HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2004/08/18 (3)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: :J-
Meeting Date:8/18/04
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EJR-04-03) for the Crossings Commercial Retail Project and Conceptual
Tentative Map (TM).
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Final EIR has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed Crossings
Commercial Retail Project and Conceptual Tentative Map. This staffreport discusses the general
content of the Final EIR (Final E1R). CEQA Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), have been prepared that reflect the conclusions of the Final ElR.
The Final EIR also contains comments and responses to the comments received during the public
review period.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution EIR-04-03 recommending that the City Council certify that the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EJR-04-03) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of
fact; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) reviewed the Draft EIR on June 7, 2004. The
majority of the RCC comments generally focused on concerns related to the on site fill material,
water quality impacts, impacts to adjacent biological resources, access to the future Otay Valley
Regional Park (OVRP), and traffic/circulation (Attachment 4). After reviewing and discussing
the document, the RCC found the document to be adequate and in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and voted 6-0-0-1 to recommend the certification
of the Final EIR by the City Council. Specific responses to the RCC comments are provided in
the Final ErR.
The public comment period for EIR-02-04 was closed at the Planning Commission meeting of
July 7, 2004, at which time three comments were received from the public.
DISCUSSION:
The Crossings Commercia1 Project ErR eva1uates the environmental effects of the proposed
project and the Conceptua1 Tcntative Map (TM). The project proposes the construction of
Page 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/18/04
approximately 188,860 square-feet of retail/commercial uses on the 17.2-acre project site.
Allowable uses pursuant to the proposed Central Commercial designation include retail sales,
restaurants, offices, and other general commercial type uses. The EIR identified three
alternatives, the no project/no development alternative, construction of an industrial facility and a
reduced density alternative. The first alternative would not permit redevelopment of the project
site. The latter two alternatives would require the same or more additional construction as the
proposed proj ecl.
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Public Comments
The Crossings EIR evaluated several issue areas and determined that potential1y significant
impacts could result I the following categories:
. Air Quality
. Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
. Noise
. Water Quality/Hydrology
. Geology/Soils Agricultural Resources
. CulturallPaleontological Resources
. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
. Traffic/Circulation and Access
. Biological Resources
As documented in the Final EIR, al1 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level
with the implementation of the required mitigation measures.
Comments on the Draft EIR
During the public review period for the DEIR, several comment letters were received from
various 10cal environmental organizations, agencies and individuals. Letters of comment were
received on the Draft EIR from the fol1owing agencies and individuals:
State of California, Department of Transportation - District 11
State of California, Department ofFish & Game
State of California, Department of Conservation
State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control
U.S. Department ofFish & Wildlife
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health
County of San Diego Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
City of San Diego
Chula Vista Elementary School District
San Diego County Archaeological Society
Native American Heritage Commission
Otay Yal1ey Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (Mr. John Wil1et & Frank
Ohrmund)
Otay Water District
Page 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/18/04
California Native Plant Society
Environmental Health Coalition
RCC Comments
SBC
San Diego Baykeepers
Sierra Club
The project site's proximity to the Otay River Valley and its past history involving deposits of
undocumented fill over the southerly half of the site resulted in numerous comments. Three
general themes were prevalent in the letters received: 1) concern for the potential hazards from
onsite fill material fount in the southerly portion of the project site; 2) concern for project edge
effects on adjacent sensitive biological resources and the future Otay Valley Regional Park; 3)
and water quality impacts to the Otay River Valley. The following is a general summary of the
major concerns expressed in the comments received and responses provided to these major areas
of concern. Detailed responses for each comment letter were prepared and are included in the
Final EIR.
Waste fin material:
The phase I and Phase II for the project identified existing onsite fin consisting of shipyard
sandblast grit. Soil testing indicated that the fill contained 10w levels of heavy metals such as
copper, zinc and lead. The comment letters expressed concerns related to the potential hazards
that could result from the fill previously imported to the project site. Specific concerns related to
the potential for these elements to leach into the soil and end up in the Otay River.
The proposed project contemplates retaining the existing fill material and any related wastes
buried at the site. The applicant has continued to work with the local responsible agencies to
inform them of the conditions of the site and to develop an acceptable workplan for handling of
the on site fill material. The Final ErR contains mitigation measures requiring the need for
specia1 handling of the sandblast grit and proper characterization for disposal and storm water
and erosion management. The Final EIR also requires that a qualified hazardous materials
spccialist be present during all grading activities to monitor for potential hazards of concern. As
documented in the Final EIR, these mitigation measures win fully mitigate potential impacts
related to the onsite fill material.
Edge Effect Impacts on Adiacent Sensitive Biological Resources and Otav Vallev Regional Park
(OVRP):
Several comment letters expressed concerns that the Draft ErR did not sufficiently address
screening for light and glare, construction noise impacts, control of invasive plant species,
stormwater runoff, and encroachment into the river valley. Many comments also suggested that
that there was not enough separation between the development area and adjacent sensitive
habitat within the Otay Valley River area
As discussed in the Biological Resources section of the Final ErR, the proposed project does not
directly impact any sensitive biological resources. The Final E1R does, however, identify
Page 4, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/18/04
significant indirect effects to adjacent biological resources resulting from the potential increase
of runoff and erosion, potentiallightlglare impacts, invasive plants, impacts of construction noise
on adjacent biological resources, and potential impacts from human encroachment into the river
valley. The Final E1R has incorporated several mitigation measures to mitigate for these
potential edge effect impacts such as implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs),
required light shielding, management strategies for pest and weed control, construction noise
attenuation measures, and fencing to prevent unauthorized encroachment into the Otay River
Valley. The Final EIR also requires that a biological monitor be periodically present onsite
during grading and site preparation activities to ensure that construction activities do not
encroach into nearby sensitive areas. Appropriate bui1ding setbacks and dedication of a 6.8-acre
parcel adjacent to the river valley have also been incorporated into the project to provide
adequate separation from the project uses and the Otay River.
Water Oualitv Impacts:
Numerous public comments focused around the potential impacts generated by storm water
runoff. The majority of concerns pertained to the potential for the project to increase stormwater
runoff that wou1d be generated from the site and the resulting potential erosion problems. A
concern that oil/gasoline based pollutants could wash down into the Otay River area was also
expressed.
The Final EIR includes mitigation measures for preventing impacts generated from runoff and
potential impacts to the Otay River Valley. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Genera1 Construction Permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) be prepared and avai1able at the construction site concurrent with the start of
grading or construction activities. The City has required the applicant to submit the SWPPP
along with a drainage study and Water Quality Technical Report to identify and mitigate
construction and post-construction project impacts on receiving waters and sensitive areas. The
SWPPP will also be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to
commencement of construction in compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit.
In addition to the SWPP, the proposed project also provides three areas where runoff will be
"bio-filtered" through landscaped areas prior to entering the storm drain system. Onsite catch
basins will also be equipped with filter inserts that have oil-absorbing capacity to eliminate
contaminants into the adjacent preserve. Additionally, the outfall of the stormwater drainage
conveyance system will have an energy-dissipating device to prevent erosion impacts. The Final
EIR also requires that additional BMP's be implemented to further reduce the potential for water
quality impacts. These BMPs consist of the following: capturing all off-site runoff before it
reaches the site, providing covered trash receptacles and ensuring regular trash collection,
installing an efficient landscape irrigation system and providing appropriate instruction on the
proper appJication of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. As identified in the Final EIR,
implementation of the SWPP requirements and BMP mitigation measures will reduce the
identified water quality impacts to a 1ess than significant level.
Page 5, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/18/04
Additional Revisions to Draft EIR
Revisions to the ErR made as a rcsult of public commcnt have been summarizcd on thc Preface
page of the FE1R. Minor typographical corrections havc bccn madc to information containcd in
the Draft EIR; thc Final EIR reflects the corrected inf()fll1ation. None of the corrections made to
thc documcnt have resulted in modifications to conclusions regarding the significancc of
impacts.
Findine:s of the Final EIR-04-03
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that would result from the proposed Project and TM. All of these significant effects
can bc fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. These conclusions
are presented in thc CEQA findings of Fact for Final EIR-04-03
Conclusions:
Mitigation measures for thc Crossings Commercial Retail Project have been included in thc Final
E1R MMRP. The Crossings Commercial Project will not rcsult in any impacts that would remain
significant after thc application of these measures.
Thc City has examined a reasonablc range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the
proposed project described in the Final E1R. Based on this examination, the City has dctcrmined
that ncither of the alternatives meets the project objcctives, or is environmentally superior to the
project (see Section XI of the CEQA Findings).
StafTbelieves that the Final EIR meets the requirements ofthc California Environmental Quality
Act and, therefore, recommends that the Planning commission and City Council find that the
Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopt the Draft Findings of Fact,
and MMRP attached to this staff report.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
Thc preparation and processing of the E1R is covcred by the applicant's deposit account.
i\ ttachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Final ErR 04-03
3. CEQA Findings of Fact
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5. RCC Minutes - (June 7, 2004)
6. Planning Commission Minutes - (July 7. 2004)
A TTAu-t -1(~A)7 i
RESOLUTION NO. EIR 04-03
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE EIR FOR THE CROSSINGS
COMMERCIAL RETAIL PROJECT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE EIR
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") has received an application fTom Yacoe1
Properties ("Applicant") to redevelop an existing outdoor storage facility with assorted used
vehicles and equipment located at the southeast corner of 1-805 and Main Street to a commercial
retail facility ("Crossings"); and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Program
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on the proposed "Crossings" pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pub1ic Resources Code Sections 21000, et. Seq., "CEQA"), and the
Guidelines for Imp1ementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14, California
Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et. Seq., the "Guidelines") and City CEQA guidelines and
City Environmental Review Procedures; and,
WHEREAS, all action required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation,
circulation, and review of the EIR have been taken; and,
WHEREAS, the final EIR consists of the Draft EIR. as revised and supplemented to
incorporate all comments received during the public review period and the response of the City
thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact for the "Crossings" (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution)
conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the E1R are feasible and have not been
modified, superceded or withdrawn. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the
ordinances adopting the "Crossings". The adopted mitigation measures contained within the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Fina1 EIR are expressed as conditions of
approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted concurrently with the Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the "Crossings" project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista hereby:
I. FINAL EIR 04-03 CONTENTS
That the fina1 EJR 04-03 consists of the following:
1. EIR for the Crossings Commercial Retail Project; and
2. Comments and Responses to Comments
J ;\Planning\Ben( i\CrossingsP(' EIRReso(R-l X-04). ()()C
3. Mitigation Monitoring amI Reporting Program
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "Final ErR")
II. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO THE FINAL EIR
1. Findings of Fact
III. RECOMMENDATION OF CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the Planning Commission does hereby finds that the ErR, the Findings of Fact (Exhibit
"A") and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "8") are prepared in
accordance with the requirements ofCEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.),
the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
That the Planning Commission finds that the ErR reflects the independent judgment of the
City ofChula Vista.
V. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission does hereby finds and further recommends that the City Council
approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth herein, and make each and every one
of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A")
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fu]]y identified and set forth in the EJR and in the Findings of Fact for this Project,
the Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends that the City Council find pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the
mitigation measures described in the above-referenced documents are feasible and wi]]
become binding upon the entity (City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in the ErR and in the Findings of Fact Section XI, the
Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends that the City Council find pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091 that alternatives to the
Project, which were identified in the EIR, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level and/or meet Project objectives and/or were found to be infeasible based
upon specific economic, social, or other considerations.
D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
J :\Planning\HenU\( 'rossingsPCFI RReso( ~-] H-04). DOC
As reqUired by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Exhibit "B"). The Planning Commission further recommends that the City
Council tind that the Mltigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure
that, dunng project implementation, the City, and any other responsible parties implement
the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings
of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista Certifies that the documents constituting the City's record of proceedings on which its
decision is based are contained in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista and the
City Clerk is the custodian of records of those documents, Final ElK Findings of Fact, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements ofCEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) CEQA Guidelines (Title 14
Ca1ifomia Code Regs. Section 14000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the
City ofChula Vista, and therefore should be certified and further recommends that the City Council
also certify that the Final EIR, Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
have been prepared in accordance with the requirements ofCEQA (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.) CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code Regs. Section 14000 et seq.), and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 18th of August 2004 by the following vote to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Stephen Castaneda, Chairman
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
JWlanmng\BenG\( 'rnssingsP( 'EIRReso(8-18-04 ).DOC
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
CROSSINGS PROJECT
J :\PI::mn Ing\Ben( i\( 'rossingsPCF,[ RReso(8-1 8-04). DUC
EXHIBIT "B"
MlTlGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
J. IPlanning\.8enG\CrossingsPCEIRReso(8-18-04 ).DOC
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Exhibit "B"). The Planning Commission further recommends that the City
Council find that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure
that, during project implementation, the City, and any other responsible parties implement
the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings
of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista Certifies that the documents constituting the City's record of proceedings on which its
decision is based are contained in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista and the
City Clerk is the custodian of records of those documents, Final EIR, Findings of Fact, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements ofCEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) CEQA Guidelines (Title 14
California Code Regs. Section 14000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the
City of Chula Vista, and therefore should be certified and further recommends that the City Council
also certify that the Final EIR, Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
have been prepared in accordance with the requirements ofCEQA (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.) CEQA Guidelines (Tit1e 14 California Code Regs. Section 14000 et seq.), and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 18th of August 2004 by the following vote to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Steve Castaneda, Chairman
Diana Vargas
Sccretary to Planning Commission
J "\Planning\BenCJ\CrossingsPCEIRReso(8-1 iHJ4). DOt '
ATT-1CHME.lUT .~
DRAFT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR # 04-03)
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
August 6, 2004
Chula Vista Crossings
('andidate CEQA Findlllgs of Fact
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
II. DE FINITI ONS ...................................................................................................................1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................2
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................4
V. TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA..........................5
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF ..FINDINGS.................................................................................. 7
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................................8
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................8
A. Landform Alteration and Aesthetics ..............................................................................8
B. Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 1 0
C. Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 1 5
D. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................16
E. Paleontological Resources .......................................................................................... .20
F. Water Quality and Hydrology .....................................................................................21
G. Transportation, Circulation, and Access......................................................................25
H. Air Quality............................ .................................................................................... ...3 1
1. Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................34
J. Hazards/Risk of Upset.................................................................................................38
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES...........42
A. Biological Resources ..... ........................................................................................... ..42
B. Water Quality and Hydrology......................................................................................45
C. Transportation, Circulation, and Access......................................................................48
X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..............................49
A. No Project! No Development Altemative....................................................................51
B. Existing Zoning! General Plan Designation Alternative.............................................52
C. Reduced Density Alternative .......................................................................................52
8/9/2004
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CRQA Findings afFact
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: City ofChula Vista;
Environmental Impact Report E1R SCH #2004031002; E1R # 04-03
8/9/2004
ii
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fuet
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the Chula Vista Crossings
(Project) addressed the potential environmental effects of the proposed Chula Vista Crossings
commercial retail development located at the southeast corner of 1-805 and Main Street as a
commercial retail use.
In addition, the Final E1R evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project: (1) The no
project/no development alternative, which assumes that the project site would not be redeveloped
and the existing automobile storage facility would remain and continue operation and; (2) An
alternative that would involve construction of an industrial facility consistent with existing
zoning and General Plan designations and; 3) A reduced density option.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Guidelines. These findings have been prepared to comply with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000
et seq.) and the CEQA Guidclines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, 15000 et seq.).
II. DEFINITIONS
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pol1ution Control District.
"BMPs" means best management practices.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"City" means City ofChula Vista.
"CNEL" means community noise equivalent level.
"dB(A)" means A-weighted decibels
"LOS" means Level of Service.
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program.
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
"OWD" means Otay Water District.
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards.
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"EIR" means Environmental Impact Report.
"SWPPP" means Storm Water Pol1ution Prevention Plan.
8/9/2004
Chula Vista Crnssings
Candidate CFQA Findings of Fact
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would consist of redevelopment of an existing outdoor storage facility located at the
southeast corner of 1-805 and Main Street to a commcrcial retail use. The proposed project
would involvc the construction of seven buildings with an approximate total leaseable building
area of 188,038 square feet. The proposcd project would include two free-standing restaurants, a
main department store anchor and additional retail spaces. Shipping/receiving bays wil1 be
located along the south and west sides of the retail buildings. The project would include parking
spaces consistent with City rcquirements and standards. Due to the site's visibility nom 1-805,
the project wil1 include an il1uminated sign feature along the project's western edge. The project
will include construction of a segment of the Auto Park Trunk Sewer (analyzed under a previous
CEQA document) and other public infrastructure facilities such as water and gas lines. The
project site is 24 acres, the southern 6.8 acres (consisting of the Otay River and associated
riparian habitats) of which wil1 be dedicated to the Otay Valley Regional Park for conservation
and/or recreation purposes.
Discretionary Actions
In order to implement the project as described above, the City Council and/or Redevelopment
Agency will need to take the following actions:
· General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from I-L
(Limited Industrial) to C-R (Commercial Retail)
· Zoning Code Amendment to rezone the site from ILP (Limited Industrial - Precise
Plan) to C-C (Central Commercial). The southern portion of the project site is F-I
Floodway which would not change.
. Tentative Parcel Map Approval
· Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit Issuance may be required (if MSCP permit
is issued by the wildlife agencies prior to project approval)
. Design Review Committee Approval
. Owner Participation Agreement
The following additional permits/approval may be required of other Responsible Agencies:
. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board: Storm Water Discharge Permit
and approval of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any
applicable requirements related to the non-native fil1 materials.
8/9/2004 2
Chulu Vistu Crussings
Candidate CEQA FindinRs of Fact
. CalifornIa Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Decertification for the drainage
easement at the southwest comer of the site.
. City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department: Approval related to
relocation of an existing sewer line at the southwest corner of the site.
. Otay Water District: Approval of water system improvement plans.
Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to achieve some of the following objectives identified in the Otay Valley
Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan:
. The elimination of existing blighted conditions, and the prevention of recurring blight
in and about the Project Area.
. The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of
local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities. increasing local
employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area,
and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the
Proj eet Area.
. The creation of a more cohesive and unified community by strengthening the
physical, social, and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial and
recreational land uses within the community and the Project Area.
. The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system free
from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interferences.
In addition, specific objectives for the proposed project include the following:
. Removal of outdoor storage uses from the site and redevelopment into a productive
commercial center providing jobs, property tax revenue and sales tax revenue.
. Dedication ofland to the MSCP Preserve and Otay Valley Regional Park to promote
the goals of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan related to conservation of sensilive species and habitats and park
experience. This will a1so assist the City in the Otay Valley Regional Park and
Greenbelt System.
. Establish a freeway-oriented commercial center to provide commercial uses that are
easily accessihle to the surrounding community.
8/9/2004 3
Chula Vista Crnssings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist ofthe following:
. The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City In
conjunction with the Projeet;
· The Draft and Final E1R for the project (ErR # 04-03), including the appendices and
technical reports;
. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day
public comment period on the Draft ErR;
· All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in
addition to timely comments on the Draft E1R;
. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project;
· All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with the
Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
· All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and with respect to the City's actions on the Project;
· All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the
public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing on
July 7, 2004;
. All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection
with the ErR on the project;
· Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public hearings; and
· Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider,
including but not limited to the following:
- Chula Vista General Plan
Relevant portions of the Zoning Codes of the City ofChula Vista
The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment P1an
MSCP Subarea Plan
8/9/2004
4
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findmgs a{Fact
- Chula Vista Grccnbelt Master Plan
Any documents cxprcssly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above;
and
- Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to
the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Councilor City Staff as
part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of
them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City was aware in approving
the Chula Vista Crossings Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agencv Formation
Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominev v. Department
of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal.Rptr. 620].) Other
documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided
advice to the City. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
the City's decisions relating to the adoption of Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, 9 21167.6,
subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. Citv Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181
Cal.App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society. Inc. v. Countv of
Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)
V. TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis
added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and
the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen
such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event
[that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or
such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more
significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implernented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, 9 21081, subd. (a);
8/9/2004
5
Chula Vista Cmssin!;s
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
CEQA Guidelines, 915091, subd. (a).) For each sIgnificant enviromnental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effcct as identificd in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091,
subd. (a)(l).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final E1R." (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Public Resources Code section 21061. 1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, enviromnental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors ("Goleta II") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a par1icular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar
v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.Rptr. 898].) "'[F]easibility'
under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704,715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182].)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses
the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially 1essen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lesscning." Such an understanding of the statutory term is
consistent with the policies undcrlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantiaJly lessen the significant enviromnental effects of
such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, 9 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectivcness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectivencss of such measure or measurcs
8/9/2004
6
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings o(Fact
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less
than significant level. These Interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding In Laurel Hills
Homeowners Association v. Citv Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr.
