HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/14 Item 12
Attachment "B"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ;1--- --'.----.--..,
~
Meeting Date 10/16/90
ITEM TITLE Resolution 159¿¡D - Approving a License Agreement with Frank
Ferreira to operate a tree farm located on City owned property
at the northwest corner of H Street and I-80S
SUBMITTED BY Assistant City Mana~
REVIEWED BY City Manager} -f¡ (// 4/5ths Vote: Yes___ NoL
In May 1989, the City Council conceptually endorsed a plan that would
transform the northwest corner of East H Street and I-80S into an attractive
tree farm operated and maintained by Mr. Frank Ferreira. In exchange for
granting him the use of the property, he would in turn provide at no cost to
the City the annual requirement for tree replacements in City parkways.
RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution.
01 SCUSSION
The northwest intersection of I-80S and H Street leaves much to be desired in
terms of a major entryway into the City. Over the years, the property has
been used as a dump site and a site utilized by Laidlaw for temporarily
depositing street sweepings and other debris. The City has used this site to
store chips utilized in the chip seal program and as a site where clean fill
dirt has been deposited on the northerly end of the property.
The proposed licensing agreement with Mr. Ferreira provides the following key
elements:
l. The license agreement is for a period of 10 years, with a 180
day cancellation notice by either party.
2. The City will still maintain its right to utilize the northerly
quarter of the site for disposition of clean fill materials and
for police dog training.
3. The licensee will plant approximately fifty-five 24" boxed
Canary Island palms along the I-80S boundary of the subject
parce 1.
,I ry JJ---/
,~L -
Page 2, Item II
Meeting Date lO/16/90
4. The licensee will provide on an annual basis "equivalent tree
units" totalling 1,000. The number of trees the licensee will
have to provide the City on an annual basis will depend upon
the size of the trees requested. Based upon the "equivalent
tree units" assigned to a 15 gallon tree, the licensee would be
required to provide the City upwards to 166 trees per year.
This number is approximately double the number of trees
currently used on an annual basis. If the City does not use
the full 1,000 tree units in any given year, the unused units
can be carried over into future years up to a maximum of 2,000
equivalent tree units.
5. licensee is not permitted, under the terms of the license, to
operate the facility as a business. Therefore, he will not be
permitted to sell trees for a profit to any individual or
firm. The licensee, as a hobby, has maintained hundreds of
trees on. his own property for many, many years.
6. The licensee will provide, at his own cost, a portable
one-bedroom caretaker's home on the site. The home will be
used exclusively for the housing of the
watchman/caretaker/maintenance person, and will be paid and
fully insured by licensee.
FI SCAl IMPACT
Based upon current retail costs per tree, and if the City were to acquire the
number of trees annually that licensee is obligated to provide, the rental
value the City would be receiving from the license would be approximately
$29,000 per year.
ERAa113/mab/c
;µ /,;2--- d-
------~.
RESOLUTION NO. /5'1¡){)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
FRANK E. FERREIRA, JUDITH A. FERREIRA, AND
STEPHEN B. FERREIRA, DBA BONITA GLEN NURSERY,
TO OPERATE A TREE FARM LOCATED ON CITY OWNED
PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF "H" STREET
AND I-B05, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, in May 19B9, the City Council conceptually
endorsed a plan that would transform the northwest corner of "H"
Street and 1-805 into an attractive tree farm operated and
maintained by Mr. Frank Ferreira; and
WHEREAS, in· exchange for granting Mr. Ferreira the use
of the property, he would in turn provide at no cost to the City
the annual requirement for tree replacements in City parkways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ci ty Council of
the Ci ty of Chula Vista does hereby approve a License Agreement
with Frank E. Ferreira, Judith A. Ferreira and Stephen B.
Ferreira, dba Bonita Glen Nursery, to operate a tree farm located
at the intersection of "H" Street and 1-805 in the City of Chula
Vista, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to
execute this agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista.
Presented by
E. R. Asmus, Assistant City
Manager
7931a
/~L 3. ):L~ J
LICENSE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
FRANK, JUDITH AND STEPHEN FERREIRA OPERATING UNDER THE
NAME OF BONITA GLEN NURSERY
FOR THE RENTAL OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF "H" STREET
AND INTERSTATE 805 IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TO BE USED AS A TREE FARM BY LESSEE
This License made and executed this September 25, 1990,
between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter sometimes designated the "Licensor", and FRANK E.
FERREIRA, JUDITH A. FERREIRA, and STEPHEN FERREIRA, located at 270
Bonita Glen Drive, Chula Vista, Ca. 92010, operating "not for
profit" under the fictitious name of BONITA GLEN NURSERY,
hereinafter sometimes designated the "Licensee".
H1.:l:HEââÆ;:rHl.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subj ect matter of this
license agreement ïs that certain property which has heretofore
been relinquished to the City of Chula Vista by the State of
California ("CALTRANS") located at the northwest corner of "H"
Street and Interstate 805, as shown on the diagram attached hereto,
being a strip of unimproved, unused land of approximately 7.72
acres ("Tree Farm Site"); and,
WHEREAS, City now desires to allow said land to be used for
the purpose of storing an unspecified number of trees in a variety
of containers and in a planted condition ("Tree Farm" or "Tree Farm
Use") (as attached hereto as Exhibit A) to provide an availability
of tree planting materials to the City as well as enhancing the
visual appearance of the aforesaid site; and,
WHEREAS, Licensee has for many years pursued as a
non-commercial hobby the raising of an eclectic variety and species
of trees; and,
WHEREAS, the Tree Farm Site owned by City appears to be an
ideal place to relocate many ·of the trees presently stored on
various portions of property owned by Licensee; and,
WHEREAS, in exchange for the use of the above mentioned Tree
Farm Site for such storage, Licensee is willing to provide, at no
cost to the City, a number of specimens of several sizes for the
use of the City in its Street Tree Planting Program and other needs
of the Park and Recreation Department as outlined herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
.
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 10, 1990 Page 1
...---
, ~ /;¿-~
1. License; Use.
Licensor grants to Licensee a revocable license for the use of
the Tree Farm Site as a Tree Farm for the storage of an unspecified
number and species of trees in a variety of container sizes, solely
at the discretion of Licensee.
2. Term; Early Cancellation.
The term of this license shall _be subject to the conditions
set forth herein, for a term of ten (10) years from the date of
execution of this license provided, however, that either party may
terminate this license by submitting to the other party, at least
180 days in advance of the termination, a notice of intent to
terminate to the other party at the proper mailing address of said
parties. If either party gives said notice, Licensee shall leave
the Tree Farm site in a state substantially the same as that when
he took possession, except for permanent landscaping and any
approved grading of the site that may have occurred.
3. License Non-exclusive.
Licensee understands and agrees that he shall not have
exclusive control and possession of said Tree Farm Site, but that
he hereby recognizes Licensor's right to the joint use of the Tree
Farm Site not in substantial interference with Licensee's use,
including specifically without limitation, the northerly quarter
area thereof, or more, for the use of the City in the disposition
of "clean fill materials". Licensee shall provide Licensor with an
access road to the northerly portion of the site.
4. Prohibition against Grading Site.
It is further understood and agreed that Licensee shall not
cut, grade, nor fill the Tree Farm Site in any manner without full
compliance with the requirements of the Grading Ordinances of the
City of Chula Vista. city shall work with Licensee to obtain a
grading permit if such grading is to occur.
5. Ancillary Uses.
5.1. Caretakers Home. Licensee shall have the right to
locate upon said Tree Farm Site a portable one bedroom home
("Home"), and customary ancillary structures, at a site that will
afford proper access through unpaved or rough finished right-of-way
to said Home. Said portable home shall be placed upon a laminated
beam platform. Said home shall have an over site or view of the
whole of the Tree Farm.
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 10, 1990 Page 2
, ~ J.2--?
5.1.1. Licensee shall be responsible for providing gas,
electric and water to the site as determined and directed by
Licensor in a location upon the site to be approved by the City
Planning Department provided that Licensor shall initiate and
acquire any environmental and zoning certifications and permits
that city may deem necessary to carry out the intent of this
License.
5.1.2. Licensee shall prepare the necessary foundation
for the location of said Home and all permits and inspections shall
be accomplished under the direction of City and at a cost to the
Licensee.
5.1.3. Licensee shall provide for sewage disposal in a
manner authorized and permitted by the San Diego County Health
Department.
5.1.4. Said Home shall be used exclusively for the
housing of the watchman/caretaker/maintenance man to be paid and
fully insured by Licensee for the protection and maintenance of the
leasehold.
:
5.2. Police Dog Training. Licensee understands and agrees
that city Police forces may from time-to-time utilize the Tree Farm
Site for training purposes, i.e. , dog training or other field
training, subject to notification of the on-site agent of Licensee.
5.3. Planted Trees. In addition to storage of non-planted,
box-contained trees (i.e. , Tree Farm) , Licensee shall have the
right to plant such trees in the soil at such locations and with
such trees as are consistent with a plan ("Planting Plan") attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Rent.
6.1. Annual Requirements of Trees.
As and for rent for said premises, for each and every calendar
year or portion thereof that this License Agreement is in effect,
commencing with the 1991 calendar year, Licensee shall furnish the
Licensor's annual requirement of trees to Licensor of those species
and container size of trees as Licensor may annually, or from time-
to-time determine ("Rent Obligation" ) from those varieties and
species listed in Exhibit B.
6.2. Maximum Annual Requirement; Carryover
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee shall not be required
to provide more than the Maximum Annual Requirement of Equivalent
Tree Units in any given calendar year except that the Licensee
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 10, 1990 Page 3
, )JÞr J';¿~7
agrees to provide in a subsequent year in addition to the Maximum
Annual Requirement of Equivalent Tree Units the number of
Equivalent Tree units not expended for the previous year, not to
exceed 2,000 Equivalent Tree Units.
6.2.1, For the purposes of this agreement, the Maximum
Annual Requirement shall be 1000 "Equivalent Tree Units" per
calendar year ("Nominal Annual Maximum").
6.2.2. Equivalent Tree Units.
For the purposes of this agreement, an "Equivalent
Tree Unit" shall be as follows: ·a 5 gallon tree of any
species shall be considered 2 equivalent tree unit, a 15
gallon tree of any species shall be considered 6 equival-
ent tree units, a 24" box tree shall be considered 12
equivalent tree units, and a 36" box tree shall be
considered 24 equivalent tree units.
6.3. Types and Species of Trees to be Provided.
While this Rent Obligation is not limited to providing the
trees Licensee has at any given time in Licensee's inventory,
Licensor shall make a good faith to consider using the trees that
Licensee has in inventory before requiring Licensee to acquire
Licensor I s requirement on the open market. If Licensee is required
to buy some trees on the open market, Licensee shall have 30 day's
notice within which to provide the tree or trees. Licensee shall
not be required to provide extremely rare species of trees but
shall be limited to those species listed in Exhibit B referred to
herein above.
7. Non-commercial Status of Licensee.
Licensee understands and agrees that the proposed Tree Farm
shall at all times be a non-commercial and non-profit venture and
if at any time should such status change, Licensor shall have the
right of termination or re-negotiation of this License.
B. Utilities.
Licensee shall pay all utilities, trash service and any
necessary clean-up of the Tree Farm Site caused by either natural
or human activities; and shall maintain the Tree Farm Site in a
sightly and orderly manner; and shall maintain all water, sewer and
electrical services to Tree Farm Site.
9. Waiver of Claims for Repossession.
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 10, 1990 Page 4
, ~ )~-~
The Licensor shall not be liable and the Licensee hereby
waives all claims for damage that may be caused by the Licensor in
re-entering and taking possession of the premises as herein
provided. The Licensor shall not, in any event, be liable for any
loss, theft, damage or injury to the Tree Farm Site or person of
the Licensee, or any occupant of said premises, except as provided
by law.
10. Right of Entry in Licensor.
The Licensor reserves and shall at any and all times have the
right to enter upon said licensed Tree Farm Site.
11. Attorney Fees and costs.
In the case of any litigation as a result of this license
between the parties, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be fixed by the
court from the other party.
12. Indemnity.
Licensee shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Licensor
from any and all losses, claims, costs, damages, jUdgments, and
awards suffered by Licensor as a result of issuance of this
License, or by Licensee's use or occupancy of the Tree Farm Site.
13. Insurance
13.1 Licensee represents that it and its agents, staff and
employees employed by it are protected by worker's compensation
insurance and the Licensee has the coverage under public liability
ar.d property damage insurance policies which this Agreement
requires to be demonstrated in the form of a certificate of
insurance.
13.2 Licensee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
License Term, annually thereafter, and upon such other demand as
may be made by the City, the following certificates of insurance to
the City:
13.2.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus
$1,000,000 Employers liability coverage.
13.2.2. General and Automobile Liability coverage to
$1,000,000 combined single limit which names
City as an additional insured, and which is
primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and
treefrrn3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 10, 1990 Page 5
ß--j- /;2 ~ I
which treats the employees of the City in the
same manner as members of the general public --
("cross-liability coverage").
13.3, All policies shall be issued by a carrier that has a
Best's Rating of "B+, Class VII", or better, or shall meet with the
approval of the City's Risk Manager.
13.4. All policies shall provide that same may not be
canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the
City.
14. Successors in Interest.
The words "Licensor" and "Licensee" as used herein, include,
apply to, and bind and benefit the agents, officers, and employees,
heirs, executors, administrators and successors to the Licensor and
Licensee. No waiver of the right to forfeiture of this License or
of re-entry upon breach of any of the conditions therefore, shall
be deemed a waiver of such right upon .any subsequent breach of such -
or any other condition.
15. No "deemed" Waivers.
A waiver of any right or the default or breach of any term,
covenant or condition hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such
right or of the obligation of the Licensee to perform and fully
comply with such term, covenant or condition at any subsequent time
or of any other condition.
16. Right of Renewal.
If this License is in good standing, and not sooner terminated
at the end of the term hereof, Licensee shall have the right upon
thirty (30) days written notice to renew and extend this License
upon its present terms, prior to the expiration date thereof for
three two-year periods, subject to the same provisions of
cancellation and all other terms herein contaiñed.
17. Possessory Interest Tax. ,
In the event that the interest herein licensed to Licensee is
assessed a possessory. interest tax, Licensee agrees to pay the tax
so assessed.
18. Water Meter and Water.
Licensor shall pay for and cause a water meter to be installed
at its sole cost and expense and at such location as it deems
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 12, 1990 Page 6
~ );L-'/¿;J
appropriate; Licensee agrees to pay the normal and typical charges
for all water consumed.
--
19. Sweetwater Authority Easement.
Licensee recognizes the property is encumbered with an
easement for ingress and egress and right to maintain a water pump
station and other water facility and equipment on the subject
Property.
-
-
,
,
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 12, 1990 Page 7
~ ).;L-) I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this
Agreement this day of 1990. -
, -
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, Licensor
BY:
Gregory R. Cox
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
Attest:
Beverly Authelet,
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
-
Bruce M. Boogaard,
City Attorney
Bonita Glen Nursery, a not-for-profit
general partnership operated
by: Ferreira, Licensee
Frank E.
by:
Judith A. Ferriera, Licensee
by: Ferreira
Stephen B.
-
treefrm3.wp License for Tree Farm--Execution Version
October 12, 1990 Page 8
I . 1.;2 ---)~
~
-
LOCATOR
EXHIBIT" A" ) "H" STREE.T
PROPERTY -..It IN:.
- -.
;.2-/
EXHIBIT B
Li s t of Trees
POdocarpus
Albizia Julibrissin
Koelreuteria Bipinnata
Bauhinia Variegata
Chamacrops Excelsa
Podocarpus Maki
Liquidambar Styraciflua
Arecastrum Romanzoffanum
Tristania Conferta
Washingtonia:Robusta
Magnolia Grandiflora
Nerium Oleander Red
Nerium Oleander White
Callistemon Lanceolatus
Podocarpus Gracilior
Jacaranda Acutifolia
Metrosideros Excelsa
Pyrus Kawa kami i
Pittosporum Rhombifolium
Pittosporum Undulatum
Schinus Molle
Melaleuca Leucadendra
ßI--I5 Id- ~/c;
Attachment "e"
January 10, 1991
TO: Sid W. Morris, Assistant Oty Manager
FROM: Martin Schmidt, Landscape Architect
RE: TREE DONATION FROM MR. FRANK FERREIRA
In response to the above referenced issue, Mike Leake from Public Works and
myself went to Mr. Ferriera's tree storage areas to inspect what trees were available
and were of value to the City for use in Parks, Open Space and as street trees by
Public Works.
The following is a preliminary listing of trees and plant that we believe are of value
and benefit to the city to accept and use for future installations. Other issues that
will still require discussion and final determination are the duration of storage and
maintenance, handling and delivery to a City location and when acquistion of
specific plants can begin.
Ouan. Size Botanic Name Common Name
47 36" Box Washingtonia robusta 'Multi' Mexican Fan Palm
121 24" Box Washingtonia robusta 'Multi' Mexican Fan Palm
412 15 Gal. Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm
71 15 Gal. Phoenix reclinata Date Palm
51 15 Gal. Chamaerops humilus Mediterranean Fan Palm
30 15 Gal. Butia capitata Pindo Palm
30 15 Gal. Brahea armata Blue Fan Palm
50 5 Gal. Chamaerops humilus Mediterranean Fan Palm
16 5 Gal. Butia capitata Pindo Palm
J;L- /7
. ,...___._.__ '_'H ._.___,
Plant Donation
1/10/92
Page 2
Ouan. Size Botanic Name Common Name
1 36" Box Cycas revoluta Sago Palm
1 30" Box Cycas revoluta Sago Palm
3 5 Gal. Cycas revoluta Sago Palm
5 5 Gal. Rhapis excelsa Lady Palm
4 24" Box Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
SO 24" Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Dollar Gum
15 24" Box Tupiçlanthus calyptratus Tupidanthus
72 24" Box Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree
7 24" Box Araucaria heterophulla Norfolk Island Pine
86 20" Box Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar
10 15 Gal. Pittosporum rhombifolium Queensland Pittosporum
29 15 Gal. Leptospermum laevigatum New Zealand Tea Tree
3 15 Gal. Schinus molle California Pepper
47 15 Gal. Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box
26 15 Gal. Eriobotrya deflexa Loquat
34 15 Gal. Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree
105 15 Gal. Streli tzia nicolai Giant Bird-of-Paradise
42 5 Gal. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
5 5 Gal. Stenocarpus sinuatis Firewheel Tree
118 5 Gal. May tenus boariara May ten Tree
63 5 Gal. Tabebuia chrysoUicha Tabebuia
/;J---¡Jr
Plant Donation
1/10/92
Page 3
Ouan. Size Botanic Name Common Name
6 15 Gal. Bauhinia variegata Orchid Tree
204 15 Gal. Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine
79 24" Box Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine
42 15 Gal. Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
70 15 Gal. Jacaranda acutifolia Jacaranda
22 15 Gal. Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
55 5 Gal. Pittosporum tobira Tobira
150 1 Gal. Pittosporum tobira Tobira
Total of Each Size
47 36" Box Palms
12124" Box Palms
564 15 Gal. Palms
1 36" Box Specimen Palm
1 30" Box Specimen Palm
66 5 Gal. Palms
8 5 Gal. Specimen Palms
227 24" Box Trees
86 20" Box Trees
1588 15 Gal. Trees
283 5 Gal. Trees and Shrubs
¡¿---II
---....--..--- - ..._--_...~---
Plant Donation
1/10/92
Page 4
150 1 Gal. Shrubs
3142 Total Plants Selected by Parks and Recreation
and Public Works
,
i;2~..2.-0
__ _ __...._._ __·"._m_.,~..,_.__.___,.~_....__
_n . - - "- - -_.. ----------
- -" ._--. . --.. -
, /
Att~chment "A"
FRANJI: !. FERREIRA
250 Bonita Glen Drive
Chula Vista, California 92010
December 18, 1991
Mr. David Malcolm
Chula Vista City Counoil
City of Chula Vi;ta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vhta, CA 92010
ReI Trø@ ~arrn Licen5e A~rAøment
Dear David I'
The purpose of this letter is to follow up our earlier
dis~ussiona reqardin~ my use of property owned by the City of
Chula Vista as a site for the raising and storage of trees. AI
you are aware, I earlier entered into a License Agreement with the
City of Chula Vista that would permit me to use the designated
property as a tree farm site, and which require; the payment by me
of a certain number of trees to the City as rent.
