is reduced to a point where it is
comparable with levels allowable in the subilrban areas, development is more likely
to occur there since it is generally more expensive and difficult to build in an
urbanized area. As such, the alternative would likely lead to greater urban sprawl in
the eastern portions of the City. The Reduced Project Alternative would also be in
conflict with the California State Planning and Zoning Law that requires zoning
ordinances to be consistent with the relevant adopted general plan.
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public irifrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
Recognizing that revenue is proportional to intensity of use, reduced intensity, as
represented by the Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced revenues and
make it more difficult for the City to sustain services, facilities and amenities. While
this alternative permits mixed uses, doing so in a lesser intensity than that envisioned
in the proposed Plan may limit the ability of the City to support the transit and
pedestrian improvements envisioned in the GPU and proposed UCSP because of
reduced population and building intensity. Higher population and building intensity
help promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development. By limiting
commercial and residential opportunities and reducing critical mass relative to the
proposed Plan, the Reduced Project Alternative provides diminished opportunity and
incentive for revitalization that in turn helps facilitate the provision of needed public
improvements and amenities in an area determined to be blighted.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 69
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that development consistent with the
Reduced Project Alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d
at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 715.) For additional discussion of the
Reduced Project Alternative, see Section 10.2 of the FEIR.
4.3 Automobile Priority Alternative
The Automobile Priority Alternative involves the design and designation of area
roadways such that the adverse traffic effects identified for the proposed DCSP would be
lessened and traffic flow would take priority over pedestrian oriented design. Under this
alternative, land use densities and intensities would be the .same as with the proposed
DeSp, but certain pedestrian.oriented streetscape design features would be eliminated in
order to maximize traffic flow. The only impacts that would change in this alternative
would be related to traffic flow. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce impacts
associated with automobile traffic, circulation and access to a level below significant.
The proposed DCSP identifies roadway improvements that would result in DeSp
intersections and street segments operating at LOS D or better. As indicated in the traffic
analysis conducted for the DCSP, even with the suggested improvements, the roadway
segment of Third A venue between E and G Streets and three intersections would operate
at LOS E. These intersections include:
. Broadway/H Street
. Hilltop Drive/H Street
. Third Avenue/] Street
Additional traffic improvements to mitigate decline in the LOS for these intersections and
street segment was not included in the proposed DCSP because of conflicts with plan
objectives and right-of-way constraints. Guiding principles of the DCSP are based on
smart growth strategies, SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan (or MOBILITY
2030), and SANDAG's Congestion Management Program, which advise new
development to maximize density, reduce automobile congestion by increasing
pedestrian, cycling, and public transit activity, and allow residents to enjoy short walking
distances to and from employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, and different
modes of transportation. In order to fully mitigate traffic impacts within the Subdistricts
Area, the DCSP would have had to implement a traffic mitigation measure that conflicts
with the plan's primary objective, thus sacrificing pedestrian-friendly design for
automobile-preferred design. In addition, some of these improvements could require
additional right-of way that is currently developed with existing commercial and
residential uses, which could not be assured at this time.
At the Broadway/H Street intersection (Int #27), an additional northbound and
southbound through lane would be required in order to achieve an acceptable LOS D
eVRe Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 70
conditions. However, this improvement would require extensive widening of Broadway
and H Street to allow for lane drops. The Automobile Priority Alternative would include
this widening. It would, as a result, create longer pedestrian crossings.
At the Hilltop Drive/H Street intersection, the proposed uesp includes no improvements
due to right-of way constraints. The poor LOS at this intersection is primarily caused by
the high traffic volumes in the eastbound/westbound movements. Additional through
and/or turn lanes would be required in order to improve this intersection to an acceptable
LOS. The Automobile Priority Alternative would include this improvement.
At the Third A venue/J Street intersection, the proposed UCSP includes no improvements
due to right-of way constraints. The required improvement is an additional southbound
right-turn lane. The Automobile Priority Alternative would include this improvement.
Impacts:
The Automobile Priority Alternative would reduce impacts associated with automobile
traffic, circulation and access to a level below significant. This impact was determined
to be significant and unmitigable for the proposed UCSP. All other environmental
impacts would be identical to those associated with the proposed UCSP, including
landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontolgoical
resources, water quality, noise, air quality, public services, energy, and hazards/risk of
upset.
Findine:s:
\Vhile significant, unmitigated traffic impacts would be avoided by the Automobile
Priority Alternative, key Project Objectives, as described below, would not be
accomplished. The City rejects the Alternative because it does not meet most of the basic
Project Objectives as effectively as the Project.
. Develop updated design guidelines unique to the individual districts in the urban core
that implement the urban form and create the active urban environment envisioned by
the General Plan Update.
The GPU envisions a lively, pedestrian-friendly environment for the urban core, and
borrows from smart growth principles contained in the Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Regional Transportation Plan. These principles outline the need for different
transportation modalities including pedestrian, bicycling, and public transit. Smart
growth principles place priority on non-automotive forms of mobility as a means to
promote higher quality of 'life and wiser use of limited natural resources. By
including design provisions that maximize traffic flow and prioritize the automobile
experience, the Automobile Priority Alternative limits the City's ability to implement
the pedestrian-friendly streetscape and other improvements envisioned in the GPU
and proposed uesp.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 71
. Establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of community benefits
such as public infrastructure, mobility improvements, and urban amenities that
enhance the quality of life for the community.
By including design provisions that maximize traffic flow and prioritize the
automobile experience, the Automobile Priority Alternative limits the City's ability
to implement the pedestrian-friendly streets cape improvements, diminishes
opportunities to provide other modes of transport (walking, bicycles, and transit),
and other public amenities envisioned in the GPU and proposed UCSP.
. Facilitate revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and
residential areas by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that
assures quality outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
A strategy inherent in this objective is the design of roadways and streetscapes that
slow traffic down and allow a friendly pedestrian experience that invites greater
patronage of streetside businesses. The Automobile Priority Alternative, by placing
emphasis on increasing traffic flow through the Plan area, would contradict this key
objective.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that development consistent with the
Automobile Priority Alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133
Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 CaI.AppAth at 715.) For additional
discussion of the Automobile Priority Alternative, see Section 10.3 of the FEIR.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an FEIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all
of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. If the No Project
alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the FEIR also shall identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the FEIR indicates,
through a comparison of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternatives and the
proposed Project, that the Reduced Project Alternative would be environmentally
superior because impacts identified for the proposed Project would be reduced.
However, the Reduced Project Alternative would not fully implement the City's General
Plan Update, which is a primary objective of the project. The findings as to the
infeasibility of selecting the Reduced Project Alternative are provided above in 4.2.
Reduced Project Alternative.
,
CYRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 72
5.0 Project Effects Found Not to be Significant
Impacts related to the following criteria were found not to be significant, as a result of the
analysis conducted for the FEIR The basis for the conclusion as to the effect relative to
those criteria is provided on the referenced pages of the FErR..
Pal!e Location in FEIR
Land Use
Criterion 1: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 5-19 through 5-34
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.
Criterion 2: Physically divide or adversely affect the 5-35 through 5-45
community character of an established community.
Landform Alternation! Aesthetics
Criterion 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, 5-57 through 5-60
or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, and rock outcroppings and historic buildings
within a scenic highway.
. Population and Housing
Criterion ]: Induces substantial population growth in an 5-126 through 5-127
area, either directly or indirectly
Criterion 2: Displaces substantial numbers of existing 5-127 through 5-128
housing, necessitating the construction or replacement of
housing elsewhere
Criterion 3: Displaces substantial numbers of people, 5-128
necessitating the construction or replacement of housing
elsewhere
Hydrolo~ and Water Quality
Criterion 2: Substantially deplete groundwater resources or 5-141
aquifer recharge areas
Criterion 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 5-141 through 5-142
of the site or area or substantially increase surface runoff in a
manner which would result in on-or off-site flooding or
exceed capacity of existing drainage svstems
Air Quality
Criterion 2: Yiolate any air quality standard or contribute 5-220
substantially to an existing or proi ected air qn. I ity violation.
Criterion 5: Create objectionable odors affecting a 5-238
substantial number of people.
Public Utilities - Water
Criterion 1: Result in insufficient supplies of potable water 5-271 through 5-272
to meet the potential demands renresented by the
"-
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 73
implementation of projects completed in conformance to the
UCSP.
Criterion 2: Require or result in the construction of new 5-272 through 5-273
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Public Utilities - Integrated Waste Management
Criterion 1: Be served by landfills with insufficient 5-281
permitted capacity to accommodate the proj ect' s solid waste
disposal needs.
HazardslRisk of Upset
Criterion 2: Place potential hazardous emitters or materials in 5-307
close proximity to sensitive receivers or be located in close
proximity to a hazardous materials site.
Criterion 3: Impair the implementation of or physically 5-307 through 5-308
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation olan.
Mineral Resources 9-1
Biological Resources 9-1
Agriculture 9-1
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 74
6.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA allows a public agency to approve a project with significant, unavoidable impacts
if the agency finds that the project will provide overriding economic, social, or other
benefits.
6.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas,
described in detail in these Findings of Fact:
. Cultural resources
. Traffic, circulation and access
· Noise
. Air quality
. Energy
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these
significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not, in some cases, fully avoid the
impacts. .
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives meet project
objectives.
Despite the occurrence of significant adverse unavoidable environmental impacts, the
City Council chooses to approve the Project because, in its view, the economic, social,
and other benefits that the project will provide will render the significant effects
acceptable.
The City has adopted this "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to cite a
project's economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the
occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided.
6.2 Considerations in Support of Overriding Considerations
The following statement explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits
outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the
California and Federal Clean Air Act) 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 decisionmaker has
reco=ended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the final ErR.,
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 75
recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to Impose more stringent
standards or measures.
Although CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an
ErR, the City Council recognizes that decisiomnakers benefit from information about
project benefits and has cited these benefits here, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15093.
Anyone of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justifY approval of the
Project. 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 defmed in Section 1.3.
The City finds that the project would have the following substantial social,
environmental, and economic benefits:
1. Growth will be targeted to serve community need and enhance the quality of
life. The project will offer opportunities to live in safe and attractive
neighborhoods; share in vibrant urban activities; work in healthy business
environments; and enjoy ample cultural and civic amenities and recreational
facilities. The pattern of development established by the UCSP - focuses on
"smart growth principles" established by the 2005 General Plan Update to
improve the quality of life for City residents and to reduce urban sprawl by
providing well planned infill development Citywide, allowing for increased
density in selected areas along established transportation corridors. Growth will
be targeted to areas of Chula Vista that are well served by public trapsit and that
provide opportunities for residences, retail businesses, and employment centers to
be located close to one another. This approach to development encourages street-
level economic development by putting pedestrians in close proximity to retail,
restaurant, and commercial/office uses. Residents could work, live, shop, and play
in transit-oriented areas, thereby encouraging economic growth and reducing
automobile dependence. In this way, the Project promotes smart growth principles
that call for compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that minimize the
amount of open space lands that would be converted to urban uses. This approach
to development reduces new vehicle trips resulting from new development and
correspondingly, reduces traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. In this
respect, this pattern of development benefits Chula Vista as well as the
surrounding region.