842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to
substantial1y lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not
all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less
than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
par1icular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantial1y lessen[ ed]," these findings, for purposes
of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than
significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but rernains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read Iiteral1y, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potential1y significant," these findings
will nevertheless ful1y account for al1 such effects identified in the Final EIR.
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation rneasures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantial1y lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency.
(CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoidcd or substantial1y lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project
if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific
reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable
adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, 99 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub.
Resources Code, 9 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he
wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of
interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents
who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that
those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576.)
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR
are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista
("City" or "dccisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, to implement
8/9/2004
7
Chula Vista CrussillK'
Candidate CEQA Findings of Faet
thosc mcasures. These findings, in other words, are not merely infonnational or hortatory, but
constitutc a binding set of obligations that wIll come into effect when the City adopts the
resolution(s) approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are cxpress conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with these
findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City ofChula Vista, in
adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared
by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to
ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified beJow. The program is described in the
document titled Chula Vista Crossings Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
VIII. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The ErR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible
mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided.
The project will result in significant environmental changes to the following issues: landform
alteration and aesthetics, biologica] resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
paleontological resources, water quality and hydrology, transportation, circulation, and access,
air quality, public services and utilities, and hazards/risk of upset as a result of the Chula Vista
Crossings project. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in ErR #
04-03 (City ID #) in Table ES-I on pages 1-3 through 1-18 and in Chapter 5.0, pages 5.1-12
through 5.12-6.
A. Landform Alteration And Aesthetics
Standards of Significance:
. The project will have a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista.
. Substantially damage of scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
8/9/2004
8
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings oIFact
· Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surrounding.
. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which wou1d adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Significant Impact: The project would introduce light and glare within the project vicin~ty.
Filldillg: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explallatioll: The project would introduce additional night lighting within the project
vicinity. The proposed project includes design features to direct lighting to the project
site and avoid spillover lighting into adjacent areas. The project will be required through
the Design Review Process to demonstrate application of these design features. To
ensure that spillover lighting would not result, mitigation measures are required.
Mitigatioll Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
· Prior to approval of the Tentative Parcel map, the applicant shall submit a lighting
plan as a part of the Design Review application for the project. The lighting plan
shall demonstrate that project lighting is shielded from surrounding properties and
that only the rninimum amount of lighting required for safety purposes is provided to
avoid adverse effects on surrounding areas. In general, lighting fixtures shall be
shielded downward and away from the adjacent Otay River riparian corridor (see
additional discussion in Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures, Biological Resources)
and away nom residences north of Main Street.
Significance After Mitigation: With the application of the proposed mitigation measure, project
impacts related to light and glare would be reduced to levels below significance.
8/9/2004
9
Chula Vista ('rnssings
Candidate CE(jA Findings of Fact
B. Biological Resources
Standards of Significance:
. Substantial effect, including indirect effects such as habitat fragmentation, on a rare or
endangered species of plant or animal or habitat of that species.
· Substantial interference with the movement of any rcsident or migratory fish or wildlifc
specIes
. Substantial reduction of habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants.
. Impacts considered adverse to the assemblage of a preserve design.
Significant Impact: Short-term indirect impacts include construction noise impacts to sensitive
nesting bird species. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season, no
significant indirect impacts to these species are anticipated. However, should grading occur
within the breeding season, a significant, but mitigable impact would occur.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that win substantiany lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Short-term indirect impacts include construction noise impacts to sensitive
nesting bird species. Species anticipated to be affected by such activities include the least
Ben's vireo, the southwestern winow flycatcher, the yellow warbler and nesting raptors.
According to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (pg. 7-26), where noise associated
with clearing, grading, or grubbing win negatively impact, as determined by the City's
biologist, an occupied nest for the least Ben's vireo during the breeding season from
March 15 to September 15, noise levels should not exceed 60 Leq. For areas where
construction is proposed outside of the breeding season, no significant indirect impacts to
these species are anticipated. However, should work occur during the breeding season,
mitigation is provided (see Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure fa}).
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wild1ife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
8/9/2004
10
Chula Vista Crossings
C'andidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Prior to issuance uf grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise
attenuation featurcs (such as berms or walls) shall be implemented during
construction should sensitive wildlife species be present. Implementation of any
required measures will be verified by the City during construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Long-term, indirect impacts could occur due to the proposed development's
proximity to biological open space. This impact was identified as significant but mitigable.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wi1l substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's
proximity to biological open space may include lighting, noise, invasives. toxic
substances and general human presence.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Va1ley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Per mitigation measure 5.2.5 [a], light shielding to protect the Preserve nom spill-
over when deemed appropriate nom a public safety standpoint shall be implemented.
Low sodium lighting sha1l also be utilized.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Short-term and long-term indirect impacts to waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, associated with construction and general site drainage would be considered significant
but mitigable
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the E1R, below a level of
significance.
8/9/2004
11
Chu/a I'ist,' Crnssings
Candidate CEQA Findings oj Fuct
Explal/atiol/: Short-term and long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed
development's proximity to waters of the U.S. may include lighting, noise, invasivcs,
toxic substances and general human presence.
Mitigatiol/ Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Although extensive landscaping is not anticipated next to the preserve, any
landscaping shall utilize native vegetation. Prior to issuance of grading permits,
landscape plans demonstrating that invasive plant species are not used in areas that
could potentially result in impacts to the Preserve shall be submitted and approved by
the City.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The habitat linkage/wildlife corridor would be subject to the same edge
cffects described above for wildlife. Further, 10ng-term indirect impacts to the habitat
linkage/regional corridor including lighting and noise are possible. Therefore a significant, but
mitigable impact would occur.
Fil/dil/g: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the E1R, below a level of
significance.
Explal/atiol/: Long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's
proximity to biological open space that includes habitat linkages and wildlife corridors,
may include lighting, noise, invasives, toxic substances and general human presence.
Mitigatiol/ Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed in all
drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of contaminants into
the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading plans and approved by the
8/9/2004 12
Chulll VisllI Crossings
ClIndidllle CEQA Findings of Facl
City prior to issuance of grading permits, and installation of such mcasures shall be
veri fied by the City during project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The introduction of potential toxic substances during construction as we1l as
during project operation as a result of run-off would result in a significant but mitigable impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of thc State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantia1ly lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Urban runoff containing contaminants that are harmful to scnsitive species
and habitats has the potential to impact adjacent habitat areas.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Va1ley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as fo1lows:
. If the project is to be constructed during the least Bell's vireo breeding season (March
15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey shall occur prior to issuance of
grading permits. If an occupied nest of least Be1l's vireo is discovered, and if noise
associated with clearing, grading, or grubbing will negatively impact the nest, noise
levels shall not be permitted to exceed 60 Leq as determined through construction
monitoring by the City's mitigation monitor.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The introduction of new light sources within the project development area
could potentially impact wildlife and sensitive ceo logical resources within the Otay River
ValleylMSCP Preserve. This impact is considered significant but mitigable.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the E1R, below a level of
significance.
8/9/2004
13
Chula Vista Crossinf!,s
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation: New light sources arc considercd to be an adverse mdirect effect within
Prcserve areas because thcy have the potential to disrupt wildlife behavioral patterns.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· A pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall also occur prior to issuance of
grading permits, if project construction is to occur during the raptor breeding season
(January 15 to July 31). In areas potentially affecting nesting raptor sites, noise levels
will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise from negatively impacting the
breeding success of any detected pair during the breeding season. Compliance with
this measure will be verified through field monitoring by the City's biologist. For
areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season(s), no additional
mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Although the project does not propose uses that are anticipated to result in
long-ternl noise impacts that would have an adverse effect on adjacent breeding areas, however,
construction noise impacts are potentially significant but mitigable
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: High noise levels in preserve areas are considered to be an adverse indirect
effect within Preserve areas because they have the potential to disrupt wildlife behavioral
patterns.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· Any trimming of willow canopies extending into construction areas will be done
under the supervision of the City's biologist.
8/9/2004
14
Chu/a Vista Crossings
('ant/it/ate CEQA Fint/lllgs ufFact
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Potential impacts to biological resources could occur as a result of
introduction of invasive species.
Fi1ldi1lg: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wi]] substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significancc.
Expla1latio1l: Invasive species represent an adverse indirect effect because they have the
potential to displace native species in areas of sensitive habitat.
Mitigatio1l Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. A biological monitor sha]] be present onsite periodically during grading and site
preparation to ensure that grading and disturbance activities do not encroach into
sensitive areas.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will also preserve regional wildlife corridor
functions of the Otay River Valley.
Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less than
significant levels by incorporating mitigation measures as described in the ElR.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5
. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5
· Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries
8/9/2004 15
Chllla Vista Crossin"s
Candidatc CEQA Findings of Fact
Significant Impact: Due to the presence of recorded archaeologIcal sitcs just east of the project
and potential for buried cultural materials on-site, potential impacts could occur.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The record search conducted for the project identified several prehistoric
sites in the vicinity, most of which were located in the Otay River Valley east of the
property. After a field reconnaissance, no resources were identified on the property
although much ofthc site had been leveled and covered with gravel. However, due to the
proximity of resources off site, there is the potential for buried resources to occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, an archaeological monitor shall be retained to
provide monitoring of grading work. The archaeological monitor shall monitor
grading of any previously undisturbed soil. If any archaeological features or deposits
are encountered during monitoring, the archaeological monitor shall halt grading at
that location and notify the City. Subsequently, any resource identified during
grading should be evaluated for significance and, if found to be important, mitigation
measures should be implemented to reduce potential impacts below a level of
significance.
Significance After Mitigation: Should cultural resources be encountered during grading, the
monitoring program will prevent impacts to these resources from occurring. Therefore, due to
the preventative mitigation measure, impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated to a level
below significance.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Standards of Significance:
. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk or
loss, injury or death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
8/9/2004 16
C!zulll ViS/II Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Landslides.
. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
. Location on a gcologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
. Location on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Bui1ding Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
. Soils incapab1e of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Significant Impact: The existing undocumented fill is not suitable for support of additional fill
and/or structural support in its existing state.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the signi ficant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: As outlined in the significance criteria, location of a structure on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project would be a
significant impact. Therefore, the impact is considered to be significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate that
appropriate remedial measures to provide adequate support of additional fill and/or
structural loads within areas of cxisting undocumented fill will be taken.
Remediation shall include grading in the form of complete removal and compaction
beneath building pads and removal in parking areas sufficient to create a 5-foot
compacted fill mat, in accordance with the recommendations on pages 7-18 of the
Geotechnical Report contained in Appendix D of the Final ErR. Because the existing
8/9/2004 17
Chula Vlsla Crnssings
Candidate CEQA FindlflRs o(Fact
fill contains an abundant amount of oversized concrete chunks (approximately 20,000
cubic yards) and trash and debris, spreading out and cleaning of this matenal prior to
reusc as compacted fill will be required. Additiona1 engineering treatment related to
structural stability of the site will be required. The work shall be conducted in
accordance with the engincering specifications included in the July 2003 GeoCon
Report (GeoCon, July 2003, pg. 7).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Due to the presence of a shallow groundwater table near the southern edge
of the proposed development area, impacts associated with groundwater could occur. In order to
mitigate for these potential impacts, mitigation is required.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Presence of shallow groundwater has the potential to result in impacts
associated with liquefaction. Therefore, this condition represents a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate that
appropriate remedial measures will be taken to remove and recompact alluvium
beneath undocumented fill to within approximately 3 feet ofthe water table.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Ground shaking may occur as a result of the project's location near active
faults. In order to mitigate for potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking,
mitigation is required.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
8/9/2004
18
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation: Seismic activIty is well documented 1Il causing damage to structures,
therefore design standards have becn established to reduce risks associated with structural
failure.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
· The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBe) summarizes seisrnic design criteria for the
Rose Canyon Fault System. These standards shall be applied during project design
and construction. These standards include seismic zone factor, seismic coefficient
and near source factor. Demonstration of compliance with UBC requirements shall
be provided prior to issuance of building permits.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Existing drainages along the southeastern and western margins of the site
are subject to erosion that rnay affect the stability of the fill slopes.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, be10w a level of
significance.
Explanation: Erosion at eXIstmg drainage locations could pose a hazard to future
development on the site by eroding soil that supports proposed structures.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. To prevent continued erosion of southeastern and western portions of the slope areas,
grading to redirect surface runoff from these drainages or placement of drainage
control devices is required. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall
demonstrate that building pads are properly finished so that the drainage water nom
the buildings, lots and adjacent properties is directed off the lots and away from
foundations and the top of the slopes toward the project storm water system.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
8/9/2004
19
(,hulu Vista Crossings
Cunlll/lute CEQA Findings o/Fact
E. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature
Significant Impact: Since the proposed project lies within a geologic formation with high
resources bearing potentIal, and the project would necessitate recompaction of potential tossil
bearing alluvium, impacts to paleontological resources are considered to be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Impacts to paleontological resources could occur during excavation and
site development when geologic formations that have resource bearing potential are
disturbed. Impacts would occur when fossils are physically destroyed by such activities.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to beginning any excavation work, the City or its contractor shall demonstrate
that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out a paleontological
resources mitigation program.
. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during construction activities
that disturb non-fill soils or formations.
. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shan have the
authority to halt construction until such a time that a complete assessment of the
resources can be conducted. If resources are found that are determined to be
significant, the paleontologica1 monitor shall direct activities to recover the resources.
. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos and maps shall
be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the
San Diego Natural History Museum.
8/9/2004 20
(hula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Significance After Mitigation: With the implementation of the construction monitoring
program (outlined in Mitigation Measures a - d above), impacts to paleontological resources
would not be significant.
F. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
Standards of Significance:
. Violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
. Substantially depletes groundwater suppJies or interferes substantial1y with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wel1s would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
pennits have been granted).
. Substantial1y alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a rnanner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or pol1uted runoff.
. Places housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
. Places within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows.
. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Significant Impact: Potential impacts to groundwater quality that could result nom increased
pollutant load resulting from the project are considered significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wil1 substantial1y lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
8/9/2004
21
Chula Vista Crussings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation: The Otay River, as the principal drainage channel in the Otay River Valley,
would receive runoff from the project whIch could potentially recharge groundwater
supply. Since runoff !Tom the project would still reach the Otay River, groundwater
recharge within the Otay River would not be affected by the proposed project. However,
contaminants from urban runoff could affect groundwater quality.
Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant
demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm
water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the
NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shaH file a Notice of Intent
(N0l) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shaH implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both
construction and post-construction pollution prevention and poHution control measures
and shaH identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. The
applicant will also be required to comply with the City's Development and
Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual and fill out aH
applicable forms associated with the Manual. FinaHy, due to the project's size of over
100,000 square feet, it is a Priority Development Project and hence subject to the
requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and
Numeric Sizing Criteria.
The foHowing Best Management Practices (BMPs) are rcquired:
· Soil Sediments: aHlandscaped areas will be self-contained due to the gentle slope of
the site.
. Fertilizers: All fertilizers shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. Proper wetting and other management techniques will help eliminate
blowoff or other non-absorption problems.
· Pesticides: AH pesticides shaH be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. As much as possible, pesticides that decompose into non-harmful
elements within short periods of time shaH be used.
· Metals: Application techniques such as coating shaH be utilized in order to reduce
potential contamination.
· Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons and other organic compounds shaH not be
utilized.
8/9/2004 22
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Trash and Debris: Trash shall be contained in covered receptacles and collected
regularly to avoiu exceeding container capacity. Containers will be placed on-site for
tenants and patrons. Any escaping trash will be picked up during regularly scheduled
parking lot sweeping.
. Petroleum Products: The parking areas will be swept regularly and steam cleaned to
remove accumulated soils and greases.
. General Site Runoff. During and after construction, slope protection/erosion control
measures will be required.
The following site design treatments are required:
. All runoff generated at the site will be captured and treated in an acceptable BMP
facility before reaching the storm drain outlet at the Otay River.
. Pervious surfaces, including large planted areas adjacent to buildings and beneath
roof gutter outfalls shall be used as much as possible in order to allow for more onsite
percolation.
. Large planted areas, where feasible, where runoff can collect before entering the
storm drain shall be located around buildings.
. Where feasible the roof drains shall discharge into the landscaped areas prior to
entering the storm drain system
All Source Control BMPs identified in the November 2003 Stuart Engineering Report
shall be implemented.
The following best management practices shall be adhered to during construction:
. Gravel bags, silt fences, etc. shall be placed along the edge of the project site in order
to contain particulate prior to contact with the Otay River area.
. All concrete washing and spoils dumping will occur in a designated location.
· Construction stockpiles, uncovered material and dumpsters will be covered in order to
prevent blow-off or runoff during weather events.
. A pollution control education plan shall be devcloped by the General Contractor and
implemented throughout all phases of development and construction.
. Severe weather event erosion control facilities shall be stored onsite for use as
needed.
Significance After Mitigation: The proposed mitigation measures and project design would
mitigate all significant impacts related to water resources and water quality to a less than
significant level. As a condition of issuing the grading permit, the hydrology/drainage report
shall address pre-development flows versus post-development flows.
8/9/2004
23
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Significant Impact: Site preparation and grading, including excavation and recompaction of
unconsolidated matcrials would result in exposure of sOlIs to erosion potential. Increased
sediment-laden or contaminant-laden TUnoffwould result in potentially significant, but mitigable
water quality impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Sedimentation could adversely affect water quality and sensitive biological
resources within the Otay River. Additional contamination hazards are related to the use
of hazardous materials in the construction process, including fuel and motor vehicle
fluids. The SWPPP that is required for the proposed project will address erosion control
and accident contingencies to address these issues.
Mitigation Measure: (see ElR, Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measure, specifically Mitigation
Measure [ a]).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: An increase in surface runoff and introduction of urban uses would increase
pollution levels in receiving water bodies such as the Otay River and San Diego Bay.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Pollutants that typically become mobile from this type of project include
automobile oils, fertilizers and other commercial fuels. Introduction of these pollutants
into the Otay River would cause significant impacts to surface water quality.
Mitigation Measure: (see EIR, Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measure, specifically Mitigation
Measure [ a]).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
8/9/2004
24
Chula Vista Crossings
('andidate CE(}A Findings of Fact
G. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Standards of Significance:
. The City of Chula Vista has developed traffic standards to evaluate the potential traffic
impacts of projects within its jurisdiction. The significance thresholds depend upon
whether intersections, street segments, or freeways are being analyzed and whether the
analysis addresses the short- or long-tcrm. The project significance criterion then
determines whether the project impact is direct or cumulative. These thresholds are
consIstent with the intent of CEQA and in effect, provide more specific direction for
significance findings.
. Project impacts will be defined as either project specific impacts or curnulative impacts.
Project specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition of project trips results in
an identifiable degradation in level of service on neeway segments, roadway segments,
or intersections, triggering the need for specific project-related improvernent strategies.
Cumulative impacts are those in which the project trips contribute to a poor level of
service, at a nominal level.
. Study horizon year as used herein is intended to describe a future period of time in the
traffic studies, which corresponds to traffic model years developed by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), and are meant to synchronize study impacts to
be in line with typical study years of2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020.
. Criteria for determining whether the project results in either project specific or
cumulative impacts on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections are as
follows:
Short-Term (Study Horizon Year 0 To 4)
For purposes of the short-term analysis, roadway sections may be defined as either links
or segments. A link is typically that section of roadway between two adjacent
Circulation Element intersections and a segment is defined as that combination of
contiguous links used in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program.
Analysis of roadway links under short-term conditions may require a more detailed
analysis using the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) methodology if
the typical planning analysis using volume to capacity ratios on an individual link
indicates a potential impact to that link. The GMOC analysis uses the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) rnethodology of average travel speed based on actual measurements on
the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program.
8/9/2004
25
Chula Visla Crossings
Candidale CEQA Findings of Facl
Intersections
a. Project specific impact ifboth the following criteria are met:
I. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
11. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
If the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio indicates LOS C or better,
there is no impact. If the planning analysis ind1cates LOS D, E, or F, the GMOC method
should be utilized. The fol1owing criteria would then be utilized.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i.
Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF for 1 hour. ii. Project
trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume. iii. Project adds
greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Freeways
a. Project specific impact if al1 the fol1owing criteria are met:
i. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway
segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Lon!!-Term (Study Horizon Year 5 And Later)
Intersections
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
I. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
For street links/segments, the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio
methodology only is employed, since the GMOC analysis methodology is not applicable
beyond a four-year horizon.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
I. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F.
11. Project trips comprise 5% or more of total segment volume.
III. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
8/9/2004
26
('hula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
h. Cumulative Impact if only (i) is met. However, If the intersections along a LOS D
or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is
considered not significant since intersection analysis is morc indicative of actual
roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If segment Level of
Scrvice is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above
occurs at study horizon year 10 or later, and is offsite and not adjacent to the
project, the impact is considered cumulative. Study year I () may be that typical
SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13 years in the future. In this case
a traffic study is performed in the period of 2000 to 2002, because the typical
model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e. 2005, 2010, 2015 and
2020). Study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year
2010 and would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than 7 years in
the future, study horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future.
d. In the event a direct identified project specific impact in paragraph a. above
occurs at study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is offsite and not adjacent
to this project, but the property immediately adjacent to the identified project
specific impact is also proposed to be developed in approximately the same time
frame, an additional analysis may be required to determine whether or not the
identified project specific impact would still occur if the development of the
adjacent property does not take place.
If the additional analysis concludes that the identified project specific impact is no longer
a direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative.
Freeways
For freeways, published guidelines developed by the San Diego Traffic Engineers'
Council/Institute of Traffic Engineers (SANTEC) are used as the significance criteria.
The SANTEC Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego
Region (2000) was developed by local traffic experts, Caltrans, SANDAG, local cities,
and the County of San Diego as a region-wide guideline for determining traffic impacts
in environmental reports. The SANTEC Guidelines are stated in Table 5.8-4.
TABLE 5.8-4. Measurement of Significant Project Traffic Impacts
Allowable Increase Due to Project Impacts"
D, E" & F"
0.01
V/C V/C Speed (mph)
-
Delay (sec.)
Ramp
Metering
Delay (min.)
level of Service
with Project ·
Freeways Roadway Segments
Intersections
8/9/2004
27
('hula Vista Cmssings
('al/didate (EQA Fil/dll1gs of Fact
Notes:
*
All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour
conditions. However, v/c ratios for Roadway Segments may be estlmated on an ADT/24-
hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction).
The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally "D" CC" for
undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitIOns). For
metcred freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15
minutes are considered excessive.
** If a proposed project's traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the
impacts are determined to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from
appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant
shall then identify feasible mitigation (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that
will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed
project becomes unacceptable (see above * note), or if the project adds a significant
amount of peak-hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on-or off-ramp storage
capacities, the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact
changes.
KEY:
V/C
Speed
= Volume to Capacity Ratio (capacity at LOS E should be used)
= Arterial speed measured in miles per hour for Congestion
Management Program (CMP) analyses
= Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds
= Level of Service
Delay
LOS
Significant Impact: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main Street/I-805 SB
ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The impact
is not considered to be a project-specific impact, however it is stil1 considered significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wil1 substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main Street/I-80S SB
ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The
impact is not considered to be a project-specific impact because, as noted in the EIR, the
intersection would already operate at LOS E without the project, and project trips would
not comprise 5 percent of the entering volume.
8/9/2004
28
Chulu Vistu Crossings
Cmzdidale CEQA Findings of Fac!
Mitigation Measure: For the significant cumulative impact at the Main St/I-805
intcrchangc, southbound ramps, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a fair share, as
determined by the City, towards adding a second westbound left-turn lane on Main
Street from the 1-805 southbound off-ramp. The second westbound left-turn lane is
included in the City's existing Capital Improvement Program (C1P). The funding
source for the second westbound left turn lane is included in the City's Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The City of Chula Vista anticipates that
improvements to address this cumulative impact will begin late 2005 and will include
lane re-striping and signal modification.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Significant Impact: Short-term impacts along Main Street between 1-805 and the project
driveway would be significant but mitigable.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: As stated in the significance thresholds, when a street segment is calculated
to result in LOS D or worse, the GMOC method is to be utilized to determine whether the
impact is significant in the short-term. The GMOC method is thus applied to the segment
of Main Street between 1-805 and the project driveway since the project would cause this
segment to operate at LOS D. As seen in Table 5.8.8 for Main Street between 1-805 and
the project driveway, the project is calculated to add 7,800 ADT to this segment (50,800
total) over the existing + cumulative projects and growth scenario (43,000 ADT). Based
on the GMOC significance criteria identified in Section 5.8.3, the project would exceed
the threshold of 800 ADT. Next, the project would be LOS D for more than 2 hours,
since the calculations for LOS presented in Table 5.8.8 was calculated on a 24-hour basis.
Lastly, as shown in the table, the 7,800 project trips would comprise 15 percent of the
segment volume (7,800 divided by 50,800 equals 0.15), exceeding the GMOC 5 percent
threshold. All three GMOC significance criteria are met, and in conclusion, short-term
impacts a10ng Main Street between 1-805 and the project driveway would be significant.
Mitigation Measure: For the short-term significant impact along Main Street between the
easterly edge of the Caltrans right-of-way at the I-80S and the project driveway, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
8/912004
29
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings oj Fact
. Prior to Issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
design and construct a raised median on Mam Street between 1-805 and the project
driveway. No median breaks will be allowed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: At the Main Street westbound left-turn at the project driveway, impacts
resulting from queue lengths are considered to be significant, as this would result in inefficicnt
intersection functionality and an increase in delay.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: At the project driveway there will be 640 feet of storage available in the
eastbound direction, 220 feet in the westbound direction, and 200 feet in the northbound
direction. The maximum queue is calculated to extend 421 feet in the eastbound
direction, 356 feet in the westbound direction, and 194 feet in the northbound direction.
The 356-foot westbound queue length is for the one-lane left-turn into the project
driveway and exceeds the storage capacity available and therefore would result in a
significant irnpact. All other queues for the project do not exceed the available storage.
That is, queues at the new project driveway or the Oleander Avenue/Main Street
intersection are calculated to not extend across adjacent intersections with the exception
of the westbound left-turn at the project driveway. Impacts would be significant at the
westbound left-turn at the project driveway.
Mitigation Measure: For the significant impact resulting from queuing on westbound
Main Street at the project driveway intersection, the following mitigation measures are
provided:
. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
design, construct, and secure new traffic signal equipment at the project driveway.
The westbound approach on Main Street shall be designed with two left-turn lanes
at the Main StreetlProject Driveway intersection. The provision of two left turn
lanes would result in the need to widen Main Street to the south, east of the project
driveway.
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the effects of a
mitigation measure shall be discussed in a CEQA document, but in less detail than
8/9/2004
30
Chu/a V,sla CrossiflRs
Candidate CEQA Findings of Facl
the effect of the proposed projcct. Thc widcning of Main Street dIscussed in
mitigation measure (c) above would result in the loss of 5 parking spaces on the
adjacent SBC property, and the loss of some landscaping on the Fuller property east
of SBC. The total size of the existing SBC parking lot is 50 spaccs. The City
Municipal Zoning Code (September 1998), per Section 19.62.050, defines the
number of parking spaces required for designated land uscs and structures. While
no exact match is found in the Zoning Code for the limited industrial use of the
SBC facility, the Zomng Code does define parking requirements for service and
maintenance ccntcrs, and business and profcssional offices. Scrvice and
maintenance centers require one parking space for each one thousand square feet.
The building square footage for the facility is estimated at 8,200 square feet.
Therefore, under the one space per 1,000 square feet criterion, a total of 8.2 parking
spaces would be required. Using the business and professional offices designation,
one parking space per each 300 square feet would be required, or 27.3 spaces.
Therefore, with the 45 parking space that would remain with implementation of the
project, the SBC facility would still meet City parking standards, and parking
impacts would be less than significant.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
H. AIR QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
Criteria for determining significance is based upon the Chula Vista General Plan and Section
15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the Initial Study Checklist (Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines). For this section, the following criteria are used to determine the significance
of an impact:
. Conflict with or obstruction ofthe implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
. Result in the release of substantial concentrations of pollutants such as ozone or
respirable particulatcs (PM-I 0).
. Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
8/9/2004 31
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA FindillKs or Fact
. Expose sensItive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Specific thresholds of significance for regional air pollution emissions have not been adopted by
the City of Chula Vista or by any responsible or commenting agency such as the SDAPCD. The
City of San Diego has recently updated its CEQA Assessment guidelines for air quality, and has
included emissions levels that shou1d be considered "substantial" even if there is no means to
directly correlate these emissions to ambient air quality. In the absence of any other guidelines,
use of the City of San Diego thresholds (similarly used by San Diego County DPLU staff for all
pollutants except ROG) are recommended in order to determine if the project would have an
impact on the regional air quality plan or contribute substantial amounts of dangerous
particulates. Table 5.9-3, City of San Diego Thresholds for Determining Impacts summarizes
these thresholds.
TABLE 5.9-3
City of San Diego Thresholds for Determining Impacts
(Recommended for use in the City of Chula Vista)
Recommended Screening Guidelines
Source: Giroux and Associates, February 2004, pg. 11.
Significant Impact: Contribution to the San Diego Air Basin's non-attainment status ofPM-IO
emissions would constitute a significant impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: In total, PM-lO emISSIOns resulting from project construction and site
preparation would total 37.5 pounds per day. Despite the project's commitment to
incorporate minimum dust abatement measures, contribution to the San Diego Air
Basin's non-attainment status of PM-lO emissions would constitute a significant but
mitigable impact.
8/9/2004
32
Chula Vista ('TOSSlng.\'
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation ltleasure: In order to control impacts related to temporary PM I 0 emissions,
the following best available control mechanisms shall be implementcd during
construction:
. Limit simultaneous disturbance to as small an area as possible.
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
. Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust.
. Stabilize (for example, hydroseed) graded areas as quickly as possible to
minimize fugitive dust.
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible.
. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building
construction.
. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blowoff
during hauling.
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25
mph.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above
would reduce residual impacts below a level of significance.
Significant Impact: Ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) will have a significant
cumulative impact even if individual thresholds are not exceeded.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: All pollutants will be below significance thresholds during grading
activities. But because of the non-attainment status for the air basin, ozone precursor
emissions would contribute to significant cumulative effects.