In connection with my personal estate planning, I have uked
my attorney to review the License Agreement and offer any comments
or suggestions. After discussing the matter with him, I feel it
is appropriate at this time to request that the City of
Chula Vista enter into a new Licenae Agreement for the tree farm
site which incorporates the modifications euggested by my
attorney. A copy of the proposed License Agreement ie attached
for your reference. These modifications have already been
presented to and discussed with Sid Morris in the City Manager's
office.
The most significant change in the License Agreement would be
to eliminate the requirement that ~ deliver a certain minimum
number of tree. to the City as rent for the use of the tree farm
site. .~ you know, I have been raising a variety of types and
specie. of trees .s a hobby for many years. I am not now, and
never have been, in the business of eelling treee. I have,
however, made many donation. of trees to numerou8 charities and
other worthy causes. Since I do not generate any income from my
tree farming activitie., I cannot deduct the rent payments as a
. -.4 . .
).:2-¿):L
~~I'j" ¡;:IT. ;:);:J;:J ; 1- b-':i\2 2:47PM; 6192361521~CITY OF CHULA VISTA ,~ 3
,
.'
Mr. David Malcolm
December 18, 1991
Page 2
bUlinel. expens.. I em not currently payin; any rent for the
.torage of my tree. on property which I own.
Notwithstanding the nonpayment of rent, it ia my desire to
donate a significant number of trees to the City of Chula Vista.
In fact, you and I have already discussed my donating trees for
the Gayle McCandeliss Memorial as well a. for Rohr Park.
The advantage. to the City of entering into the new License
Agreement arel
(1) The enhancement of the vi.ual appearance of a City-owned
piece o~ iroperty which currently has little or no feasibility for
COlll1llerCl.a us...
(2) The availability of a site for the .torage and
maintenance of City-owned treea. It ia my intention to
specifically identify and segregate thole tree. which I donate to
the City, and to maintain the trees on the site for the benefit of
the City for up to three months or, if earlier, until such time al
they are needed and used by the City.
(3) If at any time the City is not satisfied with the tree
farm arrangement, it can terminate the License Agreement without
cause upon ;iving appropriate notice.
David, thank you for your con.ideration of my request and for
presenting it to the entire City Council on my behalf. I look
forward to a mutually beneficial relationship with the City of
Chula Vista for many years to come,
Very truly yours,
L ~ \ ."--
~. "--.)
Frank B. Ferreira
a2/1217.30/25/250/011
~ .~ Jess )~ ") -
It ul-i¡ 1-.
"I- ha,¡1( ÆnT~rc:t Ii Ie 1/8/9..<.. .
/.2-;2J
; 1- 6-92 2:45PM; 6192361S21~CITY OF CHULA VISTA ;~ 1
~~ 'i I Dr. ~~~
,
.
SHE~AS, SHAW M SPIEVAK
OIO.OE ". .HE"". ^ I'1o.oP....ONAL CO~TJON ..00 I""~I"IA" .AN" 'TOWlflll
~C:TI;" KW£"'... 'OI...·.TfIIIECT
"IC:~".O A. aÞlAW A1TOI\NE'I'S ^T LAw
JAMC. fill. ._stV"K .AN DIEGQ, CAL.lro,UrUA, .1101
.,IC"",,:v c. -..00'" [elt!! U...77.
."UCII .... O"RIEN
......It w, ANTHONY TC.IoKCD_111It
.rACo. C. .CINIOI.T £-I-J .~.· "I
"0 DN n ,. LOAANQ;
V¡HCCHT M. DO.CUrtO
CH...",... .... .CCKl:fII
ANDIII,w J. &.IAKA. WfIIIITIE"" IMT. -1.3J
VICKIE ... WHITNEY
TRANSMI'I'TAL MJ!:KO
DATE I January 6, 1992
TOI Mr. Sid Morrill Via FAX 691-5171
City of Chu1a Viet.
: 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vi.ta, CA 92010
/
,\f
"
(
FILE NAME I FRANK E. FERREIRA/Estate Planning ,
~ "
PILE NUMBER; 1217.30 " ¿/
ENCLOSURES I Copy of the letter which Frank Ferreira Bent
to David Malcolm dated DeCember 18, 1991
Very truly yours,
SHItNAS, SHAW & SPIBVAX
~/I! ð~
Bruce H. O'Brien
SMO/SH/A2
1217.30/70/701/002
Bncloeure
) 2-:2 t( .
5E-a B',": 555 ; 1-13-92 5: 11pr,1 ; 61923£'lS21...,CITY OF CHiJLA I..)I5TA ;1=* 2:
Attachment "0"
FRANK E. FERREIRA
250 Bonita Glen Drive
Chula Vista, California 92010
January 13, 1992
Mr. David Malcolm
Chula Vieta City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
DeAr David.
For many months now the City has been planning the
development and beautification of Rohr Park and the Gayle
McCandeliøø Memorial, part of which includes the planting of a
significant number and variety of trees. I believe the.. are
worthwhile projects that can't help but enhance the beauty of our
city. However, in these times of economic uncertainty and
tightened budgets, it's understandable why these projects have not
been moving rapidly toward completion.
As you know, the raising of trees has been a hobby of mine
for many years. Over the course of the past several months you
have asked on numerous occasions if I would be interested in
donating some of my trees to the City. In consideration of your
requests and, as a long-time resident of the City of Chula Vista,
I would like to do what I can to aid in the completion of the..
And other current City development projects. In connection
therewith, I hereby offer to donate to the City of Chula Vista up
to 500 trees to be used in the completion of Rohr Park and the
Gayle McCandeliss Memorial, together with other current City
~roj.cts.
My only caveat is that you work with my horticulturilt,
Dr. William Nelson, in the identification and .election of the
trees to be donated. He is very knowledgeable in thil area and
can be moet helpful in determining which trees are currently in a
condition to be donated.
Please have the appropriate City .taff member contact me or
Dr. Nelson to make arrangements for the identification and
delivery of the donat.d tr....
Very truly yours,
Frank E. Ferreira
FEF/BMO/SH/A2
1217.30/25/230/012 );;2 --;2 /
u. _ ____.__""___.,_"_.__.,___~______""_",.,____
. SENT·BY: 555 ;12-19-91 8:59AM;
6192361521~CITY OF CHULA VISTA ;~ 2
1ø</17/71
,
LICENSE BETWEEN ~E CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
PRANX FERREIRA OPERATING UNDER THE
NAN! OF BONITA GLEN NURSERY
FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF °H" STREET
AND INTERSTATE 805 IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TO BE USED AS A TREE FARM BY LESSEE
Thi. License 1s made and executed this day of
, 1991, Ðetw..n THE CITY OF CHeLA VISTA, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter sometimes delignated the "Licensor"),
and FRANK E. FERREIRA (hereinafter sometimes des1qnated the
"Licenlee"), whose addresl is 270 Bonita Glen Drive, Chula
Vista, California 92010, and who is operatinq "not for profit"
under the fictitious name of BONITA GLEN NURSERY.
.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this
Licenee Agreement is that certain property which haa heretofore
been relinquilhed to the City of Chula Vista Ðy the State of
California ("CALTRANS") located at the Northwest corner of
"M" Street and Interstate 805, as shown on the diagram attached
hereto, beinq a strip of unimproved, unuled land of
approximately 7.72 acres ("Tree Farm Site"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista now desires to allow said
land to Ðe used for the purpOle of storing an unspecified number
of trees in a variety of containers and in a planted condition
("Tree Farm" or "Tree Farm Use") to provide an availability of
tree planting materials to the City of Chula Vista, as well as
enhancing the vis~al appearance of the aforesaid site; and
WHEREAS, Licensee has for many years pursued as a
noncommercial hobby the raising of an eclectic variety and
species of trees, and
WHEREAS, Licensee has expressed a desire to donate to the
City of Chula Vista a number of specimens of several sizes for
the use of the City of Chula Vista in its Street ~re. Planting
Program and other needs of the Park and ~ecr.ation Department;
WHEREAS, the Tree Farm Site owned ÐY the City of
Chula Vista appears to Ðe an ideal place to relocate many of the
trees presently stored on various portions of property owned by
Licensee; and
. .
--
1;:L-;2~
-
· ::;"~NI· ,tn·; ::;::;::; ;12-19-91 8:59AM; 6192361521~CJTY OF CHULA VISTA ;~ 3
WHEREAS, Lie.na.. haa expre..ed a willingne.. to care for
"'. and maintain any tr.e. which Lieen... donatee to the City of
Chula Vista for a limited period of time after the donation or,
if earlier, until th.y are needed in the City'. tree plantinq
program.
NOW, THEREFORE, iti. mutually agreed as follow. I
1. License: use. Licensor grants to Licensee a revocable
license for the u.e of the Tree Farm Site as a Tree Farm for the
.torage of an un.p.cified number and sp.ci.. of trees in a
variety of container siz.., solely at the discretion of
Lic.n....
2. Term! Earlv Cancellation, Th. term of this Licen.e
shall be subject to the conditione .et forth herein, for a t.rm
of t.n (10) y.ars fro~ the date of execution of this Licen..,
~rovided, however, that either party may terminate this License
y 8ubmitting to the other party, at least one hundred eighty
(lBO) days in advance of the termination, a notice of intent to
t.rminate to the ~ther party at the proper mailing address of
.aid parties. If either party giv.. said notice, Lic.ntee shall
leave the Tree Farm Site in a state substantially the tame as
that when he took possession, except for permanent landscaping
and any approved grading of the lite that may have occurred.
3. License Nonexclusive. Licenaee understand. and agrees
that he shall not have exclusive control and posse..ion of said
Tree Farm Site, but that he hereby recognizee Licensor'. right
to the joint use of the Tree Farm Site not in tubstantial
interference with Licensee'. use, including specifically without
limitation, the Northerly quarter area thereof, or more, for the
use of the City of Chula Vista in the disposition of "clean fill
materials." Licensee shall provide Licensor with an accells road.
to the Northerly portion of the Tree Farm Site.
4. Prohibition Aoainst Gradina Site. It is further
understood and aqreed that Licensee .hall not cut, grad., nor
fill the Tree Farm Site in any IDanner without full compliance
with the requirements of the Grading Ordinances of the City of
Chula vista. The City of Chula Vista shall work with Licensee
to obtain a grading permit if such grading is to occur.
S. Ancillarv UiI@S,
5.1. Caretaker'. Home. ~icens.e shall have the
~1ght to locate upon said Tree Farm Site a portable one-bedroom
home ("Home"), and customary anc111ary structures, at a site
that will afford proper access throuqh unpaved or rough finished
right-of-way to said Home. Said portable Home may be placed
upon a laminated beam platform. Said Home .hall have an
oversite or view of the whole of the Treå Farm.
.' 2
/;2-;2Þ
-..-.----.---
--. . -. - --- 1....'- ....-' :::7....
:::7" t;.Jt;.JHI' ~ OJ."::<.:;:....:;,OJ.~.;;;.J.....,......¡ J { Ur- LHUi...H V¡:=>JH iff 't
5.1.1. Licensee shall be relponlible for
. providing gal, electric and water to the lite as determined
and directed by Licensor in a location upon the Tree Farm
Site to be approved by the Cit~Chula Vista Planning
Department, provided that Lice so shall initiate and
acquire any environmental and nq certifications and
permit. that the City of Chula Vista may deem necessary to
carry out the intent of this License.
5.1.2. Licensee shall prepare the
necessary foundation for the location of said Home and all
permits and inspections shall be accomplished under the
direction of the City of Chula Vista and at a COlt to
Licensee.
5.1. 3. Licensee shall provide for
lewage disposal in a manner authorized and permitted by the
San Diego County Health Department.
S .1.4. Said Home shall be used
exclusively for the housing of the watchman/caretakerl
maintenance man to be paid and fully insured by Licensee
for the protection and maintenance of the leasehold.
5.2. police Doa Trainino. Licensee understands and
agrees that the City of Chula Vista police Force may from time
to time utilize the Tree Farm Site for training purposes, i.e.,
dog training or other field training, Bubject to notification of
the on-.i~e agent of Licensee.
S.3. planted Trees. In addition to storage of
nonplanted, box-contained trees (i.e., Tree Farm), ~icen.ee
shall have the right to plant such trees in the Boil at such
locations and with such trees as are consiltent with a plan (the
"Planting Plan") attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6 . ~icense Fee: DonAtion of Trees.
6.l. Annual Fee. AS and for the use of the Tree
Farm Site, Licensee shall pay to Licensor a fee of One Dollar
($1.00) per year for each and every calendar year or portion
thereof that this License Agreement is in effect, commencing
with the 1991 calendar year.
6.2. Donation of Treeø. During the term of this
Lioense Agreement, Licensee intends .to donate trees to Licensor
for the use of Licensor in its Street Tree Planting Program and
for other needs of Licensor'S Park and Recreation Department.
The number, species and size of tree. donated each year shall be
determined in the lole and absolute di8oretion of Licensee,
however, .in selecting the trees to be donated, Licensee shall
give consideration to the then current needs of Licensor with
regard to the varieti.s and species listed on Exhibit B attached
hereto. Under no circumstances shall Licensee be required to
. . '3
/c2~..2 7
._-_.-
.. "._----_._----"..._----..~-
- -~,-" ....,. '-''-''-' ~.I.':;'-.I.='-='.I.
:;O·U.l.HI' , ~l~~~ol~¿l~ClIY U~ CHULR VISTA ;~ 5
. acquire or deliver to Licensor any .pecific number or species of \
trees.
6.3. ~a~e and M~int.nane8 of Trees. All tr.es
donatod to Licensor by Licen..e shall be .pecifically identified
and marked as belonging to Licen.or. Licensee shall care for
and maintain the donated trees on the Tree Farm Site for the
benefit of Licensor for up to three (3) months after the
donation or, if earlier, until such time as they are removed for
use by Licensor.
7. Noncommercial Status of Licensee. Licensee
understand. and agrees that the proposed Tree Farm shall at all
times be a noncommercial and nonprofit venture and if at any
time should such .tatu. change, Licensor .hall have the right of
termination or renegotiation of this License. .
S. Utilities. License. shall pay all utilities, trash
service, and any necessary cleanup of the Tree Farm Site caused
by either natural or human activiti.s, and shall maintain the
Tree Farm Site in 'a sightly and orderly manner; and shall
maintain all water, .ewer and electrical servic.s to the Tree
Farm Site.
9. Waiver of Claims for Re~ossessiQn. Licensor shall not
be liable and Licensee hereby waives all claimB for damage that
may be caused by Licensor in re-8ntering and taking possession
of the premises as herein provided. Licensor Bhall not, in any
event, be liable for any lon, theft, damaqe or injury to the
Tree FArm Site or person of Licensee, or any occupant of said
premiaes, except as provided by law.
10. Rioht of ~ntrv in Licensor. Licensor reserve! and
Ihall at any and all times have the riqht to enter upon laid
licensed Tree Farm Site.
11. Attorne~s' Fe~e and Coats. In the case of any
litigation as a result of this license between the parties, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys' fee. and costs to be fixed by the court from the
other party.
12. Indemnitv. Licensee Ihall indemnify, hold harmless,
and defend Licensor from any and all losses, claims, costs,
damages, judqments, and awards Buffered by Licensor as a result
of issuance of this License, or by Licenlee's use or occupancy
of the Tree Farm Site.
13. Insurance.
13.1. Licensee represents that it and its agentl,
staff and employees employed by it are protected by workers'
compensation insurance and that Licensee has the coverage under
public liability and property damage insurance polici.s which
4
Ic2-;l?5'
._- -
·_·_"·____·....__u_ ______.
--. . -,. ---
, ............:;;>-:;7.1.. :;7",,-,.......1'1 , O~~~~O~~~17~! I ( WI LHUL~ VI5TA ;~ 6
\
thil Licensee Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the form
of a certificate of inlurance.
13.2. Licensee will provide, prior to the
commencement of the License term, annually thereafter, and upon
.uch other demand .8 may be made by the City, the following
certificates of insurance to the City'
13.2.1. Statutory Workers' compenlation
coverage plus $1,000,000 employers liability coverage.
13.2.2. General and Automobile Liability
coverage to $1,000,000 combined Bingle limit which name.
City a. an additional insured, and which il primary to any
policy which the City may otherwise carry ("primary
coverag."), and which treatl the employees of the City in
the .ame manner .s members of the general public ("cross-
!iabili ty coverage") .
13.3. All policies shall be iSlued by a carrier which
has a 8est'l Rating of "A, Clan V," or better, and ahall meet
with the approval of the City' I Risk Manager.
13.4. All policiee ahall provide that eame may not be
canoelled without at lealt thirty (30) days' written notice to
the City.
14. Successors in Interest. The words "Licensor" and
"Licensee" as u8ed herein, include, apply to, and bind and
þenefit the agents, officers and employees, heire, e~ecutore,
administrators and luccelsors to Licensor and Licensee. No
waiver of the right to forfeiture of this License or of re-entry
upon Þreach of any of the conditions therefore, shall be deemed
a waiver of euch right upon any subsequent breach of such or any
other condition.
15. No "Deemed" Waivers. A waiver or any right or the
default or breach of any term, covenant or condition hereof
shall not be deemed a waiver of such right or of the obligation
of Licensee to perform and fully comply with luch term, covenant
or condition at any lubsequent time or of any other condition.
16. Riaht of Renewal. If this Licenee is in good
standing, and not Booner terminated at the end of the term
hereof, Licensee .hall have the right upon thirty (30) day.'
written notioe to renew and e~tend this Lioense upon its present
terms, prior to the expiration date thereof for two (2) three-
year periods, subject to the same provisions of cancellation and
all other terms herein contained.
17. PossessorY Interest Tax. In the event that the
interest herein licenled to Licensee is alsessed a pOSlessory
interest tax, Licensee agrees to pay the tax so aBselsed.
.. 5
)d-.-.:l /
---
~..._,.." _.."_._...._..~._.,~ .·m.._. ~ _~.._
. SENT -Si: 555 '12-19-91 9:el2AM , 619236152HCITY OF CHULA VISTA 'II 7
18. Wat.r Meter And Weter. Licen80r .hall pay for and
cause a two-inch water meter to be installed at its 801e cost
and expense and at such location as it deems appropriate.
Licensee aqrees to pay the normal and typical charqes for all
water consumed.
19. Sweetwater Autho~itv RðBêment. Licensee recoqnizeB
the property is encumbered with an easement for inqress and
egress and right to maintain a water pump station and other
water facility and equipment on the subject property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Licensor and Licens.e have executed
this License Aqreement as of the Qate written above.
lo.l.ceÞsorl CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
BYI
, Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest,
Beverly Authelet,
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce )1. Boogaard,
City Attorney
lo.l.censeel BONITA GLEN NURSERY, a not
for profit venture operated
BYI Frank E. Ferreira
a2/l2l7.30/l0/l00/003lic
12/18/91
. 6
/;¿-;Jt7
- -------.---- ".,- ~.,._-~-_._._.,_._--_.._---~--
.
.
.
.
,4'pP.eo.Y. LOCATOR
· c::A,c./.4,e~ "H" STREE.T
..' [ EXHIBIT" A" )
PROPERTY· #/~:"/"
NORTH _. . n /..;J..-J /
--~- --
..
. c .