2. The project will provide for a vibrant urban area. The project lays the
foundation for providing a mixture of commercial, residential, civic and cultural
amenities which will add to Chula Vista's character and secure its standing as the
primary hub of the South Bay area
3. The project will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing
through the provision of additional housing. SANDAG housing capacity
studies indicate a shortage of housing will occur in the region within the next 20
years. The project would allow the development of an additional 7,100 dwelling
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 76
units. Reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land, the cost of housing has
risen disproportionately in recent years to the cost of other uses in the project area
(e.g., commercial, industrial). Because the project will increase the spatial extent
and density of land designated for residential development by providing for mixed
use zoning that allows residential uses to co-occupy blocks or parcels previously
confined to commercial and office uses, it may additionally help to reduce the
regional cost of housing. Thus, the Urban Core Specific Plan will result in
additional housing that will promote affordability and socioeconomic diversity,
two features the City finds both important and desirable.
4. The project will connect and integrate the urban core activity centers and
neighborhoods with the bayfront and eastern Chula Vista. Through a network
of local transportation services such as the trolley, intra-city express and shuttle
loops, and expanded bus routes, the project will re-connect and integrate the urban
core activity centers and neighborhoods with the bayfront and eastern Chula
Vista. The Urban Core Specific Plan will also provide a system of bicycle and
pedestrian paths that connect neighborhoods, activity centers, and recreation
facilities throughout the urban core.
5. The project will provide the tools necessary to implement the General Plan
Update.The vision establisbed for tbe urban core through preparation of the
General Plan Update will be implemented through a comprehensive set of new
zoning classifications and updated development regulations and standards for
mixed-use developments; develop updated design guidelines unique to the
individual districts in the urban core that implement the urban form and create the
active urban environment envisioned by the General Plan Update; and facilitate
revitalization of the downtown and surrounding commercial and residential areas
by increasing certainty and predictability for all stakeholders that assures quality
outcomes and streamline the development entitlement process.
6. Land use and transportation policy will help grow the local economy and
create opportunities for new businesses. The UCSP allows for up to 3.6 million
square feet of net new nonresidential development in the form of commercial,
office, and visitor serving uses. This additional space will add opportunities to
create new jobs, building improvements, retention of the existing companies, a
diverse economy, and infrastructure. Chula Vista's growth has resulted in many
beneficial effects, principally the development of businesses that provide jobs and
economic stability, creation of housing units affordable to a broad range of
household incomes, the growth of educational institutions, and the vibrancy that
results from a diverse, multi-ethnic and cultural community.
7. The project reduces adverse impacts to air quality and automobile
congestion. The project area currently exceeds federal and state air quality
standards for a number of emissions factors, including ozone and carbon
monoxide. A substantial majority of these emissions are attributable to motor
vehicles. In order to comply with the federal and California Clean Air Acts, the
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 77
San Diego region must reduce these sources. The project is designed to reduce
the adverse impact to air quality and automobile congestion by encouraging use of
alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking and the use of public
transit.
8. Implementation of the project will promote the use of conservation
technologies and sustainability practices that reduce or eliminate the use of
non-renewable resources. The Urban Core Specific Plan requires the submittal
of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) scorecard with
application for an Urban Core Development Permit. Projects that meet selected
green building Criterion will be awarded incentives. The project thus promotes
local non-polluting and renewable energy, water, and material resources in a way
that allows the City to meet their present needs while ensuring future generations
the ability to meet their needs.
9. Implementation of the project will provide significant community facilities.
The project will establish a Plan implementation program for the provision of
significant community facilities and benefits such as public infrastructure,
mobility improvements, and urban amenities that enhance the quality of life for
the community. As the plan is implemented., it will be responsible for
constructing public facilities and infrastructure to serve the Urban Core Specific
Plan area. These facilities include:
a. Improvements to the local circulation system;
b. Schools serving western Chula Vista;
c. Public parks and urban green spaces;
d. Water line, drainage, and sewer infrastructure improvements.
For these reasons, the City Council finds there are economic, social, and other
considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's
unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, considers the adverse
unavoidable effects acceptable.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 78
E'xh;bi+B
CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula
Vista Urban Core Specific Plan to comply with Public Resources Code section 21081.6,
which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective
implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will
undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional
conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista
designates the Environment Review Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of
the documents or their material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which
its decision is based.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the
mitigation identified in the EIR and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
. Monitor qualifications
. Specific monitoring activities
. Reporting system
. Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project is the adoption of the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan
(UCSP). The UCSP would govern the development and revitalization of the urban core
of the City of Chula Vista. The UCSP includes land use objectives, development
regulations (zoning), and development design guidelines to Implement the adopted
General Plan vision for the urban core. The UCSP's planning horizon is the year 2030.
The City of Chula Vista is located in southern San Diego County, between National City
and the southernmost portion of the City of San Diego which abuts the U.S.-Mexican
border. The UCSP area occupies 1,700 acres in the northwest portion of the City. A
smaller, 690-gross-acre Subdistricts Area was determined to be most in need of
revitalization and is the focus of all the regulatory land use provisions of the UCSP. The
new zoning, development standards, and design guidelines proposed in the UCSP will
apply only to the Subdistricts Area of the UCSP. Existing zoning and land use
regulations will not be changed in the remaining portion of the UCSP study area outside
the Subdistricts Area. The UCSP Subdistricts Area comprises the traditional downtown
area east of 1-5, west of Dei Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 79
Under the proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, the urban core would be
organized into three planning districts (Urban Core, Village, and Corridors) and 26
subdistricts.
The proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan is described in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) text. The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on
issues determined to be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues
addressed in the EIR include land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources,
geology and soils, paleontological resources, population and housing, hydrology and
water quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services, public
utilities, and hazards/risk of upset. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of
the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant
impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of recommended
mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified
for landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological
resources, water quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public services,
public utilities (energy), and hazards/risk of upset.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts
identified as significant or potentially significant The monitoring program for the Urban
Core Specific Plan therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas
identified above.
Miticiation Monitorinq Team
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached
MMRP table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula
Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
. Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated
experience in working under trying field circumstances;
. Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
. Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of
cost-effective mitigation options: and
. Excellent communication skills.
Proqram Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any constnuction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties
involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority
of the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 80
addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss
specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All
parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted
and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort.
Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City
of Chula Vista wouid include the City of Chula Vista and its Mitigation Monitor. The
Mitigation Monitor would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental
Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks
and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring
report (MMR) fonms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form.
Below the stated mitigation measure, the fonm will have a series of questions addressing
the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and
file it with the MM fOllowing the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the
conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to
be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major
accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in
achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems,
and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if
appropriate, each Environmental Monitor or Environmental Specialist will be required to
fill out and submit a daily log report to the Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be
used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or
monthly status reports, as detenmined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs
and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda,
telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula Vista
to confinm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on
the project.
Actions in Case of Noncomoliance
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the
adopted conditions of approval:
. Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
. Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or
task delay; and
. Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
CVRC Resolution No. 2007-008
Page 81
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program
should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies
include "stop work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations,
citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties invoived in the program
understand the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding
actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR
are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language
appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific
Plan has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated
monitor, the City of Chula Vista, will further refine the mitigation measures.
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Potential Significant Impact
I
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
l:A'E,$:rt;t_~r.,I,Q,S.il,1:~11llii:W!~m~i;i~~i~~~i~~~~r~~.~;~~~!~i~i~~~~~i~~a;'Ej~~rl;m!~{~~{~;~~~~::r~;!m~1~JllJig~~~1,~fji,~1~~i~~ji[~~J'i"~,~~'!~J
AesthetlcsNlsual Character. To
accommodate a three-fold increase in
population projected for the urban core
by the year 2030, redevelopment and
new development within the UCSP
Subdistricts Area would change the
existing visual character from mostly
low-rise (up to 48 feet in height) single-
Use commercial blocks surrounded by
mUlti-family residential blocks, to a mix
of low-risa (up to 45 feet in height) and
mid-rise (up to 84 feet in height) mixed-
use commerciaVoffice and residential
blocks, with high-rise structures (up to
210 feet in height) allowed in the areas
surrounding the existing E Street and H
Street trolley stations. Potentially
significant changes to existing visual
character, blue sky viaws, solar
access, and ventilation conditions
would resuK from this intensification in
land use.
To ensure avoidance of potentially
signfficant visual character impacts, all
subsequent development projecls in
the UCSP Subdistricts Area will be
required to comply with relevant UCSP
provisions, as outlined in Mitigation
Measure 5.2.5-1.
5.2.5-1: All subsequent development projects in the
UCSP Subdistricts Area shall comply with
UCSP development regulations and design
guidelines which are necessary to reduce or
avoid potential impacts to landform alteration
and visual quality (including blue sky views,
solar access, and ventilation), and which
may include but not be limited to the special
development regulations for mixed-use
projects (p. VI-43), the NTCD and TFA
regu lations (p. VI-40), and the siting and
architectural design guidelines for each
district (Chapter VII). Prior to approval of a
subsequent development project, the
Community Development Director or
Planning and Building Director of the City
shall identify the specific proviSions of the
UCSP which shall be included in the
conditions of approval in order to avoid or to
reduce potential impacts to below
significance.
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chule Vista
(CCV)
"On
'" -<
~;>:)
oon
IV;>:)
(1)
on
o
g
o'
i:l
Z
o
IV
o
o
--I
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Polential Significant Impact
Il' .1 "LJ;jF
Ught and Glare Effects. Light
sensitive activities (e.g. sleeping) could
potentially be adversely impacted by
light or glare in excess 01 baseline
conditions due to buildout of the UCSP
and intensification of land use.
However, various provisions in the
UCSP development regulations and
design guidelines (UCSP Chapters VI
and VII) serve to control light and glare
sources and ensure thai light pollution
and glare would be minimal.
To ensure avoidance of potential light
and glare impacts, all subsequent
development projecls in the UCSP
Subdistricts Area will be required to
comply with relevant UCSP provisions
as oullined in Mitigation Measure 5.2.5-
2.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
'E:S;nlilrr:tc:g~ l:oi1tt:~~~"".. '~~~1~~l!-,'l!i!~:'1l!':~j1,,!Ni :~i~'IJ<i,f~'tW,)1:i\!'!fi'l-~i['iji!~ij;~~~ ;i~.~~~f",'\\ii~'~[jfj!, .~'~l :'. r' it', .
5.2.5-2: All subsequent development projects in the Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
UCSP Subdistricts Area shall comply with Urban Core (CCV)
UCSP development reguiations and design Deveiopment Permit
guidelines which are necessary to reduce or (UCDP).
avoid potential adverse impacts to iight or
glare and which may include but not be
limited to the provisions included in section
5.2.3.3 a through e of this EIR. Prior to
approval of a subsequent development
project, the Community Development
Director or Planning and Building Director of
the City shall identify the specific provisions
of the UCSP which shall be included in the
conditions of approval in order to avoid or to
reduce potentiallighl and glare impacts to
below significance.
6
"'011
'" <
~;<:l
0011
w;<:l
"
"'
o
S
o'
:>
Z
?
IV
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Architectural Resources. So far
eleven buildings or sites within the
UCSP Subdistricts Area have been
locally designated or determined to be
eligible to be designated as historically
significant as defined in the CEQA
Guidelines. Six of the eleven sites are
currently listed on the Chula Vista List
of Historic Sites. The other five sites
were determined by a focused survey
in September 2005 to be eligible for
local listing. Without mitigation,
demolition or substantial aile ration of
any of lhese eleven historic resources
as a result of future development in
accordance with the proposed UCSP
would comprise a significant historical
architectural resources impact.