Mitigation Measure: During construction, equipment exhaust emISSIOns shall be
mitigated by employing control rneasures. These measures include:
.
mandatory periodic 10w-NOx tune-ups for on-site diesel equipment and;
8/9/2004
33
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings o{Fact
. restrictions on idling tunes (not to exceed 10 minutes) during breaks or while
trucks unload.
Significance After Mitigation: Cumulative contributions to the non-attainment status of the
regional air basin would be mitigated through the incorporation of this mitigation measure.
I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Standards of Significance:
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire or police
protection, schools, parks or other public facilities? Instead of simply including this broad
question as a significance threshold, the City has adopted Growth Management Thresholds
specific to the needs of the City. These thresholds are consistent with the intent ofCEQA and in
effect, provide more specific direction for significance findings.
These thresholds are therefore used. The project would result in a significant impact if:
. Adequate water storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are not constructed
concurrently with planned growth and water quality standards are jeopardized during
growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time
of building permit issuance.
. Sewage flows and volumes exceed City Engineering standards. Individual projects will
provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering standards.
. A total of3 acres of park land per 1,000 residents is not established east ofI-805.
. Police units are not able to respond to 84% of Priority t calls within seven minutes or less
or maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police
units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within seven minutes or less and
maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of seven minutes or less.
. Fire and medical units are not able to respond to calls within seven minutes or less in
85% of the cases and within five minutes or less in 75% ofthe cases.
8/9/2004 34
Chill" Vista Crussings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Other public facility capacities and/or scrvice levels are compromised as a result of the
project.
Significant Impact: Because the project lacks Interior water infrastructure, the Otay Water
District would not have the ability to adequately service the development without connections
from the street to the planned buildings.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
a1terations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant envIronmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The Otay District stated that the project could be adequately serviced from
the 12-inch potable main located within Main Street. However, without the proper
District-approved infrastructure onsite, the ability to adequately serve the project could be
impaired.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit water facility
improvement plans to the Otay Water District in order to ensure adequate interior
project laterals. If it is determined that additional laterals are necessary, the
applicant shall be required to install them or pay for their installation.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Development of the project without relocation of an existing sewer line
would cause significant irnpacts to the pipeline.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The development includes placement of a structure in the location of an
existing City of San Diego sewer line. Relocation of the line will be necessary and will
require approval by the City of San Diego.
8/9/2004
35
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation Measure: The fol1owing mItigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
City Engineer that the proposed segment of the Auto Park Sewer and the City of
San Diego Sewer serving the project have adequate capacity to handle projected
flows
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The development of the project would increase demand for police services
and contribute to the cumulative need for additional officers and equipment.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The Chula Vista Police Department has indicated they wil1 provide service
to the project. However, development of the proposed project would result in an
incremental increase in police service calls, which would contribute to a potential failure
to meet Growth Management standards.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shal1 be required to pay
the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as determined by the City Engineer,
to offset impacts on City fire, police, emergency services and other services. The
applicant wil1 also be required to pay the Fee Recovery District Fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, to help further offset impacts to City fire, police,
emergency and other services.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The project wil1 contribute to the incremental mcrease m fire servIce
demand throughout the City.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wil1 substantially lessen
8/9/2004
36
Chula Vista Crussings
Candidate CEQA Findings oj Fact
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explallatioll: As the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista continues to develop, and
redevelop as is the case for this project, additional fire protection services will be
necessary. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the
project, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand
throughout the City.
Mitigatioll Measure: see Section 5.11.5. Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures [c]
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The proposed project could contribute to increased demand on school
facilities resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Filldillg: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElR, below a level of
significance.
Explallatioll: Although the project would not involve additional residential units which
could in turn result in a strain on local school facilities, construction of commercial land
uses never the less indirectly contributes to population growth. Overall population
growth results in the need for new schools.
Mitigatioll Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of building permits, in order to offset indirect impacts to local
school facilities, the project applicant will contribute to a state-mandated fund in
the amount of $0.36 per square foot. A portion of this fee will be transferred back
to the Chula Vista Elementary School District and/or Sweetwater Union High
School District.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
8/9/2004
37
Clmla VisllI Crossings
('lIlldidale CEQA FlIldillgs o(FacI
J. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Standards of Significance:
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts would be considered significant if the
project would:
. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
· For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, IllJUry or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Significant Impact: Because the project is planned on a site known to support potentially
hazardous materials such as sandblast grit, involving exposure of the public to harmful
conditions, could result in significant irnpacts during construction/grading activities.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wil1 substantially lessen
8/9/2004
38
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Based on information contained in San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health files, between 1978 and 1981, approximately 2,000 truckloads of
sandblast grit from shipyards were used as fill material along the north and south banks
of the Otay River. A preliminary characterization of the sandblast grit at the southern
storage facility was conducted in 1986. This study concluded that the material consisted
of waste sand nom the blasting of boat bottoms included toxins typically found in paints,
mainly consisting of heavy metals, including copper, lead and zinc. These constituents
have the potential to result in significant impacts to human health if not properly handled
and contained.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
· In order to safely contain sandblast grit from the project site, special handling of
the fill material is warranted. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a health and
safety plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be reviewed by the
appropriate agency. The plan shall not be limited to worker health and safety but
shall include hazardous material handling specifications, proper waste
characterization for disposal and storm water and erosion management.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Development of the site has the potential for PCE exposure.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: PCE was detected in a single sample at an elevated concentration. Follow-
up soil vapor sampling around the sample location did not detect the presence ofPCE or
other VOCs suggesting that this is a very localized condition. However, location of a
structure on a site that contains potentially harmful materials, that when disturbed could
result in exposure of the public to harmful conditions results in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
8/9/2004
39
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEtJA Findinxs of Fact
. In order to reduce risks from PCE exposure, removal of localized concentrations
must occur before or during site redevelopment. During grading, a qualified
hazardous matcrials specialist shall monitor grading actIvities within the areas of
potential PCE contamination. Soils shall be excavated and sampled using a
mobile laboratory onsite. If elevated levels of PCE are detected, the impacted
soils shall be removed, handled and disposed of in accordance with existing state
and local regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils shall continue until
contaminant levels reach acceptable risk based levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The oily stained soil observed throughout the site could be a potential
hazard during site redevelopment.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that wi1l substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Potentia1ly exposing the public or surrounding environment to a hazardous
substance, such as is evidenced by oily stained soil, is considered significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
· In order to mitigate for spi1led oils or other automobile or equipment residue,
proper cleanup of soils is required. A qualified hazardous materials specialist sha1l
monitor grading activities within the areas of potential petroleum hydrocarbons
contamination. Soils sha1l be excavated, sampled and properly analyzed. If
elevated levels of PCE are detected, the impacted soils shall be reused onsite or
removed, handlcd and disposed of in accordance with existing state and local
regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils sha1l continue until
contaminant levels reach acceptable risk based levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Significant Impact: Containment of hazardous materials onsite, as opposed to removal of the
materials could result in exposure of people to hazardous conditions.
8/9/2004
40
Chula Vista Crassings
Candidate CEQA Findings olFact
Finding:, Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
signi ficance.
Explanation: The proposed project will result in a site that continues to contain "inert
solid wastes" on a property located adjacent to the Otay River. Therefore, the project may
be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to enroll in a
maintenance and monitoring order pursuant to Section 13264 of the California Water
Code.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Should the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) decide to add the
project site to its inactive landfill list, the property owner shall comply with the
RWQCB's requirements with respect to monitoring and maintenance of an
inactive landfill site on an ongoing basis.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Significant Impact: Redevelopment of the site could expose the public to hazards associated
with abandoned septic systems.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The existing residences onsite are serviced by septic systems, which could
contain hazards to future users of the site. Potentially exposing the public or surrounding
environment to a hazardous substance is considered significant
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
.
In order to mitigate for potential hazards associated with existing septic tanks
onsite, the construction contractor shall fill in the septic units. Filling the units
prevents contamination during the decomrnissioned state (San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health, April 2, 2004, pers. comm.). The project
8/9/2004
41
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
apphcant will then be required to provide proof of septic tank filling to the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
IX.
CUMULATIVE
MEASURES
SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
AND
MITIGATION
In many cases, the impact of a single project may not be significant, but when combined with
other projects, the "cumulative" impact may be significant. Section 15355 of the CEQA
Guidelines defines "cumulative impacts" as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts." CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) states that "the discussion [of cumulative
impacts] need not provide as great of detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project
alone." Section 15130(b) further states that a cumulative impacts discussion should be guided by
the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
Cumulative impacts can occur from the interactive effects of a single project. For example, the
combination of noise and dust generated during construction activities can be additive and can
have a greater impact than either noise or dust alone. However, substantial cumulative impacts
more often result from the combined effect of past, present and future projects that are located in
proximity to the project under review. For example, the wastewater treatment demand generated
by a project may not be significant when analyzed alone, however, when analyzed in
combination with the wastewater demands of approved or proposed projects, the wastewater
demands may excced the resource capabilities of the service agency, resulting in a significant
cumulative impact. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed
over time and in conjunction with other related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
developments which may have impacts that might compound or interrelate with those of the
project under review.
A. Biological Resources
Cnmulative Impact: Continued development within the eastern areas of Chula Vista and the
extension of SR-125 would extend urban land uses into vacant areas characterized by natural
habitats and utilized by the region's sensitive plant and wildlife species. .
Filldillg: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
8/9/2004
42
Chula Vista Crossings
Ca"didate CEQA Findings a/Pact
alternattve infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X ofthese findings.
However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to
biological resources and is a requirement of project approval.
Explanation: Although the project will result in minimal direct impacts to biological
resources and would not contribute to the elimination of undeveloped land for urban uses,
development of this project, combined with the others described above would contribute
to the increase in human presence within the Otay River VaHey and eastern Chula Vista
area. It is anticipated that cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources could be
mitigated on a project by project basis by preservation of open space within project
boundaries, and contributions to the MSCP Preserve. The MSCP was designed to
address cumulative and growth inducing impacts on a regional basis. The proposed
project is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and wil1 provide
mitigation for individual project impacts and reduce cumulative impacts to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impac.ts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise
attenuation features (such as berms or waHs) shall be implemented during
construction should sensitive wildlife species be present. Implementation of any
required measures will be verified by the City during construction.