,
EXHIBIT B
List of Trees
Podocarpus
Albizia Julibrissin
Koelreuteria Bipinnata
Bauhinia Variegata
Chamacrops Excelsa
Podocarpus Maki
Liquidambar Styraciflua
Arecastrum Romanzoffanum
Tristania Conferta
Washingtonia .Robusta
Magnolia Grandiflora
Nerium Oleander Red
Nerium Oleander White
Callistemon Lanceolatus
Podocarpus Gracilior
Jacaranda Acutifolia
Metrosideros Excelsa
; Pyrus Kawa kami i
'Pittosporum Rhombi fo 1 i um
Pittosporum Undulatum
Schinus Molle
Melaleuca Leucadendra
,
,
~ /.2 - J~
-------.
/ ') /?
"''';';
I
MEMORANDUM
January 13, 1992
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Malcolm, Councilmember
SUBJECf: Tree Fann at 1-805 and "H" Street
Recently I was contacted by Mr. Frank Ferreira requesting a modification to his existing
contract with the City which establishes a tree fann on city-owned property at 1-805 and "H"
Street (please see attached letter and plot map, Attachment A). For Council's background, the
proposed tree farm at 1-805 and "H" Street was originally initiated by fonner Mayor Greg Cox
in an effort to beautify a major entry to the City with trees and greenery. It was the intent of
fonner Mayor Cox that since the proposed tree fann site at 1-805 and "H" Street would not be
developed through private use, that the City should take positive action to beautify this
entrance to Chula vista. The proposed tree fann site was offered to the City Council for
approval in October 1990 as a "win-win" situation for both the City and Mr. Ferreira; thus
providing the City with a beautified gateway and Mr. Ferriera with a site for his tree fann.
The existing contract (please see Attachment B) with Mr. Ferreira was executed in October
1990 but never implemented due to the demise of Mr. Ferreira's wife. As a result of this
tragedy, Mr. Ferreira is making modifications to his "personal estate planning". Part of these
modifications include proposed changes to the existing tree fann agreement with the City as
outlined below.
Specifically, Mr. Ferreira is requesting that the "rent" required in the existing contract be
eliminated (i.e., rent is to be paid in the amount of an equivalent number of tree units given to
the City ofChula Vista and is more fully explained later in this document). It is Mr. Ferreira's
intent to replace this "compensation" with a sizable up-front donation of trees to the City. Mr.
Ferreira has indicated that because he is not in the business of selling trees and that since he
generates no income from this activity, he cannot deduct "rent payments" in any fonn as a
business expense. He can, however, deduct donations.
To determine the reasonableness of this request, staff visited Mr. Ferreira's existing tree farm
to ascertain the suitability of his trees for donation to the City. During this visit, staffidentified
2,719 trees suitable for park use and 423 trees suitable for use by the City's Public Works Street
Tree and Tree Replacement Program (please see attachment C).
/..2<:>;5
--> ,-^-----_.. - ---- - ------
January 13, 1992
Page 2
To show his good faith, Mr. Ferreira has submitted a letter (please see Attachment D) to the
City donating up to 500 of those trees, identified in Attachment C, to the City. Identification
of specific trees will be coordinated between City staff and Mr. Ferreira's horticulturist, Dr.
William Nelson. Further, Mr. Ferreira has agreed to reserve these trees for the City and to
maintain them until they are moved to the new tree fann site and then for a period not to
exceed three months after the tree fann is fully operational. In the proposed contract, Mr.
Ferreira is obligated only to maintain those trees donated to the City for a period not to exceed
three months.
Rent Comparison
As I stated earlier, Mr. Ferreira is currently required to "pay" the City rent in the amount of
equivalent tree units not to.exceed 1,000 equivalent tree units (ETU) per calendar year. Perthe
existing contract, the following tree unit equivalents were dermed:
TREE SIZE EQUIV ALENT TREE UNITS
5 Gallons 2
15 Gallons 6
24" Box 12
36" Box 24
Using those trees identified by staff as usable, staff has identified approximately 16,740 ETU's
for park purposes, based upon the above standards and 3,012 ETU's for Public Works
purposes, for a total of 19,520 ETU's. This is equivalent to approximately 19.5 years of
payment under the existing contract. Mr. Ferreira has agreed to work with the City in
identifying and donating these trees in the future as needed by the City.
Existin~ Contract
The existing contract with Mr. Ferreira obligated him to pay the City 1,000 ETU's per year.
Although I question ifMr. Ferreira is obligated to make payment on this contract since it was
never implemented, the maximum payment to the City would be 2,000 ETU's (1,000 each for
1990 and 1991). He could then cancel his contract and be under no further obligation to the
City. This is substantially less than the approximately 19,520 ETU's which could ultimately
be available to the City. And, if the contract was tenninated, it would do nothing for the
beautification of this entrance to Chula Vista.
J2-J(
,....-."....--.. --.-.-----...--
January 13, 1992
Page 3
Water Meter and Water
In the original contract signed by Mr. Ferreira, the City agreed to be responsible for the
installation of a 2" water meter to be installed at such location as it deems appropriate and shall
advance the cost and expenses of the water meter. Also in this contract, the City was entitled
to take a number of trees greater than the rental obligation in the amount equal to the water
meter cost. Mr. Ferreira agreed to pay the nonnal and typical charges for all water consumed.
Staff has estimated that the cost of installing the water meter is equivalent to approximately
$8,000. This cost is more than covered by the estimated value of trees donated to the City as
outlined in Attachments C and D. Therefore, this is not considered to be a significant change
in the contract.
Recommendation
Based upon the above analysis, review of the proposed contract and the proposal by Mr.
Ferreira to donate a significant number and value of trees to the City and to maintain them for
an extended period of time, it appears reasonable that the City should grant Mr. Ferreira's
request for modification to this contract. By taking this action, the City will complete a project
originally initiated by fonner Mayor Cox and will implement a project which beautifies a major
entry to the City of Chula Vista. Also, according to staff, this action will be very timely as the
City is designing a number of park projects and could take advantage of use of these trees.
It is my recommendation that the City Council grant Mr. Ferreira's request and direct the City
Attorney to prepare and finalize the appropriate contract for signature by the Mayor. Mr.
Ferreira's proposal has been reviewed by the City Manager who concurs with this
recommendation.
Fiscal Impact
The proposed contract change will have an $8,000 net impact to the City. This includes the
installation of a 2" meter and related staff time for this work plus the contract revision. This
is offset by a savings to the general fund of donated trees against the value of future budgetary
expenditures.
B:\(AJ 13)\FERREIRA.MEM
).2~J3
-.-... .,- --"--"- . ,....-..--.-.--..----..--.-
1
j Mr. Douglas D. Reid 5
Studies Recommended Miticration Measures Reauirements Pa.e 1-80.
Mitigation measure number 7 states: 'No 'i-:1-water' construction should be
allowed during the period of 15 April - 1 September to avoid the potential for
el¿>varint:, tnrhi di t:.- in the nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the
California Least Tern. No construction activity, earthmoving, or high
intensity activity will occur within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater
marsh, or mudflat habitat during t~e perioå 15 March to 31 August ~:thout
proor approval by the u.s. Fish and Wildli:e Serlice and California Depart~ent
of Fish and Game."
The Ser¡:"ce recorr.me;¡ås the "in-wate:-" tirni~g restriction reflected above be
moèi:"ied. A timing restriction to ensure no construction conflicts with the
te:l:":1 should be from April 1 to September U.
The pro':ision of not allowing const~uction activity 200 feet from wetland
hab:::ats from 13 Xarc~ to 31 Augus~ ~ould need to be carefully evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. On March 13 a~d 14, 1991, pile driving operations being
co~ducted by Califor~ia Depar~ment of Trans?or~ation (CALT~~~S) on t~e
Intersta~e 5/High'.-a:: 54 Project that is adjacent to the Refuge resulted in
dis :·...lybance oÎ ter~s nesting on I'D" Street Fill. Even though the pile dri'ler
\.;as located approximately 2,500 feet away from the nesting birds, s:art-up of
t~i.s piece of equipment would result in ter~s immediately leaving their nests.
Based on t~ese obserlations, the Serlice requested CALT~~iS to irnme¿iately
ceas¿ pi:e à=i-¡:ng opera:i.ons. CAL:~~1S complied wi:h our request.
Corr~Ence~en: oÍ work after August 31 may not, in some years, avoid
cor.s:~uction conflicts wi:~ the tern. Terns generally initiate migration from
Sa~ Diego Bay by the end of August. However, several times in recent years,
the? have been obserled in San Diego Bay as late as the second week in
September. For this reason, the 5erlice recommends construction work
in':olving pile dro'ling be initiated after September 15.
The Seryice looks for~ard to continuing close interaction with CVI to work out
the details of the compensation measures discussed to date. We also want to
for::1ali::e an agreement with CVI that stipulates a time frame and a means of
implementing the compensation measures ag~eed upon.
The Serlice also wants to work closely with your staff on property owned
and/or a~~inistere¿ by the Ci~y adjacent to the Refuge. We want the
opportuni ty to re'liew and comment on all future DEIR' s that discuss specific
developments within the Midbayfront. Based upon the information contained
wi :hh these indi':idual doc'JIIlents, the Serlice may make additional
recommendations to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife species and
their habitats.
~_._. __.·__w··___.·____····___~_·,,____
Mr. Douglas D. Reid 6
Coordination on the Midbayfront Development should continue to be conducted
with Martin Kenney of my staff at (714) 643-4270, and Ron Ryno, Acting Refuse
Manager, Sweetwater Marsh National ~ildlife Refuge, at (619) 575-1290.
Sincerely,
ß"t{.~ ~
-
Brooks Harper
Office Supervisor
cc:
CDFG, La Mesa, CA (A~tn: T. Stewar:.)
S~eet~ater Marsh ~w~ Imperial Beach, CA (Attn: R. Ryno)
California Coastal Commission, San D:'ego CA (Attn: D. Lee)
/
EXlDBIT A
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA
CITY COUNCIL
January 14, 1992
RE: Proposed Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan;
'Subcommittee Recommendation'
(Alternative 8, with minor modifications)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCTION
The original Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared on this project addressed the
potential environmental effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal,
including both text and graphics, for the Midbayfront area. However, at the end of the public
review period (planning Commission hearing, September 26, 1990), the applicant, Chula Vista
Investors (CVI) introduced a new revised concept plan for the project. I This new concept plan
was described as Alternative 8 in the recirculated DEIR. (July, 1991)
.--.
After recirculation of the DEIR and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
in accordance with the California Administrative Code section 15088 and 15089, the project was
heard before the Chula Vista City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
("decisionmakers") on August 20, 1991. After hearing public testimony, the Council closed the
public hearing, certified the EIR as adequate and complete under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and voted to neither approve nor deny the project. Rather the City Council
directed the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee2 ('Subcommittee") to work with staff to create
a plan which would resolve the environmental and planning issues which were associated with
Alternative 8.
I In addition to a new project description, Chula Vista Investors also submitted new
geotechnical and hydrology baseline information and design details, new biological mitigation
measures and new traffic mitigation measures. As a result of this information, a decision was
made that the DEIR should be recirculated in compliance with the provisions of Public
Resources Code section 21092.1 and Sutter Sensible Plannin~. Inc.. v. Board of Supervisors
(1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813 [176 Cal.Rptr. 342].
2 The Subcommittee was established in May, 1991 by the Chula Vista City Council to
increase public participation in the Chula Vista Bayfront planning process. The Subcommittee
of 11 voting members held 15 public meetings on the issue of formulating a Concept Plan for
the Midbayfront.
Page 1
---,,,-, ---"- ...---_.._--_._-,_.__._---"~
·
The Subcommittee returned to the City Council with a project similar to Alternative 8. That
project is the project which is the subject of these findings and will be referred throughout this
document as the "Subcommittee Alternative" or the "project". The Subcommittee's
recommendation is referred to, and has been noticed as, "Subcommittee Alternative". The /
applicant is requesting the approval of a conceptual development plan' or a "concept plan" only.
Should the City Council choose to approve the Subcommittee Alternative, then the applicant will
be required· to prepare revised LCP Resubmittal and General Plan documents to reflect the new
concept plan contained in the Subcommittee Alternative. The concept plan defines the land uses
that are contained in the Subcommittee Alternative proposal. Additionally, should the City
Council choose to approve the concept plan, further environmental documentation will be
required pursuant to California Administrative Code section 15168.
There are minor changes between Alternative 8 (as discussed in the EIR) and the Subcommittee
Alternative. First is that the previously proposed luxury hotel has been replaced by a Cultural
Arts Facility and Amphitheater. There is a corresponding reduction of 190 hotel rooms.
Secondly, there is a reduction of residential units from 1400 to 1000, though the total residential
square footage remains the same. There are also minor design modifications in the northern
residential area.
After reviewing the EIR prepared for Alternative 8, the Chula Vista City Council is of the
opinion that the impacts identified for Alternative 8 are substantially the same as those for
Subcommittee Alternative. Additionally, the hearing on Subcommittee Alternative is considered
a continuation of the Council's prior meeting on the project held on August 20, 1991 and
continued until January 14, 1992. Consequently, the Council has determined that with the
exception of the preparation of an addendum pursuant to California Administrative Code section
15164, no further environmental review (including recirculation of the previously recirculated
document) is required under CEQA for the approval of the Concept Plan.3
n.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project (the Subcommittee Alternative or the "Project') is a mixed use project
totalling approximately 3.3 million square feet of building area. The EIR for this Project
examines the Project at a "plan level" of approval only. Prior to any construction on the site
further environmental analysis will be required to further refine and define the impacts associated
with each phase of the Project. Consequently, this EIR is defined as a Program EIR and has
been prepared with the understanding that the provisions of Guidelines section 15168 will be
followed when subsequent activities such as LCP resubmittals, general plan amendments,
redevelopment plan amendments, and site specific construction are contemplated.
3 "Concept Plan" or "conceptual developmental plan" are used interchangeably
throughout this document. ,
Page 2
The concept plan for Subcommittee Alternative proposes 1000 residential units, 1610 hotel units,
150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 140,000 square feet of professional office, and
approximately 246,000 square feet which includes athletic facilities and a conference center.
A cultural arts facility on approximately 3 acres, approximately 20 acres of parks, and two
lagoons--one 10 acres and one 3 acres-are also part of the proposed plan.
The 100acre lagoon is a salt water feature that would extend east from the Bay to the central
portion of the Midbayfront. The parks and the 10-acre lagoon would be available for public use
as well as for resident and visitor use. The 3-acre lagoon would be located amidst a private
residential area and is considered a private aesthetic amenity.
In formulating the Subcommittee Alternative, the Subcommittee made minor changes from
Alternative 8 as discussed in the EIR. The minor changes are the addition of a Cultural Arts
Facility in the location of the previously proposed luxury hotel and the resultant reduction of
total hotel units from 1,800 to 1,610; and, the reduction in the number of residential units from
1400 to 1000, though the total residential square footage remains the same. Also, minor design
modifications occur in the northern residential area.
The proposed Project is a combination of high- to low-rise structures, which vary in height from
229 feet to one- and two-story structures. The core area of the development would include most
of the high- and mid-rise structures, while the northern area would consist mostly of two and
four-story structures, with two high-rise residential towers.
Specifically, the discretionary action taken by the decisionmakers in approving this Project is:
l. Approval of the Concept Plan, known as Subcommittee Alternative, for the
Midbayfront.
The project description initially contemplated a LCP resubmittal and amendments to the Chula
Vista General Plan (update, 1989) and RedevelopmentPlan. The applicant is now seeking only
a concept plan approval and intends subsequently to apply for the LCP resubmittal, general plan
amendment and redevelopment plan amendment.
m.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administtative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the following:
l. The Draft (recirculated) and Final EIR for the Project;
2. All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the planning consultant, the environmental consultant, and the City;
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on proposed Project;
Page 3
__ _ __ __.....M_.. ...."..____~ ~--
.
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency;
5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and I
public hearings; and
6. Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not
. limited to, the following:
a. Chula Vista General Plan(update)-2010;
b. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan;
c. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance;
d. Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance
e. Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan;
f. Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan;
g. City of National City General Plan;
h. National City Local Coastal Program;
i. San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan;
j. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interim Final Permit, No. 88-267-RH
IV.
TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEOA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect I
identified in an EIR for a proposed Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding
reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that '[ c ]hanges or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which ~ or substantially
~ the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.' (Emphasis added.)
The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. "
The third permissible conclusion is that [s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternative identified in the final EIR.
As regards to the first of the three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the
difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely 'substantially
lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be gleaned from other
contexts in which they 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 Public Resources Code section 21001,
which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant
CI1vironmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could
"avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
I
Page 4
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid' will refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-si&nificant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measures or measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce effect to a level of
insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15019 requires only that approving agencies
specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] QI substantially lessen[ed], " these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been
fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has simply been substantially
lessened (and thus remains significant).
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an ElR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final ErR.
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency that a
project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is
feasible to avoid or substantially lessen such impact to a level below significance. Only when
there are specific economic, social or other considerations will the City of Chula Vista or the
Redevelopment Agency for the City of Chula Vista approve a project with significant
environmental impacts.
V.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Final ElR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista ('City' or "decision makers') hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties,
including successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings, in other words,
are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will
come into effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the concept plan contained in
Subcommittee Alternative.
Many of the adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other measures
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings,
and will be effectuated through the process of constructing and implementing the concept plan.
VI.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as
prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. 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. That program is described in the document
entitled, Local Coastal Program Alternative 8A Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Chula
Page 5
-"--.'-."_"0"'-- .- ~-_._...,.~_...._-~.-
Vista. The minor modifications made to the Project as a result of the review by the Bayfront
Planning Subcommittee dQ 1121 necessitate any significant changes to Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan (MMP). )
.
vn.
SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECfS AND MITIGATION MEASUlŒ~
The Final EIR identified a number of significant or potentially significant environmental effects
(or "impacts") that the implementation of the Local Coastal Program Alternative 8 will cause,
of which some could be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures,
while others could not be avoided.
. The proposed Project will generate a number of environmental effects that when considered
collectively, result in a significant cumulative effect to the environment.
The impacts anticipated to geology, soils, hydrology and water quality, visual/aesthetics and the
community character, air quality, biological resources, land use, transportation/access and from
conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses are considered cumulatively significant to the
Bayfront and/or contribute significantly to the impact of a resource in the region.
With the approval of this Project, potential cumulative impacts would result not only from two
or more Project area impacts but also from the combination of the Project impacts with other
properties in the South Bay region. In addition, the proposed Project could encourage }
, developments in the nearby region that are of greater height or intensity than currently allowed.
In order to build or redevelop, these properties would be subject to CEQA, probably requiring
an Em for review of proposed plans. Thus, a mechanism exists to check and limit cumulative
impacts; however, the potential exists for development and/or redevelopment at a greater scale
than is presently allowed.
The 15 + projects proposed or approved for the South Bay and discussed in the Cumulative
Impacts section of the Final EIR, will collectively result in significant impacts to the bayfront
environment. Although individual projects may reduce impacts to levels that are considered less
than significant, cumulative impacts cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided.
An attempt to address impacts on a cumulative, regional scale has been initiated by the San
Diego Unified Port District. The South San Diego Bay Enhancement Plan (not adopted to date)
addresoes biological resources of the South Bay region and identifies areas that should be
reserved and enhanced, as well as potential mitigation areas for cumulative impacts. Due to the
increased urbanization of the South Bay region, and the limited possibilities (e.g., locations) for
mitigation of habitat and species, any large project proposed in this region shouiå De consiåered
to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts.
When combined with numerous impacts of a similar type, the incremental contributions of the
proposed Project become cumulatively significant for selected environmental resources as
detailed below. J
Page 6
Potentially Si~nificant Effects
The following environmental effects, which would be significant or potenûa11y significant in the
absence of mitigation measures, can be avoided because of the adoption of such measures. Page
numbers of the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed follow each impact.