The area around Third Avenue and F
Street is considered the traditional
heart of the City and includes important
elements of the early residential and
business activities of the C~y. The
potential for the existence of other
unidentified historic properties is highly
probable given the number of older
commercial and residential structures
throughout the UCSP Subdistricts
Mitigation Measures
5.3.5-1: For a structure listed on, or eligible for listing
on, the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites or
State and Federal historic registers, the
project applicant shall retain the structure in-
place and maintain, repair, stabilize,
rehabilitate, restore, preserve or reconstruct
the structure in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring arid Reconstructing His/oric
Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer
("Secretary's Standards"). Prior to issuance
of an Urban Core Development Permit
(UCDP) or other discretionary permit, the
project applicant shall prepare detailed .
construction plans under the supervision of a
qualified architeclural historian or historic
architect for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director shall
retain, at the project applicant's expense, a
qualified historic architect to review the plans
and to certify that the project will comply with
the Secretary's Standards and would not
result in the loss of the structure's listing, or
eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
Federal register of historic resources.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"On
dii<
(1) ;:0
con
""";:0
(1)
en
o
[
o'
='
z
o
IV
o
o
--J
,
o
o
co
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
>>:.t~ j~f~~;~~:~~~~~~~~~~;;,~~i;~l~~,~i~~~tLifu':~;~~~;J~~~~~~Jr~~~~3~~~~i~~~~jgm~~~~~r~~;~~~rr!~~~~~l~~~,f~~~mEi\~1(~j~~~~ ,~~~~":j~~' ~m.. ~~ ,~,
Area. If significant historic resources
occur among these unidentified
struclures, their loss or substantial
alteration would comprise a significant
historical architeclural resources
impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
5.3.5-1, 5.3.5-2 and 5.3.5-4 would
reduce potential impacts 10 historic
resources to below a level of
significance. In some circumstances,
implementation of Mitigation Measure
5.3.5-3, which provides for
documentation of an historic resource,
would not miligale significant impacts
to a point where clearly no significant
effecl on Ihe environment would occur.
In thaI evenl, a potential impact to
historic resources may be significant
and unavoidable.
5.3.5-2: Where there is substantial evidence that it is
nol feasible for a structure lisled on or
eligible for listing on the Chula Vista Ust of
Historic Sites or State or Federal historic
registers 10 be retained in-place, the project
applicant shall provide for relocation and
maintenance, repair, stabilization,
rehabilitation, restoration or preservation of
the structure in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of Ihe Interior's Standards for the
Interior's Standards for the T rea/men/ of
Historic Proper-ties with Guidetines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995),
Weeks and Grimmer ("Secretary's
Standards") at a new location subject to the
approval of the City. Prior to issuance of an
Urban Core Development Permit (UCDP) ar
other discretionary permit, the project
applicant shall prepare detailed relocation
plans under the supervision of a qualified
architectural historian or historic architect for
review and approval by the Community
Development Director. The Community
Development Director shall retain, at the
project applicant's expense, a qualified
historic architect to review the plans and to
6
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or ather
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-on
p<
~'"
con
v,,,,
'"
V>
o
[
0'
"
z
o
w
o
o
-...J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
'.:~n;g~r~~~j~~i~~~i~i~W.~hi~;f~i%~~~ .
certify that the project will comply with the
Secretary's Standards and would not result
in the loss of the structure's listing, or
eligibility for listing, on the City, State or
Federal register of historic resources.
5.3.5-3: Where there is substantial evidence, as
determined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5 (b) (4), that it is not feasible for a
structure listed on or eligible for listing on the
Chura Vista List of Historic Sites or State or
Federal historic registers to be retained in-
piace or to be relocated to another location
satisfactory to the City, the project applicant
shall:
Provide for documentation of the
historical structure before it is removed
from the development site, including but
not limited to photographic documentation
of the exterior and interior of the structure,
and "as built" drawings of the structure
according to the standards of the Historic
American Building Survey (HABS, Level
I). Such historical documentation shall be
provided to the CVRC or RCC, as
applicable, before a demolition permit is
issued by the City for the structure.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approvai of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
. iI;if.'~; I
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"'n
~<
" :;0
ex>n
0'0:;0
"
'"
o
2"
~
o'
:J
Z
?
N
o
o
--.)
,
o
o
ex>
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
S
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~. Jli-jjU ;~;]t~~1f~~Ji~.j~~!w/~tf.,f,~~i~~i~~iLr~~,,~f=~~~~::~>f,~ _.:'~A~~~~~'p~1iU~~~~~~~!~lflk:'-\;~'~"(~;'ij~~~~H~~~*-~~_hff..E~~~'~~ii", _ ..:I~~~'~,_ ,I;~~
5.3.5-4: For those structures 45 years or older and
not previously evaluated, a determination of
historic significance shall be made based on
the significance criteria in Section 5.3.2 (and
repeated below) prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit.
A site or structure may be listed on the
Chula Vista List of Historic Sites if it
possesses integrity (of location, design,
setting, materiais, workmanship, feeling and
association), and meets at least qne of the
following criteria:
. Is associated with events that have made
a significant contribulion to the broad
patterns of history at the local, regional,
state or national level.
. Is associated with the lives of significant
persons in the past on a local, regional,
state or national level.
. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values.
10
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
>-on
~<
<1> ?:I
con
-.J?:I
(J)
en
o
2"
-
o'
"
z
o
tv
o
o
....,
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(contlnuedl
Mitigation Measures
J~~~~;1~r,~I~!~~~11jl~~~~g~~mmt!~~'. ~ ~,7~~1~~\;;m<\~!r ~,;~t~!LP~~~j~~K~~1~~~~~t~~1~~~Y;.<t\~g.'~1~f,~~~~f" "
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Archaeological Resources. The
UCSP Subdistricts Area is mapped as
having low sensitivity for the
occurrence of archaeological
resources. Although the likelihood of
encountering significant archaeological
resources and human remains is low,
the potential does exist. In the unlikely
event that prehistoric cullural materials
are found during subsurface
disturbance resulling from future
developments, there would be a
significant archaeological impact.
. Has yielded or may be likely to yield,
infonnation important in history or
prehistory.
If a resource is determined by the City to be
historically significant pursuant to the above
iisted cr~eria, Mitigation Measure 5.3.5-2,
5.3.5-3, or 5.3.5-4 shall be implemented as
applicable.
5.3.5-5: The likelihood of encountering
archaeological resources is low within the
UCSP Subdistricts Area. The following
mitigation shall only be applied to projects
which involve subsurface excavation to the
depth of greater than or equal to six feet, or
for any project site that has not had
substantial previous excavation. Prior to
approval of any construction permits,
including but not limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit, the Community
Development Director shall verify that the
requirements for Archaeological Monitoring
and Native American monitoring, if
applicable, have been noted on the
appropriate construction documents.
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demol~ion Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permil
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"t:l()
~<
" '"
oo()
00",
"
en
o
S
o'
::>
Z
o
N
o
o
.....,
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTiNG PROGRAM
(continued)
i"5,,~~~~~tr~'<,1~ftjJ:;i~jj;lm:~i1~i;j~~~~~!~ff.f~~f~;!~~r~~~~1~,}fi~{~~~.~~~~Jl!j;~~~:~,t~';:\~ll~:1~!i1fj~~~l~~~"~~~~~~!J~~~i~mt~;~
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
. The applicant/developer shall submit
documentation to the Community
Development Director identifying the
qualified Principal Investigator (PI) for the
project and the names of all persons
involved in the archaeological monitoring
program, the areas to be monitored, and
a construction schedule indicating when
and where monitoring will occur.
. During construction, the monitor shall be
present full-time during soil remediation
and grading/excavation/trenching
activities which could result in impacts to
archaeological resources, and shall
document field activity and in the case of
any discoveries.
. In the event of a discovery, the
Archaeological Monitor shall direct the
contractor to temporarily divert trenching
activities in the area of discovery and
immediately notify the resident engineer
or building inspector, as appropriate. The
monitor shan immediately notify the PI
(unless the Monitor is the PI) of the
discovery and the PI and Native American
representative, if applicable, shall
evaluate the significance of the resource.
12
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
"'On
'" <
~?;:I
con
"'?;:I
"
en
o
[
o'
i:l
Z
!'
'"
o
o
--J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
M~igation Measures
ft j;,;;;\t~W\;~~"~g~!1l,~;~~Wiji~j~~i~:~~f-r.~.~,,~ .!~~~("';'~f~1i[1~"~iq~llM~r~gI~L~~~~1~~~!lJJimfm~~:~;~tij~!~~l~~'i~:' ~~I!i~~1iip.r." ;:-"~,~~G.'.; ; ;j,
. Once encountered, artifacts associated
with an archaeological feature or deposit
are required to be documented in place,
analyzed in a laboratory setling and
prepared for curation in accordance with
CEQA provisions and local guidelines.
. if human remains are discovered, work
shall hall in that area and the procedures
set forth in the California Public
Resources 'Code (Sec. 5097.98) and
State Health and Safety Code (Sec.
7050.5) shall be undertaken.
~-:'.~;m;;J
>-on
~<
<> ~
'On
o~
<>
en
o
[
o'
::s
Z
"
N
o
o
-..]
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Geologic Hazards. The UCSP area is
polentially subject to strong ground
shaking by an earthquake along the
active Rose Canyon fault zone, or
other active faulls in the region. The
UCSP Subdistricts Area may
additionally be subject to liquefaction
along ils western boundary.
Compressible and expansive soils also
have the potential to be encountered
by future development throughout the
Subdistricts Area. Buildout of the
UCSP would result in an increase in
housing, office space, retail space, and
hotels that would be subject to these
potentially significant seismic and soils
hazards. Thererore, there would be a
proportionate increase in personal and
property damage as the population
within the urban core increases.
Mitigation Measures
5.4.5-1: Prior to the approval of each subsequent
development project, the project applicant
shall submit a comprehensive soil and
geologic evaluation of the project site to the
City Engineer andlor Building Official for
review and approval. The evaluation shall
be prepared by a licensed geotechnical
engineer in order to identify sile-specific
conditions and to determine whether
potential soil and geologic hazards exist on
the sileo The evaluation shall include, but
not be limited to, a delineation of specific
locations where liquefiable, compressive,
and expansive soils would affect structural
stability and where graded slopes would
expose bedrock susceptible to instability.
Liqueriable, expansive, or compressive soils
shall be removed from the sile and shall be
replaced with compacted fill.
14
Prior to the approval of
any building permits,
including but not
limited to the Urban
Core Development
Permit (UCDP).
_W~)"L,!~
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
>-on
~<
'" iO
'-On
~iO
ro
on
o
~
o.
::s
Z
!='
'"
o
o
-.I
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Agency
~.
Implementation of project-specific 5.4.5-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
mitigation measures would be required each subsequent development project, the any building permits, (CCV)
to reduce or avoid significant impacts Cily Building Official shall verify thai the including but not
resulting from ground shaking, design of all structures proposed for a limited to the Urban
liquefaction, and compressible and specific site comply with the requirements of Core Development
expansive soils. all federal, slate and local building codes Permit (UCDP).
and regulations goveming earthquake safety
and structural stability and with the standard
practices of the Association of Structural
Engineers of California.
Construction on liquefiable soils could
result In injuries or loss of property
during ground shaking of sufficient
magnitude and duration. Expansive
soils within pavement, foundation, or
slab subgrade could heave when
welled, resulting in cracking or failure
of these devalopment improvements.
Development on compressible soils
could potentially sellle under increased
load and damage structures, roads,
and property.
"On
~ -<
" :;<l
'On
N:;<l
"
'"
o
[
o'
::;
z
o
N
o
o
'"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
"00
po <
~:>;:l
~o
W:>;:l
(1)
en
o
~
o'
=>
Z
?