Mitigation Jl<feasure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Per mitigation measure 5.2.5 [aJ, light shielding to protect the Preserve from spill-
over when deemed appropriate from a public safety standpoint shall be
implemented. Low sodium lighting shall also be utilized.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
8/9/2004
43
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
sensitive plant communities and Junctions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Although extensive landscaping IS not anticipated next to the preserve, any
landscaping shall utilize native vegetation. Prior to issuance of grading permits,
landscape plans demonstrating that invasive plant species are not used in areas
that could potentially result in impacts to the Preserve shall be submitted and
approved by the City.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed
in all drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of
contaminants into the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading
plans and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permits, and
installation of such measures shall be verified by the City during project
construction.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. If the project is to be constructed during the least Bel1's vireo breeding season
(March 15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey shall occur prior to
issuance of grading permits. If an occupied nest of least Bell's vireo is
discovered, and if noise associated with clearing, grading, or grubbing wi11
negatively impact the nest, noise levels shall not be permitted to exceed 60 Leq as
determined through construction monitoring by the City's biologist.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Val1ey Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as fol1ows:
.
A pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shal1 also occur prior to issuance of
grading permits, if project construction is to occur during the raptor breeding
8/9/2004
44
Chula Vista Crossil/g'
CIll/didat" ( 'E(jA Findings afFact
season (January 15 to July 31). In areas potentially affecting nesting raptor sites,
noise levels will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise from negatively
impacting the breeding success of any detected pair during the breeding season.
Compliance with this measure will be venficd through field monitoring by the
City's biologist. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the
breeding season(s), no additional mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indIrect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· Any trimming of willow canopies extending into construction areas will be done
under the supervision of the City's biologist.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. A biological monitor shall be present on site periodically during grading and site
preparation to ensure that grading and disturbance activities do not encroach into
sensitive areas.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will also preserve regional wildlife corridor
functions of the Otay River Valley.
Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less than
significant levels by incorporating mitigation measures as described in the EIR.
B. Water Quality And Hydrology
Cumulative Impact: Runoff from project construction areas and regular parking lot and
landscape irrigation systems will contribute to the incremental increase in urban runoff to the
Otay River system.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X ofthese findings.
8/9/2004
45
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings uf Fact
However, thc following mitigation mcasurc IS dcsigncd to reduce cumulative impacts to
watcr quality and is a rcquiremcnt of project approval.
Explanation: AHhough the project represents new development with an associated
incrcase in impervious surfaces, because the project site currently supports an urban use
with a greater potential to result in contaminated runoff, incremental increases in water
quality impacts would not be considered significant. Further, compliance by all
surrounding projects with applicable federal, state and city rcgulations for stormwater and
construction discharges, including thc application of Best Management Practices would
reduce cumulative impacts to water quality to a level below significance.
Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant
demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm
water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the
NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both
construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures
and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. The
applicant will also be required to comply with the City's Development and
Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual and fill out all
applicable forms associated with the Manual. Finally, due to the project's size of over
100,000 square feet, it is a Priority Development Project and hence subject to the
requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and
Numeric Sizing Criteria.
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required:
. Soil Sediments: all landscaped areas will be self-contained due to the gentle slope of
the site.
. Fertilizers: All fertilizers shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. Proper wetting and other management techniques will help eliminate
blowoff or other non-absorption problems.
. Pesticides: All pesticides shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. As much as possible, pesticides that decompose into non-harmful
elements within short periods of time shall be used.
8/9/2004 46
Chula Vista Crossings
('andulate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Metals: Application techniques such as coating shall be uti lized in order to reduce
potential contamination.
. Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons and other orgamc compounds sha1l not be
utilized.
. Trash and Debris: Trash sha1l be contained in covered receptacles and co1lected
regularly to avoid exceeding container capacity. Containers will be placed on-site for
tenants and patrons. Any escaping trash will be picked up during regularly scheduled
parking lot sweeping.
. Petroleum Products: The parking areas will be swept regularly and steam cleaned to
remove accumulated soils and greases.
. General Site Runoff. During and after construction, slope protection/erosion control
measures will be required.
The fo1lowing site design treatments are required:
. All runoff generated at the site will be captured and treated in an acceptable BMP
facility before reaching the storm drain outlet at the Otay River.
. Pervious surfaces, including large planted areas adjacent to buildings and beneath
roof gutter outfalls shall be used as much as possible in order to allow for more onsite
percolation.
. Large planted areas, where feasible, where runoff can co1lect before entering the
storm drain sha1l be located around buildings.
. Where feasible the roof drains shall discharge into the landscaped areas prior to
entering the storm drain system
All Source Control BMPs identified in the November 2003 Stuart Engineering Report
sha1l be implemented.
The following best management practices shall be adhered to during construction:
. Gravel bags, silt fences, etc. shall be placed along the edge of the project site in order
to contain particulate prior to contact with the Otay River area.
. A1l concrete washing and spoils dumping will occur in a designated location.
. Construction stockpiles, uncovered material and dumpsters will be covered in order to
prevent blow-off or runoff during weather events.
. A pollution control education plan shall be developed by the General Contractor and
implemented throughout all phases of development and construction.
. Severe weather event erosion control facilities shall be stored onsite for use as
needed.
8/9/2004 47
('hula Vista Crossings
( 'alldidate CEQA FilldinRs oj Fact
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
C. Transportation, Circulation, And Access
Cumulative Impact: The project would contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to traffic
circulation on Main Street.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make Implementation of the No Project
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X of these findings.
However, the fo1lowing mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to
circulation and is a requirement of project approval.
Explanation: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main Street!1-805 SB
ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The
impact is not considered to be a project-specific impact because, as noted in the EIR, the
intersection would already operate at LOS E without the project, and project trips would
not comprise 5 percent of the entering volume.
Mitigation Measure: For the significant cumulative impact at the Main StlI-805
interchange, southbound ramps, the fo1lowing mitigation measure sha1l be implemented:
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a fair share, as
determined by the City, towards adding a second westbound left-turn lane on
Main Street nom the 1-805 southbound off-ramp. The second westbound left-turn
lane is included in the City's existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
funding source for the second westbound left turn lane is included in the City's
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The City of Chula
Vista anticipates that improvements to address this cumulative impact wi1l begin
late 2005 and wi1l include lane re-striping and signal modification.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
8/9/2004
48
C'hu/a Vis/a Crossings
('andida/c CEQA Fmdings of Fac/
X. POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more sigmficant environmental effects that
cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as
mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project
alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible withm the meaning of CEQA.
As noted earher, in Section VI of these Findings, an alternative may be "infeasible" if it fails to
fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives wIth respect to the project.
Thus, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based
on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors." of a project. (Citv of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; see also Sequovah Hills,
supra, 23 Cal.AppAth at 715.)
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the
significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption
of mitigation measures, as is the case with this Project, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no
obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their
impacts would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated. Laurel Heigh/s Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426];
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr.
842]; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270
Cal. Rptr. 650].
Notwithstanding the fact that the Project would not result in significant unmitigated impacts, the
City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant
to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the
findings requirement: "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." [Pub. Resources Code section 21061.1.] The CEQA Guidelines provide a
broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines
section 15364 states, 'The lack oflegal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or
mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or
technological factor." (See also Citizens of Gole/a Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52
Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different
meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to
8/9/2004
49
('hu/a Vista ('rossings
Cundidate CE(}A Findings of Fact
the feasibility of alternativcs. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project
for which an envIronmental impact report has been certi fied which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
(1) "[c]hangcs or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the final EJR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(1 ).J
(2) "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and junsdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
[CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(2).]
(3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final E1R." [CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3).]
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
rnitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar
v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]) '" [F]easibility' under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. V. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182].)
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the proposed project has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In
rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project
objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The
decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets the finally approved project objectives with
the Jeast environmental impact. The findings below examine the alternatives to determine
feasibility.
The detailed discussion in Section IX demonstrates that all significant environmental effects of
the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing
policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives
identified in the Draft EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to these
8/9/2004
50
Chlllll VIStll Crussings
Candidate ('EQA Findings o(Fact
impacts. (I,-aurel Hills, ~\!pra, 83 CaLApp.3d at 519-527; [147 CaLRptr. 842); Kin~s Countv
Fann Burcau v. City of Hanfof<:! (1 <)90) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 CaLRptr. h50]; and
Laurel Hei~hts Improvement Association Vo Regents of the Universitv o( Califom@ (1988) 47
Ca1.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified
alternative qualifics as both feasible and environmentally superior.
A. No Project Alternative
The No ProjectlNo Development Alternative assumes that the projcct site would not be
redeveloped and the existing automobile storage facility would remain and continue operation.
Project-level impacts would be avoided. The No ProjectINo Redevelopment Alternative would
not meet the following project objectives:
· The elimination of existing blighted conditions, and the prevention of recurring blight
in and about the Project Area.
· The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of
local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities, increasing local
employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area,
and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the
Proj ect Area.
· The creation of a more cohesive and unified community by strengthening the
physical, social, and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial and
recreational land uses within the community and the Project Arca.
. The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system free
from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interferences.
. Removal of outdoor storage uses from the site and redevelopment into a productive
commercial center providing jobs and sales tax revenue.
· Dedication of land to the OVRPIMSCP Preserve to promote the goals of Chula
Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan related to conservation of sensitive species and habitats
and the OVRP Concept Plan.
· Establishment of a freeway-oriented comrnercial center to provide commercial uses
that are easily accessible to the surrounding community.
Filldillg: The No ProjectINo Development Alternative would not meet the primary
objectives of the project in fulfil1ing the goals of the Redevelopment Plan to convert
underutilized land uses that currently contribute to blighting conditions within the project
area to economically productive uses that benefit the community. In addition, the No
Project alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental
impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project
mitigation
8/9/2004
51
Chllla Visla Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings afFact
B. Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation Alternative
This project alternative would involve construction of light industrial uses, such as light
manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and office-related uses. This facility would likely
require sirnilar site work and redevelopment efforts as the proposed project. Building footprints
would likely consume a larger percentage of the entire site.
The Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation alternative would not meet the following project
objective:
· Establishment of a freeway-oriented commercial center to provide commercial uses
that are easily accessible to the surrounding community.