Detailed plans not available for on- and off-site water and sewer pipelines [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-9; Volume I, p.4-6]
Ground settlement due to consolidation of compressible bay deposits and artificial fill
soils [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-4 through 3-10; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Flooding of low lying areas [FEIR, Volume n, 3-14 through 3-20; Volume I, p 4-6]
Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista design ·storm flow and gravity pipe requirements
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Adequate data regarding quantity and quality of groundwater for lagoons [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-16 through 3-21; Volume I, p. 4-6]
The co-generation plant could create emissions that exceed new source limits and
cumulative impacts could occur from vehicular emissions combined with co-generation
plant impacts [FEIR , Volume n, p.3-52 through 3-54; Volume 1 p. 4-11]
Vehicular emissions would contribute incrementally to a regionally significant air quality
impact [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-51 through 3-55; Volume I, p.4-12]
Construction dust and idling trucks could result in unacceptable air quality effects [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Construction noise could reach unacceptable levels [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-58 through
3-60; Volume I, p. 4-12]
Proximity of child care center to 1-5 and the co-generation facility could result in
unacceptable noise levels [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-59 through 3-60; Volume I, p. 4-12]
Fluctuations in salinity regimes of the marshlands due to increased freshwater input from
site drainage could impact wetland wildlife and vegetation [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-76
through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Eelgrass habitats and mudflat habitat may be damaged from near shore
sedimentation/turbidity [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-82 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Project construction would generate considerable noise and increased human activities for
a 2o-year period [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-84 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Page 7
-----..--..--- - ------------
Human and pet presence will decrease the use of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National
. Wildlife Refuge by nesting and foraging avifauna [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-88 through 3-
115; Volume I, p. 4-13] I
Indirect effects on California last Tern including water quality, degradation, nest site
predation, disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predatory regime [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Placement of drainage pipes and resultant increased freshwater inputs and sedimentation
could severely affect eelgrass and mudflats marine resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-306
through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
. Development outside the Project boundaries (e.g., for utility extension to serve the site)
could impact archaeological sites [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-120 through 3-124; Volume I,
p. 4-13]
Site grading may result in impacts to paleontological resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-
122 through 3-123; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Traffic congestion, competition for parking, noise from traffic and visitors, and night
lighting would create significant incompatibility impacts with the residential component
of the Project [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19]
The proposed phasing plan would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18] I
Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-149
through 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-19]
Concept plan would result in incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to non-
renewable energy resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158 through 3-163; Volume I, p. 4-
20]
Proposed high rise buildings would result in the need for an additional ladder truck and
four-person fire crew [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Proposed Project would result in increased fire inspection workload [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Potential to result in fire service impacts if Project is not properly designed [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Solid waste from proposed Project would result in incremental contribution to limited and
declining landfill space [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Impacts to sewer infrastructure [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21 through
4-22] .I
Page 8
-
Impacts to water infrastructure [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I,
p. 4-22]
Incremental contribution to regionally significant demand on water resources [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-162 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-23]
Adequacy of supply and infrastructure for lagoon water from wells [FEIR, Volume n,
p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23]
Potentially inadequate funding for school transportation costs [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-162
through 3-167; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
Si~nificant Effects
The Project will result in the following irreversible environmental changes. All page numbers
following the impacts refer to pages from the Final EIR.
Seismic hazards/risk including ground shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction,
tsunamis, and earthquake induced-flooding [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-6 through 3-11;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
Foundation design difficulties associated with construction of foundations at or near the
groundwater table [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-6 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]
On-site flooding from storm overflow [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3- through 3-22; Volume
I, p. 4-6]
Erosion from coastal or inland flooding [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-14 through 3-22;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
Siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from surface runoff
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Change in character of the view from the Nature Interpretive Center [FEIR, Volume n,
p. 3-29 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and establishments along
Bay Boulevard [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-31 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Creation of visually dominant urban landscape from areas within Chula Vista and 1-5 are
incompatible with the waterfront image identity of Chula Vista [FEIR, Volume n, p.
3-34 through ,3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-10]
Construction and Project operations would create contaiminants that would degrade water
quality [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-79 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13]
Page 9
_..".--- - . ..._._-,._~_...__...._-
·
Concept plan would result in shade/shadow impacts to park and open space areas [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-150 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]
The alteration of predator/competition/prey regimes would adversely impact biological
resources [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-91 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Loss of raptor habitat [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-98 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
· Proximity of development to extensive wetland would result in vector impacts [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-101 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The development would create predator enhancement effects to the Light-footed Clapper
Rail and the Belding's Savannah Sparrow which are federal and state listed endangered
species respectively [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The development would increase human and pet presence, significantly affecting the
quality of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuse, and decreasing the
use of the area by nesting and foraging avifauna [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-88 through 3-
· 91; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The intensity of the proposed Project will result in a significant conflict due to
incompatibility with the land use intensity in the surrounding area [FEIR, Volume n, p.
3-131 through 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-13 through 4-15]
Proximity of the proposed development coupled with its intensity creates significant land
use compatibility impacts with the National Wildlife Refuge [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-133
through 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14]
Proposed concept plan not consistent with certified LCP, General Plan (2010), and
· Bayfront Redevelopment Plan [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p.
4-15]
Inability of schools to ~rve needs of students produced from the site [FEIR, Volume n,
p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15]
Significant traffic impacts at Broadway/"E" Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at Broadway'F' Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
, Significant traffic impacts at Broadway/"H' Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at 1-5 South bound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Page 10
These impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided at the plan level; but, as described in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that the impacts
are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. The sub-
sections below will define each of the above-described impact issues in detail, setting forth either
the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to
substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures proved to
be infeasible due to specific economic, social or other consideration.
A. GEOLOGY ¡son li~¡GROUNDW ATER
Significant effect: Seismic hazards/risk exists, including ground shaking, surface
displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induce flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6
through 3-7; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Standard required design criteria and conventional engineering techniques
can be implemented to reduce the risk. However, the FEIR concludes that even with the
adoption of these criteria and techniques, as set forth in the FEIR and restated below, additional
study is necessary at the Project level to determine impact significance for the detailed
development plans. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this plan
level of analysis [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-7, 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this
significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-8 through 3-10]
1. When detailed development plans for the Project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
pennits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan and
for each proposed structure in the Project prior to issuance of building pennits.
Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and analysis to
determine short-and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground
shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed
foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review and approval by the
City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted standards.
3. All high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat
foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate foundation
support for the structure.
Page 11
~ -,-,.- _._~._-----'"._,- --
·
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils,
or bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills andlor
structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal
and recompaction, dynamic compaction, andlor the use of surcharge fills to
precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
· groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing
compressible bay deposits andlor existing fill soils will require sub grade
modification pursuant to accepted engineering standards to improve the support
capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term post-construction settlement.
· Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction,
dynamic compaction, andlor the use of surcharged fills, to precompress saturated
alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table.
Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other engineered fills may be judged
capable of accommodating some post-construction differential settlements,
depending upon the type of improvements they are to support. Site-specific
geotechnical studies to be completed at the Project level must address post-
construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate post-consttuction total
and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of
improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the IO-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay
deposits), will require subgrade improvements to ensure acceptable long-term
performance. Alternatives to this type of liner, including clay soil liners and
flexible pond liners may be considered. The applicant must determine which
liner would be used, any subgrade improvements necessary, and the choice and
design must be approved by the City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking,
geotechnical studies shall specifically address seismic analysis based on site-
specific subsurface data. At a mìnimum, seismic analysis shall address
seismically-induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations.
Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required
where appropriate as part of the Project design.
8. The embankment separating the 100acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced
storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) or earthquake-
induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment
Page 12
must be made prior to Project approval to evaluate stability of the embankment
during these conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Design to be defined
prior to Project approval may include either elevating the height of the
embankment or reinforcing the crown of the embankment and must be approved
by the City.
. * *
Significant Effect: Potential foundation design and construction difficulties associated
with the construction of foundations at or near the groundwater table could occur [FEIR, Volume
n, p. 3-3; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in
the FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary at the Project level when detailed
development plans are available to determine impact significance and mitigation feasibility.
Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-7 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact
is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. {FEIR, p. 3-8 through 3-10]
j
l. When detailed development plans for the Project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan and
for each proposed structure in the Project prior to the issuance of building
permits. Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and
analysis to determine short- and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected
seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation
for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must
contain detailed foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review and
approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted
standards.
3. All high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat
foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate foundation
support for the structure.
Page 13
.---'.- ---.--.-.-.-----.--..---..-----,-,.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils or
bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or '\
structural improvements. Soil improvement may include partia1 or total removal
· and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to
precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate the potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils will require subgrade
· modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-
term post-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total
removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged
fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below
the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other
engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to
support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the Proj ect level
must address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate
post-construction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on
· the specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the 100acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay
deposits), will require subgrade improvements to ensure acceptable long-term
performance. Alternatives to this type of liner, including clay soil liners and
flexible pond liners may be considered. The applicant must determine which
liner would be used, any subgrade improvements necessary, and the choice and
design must be approved by the City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
·
7. Geotechnical studies prepared prior to Project approval and included in the
environmental analysis for the Project must also address the impact of foundation
location near or below the groundwater table, and recommendations shall be made
which mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift pressures that may
affect foundation elements and subterranean parking floor slabs extending below
the transient groundwater level. Construction-period mitigation must require
temporary dewatering and/or utilization of a gravel mat to provide a working
surface upon which to operate construction equipment. Design techniques to
accommodate transient groundwater highs may include thicker concrete slabs to
provide sufficient dead weight to resist uplift pressures, deep foundations and/or
structural foundations to restrain slabs.
Page 14
.. .. ..
Potentially Significant Effect: Ground settlement could occur due to the consolidation
of the compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and artificial fill soils on site [FEIR, Volume
n, p. 3-4; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p. 3-8 through 3-10]
1. When detailed development plans for the Project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
pennits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading on the site.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be perlonned for the detailed grading and drainage plan and
for each proposed structure on the Project prior to issuance of building pennits.
Each investigation must contain adequate subsurlace exploration and analysis to
determine short- and long-tenn settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground
shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed
foundation recommendation, and will be subject to review and approval by the
City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted standards.
3. All high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat
foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate foundation
support for the structure.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils,
or bay deposits will require some fonn of subgrade modification to improve the
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal
and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to
precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
,
Page 15
.,-_._._.~_..-- . --- - --------- ..----------
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing
· compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long- ,
term post-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total J
removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged
fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below
the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other
engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to
support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the Project level
must address post-construction settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the
· specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-œment lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the la-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay
deposits), will require subgrade improvements to ensure acceptable long-term
performance. Alternatives to this type of liner, including clay soil liners and
flexible pond liners may be considered. The applicant must determine which
liner would be used, any subgrade improvements necessary, and the choice and
design must be approved by the City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
·
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking,
geotechnical studies shall specifically address seismic analysis based on site-
specific subsurface data. At a minimum, seismic analysis shall address
seismically-induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. /
Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required
where appropriate as part of the Project design.
8. The embankment separating the la-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced
· storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) or earthquake-
induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment
must be made prior to Project approval to evaluate stability of the embankment
during these conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Design to be defined
prior to Project approval may include either elevating the height of the
embankment or reinforcing the crown of the embankment and must be approved
by the City.
. . .
· Potentially Significant Effect: No grading plans are available for on-site water and sewer
pipelines [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-4; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
/
Page 16
·
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p. 3-8 though 3-9]
l. When detailed development plans for the Project are proposed, detailed grading
and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code,
. Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans
must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for on-
site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
pennits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading on the site.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be perfonned for the detailed grading and drainage plan and
for each proposed structure in the Project prior to issuance of building permits.
Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and analysis to
detennine short- and long-tenn settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground
shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed
foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review and approval by the
City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted standards.
B. HYDROLOGY/WATER OUALITY
Significant Effect: Flooding on-site from stonn drain overflow [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-
14 through 3-15; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant unmitigable
environmental effects regarding stonn drain flooding. These measures shall be incorporated into
the Project level design. Additional infonnation is necessary to detennine Project level impact
significance and mitigation feasibility [FEIR Volume n, p. 3-22; Volume I p. 4-6]. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and
other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-20]
l. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering
standards, must be approved by the Engineering Department before construction.
To achieve required standards, it may be necessary to raise proposed pad
elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than a 0.5
percent westerly slope of the stonn drain system.
2. Where stonn drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the stonn drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at
Page 17
------.-.-.-'.,." --.~._"_._---~.~-
·
bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
f
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion
must be completed prior to Project approval and included in the environmental
analysis for the Project.
· 4. The storm drain system will be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
* * *
Significant Effect: Erosion from coastal or inland flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant unmitigable
· environmental effects related to coastal or inland flooding. These measures shall be incorporated
into the Project level design. Additional information is necessary when detailed development
plans are available to determine impact significance and mitigation feasibility. [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-22; Volume I, p.4-6] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant effect is acceptable because of
overriding economic, social and other considerations.
I
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicants through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
·
1. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering
standards, must be approved by the Engineering Department before construction.
To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed pad
elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than a 0.5
percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion
must be completed prior to Project approval and included in the environmental
analysis for the Project.
·
3. Erosion control recommendations developed during site-specific hydrological
studies must be adopted as part of the Project approval. These erosion control
recommendations must include coastal erosion of embankments, erosion ITom
inland flooding (including exceeding capacity of site storm drain system), erosion
from flooding of the Sweetwater River, and erosion of the mudflats at storm drain
outlets.
I
·
Page 18
4. The embankment separating the lQ-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
is to be constructed as a soil berm extending up to elevation + 11 feet. The
bayward slope may be subject to shoreline erosion. Likewise, the landward slope
may be subject to erosion from inland flooding. Mitigation measures which may
include a rock revetment to minimize erosion or other suitable design, must be
analyzed during the environmental review on the Project and adopted as a
condition of Project approval.
.. .. ..
Significant Effect: Siltation and chemical contamination! degradation of water quality
from surface runoff (pesticides, fertilizers, oil grease, etc.). [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-15 through
3-16; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will lessen the significant, unmitigable impacts. However, the FEIR concluded that even
with adoption of these measures, set forth in the FEIR and restated below, additional study is
necessary when detailed development plans are available to determine impact significance and
mitigation feasibility. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level
of analysis [FEIR, Volume n p. 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact
is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicants through these findings. {FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
1. The applicant must prepare a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted
engineering standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department
before construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise
proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at
bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding and erosion
must be completed prior to Project approval and must be included in the
environmental analysis for the Project.
4. The detention basin has been designed with a minimum I-foot freeboard base on
a 100-year/6-hour storm event. Additionally, a dip in "F" Street creates a
spillway for excess waters, which would then encroach on "F" Street as the water
travels over the embankment and into the "F" and "G" Street Marsh [John
Page 19
---,.....- - ------------
Goddard, pers comm.] Conventional engineering practice requires consideration
of inclusion of an emergency spillway in the design of the basin. This spillway
must be designed to discharge excess storm water without encroaching on "F"
Street or causing damage to the downstream embankment to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
·
5. The proposed design of the detention basin makes use of the adjacent "F" Street
embankment on the southerly edge of the basin as a small dam. A dam of this
size is required to comply with the requirements of the County of San Diego and
shall be constructed in accordance with the County Design and Procedure Manual
[rev. October 1985] which outlines spillway design for small dams (p. 11-13).
The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable County of San Diego
regulations. Compliance with these regulations will be verified by the City of
Chula Vista Engineer.
, 6. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by the City Engineering
Department before they may be installed.
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: Flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs,
compounded by runup from wind-driven waves (coastal flood hazards); (d) flooding from the
Sweetwater River [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14; Volume I, p. 4-6].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
· which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-20]
1. The applicant must prepare a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted
engineering standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department
before construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise
proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no
· less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at
bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. Prior to approval of the Project, the applicant must prepare a site-specific
hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion.
·
. ..
Page 20
Potentially Significant Effect: Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards,
specifically related to the design stonn flow and gravity pipe requirements. [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-15; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures; The following mitigation measures have been found to ~ feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-20 through 3-22]
l. The applicant must prepare a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted
engineering standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department
before construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise
proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the stonn drain system.
2. Where stonn drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the stonn drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at
bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding and erosion
must be completed prior to Project approval and must be included in the
environmental analysis for the Project.
4. The stonn drain system, must be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Limited data regarding quantity and quality of groundwater
for the lagoons. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-16 through 3-17; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
l. The adequacy of groundwater quantity and quality for a lagoon on the site must
be addressed by the applicant by a thorough analysis conducted pursuant to a
scope of work approved by the City. This analysis must be completed prior to
Project approval and included as part of the environmental analysis for the
Project. If quantity and/or quality are not adequate, a different source of water
Page 21
----
---....- ------~-- -.._._-------~._-
to be approved by the City (or other supply must be used (i.e., San Diego Bay).).
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-21]
· C. VISUAL AR~TIlETICSI COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Significant Effect: Change of the overall character of the view to the east and south from
the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center, from a predominantly natural and scenic wetlands
setting to one of intense urban development [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-29, 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-8]
Finding: The FEIR described mitigation measures that required a redesign of the
proposed Project. No other mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the impacts
to a level below significant. Redesign would include lowering building heights to existing LCP
· limitations, with low profile apartments, high rise hotels not exceeding 12 stories, and scaled
down development east of the marsh. Redesign of Concept Plan Alternative 8 (beyond the
minor modifications proposed by the Bayfront Planning Committee) is not proposed, thus the
environmental effects remain significant. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-39,3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-8] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic,
social and other considerations.
.. .
· Significant Effect: Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and
establishments along Bay Boulevard. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-31, 3-39; Volume I, p. 4-8]
Finding: The FEIR described measures that required a redesign of the proposed Project
in such a way as to permit intermittent views to the bay in order to reduce the significant
impacts to a level below significant. No other measures were found that reduced the impacts
to a level below significant. Redesign (of the Concept Plan, Alternative 8 with modifications)
was not proposed thus the environmental effects remain significant. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-39
through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
· acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
. . .
Significant Effect: Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape from areas within
the City of Chula Vista and from 1-5 that would be incompatible with the waterfront image
community identity of Chula Vista. [PEIR, Volume n, p. 3-34 through 3-35; Volume I, p. 4-9
through 4-10].
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
· which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant, unmitigable
environmental effects. These measures must be incorporated into the Project level design and
analyzed in the environmental review for the Project. Even with incorporation of these
measures, as set forth in the FEIR and restated below, mitigation to a level of less than
Page 22
significant would require Project redesign. Redesign is not proposed, thus the environmental
effects remain significant [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-39 through 3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7,4-9 through
4-10]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council
has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social
and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-40 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-10]
1. The design of the Project must establish landmarks on the site which would be
visible from "E' Street. The design of the Project must also establish a design
pattern or sequence north of the freeway and continue this design element on the
site. The Project must use compatible streetscapes along "E" Street on both sides
of the freeway to create a visual connection between the Project site and portions
of Chula Vista east of the freeway. The streetscape must consist of a
combination of street trees, street lights, or paving.
2. The applicant must install plants which eventually would frame but not block
views. The applicant must use plants with seasonal or structural interest to
emphasize view corridors. The landscape plans for the Project must emphasize
on-site view corridors by flanking views with plant and buildings.
3. The applicant must prepare and implement lighting plans which accentuate
entrances to the site and landmarks. The lighting plan must keep overhead
lighting to a minimum and hood lights in order to prevent light spill. Low
lighting is required along the shoreline.
4. The applicant must use colors and materials which would blend into the site.
Appropriate colors could include lighter tones and pastels. Reflective glass or
reflective roof materials will not be allowed.
5. That applicant must provide visual orientation soon after entering the site in order
to direct visitors to each major site area. Such orientation could be provided by
street design and amenities, such as recognizable patterns, and by building siting.
D. CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Less-than-Significant Effect: The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential
agricultural land. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-44; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse Project effects in the area of
conversion of agricultural lands. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-45; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Page 23
-....."-.'----- - - --..-.--..---....--.-.---....--.------------..