N
o
o
-.)
,
o
o
00
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Pa/eontalglcal SensItIvity. The UCSP
area contains a large expanse of
moderate paleontological resource
sensitivity. Exposure or disturbance of
unnamed nearshore marine sandstone
and the Linda Vista Formation would
potenlially significantly impact
paleontological resources. Because the
UCSP area is fully developed with
urban uses, future grading would
typically be minimal except in areas
with sub-garages and sub-floors.
Development proposed in areas of
moderate sensitivity that propose to
grade in excess of 2000 cubic yards
and five reet deep wilt require
mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
5.5-1: Subsequent development projects that
propose grading in excess of 2,000 cubic
yards and five feet depth in areas of moderate
sensitivity for paieontoiogical resources shall
be required to implement a pre-construction
or construction monitoring program, or both,
as a condition of approval. All mitigation
programs shall be performed by a quaiified
professional paleontologist, defined here as
an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who has proven
experience in San Diego County paleontology
and who is knowledgeable in professional
paleontological procedures and techniques.
Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, defined here as an
individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor shall always work
under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
16
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit.
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigalion Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Pre-construclion mitigation. This method of
mitigation is only applicable to instances
where well-preserved and significant fossil
remains, discovered in the assessment
phase, would be destroyed during initial
clearing and equipment move-on. The
individual tasks of this program include:
1. Surface prospecting for exposed fossil
remains, generally involving inspection 'of
existing bedrock outcrops but possibly also
excavalion of test trenches;
2. Surface collection of discovered fossil
remains, typically involving simple
excavation of the exposed specimen but
possibly also plaster jacketing of large
and/or fragile specimens or more elaborate
quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous
deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data
to provide a context for the recovered fossil
remains, typically including description of
lithologies of fossil-bearing strata.
measurement and description of the overall
stratigraphic section, and photographic
documentation of the geologic setting;
Time Frame of
Mitigalion
"On
~ -<
" ;Aj
\On
-l'o-;Aj
"
'"
o
[
o'
::>
Z
?
'"
o
o
-.J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and
repair) of collected fossil remains,
generally involving removal of enclosing
rock materiat, stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues and other
hardeners), and repair of broken
specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared
fossil remains, typically involving scientific
identificalion of specimens, inventory of
specimens. assignment of catalog
numbers, and entry of data into an
inventory database;
6. Transferal. for storage, of cataioged fossil
remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains
paleontological colleclions (including the
fossil specimens, copies of all field notes,
maps, stratigraphic sections, and
photographs); and
7. Preparalion of a final report summarizing
the field and laboratory methods used, the
stratigraphic units inspected, the types of
fossils recovered, and the significance of
the curated collection.
18
>-co
6'6<
<1>;:0
",0
v,;:o
<1>
V>
o
S.
o'
=>
z
o
t-.J
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
"On
'" <:
'Iii ;>:l
'On
O\;>:l
"
V>
o
~
o'
=
Z
?
N
o
o
-..)
,
o
o
00
Mijigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Construction mitigation. Under this program.
mitigation occurs while excavation operations
are underway. The scope and pace of
excavation generally dictate the scope and
pace of mitigation. The individuallasks of a
construction mitigation program typically
include:
1. Moniloring of excavation operations to
discover unearthed fossii remains,
generally involving inspection of ongoing
excavation exposures (e.g., sheet graded
pads, cut slopes, roadcuts, basemenl
excavations, and trench sidewalls);
2. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains,
typically involving simple excavation of the
exposed specimen but possibly also plaster
jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens,
or more elaborate quarry excavations of
richly fossiliferous deposits;
3. Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data
to provide a context for the recovered fossil
remains, typically including description of
lithoiogies of fossil-bearing strata,
measurement and description of the overall
stratigraphic section, and photographic
documentation of the geologic setting;
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
4. Laboratory preparation (cleaning and
repair) of collected fossil remains, generally
involving removal of enclosing rock
malerial, stabilization of fragile specimens
(using glues and other hardeners), and
repair of broken specimens;
5. Cataloging and identification of prepared
fossil remains, typically involving scientific
identification of specimens, inventory of
specimens, assignment of catalog
numbers, and entry of data into an
inventory database;
6. Transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil
remains to an accredited institution
(museum or university) that maintains
paleontological collections, including the
fossil specimens, copies of all field notes.
maps, stratigraphic sections and
photographs; and
7. Preparation of a final report summarizing
the field and laboratory methods used. the
stratigraphic units inspected, the types of
fossils recovered, and the significance of
the curated collection.
20
0,
r.;" .~
.,
~,,~J~iv_,if
"'tln
'" <:
~~
\On
--J~
"
OJ>
o
S
o'
~
z
o
IV
o
o
--J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Time Frame of
Mitigalion
Surface and Ground Water Quality.
Implementation of the proposed UCSP
would allow a three-fold increase in
population end associated
intensificalion of existing urban land
uses which would likely result in a
substanlial increase in direct runoff to
drainage basins, municipal storm
sewer systems, and eventual drainage
to surface waler andlor the ocean. This
runoff will likely contain Iypical urban
runoff pollutanls such as sediment,
pathogens, heavy metals, petroleum
products, nutrients (phosphates and
nitrates) and trash. This comprises a
polentially significanllong-term water
quality impact.
The potenliallong-term impacts to
water qualily which may result from
implementalion of the proposed UCSP
would be required 10 be reduced to
acceptable levels through the
mandatory controls imposed by local,
state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measures
5.7-1: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, compliance with all
applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations regarding water quality (e.g.
JURMP, SUSMP, NPDES, SWPP, and City
Development and Redevelopment Projects
Storm Water Manual) shall be demonstrated
to the satisfaction of lhe City Engineer.
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolilion Permil, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"1:1(')
~ <
" ?:1
'0(')
00?:1
"
'"
o
[
o'
"
Z
?
IV
o
o
-..J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significanllmpact
Time Frame of
Mitigation
"iw.',l;
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
Selecled provisions of the UCSP that
allow and encourage native plant
landscaping and sustainable building
practices (water input and waste
efficiencies, living roofs, bioswales,
etc.) would potentially lessen future
runoff volumes, flow rate and pollutant
concentration.
The construction activities of
subsequent individual projects would
also potentially cause short-term water
quelity impacts through direct
discharge of pollutants, soil
excavation/sedimentation, and through
encountering of shallow groundwater
during subfJoor grading. This
comprises e potantially significant
short-term waler quality impact.
Mitigation Measures
5.7-2: Prior 10 approval of subsequent individual
development projects, project applicants shall
demonstrate to the satisfaelion of the City
Engineer that the proposed on-site slorm
drain systems fully miligate drainage impacts
and meet all federal, state, and regional water
quality objectives and all City standards and
requirements. Land development
construction drawings and associated reports
shall include details, notes, and discussions
relative to the required or recommended Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Permanent
storm water BMP requirements shall be
incorporated into the project design and all
subsequent individual development projects
are required 10 complete the applicable Storm
Water Compliance Form and comply with the
City of Chula Vista's Storm Water
Managemenl Standards Requirements
Manual.
22
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
'""On
Jii<
'" '"
\On
\0",
"
en
o
[
o.
::l
Z
o
tv
o
o
--.J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
t' ;;~, i:~f,i
Mitigation Measures
":rjjII~ :i:', ~~!~~~~~?'f~i!i~~~lf~~~~f'~W:"m_~L~. ,~! '~.~;;
5.7-3: The City of Chula Vista requires that all new
development and significant redevelopment
projects comply with the requirements of the
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01.
According to said permit, all projects falling
under the Prior~y Development Project
Categories are required to comply with the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Pians
(SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria, Future
projects shall comply with all applicable
regulations, established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit requirements for urban runoff and
storm water discharge, and any regulations
adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to
the NPDES regulations and requirements.
Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource
Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the first
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
"0(')
~ -<
(J> :;>;:I
-(')
8:;>;:1
(J>
en
o
<=
-
o.
::;
z
o
tv
o
o
'-'
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
I.ll" ..'Qqi)!!
~i~!~~~~;, _if -~: . .~~~~~t~.. !~~ir#~ri.,t.
Mitigation Measures
implement a Storm..Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities. The
SWPP shall include both construction and
post-construction pollution prevention and
pollution control measures, and shall identify
funding mechanisms for the maintenance of
post-construction oontrol measures.
5.7-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual development
projects shall demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director,
conformance with Mediterranean/indigenous
landscaping and other relevant design
recommendations provided in UCSP Chapter
VII Development Design Guidelines.
24
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Visla
(CCV)
"'0(')
po <
~:>:l
-(')
8:>:l
(1)
en
o
[
o'
t:l
Z
P
N
o
o
-..J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
" iii
Road Segments and Intersections
level of Service. A substantial
increase in traffic on area roadways
and at area intersections will result
from planned population growth in the
urban core area over the next 25
years. Without the intersection and
roadway improvements envisioned in
the proposed UCSP, by year 2030
conditions, 2 road segments and 19
intersections would operate at
unacceptable LOS E or worse during
peak traffic periods. This comprises a
significant traffic impact prior to
mitigation.
The significant Impacts to intersections
will be mitigated to below significance
by implementation of the improvements
recommended in Mitigation Measure
5.6.5-1, with the exception of #27
BroadwaylH Street, #33 Hilltop Drive/H
Street and #54 Third Avenue/J Street.
Impacts to these 3 intersections would
remain significant and unmitigated.
Mitigation Measures
:t~~'.. . :~~~~~~~~: "-'-.,' "' ,.i!fJ~ '_.
5.6.5 -1: Intersection Improvements. Impacts to the
1 g affected intersections wiil be mitigated to
below significance by the implementation of
improvements thai have been divided into
three tiers for phased implementation based
on need and enhancement of the 'overail
street network. Generally, time frames
associated with the tiered improvements are
anticipated as short-, mid- and long-term. In
each tier, the City's existing TMP will
determine the order in which projects are
implemented during the biannual CIP
program review. The Tier 1 improvements
would be included in the current CIP and
sUbsequentty monitored for improvement
within the first five years of implementation
of the UCSP. It should be noted that three of
the intersections (#7, #16, and #21) are
proposed as project features rather than as
needed to improve intersection LOS and
most likely will be related to and timed with
implementation of streetscape
improvements along Third Avenue.
Three-tiered phasing
of impiementation
based on need. Tier 1,
short-term,
improvements are to
occur within the first
five years of
implementation of the
UCSP or as may be
modified by results of
the annual Traffic
Monitoring Program
(TMP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"t:In
'" <
~;:o
-n
S;:o
"
'"
o
[
o'
::>
Z
?
tv
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
... "., .Iiil
Recommendations at intersections
#27, #33, and #54 do not improve
conditions to an acceptable LOS due to
ROWand design constraints. The
following describes the constraints at
the three intersections:
. At the Broadway/H Street
inlersection (#27), an additional
northbound and southbound through
lane would be required in order to
achieve an acceptable LOS D
conditions. However, this
improvement would require
extensive widening of Broadway
and H Street to allow for lane drops.
Furthermore, this widening would
create longer pedestrian crossings.
As such, Ihe recommended
improvements of Ihe eastbound
queue jumper lane and the
additional westbound through and
right-turn lanes would improve the
interseelion from LOS F to LOS E
conditions.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Mijigation Measures
- ~~~~~il~~4i..,iR~~ ~~I~jf!?':;;:.'H,~j~i~~~~i;llii~t~'.;
The inlersection numbers in the
improvements described below correspond
to the interseclion numbering system used in
the TIA (Appendix C of this EIR):
a. Tier 1 Improvements
. #1 Bay Boulevardll-5 Southbound
Ramp/E Street: Add an eastbound
through and right-turn lane, southbound
right-turn lane, and northbound right-turn
lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be
reqUired for this improvement. .
. #2 1-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a
westbound righi-turn lane. Coordination
with Caltrans will be required for this
improvement
. #7 Third Avenue/E Street: Convert the
northbound and southbound shared right-
through lane into exclusive right-turn
lanes.
. #16 Third Avenue/F Street: Separate the
southbound shared through-right lane into
an exclusive through and righi-turn lanes,
convert the northbound shared through-
right lane into an exclusive right-turn lane.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
; ~ft.r~~'~ ::>~i: .~=~~~ ~;..,- "
26
>-en
&i<
" ;>;:I
-n
8;>;:1
"
'"
o
C
o.
o
::l
Z
P
tv
o
o
-.J
.
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significent Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
ill,
. Atlhe Hilltop Drive/H Street
intersection (#33), no improvements
would be recommended due to
ROW constraints. The poor LOS at
this intersection is primarily caused
by the high traffic volumes in the
eastbound/westbound movements.
Additional through and/or turn lanes
would be required in order to
improve this intersection to an
acceptable LOS. With no
improvements, this intersection
would remain at LOS E during both
peak periods.
. At the Third Avenue/J Street
intersection (#54), the required
improvement of an additional
southbound right-turn lane would
impact the existing commercial
buitding (Henry's Marketplace),
which Is built adjacent to the
sidewalk. Therefore, this
improvement is not recommended.
. #21 Third Avenue/G Street: Convert the
northbound/southbound shared through-
right lane into exclusive righHurn lanes.
. #24 1-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street: Add
a southbound left, eastbound through and
right-turn lanes. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
. #25 1-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street Add
a westbound through and right-turn iane
and restripe south approach to
accommodate dual left-turn lanes.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street: Change
Woodlawn Avenue to a one-way couplet.
This improvement is required 10 serve the
intense redevelopment occurring on both
sides of H Street. The coupiet
Improvement is not required mitigation
further north toward E Street.
. #27 Broadway/H Street Add an
eastbound transit queue jumper lane and
westbound through and right-turn lanes.
-on
J'6<
" i"
-n
~i"
"
V>
o
S
o'
::l
Z
?
IV
o
o
--.)
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
It4; '! c" , ,- fjtn~"_,~~?~".
As a result, the LOS would remain
at LOS E. However, if the property
were to redevelop in the future,
additional ROW could ba obtained
for the southbound righHurn lane,
While existing TransNet funding is
expected to cover some of the costs of
roadway and transit improvements and
existing traffic signal fees currently
collected as new development occurs
would be applied, as appropriate, to
Identified signal-phasing
improvements, the Facilities
Implementation Analysis (FIA) has
identified proposed development fees
that may be needed to fund some of
the recommended traffic
improvements, In addition, some of the
improvements will require right of way
dedications either as part of the
development process or concurrent
with capital improvements, and/or
coordination with Caltrans,
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
.''''',. -.,
":~!.11~~!1
. #26 Fifth Avenue/H Street: Change the
northbound/southbound approaches to
include protective plus permissive
phasing and add a westbound right-turn
lane.
. #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street: Add an
eastbound/westbound right-turn lane.
. #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound
Ramp: Add an eastbound "right-turn iane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
:_.'";,o~; :iij;qr~'ll~lr~~i~m~~~ii~~f~~~~r~~~iii -"
b. Tier 2 Improvements
. . #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp:
Add a westbound right-turn lane,
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #59 J StreeUI-5 Northbound Ramp: Add
an eastbound ieft-turn and westbound
right-turn lane. Coordination with Caltrans
will be required for this improvement.
26
>-on
!>l <
~~
-n
:5;~
'"
en
o
S
o'
'"
Z
?
tv
o
o
-.)
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
it: 'QIQf~ '~rj;;~
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
. #61 L StreeUBay Boulevard: Signalize the
intersection, add a southbound left-turn
lane, and a northbound right-turn overlap
phase to the traffic signal.
. #63 Bay Boulevardll-5 Southbound
Rarnp: Signalize the interseclion.
Coordination with Callrans will be
required for this improvement.
. #64 Industrial Boulevardll-5 Northbound
Ramp: Signalize lhe intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be
required for this improvement.
. H Street from four lanes to six lanes from
1-5 to Broadway
c. Tier 3 Improvements
. #13 Broadway/F Street: Add an
eastbound right-turn lane.
. #45 Fourth AvenuelBrisbane Stree!: Add
a southbound right-turn overlap phase to
the traffic signal.
. #57 Second Avenue/D Street: Convert to
an all-way stop controlled intersection.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
-0 n
Q> <:
LCl ;0
ron
..... ;0
om
'" V>
o
<::
n-
o
::>
:z
o
N
o
'"
-.J
I
'"
'"
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
-0 n
'" <:
<.Cl ;0
ron
>-' ;0
C> ro
'-.Iv>
o
<=
<+
o
::>
:z
o
Polential Significant Impact
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
. ~~~~l~~~~Iifi..~~p~~~l~~~~~t~
On an annual basis during buildout of the
UCSP, the City shali apply the TMP to
monitor actual performance of the street
system in the Subdistricts Area by conducting
roadway segment travel time studies in
accordance wilh the City's Growth
Management Program and Traffic Threshold
Standards. The results of the annual study
under the TMP wili be used by the City to
determine the timing and need for
implementation of improvements to the
nineteen intersections identified above as
having potential significant impacts. The City
shall implement the inlersection
improvements in phases based on the results
of the annual TMP and on need and
enhancemenllo the function of the overall
street network. In addition 10 determining
timing and need, this systems and operations
monitoring approach should also be used to
further ascertain final design details of the
interseclion improvements and may include
consideration of the effects on traffic flow as
well as the impacts/benefits to other travel
modes (e.g., pedestrians and bicycles) that
are foundational to the successful
implementation of the Specific Plan.
30
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
N
CJ
CJ
'-J
I
CJ
CJ
())
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
t
The potential significant impacts to
street segments will be mitigated to
below significance by implementation
of the improvements recommended in
~"~;~;ya~;ull IY'C'd::;UI tt o.o,o-l, with the
exception of Third A ven ue between E
and G Streets. The significant and
unavoidable impact to this street
segment resun from the design of the
project, which is intended to reduce
Third Avenue to a two~ane downtown
promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the
traditional commercial village. Although
the planned improvements would result
in an unaccepteble LOS, they would
meet the project objectives of creating
a more pedestrian friendly and active
streetscape that will accommodate
multi-modes of transportation rather
than accommodating only the
automobile.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.8.5-2: Segment Improvements. During build-out of
the UCSP, the City shall apply the Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the
Subdistricts Area by conducting roadway
segment traveltime studies in accordance
with the City's Growth Management
Program and Traffic Threshold Standards.
The results of the annual study under the
TMP will be used by the City to determine
the timing and need for implementation of
improvements to the street segments
identified as having potential significant
impacts. The City shall implement the
following street segment improvemenls:
(1) based on the results of the annual TMP;
or (2) based on need and enhancement to
the function of the overall street network;
and (3) in a manner that efficiently
implements with phasing of necessary
adjacent intersection improvements.
Timing of
implementation based
on (1) results of the
annual Traffic
Monitoring Program
(TMP); (2) need and
enhancement to the
function of the overall
street network; and
(3) in a manner that
efficiently implements
with phasing of
necessary adjacent
intersection
improvements.
City of Chuta Vista
(CCV)
-on
~ -<
ro :>;:I
......n
0:>;:1
0:>"
'"
2-
g
o'
::;
z
o
N
o
o
......
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
~if~ff~';~~~~~m;~~~~'
1) H Street between 1-5 and Broadway
would be reclassified as a six-lane
gateway. As a result, .the acceptable AOT
would increase and result in an
acceptable LOS.
2) Third Avenue between E Street and G
Street would be constructed as a two-lane
downtown promenade to facilitate"an
enhanced pedestrian environment along
the traditional commercial village. As a
result, the acceptable ADT along the
segment would decrease and result in an
unacceptable LOS, As such, impacts to
Third Avenue will be significant and
unavoidable. However, the Third Avenue
corridor intersections at E, F and G
Streets would all operate at an acceptable
LOS.
32
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
-o()
'" <
~?'
......()
a?'
'-""
'"
o
"
~
o'
"
z
o
N
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
:; j~' "~~;!~~'~,-. 'j"';r~1t~~~'4~; ;!;<~ ..r iif~.
Due to Ihe long-term nature of some of 5.8.5- 3:Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
the improvements, the fee program Development Permit, subsequent
and coordination have either not been development projects shall prepare a traffic
implemented or begun, respectively, assessment to quantify the projects'
whereas the right of way exactions potential traffic impacts. Subsequent
would occur w~h redevelopment. While projects will be required to contribute their
these improvements are intended to be fair share to the Tiered Improvements iisted
implemented when necessary and above under Mitigation 5.8.5.1. M~igation
within the Tiers noted above, their may be in the form of:
long-term implementation cannot be 1. Payment of Transportation Development
assured at this tima. Identified Impact Fee (TO IF), as may be
significant impacts will ba partially established in the future for the western
mitigated but due to the lack of lunding portion 01 the City;
assurances at this time, luture
coordination with CAL TRANS and 2. Payment of existing Traffic impact Signal
Fee;
SANDAG, and future right of way
axactions, impacts are considered 3. Construction 01 improvements within the
significant and unmitigated. project boundaries; and/or
4. Early advancement of improvements
beyond the project boundaries, subject to
a reimbursement agreement.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
C~y of Chuta Vista
(CCV)
-o()
'" -<
~ :;0
.....()
""':;0
0"
en
o
~
o'
::s
Z
?
N
o
o
""
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
}~- ';) i~ill~~~1!~1i8f~~, 'ili~!~~~}'~~~~~~: :f~im '~'.r
The City's TDIF program for the west side of
the City, including the Urban Core is
anticipated to be developed within the
subsequent twelve months following
adoption of the UCSP. The TDIF will clearly
establish the costs of the improvements
identified above as well as the fair share
costs to be applied to all subsequent
development projects. Once the TDIF has
been estabiished, the fee will be consistently
applied to all subsequent development
projects, until such time that the TOIF is
amended or rescinded. In the interim, if
subsequent development projects are
processed and approved prior to the
establishment of a TOIF, a condition of
approval will be included that prior to
issuance of building permits the project will
contribute to the TOlF, as may be
established.
34
Time Frame of
Mitigation
"0
"" <:
~:;<l
>-,0
>-':;<l
>-'(J)
en
o
;:;-
-
o'
"'
z
o
N
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(conllnued)
Potential Significant Impact
,-' 'il1
Pedestrian, Bicycling and Public
Transit. The three-fold increase in
population projected for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area by 2030 would place
greater demands on public transit
services. However, provisions of the
UCSP serve to benefit, rather than to
deteriorate, mobility conditions for
pedestrians, bicyclists and public
trans~ users. Additionally, the UCSP
does not conflict with any adopted
plans or programs supporting
aRernative transportation.
Impacts to allernative forms of
transportation as a result of the
proposed UCSP would not be
significant nor adverse given
adherence of subsequent projects to
relevant regulations and guidelines of
the UCSP as outlined in Mitigation
Measure 5.6.5-4.