· E. AIR OUALITY
Potentially Significant Effect: Development of a co-generation plant could create /
emissions that exceed new source review limits, and cumulative impacts could occur from
vehicular emissions added to the co-generation plant impacts. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-52 through
3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant effect as identified in the Final EIR.
· Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and has been required as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
1. Mitigation is required by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) before Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is issued.
Mitigation may include concurrent reductions in NOx, ROO and CO to "offset"
Project (co-generation plant) emissions. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-54] Specific
mitigation measures are not available at the plan level but will be analyzed during
the Project level environmental review when specific plans for the co-generation
· plant are available.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: An incremental contribution to a regionally significant air
quality impact in the San Diego Air Basin would occur from vehicular emissions. [FEIR, I
Volume n p. 3-51; Volume I, p. 4-12]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
·
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
Various transportation control measures (TCMs) have been incorporated into the Project.
Such measures must include provisions for employees, residents, and visitors. Measures
that could be included are:
· Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors
· Ridesharing
·
· Vanpool Incentives
· Alternate Transportation Methods
· Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
· Transit Utilization
· Program Coordination
· Traffic Signal Coordination
I
Page 24
·
. Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of "D" or better based on the
impact of this Project on the existing roadway. The "share" of impact by this
Project on the existing roadway shall be calculated by accepted engineering
methods.
The implementation of these various TCMs must be coordinated through a transportation
management agency (TMA) dealing specifically with bayfront traffic demand
management. The applicant will be required to form such a TMA, including funding of
a TMA coordinator and mandatory tenant participation, to the satisfaction of the City.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54 through 3-55]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction activities would create dust that contributes
to violations of inhalable dust (pM -10) standards, and multiple construction-related trucks
blocking traffic or idling near occupied receptor sites could create unacceptable air quality
effects. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-50; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54]
1. Dust control measures required by the APCD will be implemented during
construction. Such measures must include maintaining adequate soil moisture as
well as removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site
housekeeping procedures.
2. Reducing interference with existing traffic and preventing truck queuing around
local receptors must be incorporated into any Project construction permits.
Trucks must turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to enter the site
again. Construction will be limited to operations during daytime periods of better
dispersion that minimizes localized pollution accumulation.
F. NOISE
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction noise could reach 75 to 100 dB at 50 feet
from the source. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58; Volume I, p. 4-12] Noise impacts related to
Biological Resources are discussed in the following section.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Page 25
. - - -----~-- -"--- - " .-._- "'-"---.'- - -.,.--. -.-
·
Mitigation Measures: The following oùtigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
/
l. Construction noise intrusion will be lioùted by conditions on construction permits
to weekday hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.. Those same permits will
also specify construction access routing to minimize construction truck traffic past
existing residential, park, or other noise sensitive uses to comply with General
· Plan noise standards and policies. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-58, 3-60]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to 1-5
(800 feet) and to the co-generation plant exhaust stacks (500 feet) has the potential to result in
significant noise effects [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-59; Volume I, p. 4-12].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
·
Mitigation Measures: The following oùtigation measure has been found to be feasible
and has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
l. Child care center noise exposure must be minimized by establishing a noise
performance standard on co-generation exhaust stack noise met through the use
of silencers; a performance standard of 45 dB at night and 50 dB by day at 400 /
feet from the exhaust stack is required to prevent excessive exhaust noise
intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastern play area boundary to screen out
· traffic noise must also be incorporated into the Project level design. [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-60]
G. BIOLOGY
Significant Effect: Construction and ongoing use of the proposed development would
generate contaminants that would degrade water quality [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-79 through 3-82;
Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the
, FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary when detailed development plans are
available at the Project level to determine impact significance [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-82;;
Volume I, p. 4-13]. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level
of analysis. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however. the City
Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic,
social and other considerations.
I
,
Page 26
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
· Predator Management Plan,
· Human Activities Management Plan,
· Landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan,
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
· Project Lighting Plan,
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&Rs/Ordinances/ Applicable Policies.
This document must be available· in a completed form for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt
and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the
bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter
and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. Long-term silt removal maintenance of the detention basin will be minimized
following the initial construction phases of the proposed Project. This
maintenance cleaning may not be required since the traps, if properly constructed
and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would be
deposited in this basin.
5. Further studies during the Project level environmental analysis are required to
evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoon. If these
studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution because of contaminants or
reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay must be placed in a drain
alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and shall be separated from the
drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Impacts associated with the
placement of this system must be mitigated by the rapid restoration of impacted
areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the interior lagoons must
be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows through a triple baffle trap
intended to control contaminants, rather than directly to the bay. The specific
Page 27
_,_._.______.._..__._ ..__.m..___"__'_
drainage discharge system will be further defined and environmental review will
be completed at the Project level.
6. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle stonn water I
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to
. a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning
Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released
into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet.
7. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
Project shall be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for
. water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall
be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 22 of Table I.
8. All landscape chemical applications (e.g. pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
9. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
, two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
10. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
1I. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
* * *
Significant Effect: Alteration of the Predator/Competition! Prey balance as a result of
the proposed changes in land uses would significantly affect biological resources [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-91 through 3-97; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the FEIR and
restated below, additional study will be necessary to determine impact significance when detailed
development plans are available at the Project level. Impacts are therefore considered significant
,
Page 28
and not mitigated at this level of analysis. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been niade binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
· Predator Management Plan,
· Human Activities Management Plan,
· landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan,
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
· Project Lighting Plan,
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&Rs/Ordinancesf Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological
monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS, as having this effect will be
precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated
that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has
departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may
petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in
consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat
during the period 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
3. landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to
the City landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning,
nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall
Page 29
. . .. - -.-.-------.--- .--,'--.---.-...-- . ..--..---------"
be restricted from use. Landscape plans, to achieve these goals, must be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
·
4. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area. I
Posting of all of the parklandslpublic access areas will be required in addition to
imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, including this
restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. Plans to achieve these
goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building
permits.
S. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
· area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations
for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to
achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fmes.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F' & 'G' Street
· feeder channel and southeast of the"F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Plans to achieve these goals, including detailed landscape and buffer design plans
are required to be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987]
plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fmes as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include
· management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of building permits.
8. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control ,,"<I ,hall possess the
, necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Plans to achieve these goals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
the issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with current
programs of the USFWS.
/
Page 30
9. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
/ maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
10. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parldands.
1t. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. 'Ibis includes such
activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
12. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectura1lines which are
readily observable by birds. These fèatures will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
Project level CEQA analysis.
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are
exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as
Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained
from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching is observed or
should a nest by raptors is initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis.
14. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.S-acre park zone at the "F" & "G"
Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. 'Ibis will be accomplished
by using a vegetated benn separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits") by
a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the
recreational "pits'. 'Ibis would provide both a visual screen between the marsh
and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive
observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be
required at the Project level of CEQA compliance.
15. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parldand areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
16. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder
Points, ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater
Page 31
- ---- ---- - - - ---- ----
·
Marsh to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and
loss of habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of
some of the values associated with the 3,840 foot length of marshland fringing the
"E" Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted
by predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures. Detailed plans to
achieve these goals are required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior
to issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with current
plans/programs of the USFWS.
· * * *
Significant Effect: Due to the limited extent of coastal habitats, and the high diversity
and numbers of raptors utilizing this area, the loss of habitat to development is considered an
incremental, but significant effect of the Project. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-100;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that, although there are feasible measures available to
reduce this impact, the loss of the resource cannot be substantially compensated for and the
impact remains significant. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-100; Volume I, p. 4-13] The feasible
· measures, as set forth in the FEIR, are restated below. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact
is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible,
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
, known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning,
nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall
be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
Page 32
3. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the ProjeCt.
4. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
5. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detenLivn basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G' Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & "G'
Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four
acres of Salt Marsh shall be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would
be required. (e.g. large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more
radius).
6. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such
activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
7. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural1ines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
Project level CEQA analysis.
8. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are
exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as
Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained
from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or
should a nest by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis.
9. New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created at
locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge acceptable to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, size, mix of habitat types, and
detailed design of this replacement wetland habitat will be worked out in
cooperation with and subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Enhancement and Refuge offices.
Page 33
_._.._._,_.._.~..__.- ---~_.._..."--- -~
·
In addition to the wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG' Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "FIG" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
· * * *
Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development to the extensive
surrounding wetlands creates significant vector impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-101 through
3-102; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that, with adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
in the FElR and restated below, the significant impact would be minimized, but that until a
vector control plan is available for the Project level analysis, a determination of mitigation
effectiveness cannot be determined. Thus, this impact remains significant at this level of
, analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-101 through 3-102; Volume I, p. 4-13] As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this
significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible,
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. Ferti1izers, pesticides, and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
Project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near
· wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for
water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall
be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 22 of Table 1.
2. Al1landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
3. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations
· for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to
achieve these goals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
4. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fInes.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E' Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F' & 'G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the'F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
· .'
Page 34
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building pennits.
5. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987]
plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include
management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of building pennits
6. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
7. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
8. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F' & "G'
Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished
by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits') by
a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the
recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh
and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive
observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be
required at the Project level of CEQA compliance.
9. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
.. .
Significant Effect: Development would create predator enhancement effects to the Light-
footed Clapper Rail and Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which are listed by the California
Page 35
. - .-- ~
---"--...-.-..-- --..---..---. ----
Department of Fish and Game as endangered, and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
endangered - Clapper Rail, and as Category II - Belding's Savannah Sparrow.
Finding: The FEIR has found that not enough specific Project-level detail has been }
· provided to determine whether or not these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
level. Mitigation measures, set forth in the EIR and restated below, would minimize the
impacts, but not to a level of less than significant, therefore, these impacts remain significant
at this level of analysis and further environmental analysis will be required for specific
construction Projects. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-105; Volume I, p. 4-13] As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and
other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible,
, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections;
· Predator Management Plan,
· Human Activities Management Plan,
· Landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan,
, · Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
· Project Lighting Plan, j
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&RslOrdinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed fonn for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. Landscape plant materials to be utiliJed in the Project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
· known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning,
nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall
be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. A qualified monitor (as determined by the City Planning Department) shall be
required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage sysrems. The
monitor shall be employed through the City and shall report directly to a specific
responsible person in the Engineering, Planning, or Community Development
· departments should construction activities fail to meet the conditions outlined or
should unforseen problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of
J
Page 36
the construction activities. This monitor will also be required to monitor on a
reduced basis during actual building construction.
4. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
Posting of all of the parldandslpublic access areas will be required in addition to
imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and including
this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. Plans to achieve
thë.>ë goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations
for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to
achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" & "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the'F" StreetlMarina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building pennits.
7. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987]
plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include
management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of building permits
8. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, perfonning law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
Page 37
. -- -.- -"---- .-------.----------"-- -----------------------
9. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
· maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
;
10. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within "F" & "G' Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four acres of
Salt Marsh shall be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall be
enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
· [1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would
be required. (e.g. large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more
radius) .
11. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such
activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City,
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
·
12. Buildings must utiliz.e non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the I
Project level CEQA analysis.
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptor
could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such a Nixalite. A
· commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the
applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or should
nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis.
14. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the 'F" & 'G"
Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
· between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished
by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits") by
a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the
recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh
and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive
/
Page 38
·
observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be
required at the Project level of CEQA compliance.
15. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
16. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
17. New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres sha1l be created at
locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge acceptable to the
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, size, mix of habitat types, and
detailed design of this replacement wetland habitat will be worked out in
cooperation with and subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Enhancement and Refuge offices.
In addition to the wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "F/G" Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "F/G" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Vegetation and wildlife within wetlands could be
significantly altered by wide fluctuations in the salinity regimes of the marshlands due to
increased freshwater input from site drainage. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-76 through 3-79; Volume
I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resources management plans as individual sections:
· Predator Management Plan,
· Human Activities Management Plan,
· landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan,
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
Page 39
--_.---- ~- - - -~------
·
· Project Lighting Plan,
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&RslOrdinancesl Applicable Policies. /
This document must be available in a completed fonn for review during the
Project level environmental process.
· 2. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to
a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning
Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released
into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet.
3. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
· residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, peñorming law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. J
4. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair, and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
· mitigation programs for the Project.
5. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "F' & 'G'
Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four
acres of Salt Marsh must be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
· Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would
be required. (e.g. large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more
radius)
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The substantial grading, excavating, and dewatering have
the potential for creating considerable erosion within the uplands, and sedimentation/turbidity
I
·
Page 40
in the wetland and nearshore marine systems - eelgrass habitat may be lost, and mudflat habitats
I may be modified. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-82 through 3-84; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections.
· Predator Management Plan
· Human Activities Management Plan
· Landscape Design and Management Plan
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
· Project Lighting Plan
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
· CC&RsIOrdinancesl Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt
and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the
bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter
and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill
the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the
rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system
from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which
flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than
directly to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be further
defmed and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
Page 41
--_._.~--~-_..~---.._-- ---------.
5. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to
a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning \
Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released
· into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet.
6. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and· commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
· species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
7. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair, and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
8. Public awareness signs explaining the resource concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parldands.
·
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction of the Project would generate considerable
noise and increased human activities for a 2o-year period, could increase sediment erosion and
accretion patterns, further generate elevated turbidity in adjacent water, siltation in adjacent
wetlands, potentially release toxins into adjacent wetlands, and elevate predator/scavenger
densities within the vicinity of the development area. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-84 through 3-85,
3-105 through 3-106; Volume I, p. 4-13J
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
·
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been Found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115J
l. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections.
· Predator Management Plan,
· Human Activities Management Plan,
· · Landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff /Drainage Management Plan,
Page 42
,
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
· Project Lighting Plan,
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&RslOrdinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be avai1able in a completed form for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological
monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS as having this effect will be
precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated
that the least tern has not yet· arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has
departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may
petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in
consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat
during the period 15 Marsh and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
3. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to
a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning
Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released
into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet.
4. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning,
nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall
be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. A qualified monitor (as determined by the City Planning Department) shall be
required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems. The
monitor shall be employed through the City and shall report directly to a specific
responsible person in the Engineering, Planning, or Community Development
Page 43
--.-,...-- - ---_..__.."'_._,_.__._.._-~- --.---------'-~._---
departments should construction activities fail to meet the conditions outlined or
should unforseen problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of
· the construction activities. This monitor will also be required to monitor on a
reduced basis during actual building construction.
Significant Effect: Increased human and pet presence would significantly affect the
quality of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and decrease the use of the
area by nesting and foraging avifauna. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-88 through 3-91; Volume I, p.
4-13]
Finding: The FEIR found that the mitigation measures, set forth in the FEIR and
restated below, are feasible to reduce this impact to a level less than significant at the Project
· level, but that for the plan level, impacts are not mitigated. At the Project level analysis will
be required to analyze the extent of the impacts and to confirm and/or supplement the adequacy
of the mitigation measures identified below. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-91] As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this
significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
· 1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections.
· Predator Management Plan,
· Human Activities Management Plan,
· Landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan,
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
· Project Lighting Plan,
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&Rs/Ordinancesl Applicable Policies.
·
This document must be available in a completed fonn for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning,
nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cor.aderia, shall
· be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets' area.
Posting all of the parklandslpublic access areas will be required in addition to
Page 44
imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and including
this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. A plan to achieve
these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of
building permits.
4. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations
for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to
achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building pennits.
5. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" & "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the'F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the city prior to the
issuance of building pennits.
6. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987]
plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include
management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of building pennits.
7. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
8. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair, and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
9. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
Page 45
- --~-----'-----'._- -.--.- ~---
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "0" Street Marsh area and the area between the 'F' & "0'
Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four
acres of Salt Marsh must be created in this area. In addition. tidal flushing shall J
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created. as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would
be required. (e.g.1arge half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more
radius)
·
10. No further dredging, structural changes. or proposed uses will be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such
activities as marinas. water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer. City.
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
11. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are
exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such a
, Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained
from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or
should nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping
materials. These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA
analysis.
12. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park wne at the 'F" & "0" J
Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrub land restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
· Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished
by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ('pits') by
a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the
recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh
and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive
observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be
required at the Project level of CEQA.
13. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
· perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
14. Public awareness signs exp1aining the resources. concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
15. New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created at
locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge acceptable to the I
· Page 46
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, size, mix of habitat types, and
detailed design of this replacement wetland habitat will be worked out in
cooperation with and subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Enhancement and Refuge offices.
In addition to the wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "F/G" Street Marsh,
2.0 &.CïeS of wetland habitat immediately west of "F/G" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: Effects from development on the California Least Tern
could occur including indirect effects of water quality degradation, nest site predation, disruption
from humans and pets, and altering of the predator regime. [FElR, Volume n, p. 3-104;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections.
· Predator Management Plan
· Human Activities Management Plan
· Landscape Design and Management Plan
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
· Project Lighting Plan
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
· CC&RslOrdinancesl Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt
and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the
bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter
Page 47
_ ..___._.._ ._____~_..____._u___. _______.__ _.~.__~._~___..___
·
and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required. J
4. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill
the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
· because of contaminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the
rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system
from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which
flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than
directly to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
5. a. No "in-water' construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
· through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological
monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS as having this effect will be
precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated
that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has
departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may
petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in j
consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
·
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat
during the period 15 Marsh and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
6. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to
a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning
· Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released
into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet.
7. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
Project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for
I
·
Page 48
water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall
.. be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 22 of Table 1.
8. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
9. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning,
nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall
be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
10. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parldands/public access areas and imposing fines
based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development
areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions.
A plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the
issuance of building permits.
II. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations
for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. A plan
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits.
12. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E' Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional humanlpet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F' & 'G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the"F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building pennits.
13. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level
environmental review process. This program sha1l utilize the Connors [1987]
plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool
to control human and pet activities. The plan sha1l be comprehensive and must
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to the issuance of building permits.
Page 49
. ___ __"___~__'~'~'_"_'m_____ ,_~~._~__,~_______
14. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife I
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these
· two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically
be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered
species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
15. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair, and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
· 16. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & 'G"
Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four
acres of Salt Marsh must be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would
be required (e.g.large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more radius).
·
17. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such
activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City,
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas
18. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architecturaIlines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
· or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
Project level CEQA analysis.
19. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptor
could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such a Nixalite. A
commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the
applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be üb;¡çïvOO ûr should
nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis.
·
20. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.S-acre park zone at the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must mclude such /
Page 50
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished
by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits") by
a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the
recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh
and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive
observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be
required at the Project level of CEQA compliance.
21. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
22. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited
activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
23. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder
Points, ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater
Marsh to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and
loss of habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of
some of the values associated with the 3,840 foot length of marshland fringing the
"E" Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted
by predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures. Detailed plans to
achieve these goals are required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior
to the issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with
current plans/programs of the USFWS.
Potentially Significant Effect: Placement of site drainage pipes and resultant increased
freshwater inputs and sediments accretion and erosion could severely affect the eelgrass and
mudflats marine resources. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-106 through 3-107; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections.
, . Predator Management Plan,
. Human Activities Management Plan,
Page 51
.~_...- .-.-..--.--... .. -_._.._.._-"~._-_..._- _.
· Landscape Design and Management Plan,
· Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan,
·
· Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
· Project Lighting Plan, I
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
· CC&RslOrdinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
Project level environmental process.
2. a. The "direct to bay" drains shall be designed and constructed with effective
· energy dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminate erosion or accretion
of the mudflats and ensure the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. An
expected loss of mudflat totaling not less than 1.7 acres must be replaced
within the NWR in a location away from the proposed development area.
The drains and the surrounding mudflats and eelgrass beds shall be
monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands
Monitoring Plan (Measure 1) for a period of five years and any additional
corrective measures required must be implemented an any additional
impacted areas resulting shall be replaced by the creation of a similar area
from the uplands of the "D" Street Fill or Gunpowder Point.