Time Frame of
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
"'~~fii!lti ,iii!~~':~. ....,~ -
5.6.5-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Prior to the approval of
Development Permit for subsequent an Urban Core
development projects, the traffic assessrnent Development Permit
prepared to quantify the projects' potential (UCDP) or other
traffic impacts will also identify how discretionary permit.
aRemative modes of transportation will be
accommodated. Mitigation may be in the
form of:
1) Compliance with the development
regulations and design guidelines of the
UCSP to accomniodate pedestrians,
bicyclists and public transit; and
2) Where applicable, construction of
improvements within the project
boundaries; andlor
3} Early advancement of improvements
beyond the project boundaries, subject to
a reimbursement agreement.
Mon~oring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"'n
"'<
~?;j
......n
......?;j
N('O
en
o
2"
-
o'
::l
Z
?
N
o
o
--.J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITOR,ING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
~ .~~~mi~i~~J - .'
5.8.5-5: Prior to issuance or an Urban Core
Development Permit, subsequent
development projects shall comply with the
parking standards set forth in the UCSP
development reguiations and design
guidelines for the type and intensity of
development proposed.
Parking. A projected total of 18,56(1
parking spaces would be required to
serve future development of the
proposed UCSP at buildout.
Potential significant impacts to parking
would be reduced to below significance
by the incorporetion of these
development regulations and design
guidelines into subsequent
development projects, as required as
part of the UCSP design review
process. Parking improvements will
either be made on-site (I.e. where
required of subsequent development
projects), or off-site (I.e. in coordination
with the City's Parking District or in
Lieu Fee program). A number of other
parking improvement strategies are
included in the UCSP including raking
buffers, parking districls and parking
structures.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
36
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chuta Vista
(CCV)
-on
." <
<0;<:1
rt> n
~;<:I
wOJ
en
o
;:
-
o'
"
z
o
N
o
o
--.J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame 01 Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Agency
~ID~~J_i!!i'.d~j~~.Jil_J~!.U~"~~'l~.~~~
I
I
Multl-Jurlsdlctlonal Efforts. The 5.8.5-6: The City shall participate in a mulli- To coincide with multi-
proposed UCSP will resull in both jurisdictional effort conducted by Caltrans year planning effort
direct and cumulatively significant end SANDAG to assist in developing a . that began June 200S,
traffic impacts to. study area freeway detailed engineering study of the freeway is ongoing and
segments and ramps. As described right..(}f-way that will identify transportation scheduled to conclude
above under Road Segments and . improvements along with funding. including in three to five years.
Intersections Level of Service the federal, state, regional. and local funding
following freeway interchange~ would sources: and ph?sing, that would reduce
be significanlly impacted by the congestion consistent With Callrans
proposed UCSP. Standards on the 1-5 South corridor from the
. State Route 54 (SR-54) interchange to State
o #1: Bay Boulevardll-S SB ramp at E Route 75 (SR-7S)/Palm Avenue {the "1-5
Street (LOS E - AM Peak, LOS F - South Corridor") (hereinafter, the "Plan).
PM Peak); Local funding sources may include fair share
o #2: I-S NB Ramp at E Street (LOS E contributions by private development based
- AM and PM Peak); on nexus as well as other mechanisms. The
o #24: '-S SB Ramp at H Street (LOS F Plan required by this mitigation shall include
_ PM Peak); the foliowlng:
o #25: 1-5 NB Ramp at H Street (LOS F 1) The responsible entities (the 'Entities')
- PM Peak)' included in this effort will include, but may
. not be limited to the City, the Port,
o #34: Broadway at SR-54 WB Ramp SANDAG, and Caltrans. Other entities
(LOS F - AM Peak); may be included upon the concurrence of
o #44: Fourth Avenue at SR-54 EB the foregoing Entities.
Ramp (LOS F - PM Peak);
City of Chula Vista
(CCV), in cooperation
with other
jurisdictions.
-on
~ <
'" :>:I
.....n
.....:>:1
... '"
en
o
~
o'
::J
Z
!'
N
o
o
....,
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significanllmpact Mitigation Measures
i' '" ,10 'iif5i1f: ~:"~3~-;".-~"\Ii)l[~~,;~~~-;;
o #59: J Street at 1-5 NB Ramp (LOS F 2) The Plan will specifically identify physical
- AM Peak, LOS E - PM Peak); and operational improvements to 1-5,
o #63: Bay Boulevard at 1-5 SB Ramp relevant arterial roads and transit facilities
(LOS F - AM and PM Peak); and (the "Improvements"), that are focused on
o #64: Industrial Boulevard at 1-5 NB specific transportation impacts and will
also identify the fair share responsibilities
Ramp (LOS F - PM Peak). of each Entity for the construction and
The monitoring of traffic as stipulated financing for each Improvement The
by Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-1 will Plan may also identify other
assist in eslablishing the need and improvements necessary to address
timing for transportation improvements, regional transportation needs, but for
including freeway-related purposes of this mitigation measure, the
improvements, serving the UCSP area. Improvements included in the Plan need
In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-3 only be designed to mitigate the impacts
requires subsequent development created by the Proposed Project
projects to prepare a traffic 3) The Plan will set forth a timerine and other
assessment to quantify the project's agreed-upon relevant criteria for
potential traffic impacts. Subsequent implementation of each Improvement.
projects will also be required to
contribute their fair share to the Tiered
Improvements listed above under
Mitigation 5.8.5.1.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
38
"On
~<
'" :;0
>-,n
>-':;0
<..n"
V>
2..
<=
~
o'
::l
Z
o
N
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation of impacts will require
development and regional acceptance
of a feasible program to improve
freeway segments and ramps in the
Urban Core area. The City, along wilh
Caltrans, and SANDAG will continue to
pursue and promote improvement of
the 1-5 freeway facilities adjacent to the
UCSP area. The concept of
promoting/requiring "'air-share"
contributions on the part of developers
for improvements to the freeway
system will need to be addressed as
part of the implementation of an
acceptable program to improve
freeway segments and ramps. As
such, the specification of such
requirements cannot be detemnined at
this time. Miligation Measure 5.8.5-6
was developed to ensure the continued
participetion in regional transportation
planning efforts by the City, Canrans,
SANDAG, and other entilies as may be
identified.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
4) The Plan will identify the total estimated
design and construction cost for each
Improvement and the responsibility of
each Entily for both implementation and
funding of such costs.
5) The Plan will include the parameters for
any fair-share funding contributions to be
implemented, that would require private
and/or public developers to contribute to
the costs, in a manner that will comply
with applicable law.
6) In developing the Plan, the Entities shall
aiso consider ways in which the
Improvements can be coordinated wilh
existing local and regional transportation
and facilities financing plans and
programs, in order to avoid duplication of
effort and expenditure; however, the
existence of such other plans and
programs shall not relieve the Entities of .
their collective obligation to develop and
implement the Plan as set forth in this
mitigation measure. Nothing in the Plan
shall be construed as relieving any Entity
(or any other entity) from its Independent
responsibility (if any) for the
implementation of any transportation
improvement.
-on
'" <
<.C :>;:I
'" n
~:>;:I
"'~
o
;;:
o'
::s
Z
;:>
N
o
o
-...)
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potenlial Significant Impact
,/l j llII;~"'''~
The City of Chula Vista shall continue
to work with SANDAG and Callrans on
an ongoing basis to identify sources
and obtain funding for a variety of
transportation system improvements.
Future residenlial growth in the Urban
Core will be subject to the Regional
Transportation Congeslion
Improvement Program, as stipulated by
the Transnet legislation and will provide
additional funds for improvement of the
regional arterial system.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
7) The City shall seek adoption of the Plan
before the City Council upon the
completion of the multi-jurisdictional effort
to develop the Plan. The City shall report,
to their governing bodies regarding the
progress made to develop the Plan within
six months of the first meeting of the
Entities. Thereafter, the City shall report
at least annually regarding the progress
of the Plan, for a period of not less than
five years, which may be extended at the
request of the City Council.
B) The Plan shall also expressly include
each Entity's pledge that it will cooperate
with each other in implementing the Plan.
The failure or refusal of any Entity other than
the City to cooperate in the implementation of
this mitigation measure shall not constitute
failure of the City to implement this mitigation
measure; however, the City shall use its best
efforts to obtain the cooperation of all
responsible Entities to fully participate in order
to achieve the goals of the mitigation
measure.
40
-00
~<
ro )1:1
......0
......)1:1
-.."
en
o
E'
-
o'
;j
z
o
N
o
o
-...J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Extsrlor Noise. The UCSP would
result in a significant exterior noise
impact bscauss it would result in
exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise levels that
exceed the levels established by the
GPU and the City's noise control
ordinance. The noise threshold include
exterior limits of 65 CNEL in residential
areas, outdoor uss areas,
nsighborhood parks, and playgrounds.
70 CNEL in office and professional
areas, or 75 decibels for retail and
wholesale commercial areas,
restaurants, and movie theaters.
Mitigation Measures
5.9-1: Exterior Noise Mitigation Measure. Prior to
the approval of individual development
projects, projects within the UCSP area shall
demonstrate that required outdoor usable
open space areas are adequately shielded
from transportation related noise sources so
that noise levels fall below the standards set
by the General Plan Update (see Figure 5.9-1
and Table 5.9-1) or do not cause an increase
of greater than 3 dB(A) on an existing
roadway. Noise reduction measures may
include building noise-attenuating berms,
walls or other attenuation measures. Future
development of park facilities shall also, to the
extent feasible, incorporate mitigation
measures such as siting, berms, walls or
other attenuation measures to reduce impacts
to acceptable levels of 65-70 CNEL or less.
Indication that noise levels fall below this limit
shall be made to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director, Building
Official or Community Development Director.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Pemnit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
,,('")
'" <:
~ ;>::I
('")
:::::;>::1
co (1)
'"
o
g
o'
OJ
Z
?
N
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
fii~*~ifi~~;f~~r1~~~~!f~1J~<Jj }~' .~~= . ~J~1e ;.." ~~L---'"i~~~';i~~
The siting of future parks has the
potential 10 result in significant impacts.
While park sites have not been
designated, it is possible that parks
could be sited next to circulation
element roadways which generate
noise in excess of 65 [to 70] decibels.
This would be a significant impact and
would require mitigation. Mitigating
this impact would require the
construction of noise barriers.
Required barrier heights may be
achieved through the construction of
walls, berms, or walllberm
combinetion.. While noise levels at a
park site would be reduced by the
construction of noise barriers, these
barriers are incompatible with park
uses:
Because the only mitigation available to
reduce exterior noise impacts to parks
resulting from roadway traffic is the insertion
of a barrier between the source (traffic) and
receiver (park), and because parks are
intended to remain open (i.e., not surrounded
by walls) to the community, exterior noise
impacts cannot be fully mitigated. There are
no feasibie mitigation measures available to
mitigate for lhe potential for parks that are to
be sited next to circuiation element roadways'
which generate noise in excess of 65-70
CNEL. Therefore, exterior noise impacts
remain significant and unmitigated.
42
Time Frame of
Mitigation
-on
~<
ro ~
,....n
,....~
..o(])
'"
o
2"
~
o'
::s
Z
!'
10
o
o
--J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Time Frame of
Mitigation
""'~~f;.
Interior Noise. The adoption of the
UCSP would have a significant noise
impacl prior to mitigation because it
would result in interior noise levels that
exceed 45 dB CNEL due to exterior
sources for habitable rooms in
residences.