· b. As an alternative, the two "direct to bay" drains must be extended to
subsurface discharge points located in the existing "J' Street Marina boat
channel. These discharge points must be located at a minimum depth of -
10 ft. MLLW and shall be buried in the mudflat to a point below the I
existing eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either combining the drains or
avoiding dense eelgrass beds. Surface contours must be restored and any
construction impacts to eelgrass must be mitigated by replanting over the
pipeline.
·
3. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill
the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the
rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system
from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which
flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants. rather than
· directly to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
4. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
/
Page 52
·
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern.
r Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological
monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS as having this effect will be
precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated
that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has
departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may
petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in
consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat
during the period 15 Marsh and 31 August without prior approval by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Garne.
5. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle stonn water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to
a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning
Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released
into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet.
6. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as the relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
the issuance of building permits will be verified for consistency with current
programs of the USFWS.
7. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the Project.
8. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such
activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City,
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
Page 53
~..__....._-,~_._-_..".., -~..~ ._~-,---_.
,
9. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
H, ARCHAEOLOGYIHISTORY/PALEONTOLOGY
Potentially Significant Effect: Development outside of the Project boundaries (e.g., for
the extension of utilities to serve the site) could impact adjacent archaeological sites. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-120 through 3-122; Volume I, p. 4-13].
·
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
a. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeological review at the
Project level of environmental review. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-124; Volume I,
· p. 4-13].
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: Impacts to paleontological resources (fossils) may occur
when the site is graded as earth moving activities cut into the potentially fossil-bearing layers J
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-122; Volume I, p.4-13].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
· EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-123; Volume I, p. 4-13].
a. A qualified paleontologist shall be II lilY pre-construction meeting to consult with
the grading and excavation contractors.
b. A paleontological monitor shall be site on half time basis during the original
, cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the deposits mapped as Bay Point
Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. If the deposits are discovered to
be fossiliferous then monitoring will proceed; if on the other tlÂlÎd they t'..:m C1.:t
to be barren colluvial deposits then monitoring will not be continued. (The areal
distribution of these deposits is summarized on the geological map of Kennedy
and Tan, 1977.)
)
, Page 54
c. In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist will be
allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil
remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small
fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a
screen-washing operation on the site.
d. Fossil remains collected during any salvage program will be cleaned, sorted, and
catalogued an then, with the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
I. LAND USE/GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS/ZONING
Significant Effect: The intensity of the proposed land uses will result in a significant
conflict because of incompatibility with the land use intensity in the surrounding area. [FEIR,
Volume n, p. 3-131 through 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-13 through 4-15].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to reduce intensity in
accordance with the building heights and square footage allowed by the certified LCP would
mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-138; Volume I, p.
4-15]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council
has detennined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social,
and other considerations.
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: The residential units above the commercial retail and the
nearby commercial visitor uses in the central core area would be exposed to much commercial
activity .
Traffic congestion, competition for parking, noise from traffic and visitors, and night-lighting
could create significant incompatibility impacts. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14
through 4-15].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and hó.ve been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14 through 4-15].
a. Insulation, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), shall be
required in all exterior and interior residential walls.
b. Units must be designed such that insulation between units occurs, in walls,
ceilings, and floors, to reduce potential noise impacts.
Page 55
- '- ,_.,-~- --_._--_....._-~...~~.~..".._,_.._,---.~.
c. Residential window treatments shall be designed to reflect some light.
d. Designated parking spaces within a separate locked and secure area shall be
provided for residents. j
.. .
· Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development site (even with the
buffers) coupled with the intensity of the proposed Project, creates significant land use
compatibility conflicts between the National Wildlife Refuge and the proposed development site.
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to lower building heights which
are close to the Refuge boundaries (to no greater than 30 feet along the perimeter of the site),
and decrease intensity (to a level similar to the intensity allowed under the certified LCP) would
mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-138; Volume I, p.
4-14]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council
· has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social,
or other considerations.
.. .
Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan is not consistent with the certified LCP,
General Plan (2010), and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposal )
which can reduce to a less than signiflcant level the impact identified in the Final EIR.
,
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is found to be feasible and has
been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant
through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15].
l. The certified LCP, General Plan, and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan must be
amended to be consistent with the proposed concept plan.
J. coMMUNITY SOCIAL FACTORS
·
The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse effects in the area of Community Social
Factors. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-142 through 3-143; Volume I, p. 4-15 through 4-16].
K. COMMUNITY TAX STRUCTURE
The FElR does not cite any significant effects in the area of Community Tax Structure.
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-144; Volume I, p. 4-16].
· )
Page 56
L. PARKS. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Potentially Significant Effect: Public access opportunities from 1-5 and areas to the east
may be constrained. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-150; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-
19].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the Project
which will substantially avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in
the EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
has been required as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through
these findings.
a. The applicant shall submit an access plan, showing designated public parking
areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east
side of 1-5 across the "E" Street bridge at the Project level of environmental
review. An access plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved
by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-
151; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19].
* * *
( Potentially Significant Effect: Park development according to the proposed phasing plan
would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the anticipated high
public usage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148; Volume I, p. 4-18].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
a. The applicant must include all parks development and parking for parks within
the first phase of development. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18].
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan includes a potentially
insufficient amount of parking for park users. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-149 through 3 -150;
Volume I, p. 4-18].
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the Project at the Project level
of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Page 57
.----.....-,..--.--- --- --. - --,._._---,.,-,_.".---~--
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
shall be required to be incorporated into the Project proposal at the Project level of CEQA
compliance. /
· a. Additional public parking spaces may be required by the City. The number of
spaces and the location of those spaces will be determined during Project level
CEQA review. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19]
.. .
Significant Effect: Implementation of proposed concept plan would result in
shade/shadow impacts to park and public open space areas. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-150 through
3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20].
· Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to reduce the heights of the
hotels to a range of 6-12 stories would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level.
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]. As described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
M. UTILITY SERVICE
Potentially Significant Effect: Implementation of the concept plan would result in an
, incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to non-renewable energy resources (fossil fuels). i
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-158; Volume I, p. 4-20]. I
Finding: The Final EIR concluded that, cumulative energy resource impacts can be
mitigated below a level of significance by the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
below. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-162 through 3-163; Volume I, p. 4-20].]
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
·
a. Include double-pane glass, provide increased wall and ceiling insulation,
incorporate solar energy opportunities, provide efficient sealing of doors and
windows, and include time controlled lighting systems throughout the
industrial/commercial portions of the Project to minimize cumulative impacts to
non-renewable energy sources. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-162 through 3-163;
Volume I, p. 4-20].
.. .
· Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed high rise buildings would result in the need
for an additional ladder truck and four-person crew by the Fire Department. [FEIR, Volume
n, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21]. )
Page 58
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
has been required as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through
these findings.
a. An additional ladder truck will be funded by the applicant in a manner acceptable
to the City and the applicant. The annual salaries of the four-person crew will
be funded by the City. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21].
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project will result in an increased work load
for the Fire Department due to plan review, site inspections, routine fire safety inspections, and
public education programs. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incoIpOrated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
has been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
a. An additional fire inspector will be necessary to handle the additional work load
created by this Project. The City's General Fund will pay for the additional
position. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project will result in an increased work load
for the Fire Department due to plan review, site inspections, routine fire safety inspections, and
public education programs. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incoIpOrated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant
through theses findings.
a. An additional fire inspector will be necessary to handle the additional work load
created by this Project. The City's General Fund will pay for the additional
position. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
.. .
Page 59
___m ..........._"-_..__..
-
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan has the potential to result in
significant impacts on fire service if the subsequent Project is not properly designed from a fire
· safety standpoint. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-
21]
· a. Maximum fire flow shall be 5000 gpm.
b. Fire department roadway access shall be provided to within 150 feet of all
portions of any building.
c. All roadway widths shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
d. All apartments, three or more stories in height or containing more than 15
dwelling units and every hotel three or more stories in height or containing 20 or
more guest rooms shall be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler system.
·
e. A fire alarm/excavation system shall be provided for all
public assembly, and multi-residential occupancies.
f. All Title 1924 California Code of Regulations (State Fire Marshal's Rules and
Regulations) shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided
with the provision for the turning around of fire apparatus (either a 75 x 24 foot
hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
·
h. Private fire hydrants will be required to satisfy the requirement that any part of
the ground floor of any building shall be within 150 feet of a water supply.
These hydrants shall be in place and operable prior to the delivery of combustible
building materials.
1. Public fire hydrants will be required every 300 feet on public streets. However,
if the location of major buildings is unknown, hydrants may be located specific
to the buildings. This would result in more effective coverage, and could
possibly result in fewer fire hydrants. For design interest, t!l!:re !!'e hydrant~
· manufactured which have a lower profùe than the traditional barrel type.
j. Address signs - Easily readable signs which can be seen from the street are
required. Large, contrasting block letters and numbers must be utilized.
Page 60
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: Solid waste generated from the proposed Project site
would result in an incremental contribution to the limited and declining landfill space in San
Diego County. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed Project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
a. In order to reduce the volume of trash, a recycling program shall be undertaken
by the applicant in conjunction with a local recycling company. The recycling
program shall include bins on site for the collection of recyclable materials such
as glass, plastic, metal, and paper products for residents, businesses, and visitors.
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
b. Also to reduce the volume of trash, the development shall be required to
incorporate trash compactors into all building plans. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-164;
Volume I, p. 4-21]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project may result in significant impacts to
sewer infrastructure. The magnitude of this impact will not be known until detailed plans for
the infrastructure are prepared. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Findings: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the Project at the Project level
of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
shall be required to be incorporated into the Project proposal at the Project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The City Engineering Department must review the plans for consistency with the
City's Thresholds Standards and with the system which the Project will tie into.
Connections which exceed the threshold standards will not be allowed. [FEIR,
Volume n, p, 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-22]
*. .
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts
to water infrastructure. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-22]
Page 61
.------
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed
Project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final
EIR. I
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-
22]
· The Sweetwater Authority analysis indicated specific areas where upgrading of water
mains must be completed. These include:
a. A 12 inch main in "F' Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west
must be installed.
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way
extension westerly must be installed. (This will connect the Project with supplies
of water from the southern portion of Chula Vista, thus providing the Project site
with two sources of water instead of one.)
·
c. The existing 8 inch main along "F" Street from Bay Boulevard running west must
be upgraded to a 12 inch main.
d. All on-site mains must be sized 12 inches.
* * * )
Potentially Significant Effect: The Project would incrementally contribute to a regionally
significant demand on water resources. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23]
,
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed
Project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
EIR below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
a. The applicant must provide water conservation measures at the Project level
· design, including elements such as low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, timed
irrigation, drought-tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation (where appropriate) and
reclaimed water lines for future use (if determined by the city';; Dc¡;a..-tment of
Public Works to be appropriate for this area). The development must result in
no net increase in water consumption, and will be subject to any fee program the
City has in place to implement this requirement. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-165;
Volume I, p. 4-23]
* * * )
· Page 62
Potentially Significant Effect: Until the applicant demonstrates that there is an adequate
supply of well water for both lagoons and an engineering design for the circulation system is
provided a potentially significant effect on water supply is assumed.
Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with the measures set forth in the EIR and
restated below, additional study is necessary when development plans are available at the Project
level to determine impact significance. Impacts are therefor considered significant and not
mitigated at the plan level of analysis. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project proposal at the Project level of CEQA
compliance. [FEIR, Volume IT, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23]
a. Further testing and verification of well supply must be completed for both lagoons
and included in an EIR at the Project level.
b. Information must be provided to show the proposed well locations and
engineering design of the circulation system.
c. If quantity and/or quality are not adequate, a different source of water to be
approved by the City must be used. A possible, feasible source is the adjacent
, San Diego Bay. The impacts of such a water source would be reviewed during
Project level environmental review.
. . .
Significant Effect: The proposed Project has the potential to produce 420 elementary
school students and 406 junior high and high school students which would decrease the ability
of both districts to adequately serve the needs of the students. Additionally, the City's Threshold
Standards would not be met. [FEIR, Volume IT, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which could reduce to a less than significant level the school overcrowding impacts. These
measures shall be incorporated into the proposed Project at the Project level of CEQA
compliance. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine Project level impact
significance and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures may be feasible and shall be
required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the applicant during the
Project level of CEQA compliance.
,I
Page 63
"'__'_'M__' __··"_··~·__·__,.·_·_·_'w_
·
a. The applicant must form a new Mello Roos district to finance capital costs such
as permanent or relocatable classrooms and school buses. [FEIR, Volume n, p.
3-165 through 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-25]
b. The location of new school sites or additional property adjacent to existing
schools for the construction of capital improvements will be resolved during
Project level CEQA compliance. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-165 through 3-166;
Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
·
.. .
Potentially Significant Effect: The location of 1-5 between the Project area and the
schools would prohibit the feasibility of students walking to existing schools, potentially resulting
in significant transportation cost. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-162 through 3-167; Volume I, p. 4-23
through 4-24]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect below a level of significance.
· Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and
shall be required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
a. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers'
salaries must be funded by the applicant in a manner acceptable to the City. )
[FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-24]
. . .
·
N, TRAFFIC
Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative would result in
significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour,
with the Project generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/"E" Street intersection
would operate at LOS F (lCU 1.04) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FEIR, Volume
I, p. 4-27]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
· which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/"E" Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into
the Project level design. Additional mitigation measures shall be examined at the Project level
of review and shall be adopted if found to be feasible. The identified impacts to intersection
capacities, therefore, remain significant. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because or overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
)
· Page 64
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the Project level CEQA compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"E" Street intersection.
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn and an exclusive right-turn
only lane.
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-
turn only lane.
.. .
Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative would contribute to
significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour,
with the Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/'F"
Street intersection would operate at LOS D (lCU 0.84) which is an unacceptable level of service.
[FElR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will reduce a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/'F' Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into
the Project level design. The identified impacts to intersection capacities, therefore, remains
significant. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine Project level impact
significance, fair share allocation, and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that the significant impact
is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the Project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"F' Street intersection.
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane.
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane.
. . .
Significant Effect: Development under the Subcommittee Alternative would contribute
to significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak
hour, with the Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the
Broadway/"W Street intersection would operate at LOS E (lCU 0.95) which is an unacceptable
level of service. [FElR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Page 65
- ---_.,.__..._-_.~ . -_.~.._.~_.~_._- ---
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will reduce a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/"H" Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into
the Project level design. Impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity, therefore, ,
remain significant. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City Council has detennined that the significant impact is acceptable because of overriding
economic, social, or other considerations.
· Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the Project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"H" Street
intersection.
Westbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane.
Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane and an exclusive
, right-turn only lane.
. . .
Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative will contribute to
significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour,
with the Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the 1-5 Northbound I
Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
· Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E"
Street freeway ramp intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and
be incorporated into the Project level design. Impacts to intersection capacities in the vicinity,
therefore, remain significant. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of
overriding economic, social or other considerations. Furthermore, some of the changes (e.g.,
those to eastbound "E' Street) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency
(CalTrans) and not the City Council. Such changes must be approved by CalTrans.
· Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the Project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the 1-5 Northbound and Southbound
Ramp/"E" Street intersections.
Northbound 1-5 Off-Ramp at "E" Street: Construction of an additional right-turn
only lane along "E' Street east of the ramp. ¡
·
Page 66
· . .
Widen the 1-5 northbound off-ramp at "E' Street to provide an exclusive left-turn lane,
shared left- and right-turn lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and two right-
turn lanes.
Widen eastbound Marina Parkway to provide three through lanes and a right-turn only
lane.
Restripe the "E' Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two left-
turn lanes from eastbound "E' Street to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
Additional mitigation measures not considered in the EIR but required as a condition of
Project approval by the Chula Vista Planning Commission.
VIII.
INFEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASUJlF.'\ AND
ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE SUBCOMM11Tt;E
ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 2108HB)
The approval of the Subcommittee Alternative will cause significant unavoidable impacts as
discussed above. The impacts which cannot be substantially lessened or avoided with the
adoption of all feasible mitigation measures are listed on pages 8 to 12 of this document.
The decision makers have, in certain instances, rejected the proposed mitigation measure of
redesigning the Project as currently proposed. This mitigation measure has been specifically
rejected by the City as infeasible because the densities proposed for the Project are necessary
in order to make the Project financially feasible, given the amount of public infrastructure that
is necessary for development of the midbayfront. (See Financial Feasibility Analyses for the
Chula Vista Bayfront Project, Subcommittee and Staff Alternatives, prepared by Williams-
Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc., December 11, 1991, and transcript of testimony of Fred Pierce
of Price Waterhouse before the Chula Vista Planning Commission December 18, 1991.). In
addition, the City Council has specifically found that construction of the Project as proposed will
generate significant construction jobs and significant permanent jobs. Finally, the City rejects
the mitigation measure of redesign because the Project as proposed (Subcommittee Alternative)
will substantially increase the City's property tax base, the City's occupancy tax revenues and
the City's sales tax revenues.
In addition, the City Council has also considered whether any of the Project alternatives
discussed in the EIR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects.
(see, Citizens for Ouality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 [243
Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also, Public Resources Code section 21002.) As will be explained below
Page 67
-.--.----.-.-. ......._--~---~--.--------
the decisionmakers conclude that none of the proposed alternatives could both meet the
objectives of the Project applicant and lessen or avoid the identified significant environmental
effects.
I
However, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(c), the decisionmaker(s), finds that
· the following independent economic, social and other considerations made infeasible project
alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the Project identified in the EIR. The
decisionmaker(s) further finds that each independent consideration, standing alone, would be
sufficient to make infeasible the Project alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated
into the project which were identified in the EIR.
Economic considerations that make the alternatives infeasible include a reduction in the level of
employment opportunities which would accompany the proposed Project.
The Redevelopment Agency's goal of generating revenue from the Transient Occupancy Tax
· would be impeded by the approval of the infeasible alternatives which reduce the number of
hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area. The infeasible alternatives would also reduce the
levels of property tax increment income and sales tax revenue.
There are Social considerations that make alternatives I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 infeasible,
including their inability to create a viable "community" in the Midbayfront area. The
Subcommittee Alternative presents the City with the opportunity to create a balanced pedestrian-
oriented neighborhood that is a 24-hour, safe, vital self-sustaining mixed-use neighborhood. (See
for example testimony by Carl Worthington, Jerde Partnership before the Planning Commission
on December 18, 1991.) For the neighborhood to be well balanced between jobs, housing and
services, both visitor lodging and permanent residential uses must be a major element of the mix I
· to provide an adequate market for the services needed. Pennanent residential and visitor lodging
facilities would keep the district active and vital in the evening hours, and would also augment
all the day time activities which would help reduce overall per capita auto trips in and out of the
neighborhood. Finally, permanent 24-hour neighborhood population helps discourage crime.
The Midbayfront population of 5000 to 7000 people would occupy an area of less than 135 acres
surrounded by a 350+ acre park and open space area. This contrasts with a typical distribution,
such as would be found within Chula Vista east of 1-5, of 5000 to 10,000 people occupying a
full square mile (640 acres).
· Other considerations that make infeasible the project alternatives includes the similarity of
impacts that would result from implementation of any of the alternatives. The Wildlife
Resources (Incremental Loss of Raptor Foraging Area) impact would occur regardless of the
alternative adopted and would not be mitigated by any of the alternatives.
EIR Alternative 8, as well as Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would result in the same level of visual
urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use, and shade/shadow impacts. The
Subcommittee Alternative lessens the visual impacts although not to a level below significance.
(See testimony of John Moot, Vice Chair, Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, before the Planning
Commission on December 18, 1991.) Only Alternatives 2, 7, 7a or 9 would mitigate these
· impacts. However, Alternative 2 would result in significant, unmitigable traffic impacts and
I
Page 68
Alternatives 7, 7a and 9 are infeasible due to economic, social, and other considerations as
I previous! y stated.