5.9-2: Interior Noise Mitigation Measure. Prior to the
approval of subsequent individual
development projects, for any residential use
immediately adjacent to a circulation element
roadway, trolley or rail line, or Interstate 5, an
acoustical analysis shall be compieted
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director, Community
Development Director or Building Official, that
interior noise levels due to exterior sources
are 45 CNEL or less in any habitable room.
For residential projects where interior noise
levels due to exterior noise sources exceed
45 CNEL, architectural and structural
considerations such as improved window and
door acoustical performance, shall be
identified.
5.9-3: Interior Noise Mitigation Measure. Prior to the
approval of individual development projects,
projects where it is necessary for the windows
to remain closed to ensure that interior noise
levels meet the City's and the Building Code
interior standard of 45 CNEL shall
demonstrate that the design for these units
includes a ventilation or air conditioning
system which provides a habitable interior
environment with the windows closed.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"n
~ <:
ro :;0
......n
"':;0
0"
'"
o
g
o'
:;
z
o
IV
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
=-~~~&~~~1ll!~M~~i;~~~~~~~f,f~~i~ijilt;,~~1i~\
Mitigation Measures
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City Noise Ordinance. Until specific
Uses are identified, conformance to the
City's noise control ordinance code
cannot be assured and impacts
associated with this criterion are
significant.
The UCSP would result in a significant
noise impact because it would result in
exposure of receivers in the UCSP
area to exterior noise levels that
exceed the levels established by the
City's noise control ordinance. These
include exterior limits of 65 CNEL in
residential areas, outdoor use areas,
neighborhood parks, and playgrounds,
70 CNEL in office and professional
areas, or 75 decibels for retail and
wholesale commercial areas,
restaurants, and movie theaters.
5.9-4: Noise Ordinance Mitigation Measure. Prior to
the approval of individual development
projects, commercial uses that may involve
noise producing activities shall demonstrate
compliance with the existing performance
standards provided in the City's Noise
Ordinance (Chapler 19.68.010 of the
Municipal Zoning Code). Prior to project
approval, subsequent projects shall also
demonstrate compliance with the mixed-use
provisions of Chapter VI of the UCSP that
include minimization of the effects of any
exterior noise impacts and provision of
"internal compatibility between the different
uses within the project" (UCSP, VI-44).
44
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permi!.
"n
~<
'" ?;:j
>-,n
"'?;:j
>-'"
en
o
2"
~
o'
='
z
P
tv
o
o
.....,
,
o
o
""
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Polential Significant Impact
'" .
IiIj. ;"
Air Quality Plan Consistency. The
land uses proposed in he UCSP
conform to the adopted GPU and are
inconsistenl wilh the former general
plan upon which the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Regional Air Quality Standards (RAaS)
were based. By changing land use
designations in certain areas, the
recently adopted G PU failed to
conform with the growth projections
used by SANDAG in their generation of
the air quality management plan. This
is a significant adverse impact.
Because the significant air impact
stems from an inconsistency between
the land uses envisioned in the
currently adopted GPU and the former
general plan upon which the RAaS
were based, the only measure that can
lessen this impact is the review and
revision of the RAQS based on the
recently edopted GPU. The RAQS are
updated every three years, and will be
updated again in 2007. This effort is
the responsibility of SANDAG and the
APCD.
Mitigation Measures
The only measure that can lessen this impact to a
level below significance is the review and revision of
the RAQS based on the recently adopted GPU.
Since the updating of the air plan is outside of the
authority of the City, no mitigation is available to the
City to avoid this impact. Nonetheless, the City will
cooperate with SANDAG and APCD in developing
updated RAQS to insure their conformance with the
adopted GPU and mitigation measure 5.10.5-1 is
provided as an advisory measure.
5.10.5-1: The City of Chula Vista shall recommend to
SANDAG to update the RAaS in the next
triennial cycle to incorporate the increased
land use densities of the GPU and UCSP_
Time Frame of
Mitigation
To coincide with
SANDAG's 2007
update of the RAQS.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chura Vista
(CCV) in cooperation
with SANDAG.
"n
'" <
'" ;:cI
CD n
~;:cI
N~
o
g-
o'
::l
Z
?
tv
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
., ,;'~"'lI'n':,
Cumulatively ConsIderable Net
Increase. Cumulative increases in
emissions in criteria pollutants for
which the SDAB is not in allainment,
would result from short-term
construction 01 projects in conformance
with the UCSP and from long-term
emissions generated by both stationary
and mobile sources within the UCSP
area. Since the region is not in
compliance with the PM", and PM,.
standard, and because the average
daily emission is anticipated to
increase, impacts are considered
significant, until the region is in
compliance.
Stationary source pollutant emissions
would include those generated by the
consumption of natural gas and
electricity and the burning of wood in
residential fireplaces. Vehicle traffic on
area roads would generate mobiles
source emissions including carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides. and
hydrocarbons.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame 01
Mitigation
5,10.5-2: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit or other discretionary
permit, all subsequent individual
development projects shall demonstrate to
the satislaction of the Community
Development Director, conformance with
the relevant land use and development
regulations (UCSP, Chapter VI) and
development design guidelines (UCSP,
Chapter VII) of the UCSP which support
smart growth principles such as providing a
mix of compatible land uses; locating
highest density near transit; utilizing
compact building design and creating
walkable communities; providing a range of
infill housing opportunities; and increasing
transportation choices,
46
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"'On
~<
'" ::<;I
......n
"'::<;I
w"
en
o
;:;-
-
o'
"
z
o
tv
o
o
-..J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
.~~~_.._'
5.10.5-3: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core
Development Permit or other discretionary
permit. all subsequent individual
development projects shall demonstrate
compliance with relevant land use and
development regulations contained in the
UCSP to minimize air pollutant emissions.
These include, but are not limited to:
measures aimed at promoting. pedestrian
activity (Chapter V, pp. V-2- V-5); bicycle
activity (Chapter V, pp. V-5 - V-7, V-9 - V-
10); public transit facilities (Chapter V, pp.
VB - V-9), including the West Side Shuttle
(Chapter V, pp. V-11 - V-12); and
reintroduction 01 the traditional street grid
(Chapter V, pp. V-16-V-19).
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Cily of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-un
~ <
'g ~
n
~~
"'" f>
en
o
"
-
o'
::l
Z
?
tv
o
o
"
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation is achievable for fugitive dust
from short-term construction activities,
but the only measures that would
reduce those emissions from long-term
daily operations are those that reduce
vehicle miles traveled on area roads.
The UCSP includes measures aimed
at promoting alternative modes of
travel including enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle activity, use of transit and
reducing trip lengths by siting highest
density adjacent to key transit nodes.
Implementation of mitigation measures
will ensure that conformance to these
provisions of the UCSP is satisfied
prior to issuance of subsequent project
development permits.
5.10.5-4: Prior to issuance of construction permits,
including but not limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Permit, and Urban Core
Development Permit, the Community
Development Director shall verify that the
following active dust control practices are
to be employed during construction:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be
sprinkled with water or other acceptable
San Diego APCD dust conlrol agents
during dust-generating activities to
reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or acceptable APCD dust
control agents shall be applied during
dry weather or windy days until dust
emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be
properly covered to reduce windblown
dust and spills.
48
Prior to the approval of
any construction
permits, including but
not limited to the firsl
Grading Permit,
Demolition Permit, and
Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP).
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-on
'" <
<.C;<:l
CD n
::::;;<:l
c.n~
o
2"
-
0'
::s
Z
o
tv
o
o
-..J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(conllnued)
Potential Significanllmpact
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
M~igation Measures
II
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed Iimil on
unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto
paved surfaces shall be swepl up
immediately to reduce resuspension of
particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach roules 10
construclion sites shall be cleaned daily
of construction-related dirt in dry
weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material
shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded,
landscaped, or developed as quickly as
possible and as directed by the City
and/or APCD to reduce dust generation.
7. To the maximum extent feasible heavy-
duty construction equipment with
modified combustionlfuel injection
systems for emissions control shall be
utilized during grading and construction
activities and catalytic reduction for
gasoline-powered equipment shall be
used.
."n
'" -<
'" ?;j
co n
......?;j
"'"
"'en
o
[
o'
::s
Z
!'
IV
o
o
--.)
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(conllnued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
"' ":: ~~. . "g~~.j1f;. . ~~';~lli1~~(i~~~~~~t!g'~p[~~~~ii!?~-;r~iij~~
8. Equip construction equipment with
prechamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) together with proper
maintenance and operation to reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the
extent available and feasible.
9. Electrical construction equipment shall
be used to the extent feasible.
10. The simuUaneous operations of
multiple conslruction equipment units
shall be minimized (Le., phase
construction to minimize impacts).
With the application of these measures,
significant impacts resulting from projected
PM,. impacts from construction would be
mitigated. Impacts resulting from daily
operation would remain significant until the
region is determined to be in compliance
with the standard.
50
Time Frame of
Mitigation
,,0
'" <
tO~
'" 0
......~
"'"
-..'"
o
"
~
o.
"
Z
?
N
o
o
-...j
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Sensitive Receptors. The Heallh
Risk Assessment prapared for the
proposed UCSP identified cumulatively
significant particulate emissions for
sensitive receplors adjacenlto
Inlerstate 5. (See cumulative air
quality discussion above).
Although there is no adopted slandard
for sensitive receivers adjacent to
Interstate 5, it was determined that air
quality impacts from diesel particulates
emanating from Inlerstate 5 would be
cumulatively significant given current
basin-wide noncompliance with
particulale standards and projected
future levels of diesel particulales
emanating from 1-5.
Mitigation Measures
Cumulatively significant diesel particulate impacts
would be reduced through mitigation measures 5.10-
5-2 and 5.10.5-3 above, but nol to below a lavel of
significance.
Time Frame of
Miligation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-on
Q> -<
<0 i'O
'" n
~~
00",
o
[
o'
::;
Z
?
IV
o
o
--.J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Law EnforCement. Future
development in accordance with the
proposed UCSP would result in a
significant impact to law enforcement
services because of the anticipated
Increase in calls for service and the
additional traveltime required to
answer Ihese calls. While the police
facility al Fourth Avenue and F Street
is sufficienl to meetlhe law
enforcement needs created by
increased demand resulting from
development, more police officers will
be needed In order to maintain
response times. Significant impacts
would resull if timing of these
provisions does not coincide with
projected increase in demand for
services and populations growth.
Implementation of mitigation measures
5.11-1-1 through 5.11.1-3 would
mitigate impacts to the provisions of
adequate law enforcement services
resulting from the adoption of the
UCSP to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures
5.11.1-1: Subsequent development projects shall
demonstrate that significant impacts 10
police services resulting from an individual
project are addressed prior to approval of
an Urban Core Development permit or
other discretionary approval. As part of
project review, subsequent development
projects shall be evaluated for adequate
access for police vehicles (pursuant to
GPU Policy PFS 6.1) and integration of
Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) techniques (pursuant to
GPU Policy PFS 6.3).
5.11.1-2: As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees (PFDIF)
at the rate in effect at the time building
permits are issued.
5.11.1-3: As part of the annual budgeting process,
the City shall assess the need for
additional pollee personnel to provide
protection services consistent with
established City service levels and
commensurate with the increase in
population.
52
Time Frame of
Mitigation
'j'lji' <- ..:;, Ji~F.&
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Needs assessed
during annual City
budget review.
City of Chula Vista
(CGV)
City of Chuta Vista
(CGV)
City of Chula Vista
(CGV)
-on
'" <
~I<:I
......n
NI<:I
"""
'"
o
[
o'
i:l
Z
o
'"
o
o
....,
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Agency
Im!:I~Ldiilil_I~~~;jj1-1~ij!lW~~~iJilll\"~~ii!.~
Fire Protection. The Chula Vista Fire
Department does not currently meet
the threshold standard for response
time for the City, including the UCSP
Subdistricts Area. Buildout of the
proposed UCSP would increase
demand for fire protection services.
However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, additional fire
protection personnel and fire protection
equipment and facilities would be
provided to help ensure adequate
service wUhin the requirements of the
GMOC threshold standards.
Significant impacts to fire protection
services would result if timing of these
provisions does not coincide with
projected increase in demand for
services and population growth.
With the implementation of mitigation
measures 5.11.2-1 through 5.11.2-3,
significant impacts to the provision of
fire protection services would be
mitigated to less than significant.
5.11.2-1: Prior to approval, subsequenlindividual
development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate provision of adequate access
and water pressure for new buildings.
5.11.2-2: As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
5.11.2-3: As part of the annual budgeting process,
the City will assess the need for additional
fire personnel to provide protection
services consistent with established City
service levels and commensurate with the
increase in population.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary pemnit.
Needs assessed
during annual City
budget review.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-00
'" -<
<.0 ?O
ro 0
~?O
w"
C) '"
o
[
o'
::s
Z
?
tv
o
o
--l
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
.nr'
Schools, The proposed UCSP will
result in a three-fold increase in popu-
lation within the Subdistricts Area at
buildout and an associated increase in
demand for schools. At bui/dout, the
UCSP is expected to generate a net
increase of approximately 3,877
students between elementary, middle
school, and high school grades. The
generation of approximately 2,485 addi-
tional elementary students would have a
signiflcant impact on existing elemen-
tary schools serving the area because
they are already at or near capacity.
New students generated by the UCSP
would require at least 59 additional
elementary school classrooms.
However, potentially fewer students
may result from UCSP build out or
interim conditions due to the intensified
urban environment of the UCSP, with
new mid- to high-rise mixed uses likely
to be occupied by single or childless
young couples, or empty nesters.
Therefore, the impacts may be
overstated end will be monitored to
accurately plan for new student
enrollment.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
5.11.3-1: Prior to approval, subsequent development
projects in the UCSP shall demonstrate
that significant impacts to public
educational services resulting from the
individual project have been addressed.
As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the
statutory school impact fees at the rate in
effect at the time building permits are
issued.
54
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Cily of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-on
~<
ro?;j
.....n
w?;j
....."
'"
o
2"
~
o'
=>
z
o
IV
o
o
.....
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Mitigation Measures
City of Chuta Vista
(CCV)
,
Libraries. Buildout of the UCSP may
require additional library space in order
to meet and maintain the City criteria of
500 square feet per 1,000 population
and 3 books per person for new
development. Based on the expected
net increase in population of 18,318
with build out of the UCSP. increased
demand on existing library services
would amount to approximately 9,159
square feet of library facilities and
54,954 books. Existing library service
conditions in the City are inadequate
and not in compliance with City
standards. Additional library capacity
is planned by 2007, however, with the
construction of the 30,000-square-foot
Rancho Del Rey Library. In the
absence of this or other new library
construction, any additional demand on
library services would comprise a
significant impact.
The following mitigation measure will mitigate library
impacts resulting from the adoption of the UCSP to
below a level of significance.
5.11.4-1: Prior to approval, subsequent individual
development projects in the UCSP shall
demonstrate that significant impacts to the
provision of library services resulting from
individual projects have been addressed.
As a condition of project approval,
individual developers shall pay the public
facilities development impact fees at the
rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
Time Frame of
Mitigation
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
-00
Q> -<
~ ?O
o
......
~~
<n
o
g-
o'
::s
Z
?
N
o
o
-..J
,
o
o
00
n
"'<
~::e
ro n
......::e
'-"(1)
'-""'
o
~
o'
::1
Z
!'
N
o
o
....,
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Tim,e Frame of
Mitigation
,Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
\j' . ,~. .'n: l ;,~ ,':,,:F~~ ~iiG~t i~~i~,",rill~~'~~~~~~~~Jl~~~,~' ,-;~~~~~.f:~~r~ 1., ~ Y~~'~~(:~~J.!ii!l1~~~~jre:1i~i".:..~;;'
Parks and Recreation.
Implementalion of the proposed UCSP
would generate increased demand for
parks and recreation facililies. Full
bulldout of the UCSP would be
required 10 provide up to approximately
55 acres of new parkland
(incrementally and commensurate with
new developmenl) in order 10 meel the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Park
Development Ordinance standard of 3
acres of parkland for every 1,000
people. A significant impact could
occur if dedication of parkland and
construction of new facililies does not
coincide with project implemenlalion
and project population growth.
lmplementalion of miligation measure
5.11.5-1 would raduce impacls to Ihe
provisions of park and recreation
services and facililies resulting from the
adoption of the UCSP to below a level
of significance.
5.11.5-1: Prior to approval of an Urban Core
Deveiopment Permit, each subsequent
project shall establish to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director that
the project meets the City's parkland
dedicalion requirement. As a condition of
projecl approval, individual developers
shall provide required parkland and
facilities on-site, if possible and consistent
with potential site locations identified in Ihe
UCSP and Parks Master Plan; or pay the
applicable parkland acquisition and
parkland development fee and recreation
facility development impact fees at the
rates in effect at the time building permits
are issued.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
56
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
Wastewater Treatment Capacity.
Based on buildout projections, impacts
to the provision of sewer service would
be significant. Chula Vista owns
capacity in the Metro system, which
provides conveyance of City
wastewater flows. Increasing
population will place additional demand
on sewer services. While it is the intenl
of the City to ensure that services are
provided concurrent with need, the
provision of sewer services is not
solely within its authority. Although the
City is in the process of acquiring
additional capacity from Metro, that
acquisition has not yet been finalized.
Based on GPU buildout projections,
the City will be generating
approximately 26.2 mgd of wastewater
citywide by 2030 and would need to
acquire additional 6.4 mgd of capacity
rights by the year 2030 in order to meet
citywide projected demand. Of this
total, 1.57 mgd are projected to be
generated in western Chula Vista,
including a projected generation of
0.88 mgd for the UCSP Subdistricts
Area.
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of
Mitigation
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
"~'~!~~~-tl,.~r';~~~~:;tW'..' ,
5.12.2-1: Prior to the approval of subsequent
individual development projects, project
plans shall demonstrate that there is
sufficient wastewater capacity available to
serve the proposed project. Conditions of
approval may require sewer capacity fees
to be contributed to mitigate project-related
impacts.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
-on
'" -<
<C ;>:l
([l n
t:;~
.,. en
o
g-
o'
::>
Z
o
N
o
o
....
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Energy. Impacts to energy are
considered significant because there is
no long-term assurance that energy
supplies will be available at buildout of
the UCSP. Avoidance of energy
impacts cannot be assured regardless
of land use designation or population
size. Although changes to planned
land uses in the City would continue to
implement the Energy Strategy Acllon
Plan, San Diego Regional Energy Plan
and Transit First Plan, implementation
of the proposed land uses identified in
the UCSP has the potential to result in
significant impacts to nonrenewable
and slowly renewabla energy
resources as a result of anticipated
growth.
The environmental sustain ability
measures of the UCSP(Chapter VI, G.)
may further serve to reduce energy
consumption associated with
constnuction and occupation of
slructures within the UCSP area.
Mitigation Measures
." "~~~~~l;,~~~~~~~~~~!~'"
5.12.4-1: The City shall continue to implement the
Energy Strategy Action Plan that
addresses demand side management,
energy efficient and renewable energy
outreach programs for businesses and
residents, energy acquisition, power
generation, and distributed energy
resources and legislative actions, and
continue to implement the CO, Reduction
Plan to lessen the impacts on energy.
While implementation of the above
mitigation measure reduces energy related
impacts, because there is no assurance that
energy resources will be available to
adequately serve the projected increase in
population resulting from adoption of the
UCSP, the impact remains significant.
58
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
-,on
Q> <
<.O?;j
ro n
;:;;?;j
",('0
'"
o
~
o'
i:l
Z
"
N
o
o
-...J
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Hazardous Materials Transport, Use
DIsposal or Release. Hazardous
materials occur within the UCSP area
and pose significant public health and
safety risks during construction or long-
term occupation of proposed
development. Exposure to hazardous
materials that exceed state and/or
federal standards can occur through
contact with contaminated soil or
groundwater, through ingestion, skin
contact or the inhalation of vapors or
dust.
An approximate total of 103 siles of
potential hazardous concern have
been identified from various federal,
state and local databases as occurring
within the Subdistricts Area.
Mitigation Measures
,"~~~:~:~i~1;~~ ~~. "~~_.. .
5.13-1: Prior to approval of subsequent individual
development projects, any project plans that
propose land uses which use, transport,
store, and dispose of hazardous materials
shall be conducted in compliance with the
relevant regulations of federal, state, and
local agencies, including the EPA, California
Department of Heath Services (DHS), and
California Department of Transportation.
5.13-2: A risk assessment shall be performed at all
sites within the study area where
contamination has been identified or is
discovered during future construction
activities, and at which soil is to be
disturbed, to address risks posed by any
residual contamination, and to establish
appropriate mitigation measures (e.g.,
natural attenuation, active remediation,
engineering controls) that would be
protective of human health and the
environment. All assessment and
remediation activities shall be conducted in
accordance with a Work Plan that is
approved by the regulatory agency having
oversight of the activities.
Prior to the approvai of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Prior to the approval of
an Urban Core
Development Permit
(UCDP) or other
discretionary permit.
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
City of Chula Vista
(CCV)
City of Ohula Vista
(CCV)
-on
'" -<
<0 ~
ro n
~~
'" ~
2-
~
o'
::>
Z
!'
N
o
o
-...)
,
o
o
00
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Time Frame of Monitoring Reporting
Polential Significanllmpacl Mitigation Measures Mitigation Agency
~!_!LV'~Il!i:!i!(~~~~~~-!j~llf~liit;,~~
5.13-3 A hazardous building materials survey Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
should be performed at buildings in the any demolition or (CCV)
study area prior to demolition or renovation renovation activities or
activilles. This type of survey typically construction permits.
addresses lead.based paint (LBP). including but nol
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), limited to the first
PCBs in electrical equipment. mercury Grading Pennil,
switches, and heating/cooling syslems. Such Demolition Permi!. and
a survey should be conducted under the Urban Core Develop-
direct supervision of a Slate of California ment Permil (UCDP)
Certified Asbestos Consultant and EPA lead or other discrelionary
assessor. Prior to demolilion or renovation permit.
work thai would disturb Identified ACMs.
LBP, or other hazardous materials. a
licensed abatement removal conlractor
should remove and properly dispose of the
hazardous material(s) in accordance wilh
applicable local, stale and federal
regulations. A California certified consullanl
should prepare a bid specification document,
and perform abatement projecl planning, sile
and air monitoring, oversight activities, and
reporting activilies.
Due to the presence of numerous pre-
1960s slructures in the area, there is a
potentiallhat during construction or
demolition, workers may come Into
contact wllh hazardous building
materials( asbestos and lead).
Future development consistent with the
proposed UCSP would result in
significanllmpacts if such development
allows grealer contacl between
humans and hazards.
60
"n
'" <
<<:>:;0
ro n
.....
w:;O
---J(')
V>
o
2"
~
o'
"
z
o
tv
o
o
--.J
,
o
o
00