Alternative 1. No Proiect - No Develo,pment
This alternative would retain the site in its current degraded condition and would not result in
attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, or
the Generai Pian. The No Project alternative would not revitalize or rehabilitate this ;")rtion of
the community and would also present untenable economic impacts as a result of the loss of
currently expended funds.
This alternative would allow the existing uses of the site to continue, which include people and
pets walking through the area and intruding into the sensitive buffers of the National Wildlife
Refuge and illegal dumping. Thus, the sensitive wetland habitats and species would continue
to be impacted by human disturbance. There would be no managed opportunity for the public
to access the bayfront in this location. Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is
determined to be infeasible.
Alternative 2. DeveloJ)ment Under Existin~ Certified LCP
Because this alternative is primarily office uses, this alternative would result in significant,
unmitigated traffic impacts that could be avoided by the proposed Project and all of the other
alternatives. The alternative would also result in a significant and unmitigable impact to raptor
i habitat.
As noted above, because this alternative does not contain a substantial residential component,
this alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract sufficient retail
establishments needed to sustain the development.
Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient
Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible.
Alternative 3. Reduce Density I
This alternative would result in the same level of biological, visual urban dominance, obstruction
of bay views, land use and shade/shadow impacts as the proposed Project.
As noted above, this alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract
sufficient retail establishments needed to sustain the development. In addition, the residential
element is inadequate.
Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient
Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Page 69
~---'._---_.'-_. -- -~._..-- ."._----~-----
Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible.
Alternative 4. Reduced Density IA l
·
This alternative would result in the same level of visual urban dominance, obstruction of bay
views, land use and shade/shadow impacts as the proposed Project.
As noted above, this alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail
establishments needed to sustain the development.
Alternative 5. Reduced Density 2
This alternative would result in the same level of visual urban dominance, obstruction of bay
· views, land use, and shade/shadow impacts as the proposed Project.
As noted above, this alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail
establishments needed to sustain the development.
Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient
Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible.
·
Alternative 6. Locational Alternatives J
None of the alternative locations described in the EIR would accomplish the Project's major goal
of developing the Midbayfront area. This alternative would retain the site in its current
degraded condition and would not result in attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan.
This alternative would allow the existing uses of the site to continue, which include people and
pets walking through the area and intruding into the sensitive buffers of the National Wildlife
· Refuge and illegal dumping. Thus, the sensitive wetland habitats and species would continue
to be impacted by human disturbance. There would be no managed opportunity for the public
to access the bayfront in this location.
Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient
Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Finally, Chula Vista Investors owns the Project site and has no other land holdings of a
sufficient size to contain the proposed Project or any of the alternatives. Based upon these and
other factors, the locational alternatives are determined to be infeasible.
·
I
Page 70
Alternative 7. Reduced Density 3. Modified Desi~n
This alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail establishments
needed to sustain the development. In addition, this alternative does not contain a sufficient
number of residential units.
Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient
Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is detennined to be infeasible.
Alternative 8. J\pDlicant's Reduced Density Pro.,posed LCPR #8
This alternative proposes a reduction in the Project including a decrease in the hotel count by
228 rooms, reduction in the apartment unit count by ISO units, reduction in the height of the
residential towers, reduction in the luxury hotel in height, reduction in the resort hotel in height,
and reduction in the atrium hotel in height. In addition the residential use that was proposed at
the comer of Marina Parkway and "F' Street has been eliminated, thereby increasing the public
park acreage from 29.8 to 33.8 acres. ElR Alternative 8 would result in a development whereby
the square footage has been reduced from approximately 4.2 million square feet down to
approximately 3.9 million square feet. This reduction also reduces the traffic impacts associated
with the Project.
This alternative would result in a somewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance, obstruction
of bay views, land use and shade/shadow impacts as the proposed Project. However, these
impacts would remain significant. This Project does not contain a Cultural Arts Facility.
This alternative has been identified as an economically feasible alternative by the
decisionmaker(s). However, the alternative is rejected because it results in the same impacts as
the Subcommittee Alternative without the added social benefit of the Cultural Arts Facility.
Alternative 9. Alternative DevelQped in Re$pOnse to Public Comment
This alternative would create a long, narrow lagoon corridor along the nprthern and western
edges of the Midbayfront Project site adjacent to the National Wildlife Preserve. The technical
feasibility of this lagoon corridor is questionable for the following reasons:
1. A 14OQ-foot long breakwater to protect against erosion by wave action would be required
to create a saltmarsh habitat along the exposed shoreline;
2. The breakwater would disrupt several acres of mudflat bayward of the lagoon corridor;
3. Installation of a breakwater would almost certainly result in increased wave erosion of
both ends of the breakwater;
J
Page 71
_..'·M......... ."__._....____. --.--
4. The geometric relationship of the corridor and two adjoining marshes and the long,
narrow channel-like shape of the corridor would result in tidal water velocities that would
cause progressive erosion and/or sediment buildup at various locations; and
· 5. The establishment and maintenance of a viable low marsh vegetation is doubtful because
of erosion and/or sediment buildup.
As noted above, this alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail
establishments needed to sustain the development.
Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient
Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
· Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible.
Alternative 10. ~front Subcommittee AJternative
This alternative is a result of the referral by the City Council to the Bayfront Planning
Subcommittee. The Project was referred to the Subcommittee by the City Council to study land
use aspects of the Midbayfront Plan and to determine whether or not a suitable compromise
could be reached between the differing positions of the developer, the Planning Department, and
the community groups. The Subcommittee Alternative proposes a further reduction from
AJternative 8 to encompass a total of 1610 hotel rooms and a total of 1000 dwelling units. In
· addition, plan designation and/or wning of the City-owned parcel adjacent to 1-5 would be
modified to allow flexibility as to its ultimate use. This alternative has also redesigned the I
northern residential portion of the Project by relocating the towers just to the east of the
residential lagoon and in their place, substituting low-rise residential adjacent to the buffer areas.
In addition, there have been further reductions in the height of structures located within the core
so that the maximum height permitted would be 22 stories or 229 feet. The site of the proposed
luxury hotel, which was to be located on the west side of Marina Parkway, has now been
designated for park use and the possible location of a Cultural Arts Facility and support retail.
In addition, the public park, semi-public park, and open space acreage has been increased to a
total of 71.4 acres. With this modification, the total square footage of the project has been
· reduced from approximately 3.4 million square feet down to approximately 3.3 million square
feet. This reduction will also reduce the traffic impacts associated with the project, although not
to a level of insignificance.
This alternative would result in a somewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance. obstruction
of bay views, land use, shade/shadow impacts as compared to the proposed Project.
This alternative has been identified as a feasible alternative by the deci~ionmaker(s) to address
issues which have been identified in the Environmental Impact Report. Since this alternative is
economically feasible and the applicant has agreed to prepare a revised LCP Resubmittal
· document to reflect the reduced density plan proposed by the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee,
the decisionmaker(s) finds that this alternative substantially lessens the significant environmental
J
-
Page 72
effects as identified in the final EIR. The decisionmaker(s) have also elected to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to California Administrative Code Section
15093.
IX.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Chula Vista City Council in approving the
various permits that are the subject of the FEIR, having considered the information contained
in the FEIR, and having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record, makes the
following statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings and the action of
the City Council approving the Project.
The City Council finds and concludes that the public benefits of the Project outweigh the
identified significant unmitigated impacts set forth in the Findings (pages 1 to 73). The
decisionmakers find that the following factors support the approval of the Project, Subcommittee
Alternative, despite the FEIR identified significant environmental impacts and other alleged
potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the City Council sets forth and adopts the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations:
1. The Project will help fulfill attainment of various goals in the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan with a use and density that is appropriate for the site.
2. As set forth in the findings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project or made binding on the applicant through the adoption of the findings,
which to the extent feasible, reduce impacts below a level of significance.
3. Approval of the Midbayfront Plan Subcommittee Alternative will result in the
following specific economic, social, and other considerations which the City
considers beneficial, including, but not limited to:
A. Careful management of the sensitive, natural resources on site.
Additionally the Project will allow for controlled public access to natural
areas and parks.
B. Construction of needed circulation improvements.
C. Construction of necessary service and utility improvements in the
Midbayfront area.
D. Identification of Chula Vista as an important seaside hub on the southern
coastline of California. The destination resort will be equally accessible
to downtown San Diego and to the City of Tijuana.
E. Direct access for the public to 36.8 acres of public open space including
but not limited to a 10 acre lagoon, an Educationa1lInterpretive Park
Page 73
__..~.___m'_. "--"-~' -_.~--_.__. ..-..". .---.--,...- .._-~-,_.",.,-_..-
adjacent to the wetlands, and a public beach along the lagoon. In addition
to the areas of public access, over 300 acres of marsh habitat and wetlands
will be preserved, portions of which will be restored and enhanced. /
F. Development of a Cultural Arts Facility that would provide space for
. municipal festivals and events. In addition, an outdoor amphitheater on
the lagoon for outdoor events and concerts is contemplated.
G. Development of a housing product currently not available in the City of
Chula Vista. For example, the Project will include high-rise and mid-rise
towers with ocean views and residential units over commercial uses in the
core of the Project.
H. Construction job opportunities as well as permanent jobs in an economy
which is currently lacking job opportunities.
I. Generation of transient occupancy tax, increased sales taxes and tax
increment to the City of Chula Vista through the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency.
Finally, the decision makers conclude that the Project as approved is financially feasible and rely
on evidence generated by the applicant and the applicant's economic consultant, Price
Waterhouse. Essentially, the applicant has shown that assumptions that were incorporated into
the City's economic model, the Williams Kuebelbeck Study, were inaccurate, in particular those
related to construction costs, potential revenues, potential sales prices and fmancing. (festimony
of Fred Pierce, December 18, 1991, before the Chula Vista Planning Commission.)
Additionally, Williams Kuebelbeck, in a memorandum dated January 3, 1992 noted that the
Subcommittee Alternative would potentially be financially feasible using the applicant's
assumptions and phasing plan. Consequently, the Council believes that the concept plan set forth
in the Subcommittee Alternative is the superior alternative despite the significant environmental
impacts that will result from implementation of the Project.
[C,IWPS I IBA YFIlONTIFINDINGl.TXTI
¡For City CouocilIl14/92]
/
Page 74
Attachment 4
.
TAIŒ- -
United States Department of the Interior PRIOEIN
AMERKA
FISH A.'iD \\lLDLIFE SERVICE .- -
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT - .
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION
Laguna Niguel Office
Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road
Laguna Niguel, California 92656
January B, 1992
Ms. Diana Richardson
Environmental Facilitator
Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, California 92012
Re: Clarification of Certain Mitigation Measures Specified in the
Recirculated Draft ErR for the Proposed Midbayfront Development
Dear Ms. R.i.c~ardson:
On December 30, 1991, Martin Kenney of my staff received a telephone call frem
Tina Thomas, an attorney representing the City of Chula Vista (City) . She
requested c:arification of specific mitigation features that would be part of
the proposed Midbayfront project. This letter addresses this issue and
requests that the wording of two mitigation measures set forth in the Biology
Sec~i~n of the Recirculated Draft EIR for the Midbayfront project be modified.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) letter dated May 23, 1991 (copy
enclosed), to the City commented in detail on various aspects of the
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Chula
Vista Investors (CVI) Midbayfront development. As indicated in our May 23
letter, CVI and CVI's consultants have been working closely with the Service
over the pa5~ year and a half to develop significant compensation measure that
would offset project impacts and biological concerns raised by the Service.
The Service's letter includes a summary of 10 specific major compensation
measures jointly arrived at by CVI and the Service that would be incorporated
into the prcposed Midbayfront Project. The letter also states that CVI and
the Service are currently negotiating a contractual agreement which will
formalize C~l¡ commitments to implement the agreed-upon package of compensation
measures.
In addition, specific measures were identified in the Biology Section of the
Recirculated Draft EIR. Based on our review of this document we recommend
that the wording for two mitigation measures identified in the EIR be
modified. The adjustments requested would bring the wording for these
mitigation measures into conformance with the specific intent of the Service
~.,.... .··._..__n·._·u ,._.__.._...__..'-.__.___.
Ms. Diana Richardson 2
J
in stipulating the equivalent compensation measures to which Chula Vista
· Investors has agreed. Specifically, we request adjustment in wording for
Mitigation Measures No. 17 and No. 26 as follows:
For Mitigation Measure No. 17 (on page 3-113 of the Recirculated Draft EIR),
we recommend be modified to read:
"Revenues generated from the .selling, leasing or operation of the
hotels, residences and commercial properties associated with the
proposed Midbayfront would fund two (2 ) full-time staff people employed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh National
wildlife Refuge (Refuge) . Funding of these two staff positions would be
· in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for
controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered species,
performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented
in a reasonable, effective and a timely manner."
For Mitigation Measure No. 26 (page 3-115), we recommend be modified to read:
"New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be
created at locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, size, I
mix of habitat types, and detailed design of this replacement wetland
· habitat will be worked out in cooperation with and subject to the
approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Enhancement and Refuge
offices.
In addition to the wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible
for specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG"
Street Marsh, 2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "FIG"
Street Marsh, and 3.8 acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge or within the boundaries of Midbayfront
Project."
By incorporating the suggested rewording, these mitigation measures will be
· brought into conformance with the equivalent measures previously stipulated by
the Service and agreed to by CVI.
The Service wants to work closely with the City regarding development of the
Midbayfront. In particular, we want the opportunity to review and comment on
all future draft EIR's that discuss specific developments within the
Midbayfront.
Coordination on the Midbayfront Development should continue to be conducted
· J
Ms. Diana Richardson 3
with Martin Kenney of my staff at (714) 643-4270 and Thomas Alexander, Refuge
Manager, Southern California Coastal Refuge Complex at (619) 575-1290.
Sincerely,
------,
~~ ~ - ß
(l . ..
't-"\,~ é ,]'-k..-<¡J ;fJd - ~
__ - /' Brooks Harperi.--'
~ry' Office Supervisor
cc:
CDFG, La Mesa, CA (Attn: T. Stewart)
Southern California Coastal Refuge Complex, USFWS,
Imperial Beach, CA (Atto: T. Alexander)
California Coastal Commission, San Diego, CA (Attn: D. Lee)
Ms. Tina Thomas, Remy & Thomas, Sacramento, CA
Mr. Matthew A. Peterson, Peterson & Price, San Diego, CA
..'.--'..-..-.--.--. . . ','-_.. _._~....._-- ------
I
,
,
1rJHITI§ 1P AGE ]BLANK
. !
,
.
-'
.
-~
~
..,.., ..,
;....~.~. United States Department of the Interior
."-"'.' -....
.òì~~~;~'
~îJ) FISH Al'iD WILDLIFE SERVICE
-..-:... .'~?", FISH AND WILDLIFE E~~CEMENT
~.; ..~
SOUTHERN CALIFO~~IA FIELD STATION
Laguna Niguel Office
Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road
Laguna Nigue1, California 92656
May 23, 199:
SO''''':': =-~S D. R2id
E:-:'·::':-G~....LT.e;.:.,;=- RevieT~ CoorC::':1ator
F~â~n~~g De?âr~~ent
C.:. ::; c f C::-:'...:.~a Vis ta
P.c. Bo:·: E~~
C:c-..::a \":'5~a~ Califor:1ia 92012
Ro· Re·;:e~ of Ci:y of Chula Vista's Recir~~:ated Draft EnviYor~ental Im~ac:
Re;:or:: f~r t::-:e Proposed Mí¿bay:ront Developme~t, Ch1.l1a V:"st3., San DiegQ
CO'...:~-'t:: , Califor::.ia
De~:- ~r. Re:'c:
I
7:.2 r.s. F:'s~ ar.è ~:'lèlife Se~J:"ce (Ser.Tice) r.as rev:"e~eå Y0~r A?r:'~ 199:
Ee::.r::·...:.2.:::e¿ Draf: En·,iro~.rr:ental Impact: Repar: (DE~~), L . C . P
oca~ ùas:a~ rogrõæ
Res"':'::2.:::a2.. ~:o. 8 Amenê..ment (LCP) , and Appen¿:"x C "Biolog:cal Resources" ......v,;.
t::e propcsed èevelopülent of the Midbayfront De~Jeloprnent, Chula V:'sta,
Ca.::":":or:::"a. The SerJice in a May 22, 1991 t:lephor.e conser~at:'on with Rooi~
F~:~a~ of your staff requested a t~o day time extension to re~Jiew and co~~e~:
on t~ e DEIR. The Ser~ice requested this time extension because of the
~ecessity to appear in federal court to testi:y as an expert wit~ess. Ms.
Putr.~ gyanted this request.
T:-:e Ser:ice's review of these documents focused on the direct and secondary
l.:::'.~Qcts the proposed development of the project would have on fish and
.....·ildlife resources and their associated habi:ats in Sweet~ate~ Marsh National
~ildlife Ref·.lge (Refuge) and San Diego Bay (Bay) both of which lie imme¿:'ately
to t~e ~est and are adjacent to the subject PFoper:y. Protection of
b:'o::"ogical i~tegrity of the Refuge is paramount to the SerJice as the Re:uge
is irthaoit:d by five endangered species, contains over 90 percent of the
re~a:'ning coastal salt marsh habitat found on the Bay, and is one of only
t~ree Federal refuges located in coastal southern California.
The SerJice previously reviewed the proposed projec~ in a let~e~ of c~mrnent
dated Se?ce~ber 26, 1990, whic~ was submit~ed to the City of Chula Vista on
the ini:ial DEIR daced August 1990. This let::er identified a n~~ber of
sig:-1ificant issues and concerns relative to the potential impac:s the
Midba7f~ont Development would have Federal and State listed endangered species
a~¿ other bialogical resources within the Ref~ge and Bay.
Since the submittal of our September 26, 1990, lel:ter. Chula Visa Investors
(CIl) , the project applicant, and eVI's con~ultants have been ~orking closely
----,-----" . . ----~---------'----"-"-"----------'--
Mr. Douglas D. Reid 2
with the Se:r-.~ice to develop sig~ific.3.nt compensation meas~:-es t~a:: ·,.;culè
offset project impacts and biological concerns raised by t::e Se.r-lice. 1"e
spe.cific compensation measu:-es jointly ar-:-ived at by cn anà the Sèr;:'ce ar-::
documer,ted i:1 CVI let::ers dated December 1ó, 1990; J anuar:: 15, 19;;;:': ~.:lr:.:-. ' '
199i.; and May 8, 1991, that have been submitted to the Ser-;:.ce. F',lr~71è. ::-::;'0 r::: .
CVI and the SerJice are currently negotiati:1g a c:¡r:.trac'::.:.al ag'::'ee!::è.~.:: ·...c:.c:'.
·,.;-i11 for:nali=e CVI corru:ni t:nerlt:s to i~?le!D.e~t: the ag~eed-u~or:. ?ack~~~ of
compe~satior. measures. Some of the major cornpe;.sat:'on Œe~S~res C"C r'.as ag:"=~:'
in princ ip 1e to implement i:1clu¿e:
l. Resto:-3.:::"on 0: 3.5 acres c: f=ês~~a:2r mar~~ a:"'.c. 2.3 3.C;:'25 c: :::i~S::';_
s ~ 1 - rr:arsn on highl:; d:'s::~r=e¿ habitats t::'2.t a¿~ 0:':1 "? G" c: --=.:- :!.3.r::::-. .
~-- "'" -- - --
2. 1:"1 a¿¿:'::'on to t~e mer:.tior.ed above, C- has C:¡;;w":1~::::è.G. :0 . .
acreage ' ~ cc:"..::.:::,:-.~
3.5 ac'::'es of land wes': of "FIG" S::r-~e: Ma.::S:1. A??::c:-::'~a::e~? , ac=~S 0:
t~is lar.è whic~ is irr.rne¿:'atel? a¿j aC2r.t to -,. Ea.:r .....~...:.:.~ be C:::::2:-::2¿ --
.....c:
c:Jastal salt marsh habi=a~ ~hic~ would grea::y e:1r..:i;-.c:? t:"le ..._._~- p:::'s::: :i:
t:1e mar:;h.
3. C'~ ·..;o~là c :Jns t.::·..lC ': a 50-feat. lor.g si~g;l:? s~a:1 br~¿Z2 ~~:h ô. .:.....- ::ì'; ~
. -
~/er"C.ical clearance across :1ar:'::a Park,.;-ay t~ fac:'::':.a:2 ::;e ::;';';02;:-.2:"'.: 0:
:r:ar.:sh birds, pa::::'c'..llarl·,¡ t~e e:-.da!"!.gered li;:-.::-foo:2':' C:3.F~2= rail
(rail) .
" I:: aèd:'::ian to t:1e bridge ¿i.sc·..lssed aoo're, a m:'::i::ic...-:¡ - - .....- -- -. -..'-.' )
¿:'3.:::TIe:er C'..l: ·;er:.5 ,.,.,¡auld be placed s:..:.bs::.::.:-.:ia:::: i::c::-=.::iS¿ .
:0 ...- ---
flushi::g of "F/G" S:ree:: ~arsh.
5. Detailec àes ig:1 requir2:TIe!1ts for project b~i~èi:1gs, ". . a:-.G.
ia::.cSC2.~ :':-.§;,
lighti::g would be inco=?orate:¿ i:1 order to m:':l.i:¡¡i::e p:::-:jec: i=~ ac t.3 a::
b:'ological resources. Po key ele~ent of the ¿esig:"'. req\..:ire~e!1::'; T",,'as to
eliminate potential avian preåator perches t~at could facili::a=e
predation by rapters on the e!1àangered California leas't tern (:ern) and
the rail.
6. Þ.:,. a¿¿i :ior.al 100 fee:: ta t~è 100· foo: wide buffer s:i?ulate¿ ---
Set,:leme:l.t Agreement (5' e::::a Club ~arsh) would be provided t::1a: ."
v. so ô__
developme~t and pub lic would be a minimum. of ')("" fe.et f::oIn ":;""
ac:::ess ._v ~
s~:,=et, 'lener, and Swee:~at:er Marshes. The aèditional lOO-rao't bU::::2:"
lands, t~at: total appro:<.i:na't21:r 8.8 ·,.;-ould be ~ .' . coas::J.::'
aC':::'es, p.;.antec. ',.;:.::1
sage scr"..lb vegetation. A fence being approxirnat:aly 3.3~O f~.:>- ~:1 l2:",.g:::
·,.¡oulà be placed in the inland por~ion of t:'e buffer as a means :0 cQn:::-J:'
p,-.:.b 1 ic access to t::-.€ Re :'.lge . Se?ar3.te fer.cing ar.d planting 0: coas:3.:'
sage sC:-·..lb vegeca:ion ~ould be provided a: "F/G" S t:.:¿;¿ t ~.:.=:~..
7. FQ:: t~e life of the Mi¿ba:l~ron: Developme!1:: , cn ·....ou~¿ f·..lnd a :naj or
pr:=dator man.J.g¡;:ment program to prot2c: t¿r7'.S and r~ ~ , ... and oc:-:er s~¿c:'.=s
.,;,1....-...
of high iDanagement priori. :::r to Ser:ice (i.e. shore, :r.arsh, ar.¿ ',o1aè::':1g
bi.=d~) . This program '",ould include Öe fu:;¿i:l.g of t·...o ful:"-:::':::¡e s::3.::
p¿rsonnel for the Refuge, at least: t"...o seasor.al pre¿~::Jr rnana~~~e:;: )
specialist.s hired by U. 5. Depart:I1ent o E A.gric'..ll :·..lre , Ar:.imal DG.~:..ge
Control, and a professional orni ;:ho logis t ;.;ho has e:<:pertise i~ h,:¡r.d:i:",·s
Mr. Douglas D. Reid "
and capturing rap tors .
8. Approxi~a~ely 15 aC~2S 0: sal=~ar3h h~~~:~t on "D" S t:-2-e t F· -- ~n¿ -
;:¡~;"".::; ~f f....psnwater haoi:.3.t or: Gunpo.....¿:;~ ?Q i:1t would be c~ea::.=¿. 30 ::-.
si::es a~e located on lar.ès ad.."TI':'!listera¿ by the Refuge.
9. Specí::"c funding woul¿ be pra·..óèed to - g::-aup k:1cwi'. .=.s P:;'Qje== ~i:è::":2.
whic¡'¡ is ¿eèic.3.teò to t¿~~ora~7 hc:ii:1g . ,. ~ . . :':'r::s
t:-.e ....r:.c rena:::._:t.3.-:::-:; - .
pre:l.
10. :..~~ :2:- _.. - "-.. c::ntr:1: 5',"5:2:.15 ·..;01-;.2..¿ :¿ :":1C:1~;:or':;'-:2¿ _..- ::¡ ~- - ~. -. - '.;:':~ :.:
~.......::;; - - ...~' --------
qua~~::: moni:Qr:':1g pr:::;:3..":J ',..;0'..'::'3. be i:::,;:e:mE:1t2¿.
II". '~':"¿".,; oÎ t~e eX't.2n5:' "Je m:'::'6a::icr. ~eas~ras speci::i.e¿ -.. '::'".e .:".; r:"_ -- . -
Recirc~late¿ DEI~ ê.r.è t:-"e rr:.:::.~ or ccm?ensat:"~n measures Ca'L-:ï.:' :tec "- c-· _.
. -
:'s t:-:e pes ~ ::'0T'. of the Ser.<ce t~ãt t~e b:'c:ogic.sl issues ê.:"..C c ::r.c.:: r:"..s .,.. -. -. -
~..:;._..:c_
i:1 O1-;.r SepC2:7:Der- 26, 1990, let~2r have bee~ satisfactorily :- = so::" "7'2 ¿ at -..-
cODcep'='...1¿;l le~.~el wi~h one e:,:::eptior.. This exception incl·..:.c.e5 t::e ce·.~e .:.. 0;:::: e:". ::
of ba:;d of aèditional sal~ . h·· t~a.t would provide . - .. , -
JlarsZ1 ô.::)ltat a ~",·:~'':'':''::2
n:o":e;¡;ent: c:1:-:-:'dor bet",.¡ee'!1 "F,'G" s::-eet Mãrs~ an¿ S~eet~at2: ~a=3h.
The cor..s~::-'.:c::'on of a 20C-f:¡oc '..;ide corrlCC::- of sâlt rna:-s~ pâ:-~:~2::~g t:".e --
2r.è providi::.g a linK be ':·..;eer. "?/G" St::ee!: â;:è "E" S,=::-eet ~ê.:-3hes ''';ê.S è:';:.;:'.;..:se':'
I ~<::::',,;e-2;: - :::C:". :;"s . ~..-
¡r.~:".': t:.:::es :::-:e C' _ .,.--,,: __ C~.7: è'...:::":-.¡ t::e ~~5:
... <::: - . --;:: G..._ -..
. . - c:::::--:-:":'c::::- rac'..:.~.s::2:¿ ':J:r :::.¿ C'':''-':_=o
Ir.ë.:':1::3.::;ec. 1.....::;; ~ a S2_: ::r:a:-.s:'". --- --- '';;:'S ...... ~
:-e3.5:"":;:2 b¿::~1":5¿ i: '...rauld nc:: f~:;c::ion hy¿:-::'og:"cally, t:1¿ s:.:Ú::':i:·: of 1....<:::
h.:;.::-i :.1: C:-2.:::.:e¿ ~cu::"¿ nct 13.s:: ·.....i ::-.C1,;t prQ:e::':ien or a 1 ~;;G-:oc:: b:-ea.k..;ê.::e:- ,
ãr.è t=-:e C:1:-:::':::O:::'- T,,;oul.à cre.3.te a nu:::ce::- of c:-:. tical proo.!.er:;s .,.¡i:~ res~e:: t "-
o":e:-3o:2. p.,.......,~-,...- desig:1, P:-:Jj ec"': ec::::-.ornics, ê.!:å n:arketabili::..·. CV: ......as -
- .--..; <= -- c::._..;:....
cor.ce:-:l.eè t::.a: a redesign of t~e Mi.¿bayÏror.: Developme~t p:G~, to 17:Cor'?Ora.=2:
sue:--. a cor:-i.èor, ...,¡ould disr'..lpt t~e ErR anè per:ni:: schedule, rest:.lt in S2!':'Ct.:S
ti:r.e delays, ãnd significa.:1tly inc!'ease project CDS ts . eJl's cor.ce:-ns w:::: a
S -, - marsh corridor were si..UIll!1ar:"zed in a le:::er to the Serlice dateà April 26,
a_c
1991. C~~T bel:eves compensati.on measures 1, 2, and 3 listed above, comb:r:.e::
, .
w:. ::-: a cor...":J: 't~e'!1.t to desig:1 t~e shoreface of the property tQ preve~t pubi::
access to t:-:e Bay muè:-la':s, pr:)viàes aàequê.:=' compensation ror wa:er~i:-¿s ,"
g3.::':1 acees.:::: to the marsh a!'a2S of t::e Midbê.·,f!'ont:. In ligh: of t:-¡ese
C8~~2r.sat:cn measures, en b-eli.-eves a wet~a:;d co!'::idor is r:.c:: nee¿e¿.
1:1 Jar.uar:: 1:)0' t~e C" _.. of C:"Jla ~Jista sucmit,:ad ta the S¿~¡:.c~ , frJr our
~, , - .0.- ...:
re~J:'eT"¡ , èrã:: version oÎ A::er:1at:'"7e 9 "?'J.olic . . " F:'Z'..:":2
a Comment A_ternat:."¡e,
5.1· I, VO:"":"''':JE , of the DE::;'. Or.e feat'J.re of t~e pl.s.n ~o\ "hic:-. 'o\ 'as e:':-:=2~e ::¡
~
at::-.:ic"'::'·le to the S e ::.....,i c e ·..;as t~e r=.desig:1 or the lagoon sa t~a:: a :~es:--.'",·,::,:=:-
br.:ickish mar3n cor~i¿or c:¡u:'è be c:-eãteå be:·...ree:1 "F/G" S -....-.0- M.ar.:;;:-. ar.c "::'"
~~ =_ I..
S t:-eet :-!.ü.r::;r. (?ig'.1re 1) . ::-:is recesign or :':-te lagoon pro'::':::'es .... ·...·e ::3.I'.¿ ~_....
be :....;een "F/G" and liE" S::::-2e: ~.J.:-3~es ',.¡i :hol.:;: enco\.:.:1ter:'::; t:-:e proG."",s c:-e~:=¿
b:, a sys t:e::l dependent. upon t:'è.:;l f::"';.l.::::hing. ,- racomr.1end i:;cQr?or~::'c;. c: ..._.:;
.e
feature, i: technically fea.sibl-e. .e be1.ie·¡e this cor:-i¿or is a c::" ::',:.:1:"
I element gi'lí::!1 t~e projec':=è i:1c:-ea:::e of t:.=.:::'c ar:.d people t~.:l'C ·....c<.:.:.d d:'sr·,,:::
nor::¡al b ir-d mig:-.J..t.ions b . h b·
et~een mar~~ ~ l:~:Z,
The other ma j 0 r concern expressed by the Serlic2 i!1 our S¿? rembe:."' 26, l?~G,
.-.- -..-."..---- --.-.---.-- _._-"-'..-~'--'--~-
I
,
, ,
ì"-" .._.. ..~I
..'''.''., '. .. 1.1
-.,'!N.····"'····.".'II..'I.h" ').<~:-""",
.. '-"'ici ...., , ~ '''. "-.. -.1...
L .I:;,.""...,"!:- ..... ., .%,..."./-, _ 'I
".,, " " '" - "/ " .
._~, .'-';/..""'. "'~,..._-.:/." /. --'-:.
C ~;; ". '... ~i. :! ,,,"~ ":../ _ >- , ¡-2" :- J¡
T F,' ,,/, ^,"'.', ('""" / ''''.. _ ,.'
"'''.".,'' E '.%.., , ,_~" "-- .-2:-/ /" '. 1 I.
x-. .".,.,.., F I.. ""... J;" ß:. ø;J¿~ -:.____~ .~, . .,-, /~: .
" . ". ,-,..... ,ccc." 1fii7 (.c.. ~ .-.-....., .'d _,
P '\.... "'i ,. . ""."...: = 't:: ,/~þ"~ '.'%;/ _ ';'-"7', ,'" ,I ,r -';Ji "I I.:
", ..···7..." .. / ..., C. ..
C .... .........,. 7... _~" ,~ .. )J.
,y.. <':"-'~~"=/('~:'I_ ,.. I
/"'." 'A ;.-;;" . '.....) ; - I j r
/.'. .. ,;: :~ /; ;. "~I -='~. II. C" \...: .-',^ ) c........:, I
F=1 . . :;, .' ; \ ", := .1 . '-' ) ,," / "
. .'." \ ':..;, '";c, '....V ,"., / 1/
( - - .." ",,,... ;, ~ /" ., ,
~"{:[N1'TJ'I' '--~/ tc:."~=;-,,/.~~<. I~~~, ¡~'I / : /.: 1
" - " _.~ "" . . , .
E '- .. :"."'_:;:-"\. I'~' ; l' ,
1 (^ \'/\".-;:..~, L .. ¡
· ( , \ ''ii;.'.,;.,." /. / __" .
5 ....-., 1 ~ ''''--''_'._ ~ ... 1 \\ "
", . - .. ,',",/.... .. -, , I I
1. _ ~< '.'.,. / '__.. I .,¡ . \\1. I ,
'.. \, '.",/.,.,. .... ~.~, ',,- I ./' "
. \ .,«<....:. ! /- ---:::::-,- , ,.;," ,. Iii': ¡
U 1, .,_, .. ",.. . I, L-'-'
";::;/J- .'~.::...c '--.:?:. I
. \ c ~ ------=- 0._.._ \
' J¡'''. ~ ,,, . ,:. .,!
8 ". 0~/z~ 1.:'>:. I '¡'I
/ --S ..-=r< ~j (i _ '-- ~ ...... or ,
-----... "'"~.. '.. ---........:..~ "' '
' " ,~ ". ""'-"" " ,
¡i'\/1 . ".........; If', ~CC-' ~0 \ I ~ ~ ~ -1'.:. _ ¡; .. I. ,
I~... .--...::.'--~). ..~~ \ \ _-.... , , . ,_ I
' . y ~-/ ~~I -"<" ~ ~ -...... '- I 'I 0
. ". ~ , I::: ':: ____, _ I L -;;
I ' , . I ", If! ..~\ ,- ':""
- ~ ,\ ,¿.,~,¿} " ", ""\;\'{);'íf)~-/"" \.) II: ~' I,'!~I
I .."'-. r- '~. ..'.." -~.'..";;//.."'//..'.'../".""'...... " . _ c-' ,
' \ \1 ~~..:~,~ &:. '\ ......... ;:;:d'i;:::;;;':;t;;;;;.-,/, , _ l "
- . ': ~ -'""r:...,..j< ~y,,: \ '/"~'(.;;'(/:;;/;/~~~>/:::;/ '::<:;;'.'-,/' ~ '. ;- :..._........ I I I
'. .'". ''-''''', ...... - ~, , , ,
· . ,\.... \ .('/" . ..;.¡.. ....,. ¿C."'': . , i
'''..þ.".. ..'~ /\ , --... '- '-.= , ~
. A :-;".;'>:';".'" ..\,\" ~" ~ /._/ LI l--'['"I 1-'-;"---,,:, ·~,v,/ .1: :
' \ 1,~ ~ , _ --c.-. _ I , (, '" I ,
."'. . ,/ 'I ;..--:. -"-'I =""1 . ~"""".'. -_._.<:ë_-=': ! ~ '
. ..~ I -\i-) IO''--~-, _,~. .
'".-, "";~ , : " , . I
. '. '- " . . .. ,
L;; I~' II_,~L...J I~'fLI, :i,.::::'I!
.;'., ,I. ,- I - í I· . ~ I ' 's. or
.'r:. ..... "'"~ c;o .. LL" / 1 "--- .... ¡re~,.
',,,. . /. 'j ..-~ I -- " . , I
.;.,. .;.;.,; i',. :;c",," ,;;: ,",,",.,~ ,
- ,"'. """"", - I{ , " '\\~' I
. I "':'/;{//,~-::.;}:~: C<-' r . w. I
.....,"" "..,p -- -ì , _
. ".":';';%:':;"~;-;, n________ n' \ 0õ'0'T .
8 "-.; ,.,~..~;/., 1 --- \, U '-. I
' .";'."';;);J ,...~ Ii
/ /, ///Y:f;;;,;. 1 ......- I " /
- . '..~ " ,- , . .
}.iii'Æ""i' <""' I / ~ _ _ ,,, , ,
""%,,%,...,,. . ~ /¡ ~ ............., 11 ~I
=c "if. ,""}( 'r , I" ,
~ 7",.n',( "'" 1 _ , '--c,
· ...MPWno""... ~-', , 1
. ª= ~/'''0!/.",/""." ,,- V , ~ j' J ~ 1.;. '_ ",0.1
~ = ", ,~/ / ..... ~.- . ( , -. "
',- . ....,.". , ".
' . , A.. f.-w, , '''.. "
,.. '·..#'10""...." . ..,,'~- " \ I I
== 'ij ;-:"'..11"";- "---', ""-"<. I ët: ., I
" , .. ''''~# <C, I, , '~'--- _ _!' ;
.~, uP, '., ~ , __, ')"
'" c ,.....,. ~'\; '~ ,
= "'"' .." '" = 'U= I.'
.~, ..·..d \ ___ , .
.'" .... .- n·
.~, "'W , _.. '_"'"
,~, i';¡ " = _.......... '_'..
'.., ". -~.... 1 . , r
!iI ~ .....-... c..,;,;-i
=.:=:;;¡
'" ..
'.., c
' In . MHo,' A-IVE _
. < ..... ,,"oc," _ I ..""
", -".. · H·o".. , , "", -E~N .'.."'_."''''''''''!..'''''.
§:§ '§ C':>'Jt:J.:.l~ ~ as a we Al.. . -'~''''''''''P'''':'':''~',i''''''::'' ';','..'1 111:",
'''' 0'" '.. "',.. ..... ", ..
ª=ª -·ry'J-o 1. 'd func"~ "St-2°t ,.,.,.",'''1:'"....",.. '. ,. ,I"..
,.... n... '" "', , '" '" _...."'1 ''-.., ,I '1:" ""';"""",:::::::::..,,,,,,,,,,.
ª~~ On ", U "C/O """"", ". _. '".. 51 I
'-, .. " ." ". .. ... .. . '., ......... ..... .
ª ..:.:~ ..;dùr bet.Je". ",,".' '·"'1'1'"''''I'!I!I " "llllti '!I'l'''' 1t::1 ¡ I, 'I ""~;:;::::::......."".. F.1T'I1re.
ª=ª carr_ '" 'I ""I'" ""' , '11111 1''''''''''''1'', ,..,.':::::"..,.... 1",u.
==:¡¡ '''·''''''''''1''',", "'." 1_ , "", "":,1,...".., _
==== rshes. """"""''''':''".,,'': . 'I ..., d,,1 __"'''11I'1', ...:i,I".,,,,,,,,
Ë == ª M~, "",,,,,,,.., :1:,:"::1,,,. "I, 'I', "','" ,II, " "I" "",I,:", ,'""IIi'.""",,II ,.
ª="'iI,'::::r::::::";."',',',:..",.."",,, ":,:!.,.I.",; ":"',11:::,,,,,,,,1,,111;"",,,,"",,,,,,,,11,1,
§ ;;;11""l'n11lIil)11 ...1..1..,,,,1,,, "I. J,II..""""" ,"
~ ~¡I:. ,dilllllo L;'. 1 111:11.1..1::.1'1.11I, .1 ""
~.¡d:.lllllllil[:1I:" I.