Finding: The City and the Redevelopment Agency have determined that, due to the
location of the site relative to regional access facilities and existing residential
communities, commercial uses would better serve the community and would more fully
satisfy the project objectives. In addition, the Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation
alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental
impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project
mitigation.
c. Reduced Density Alternative
This project alternative would involve the development of a commercial retail center similar to
that proposed, however the size of the project would be less. Instead of developing a site with up
to 188,000 square feet of retail commercial space, a total of 141,000 square feet would be
constructed (an approximate 25% reduction in total building square footage). The site would be
prepared, graded and designed in a similar manner as the proposed project. The alternative
would result in less land cover of the site.
Finding: The Reduced Density alternative would partially fulfill all of the project
objectives as outlined in the EIR, but would not provide the level of economic benefit
that the proposed project would provide. More importantly, the alternative would not
provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts related to the project
that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation.
8/9/2004
52
,r/774c H,''-1e,-vT -1
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista
for the Chula Vista Crossings commercial development, to comply with Assembly Bill 3180,
which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of
mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as
additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on
the project throughout the project approval process.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
measures for the proposed project and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
. Monitoring team qualifications
. Specific monitoring activities
. Reporting system
. Critcria for evaluating the success ofthe mitigation measures
The proposed project involves redevelopment of an existing outdoor storage facility located at
the southeast corner of 1-805 and Main Street to commercial retail use. A total of 17.2 acres of
commercial uses are being proposed on the 24.1 acre project site. The proposed project would
include the construction of seven buildings with an approximate totalleaseable building area of
188,038 square feet. The remaining 6.8 acres and 0.08 acre will be set aside as open space to be
dedicated to the Otay Valley Regional Park and planned improvements to Main Street,
respectively.
Thc EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to be potentially
significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR include land use, planning
and zoning, landform and alteration, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
paleontological resources, agricultural resources, housing and population, water resources and
water quality, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, public services and
utilities, hazards/risk of upset, cumulative and growth-inducing impacts. The environmental
analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some ofthe significant and
potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of
recommended mitigation measures. Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those
impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Chula
Chula Vista Crossings EIR
3984-01
August 2004
MMRP-1
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Vista Crossings commercial development, therefore addresses the impacts associated with only
the issue areas identified above.
MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM
A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as
conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the
responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be
accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and the
MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula Vista, the
monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
. Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances;
. Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
. Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
. Excellent communication skills.
The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following:
. Implement and manage the monitoring program;
. Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring;
. Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final
construction monitoring;
. Act as liaison between the City ofChula Vista and the applicant's contractors;
. Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs and
ESs in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project requirements,
construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort;
. Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit conditions;
. Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation or
proposed additional mitigation;
. Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project
environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and
. Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and personnel
rcsponsible for contractor performance and permit compliance.
Chula Vista Crossings EIR
3984-01
August 2004
MMRP-2
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in
performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and
functions are to:
. Maintain a working knowledge of the Chula Vista Crossings' permit conditions, contract
documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation requirements
for his or her assigned construction area;
. Assist the MM and Chula Vista Crossings construction contractors in coordinating with
City ofChula Vista compliance activities;
. Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit
conditions; and
. Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist the
MM as necessary in preparing status reports.
The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally
sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project implementation and to
provide direction for mitigation.
PROGRAM PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to
initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants.
Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any
project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system rnust be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties
involved must have a dear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these
mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would
have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would
include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and the construction crew
supervisor. The MM would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental
Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the
appropriate time frame that these mitigation measures are anticipated to be imp1emented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report
(MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the stated
mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the
Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01
August 2004
MMRP-3
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MM following
the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim
and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This
report will describe the major accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problerns
encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome
problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition,
and if appropriate, each EM or ES will bc required to fill out and subrnit a daily log report to the
MM. The daily log report will be used to record and account for thc rnonitoring activities of the
monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determincd appropriate, will be generated
from the daily logs and compJiance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e.,
mcmoranda, telcphone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is esscntial for the City of Chula
Vista to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposcd on the
project.
ACTIONS IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE
There are gencrally thrce separate categories of noncompliance associatcd with the adopted
conditions of approval:
. Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
. Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or task
delay; and
. Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrcctive action and results in no work or
task delay.
In each case, the MM would notify the Chula Vista Crossings contractor and the City of Chula
Vista of the noncompliancc, and an MMR would be tiled with the MM on a daily basis.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program should
noncompliancc continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop
work" orders, tincs and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and
injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and
responsibiJity of thc on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are
the responsibility ofthc City ofChula Vista.
Chula Vista Crossings EIR
3984-01
August 2004
MMRP-4
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
The following tablc lists the proposed project mitigation mcasures and the monitoring efforts
necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation mcasures
identified in the E1R are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in
language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Crossings Project
has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the dcsignated monitors, the
City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will furthcr rcfinc the mitigation measures.
Chula Vista Crossings EIR
3984-01
August 2004
MMRP-S
~ .~]i E ~ .~ E $ ~ '0
I--.:e-' ID.:CE!:!2-"8I.s:::.
o c;1)-o"'@-i;cn ot'
ffl~~ ffi:5 CIJ~_i"-8~ g
=._Q)<J)df-o~roE <n
;5.-[~~~~~8~~
Q)ro8.~ O>"O@ ~
~ E E ~ g.Q E ~ ore 3 -~
"E ..Q '* ~Ci -g !ci ~ a. 0
-g c: >-- ~ ~ .g ": ~ E
~ ~ ~ 1 i ~;~ ~ a i
2:~ :3 ro (f):.o _~ ;;-."w ~
~roro~~<I)3~63o
~ .~ ~,g ~ ~ g jg ~ 1i3
-a>c:: ':=~~ro~
&ro-gE~c:::..c:u
g' a:gmo.or.nroro
:E a g'.Q,?.s >- $ ~ ~ 2
&'<nz~2-~~.ax Q)~
<(t3g>_~ 5 m1B==,s ro
iB.8
.s
"ID6
"'0=
"g,.g ~
~'E :"55
c ~ ~
~ ~ U')
~a::: 9
'" '"
" ~
= '"
~=
~
ElfJ
.~ Q) U
wE !!'
g.~ '6
CIJ E
~~Q)
u ~ N
g "ffi "E
c E
.E 8-E
" "
~ c:
~ CIJ
.,.
~
.~
."
~
E
E
a
u
~ ~
'" '"
" "
1: ro
" ~
1j3~
O:<L
rn
~"
..9:! ro
"'.0
>0
2c
u OJ >- (/)
aa.6~
j~ (]) U
> " "
~==
~ 'O.s
~
vi ~
.!:!? 0
~i3
5r2
~
"
~
o Vi
0; "
";:; ..Q
aLE
~8~~o..8'
~ Ec:U
ri@~g.~~
.~ fJ <J) ~ ~ E'
8.IDU):;;E-o
.~?6~~~
g> g ?: C/J ~'53
'6roo5-::O-
~ :5 "f5 .2
0)Q.Jw2c:
_a1i5Eu>ffij
~ Q) c:: Q) if.'
~.c 8 0...!E
" a
~$~'~~~'~
~ ; g ! .~ ~ ~
~~28.e:?~
.9C(/)a5U)g.S
o~~53~~g>
~ 8::roo..E~ ~s
u...ro2~-~ro-o
'0
-+
"'
'"
'"
'"
ri.
'"
::;;
::;;
.L::=('1JQ)
.2> "a. ~
- ~ E
~Egro
~g -55
"' '"
N c:
LO ~
~
~G-
~
~
'"
"
E
"
'0
'0
'"
<;;
~
'"
~
<(
"
E~
i3~
$ "
o "
5.~
'"
CD
~
"
.~
2
u
:3
,
;;:
ro
.,;
=
U
~
.Q
rooe:
00- "
00=
"E ~ 3
ill ill
Q) E >
<L ~ 0
.
g~8~?;~~-g ~~$!~
ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~.S ID
.<!!. _(1)><11.90. ro--o_.s~
~~:;'.s~U)g. -5~?;-~
~~g;.a?~ro~-o ii1di'-g.
.g_<O<JJE........CO"'C c
o..;:.o-ocn-E(11 th;;;....~
(j) '% ~ -E -0 .- -0 ~.D a. Cs
-0 Q.) C 0> ~ ~ .S ~ ~ ~ tD
~.s\1)__t;;::J'E \E{i-Eo
~ t::!o5-<--'S-O
IDg:S<1)~g~~ E::2~g
_~ -==.~-o.:.> ().) gBr.f)'tS
cxwrorf)'it;..:;:...o :g2E::::I
~ o.-.~ ~ :. -:;;~ % ~~ -g ~ * i~
~ _ '-' ~ (\) (3 Q) r.f)?:, '- OJ'__
~'3..c:2Cl.- o..<J)oa> $
E:Q)a?ro-;Z{tJ:Jt~~G6ro
Q)..c:g~~,-~_-o~-G23:
Ci.~~; c.g-g ~"=]o W _5-0
.S ro ~ ~ ~ 0... ~ -6. tJ iL 1)" Q.. ~
""
c
~
go
E
=>
'5
5\
3
.
.
2l5'2.8~
ro~g~[
~ ~ g..g
</18:.g'wCJ)
~ ro 'is ~.S
"j'O~</)='
l% \E 0) m ~
Q.) f/)O E
Ere8=~
..c.-a...cuG
gO"J~~
(f)~~OE
2"0 c
",,- 0
5.g'~ E'
'" 0. ro
~.~~--o
<.;;0 - 1'1)
-6 Q) -0 '-
,S~re~
ci
c:
"
(1)$~
~~Q:
.~ ".€ Q)
.:ow-€:
;;
'"
'"
'"
'"
....
~
:;;
~~ ~~~11~"* ~ g' 5.~3 ro
~-B~'g~~ iD?ir'2 g.~g2
.~ co <I"J en""" g ~- -..J 'C ..... en 0 ('(I
-6~8-- ~ ~:E_~8 ~ ~o::~
-g 6 "8 0 ..9:1: :;:::) 0 y; ~ .- 5
oif>2IDO_$O_o,c-~.gQ"":~c- ~
?illwg(i) .....g'->_ ("O Q)
~<.f)5~a>c:oiQ)E'C,g~ !T1
c (j) 0 c/) c ~ C 00 0 >>.rt1
S'~ ~ .!:!! "'ID ~ ~ ill g c: E ~ .s
Q)~a.oi5..ro-aE~85~
o \1) {to __:::I ~ (IJ .::::..c:'= <l>
o lS,-:;. 0 ~ '- ...... .- r::n ro c:::
...... OLO 20.- g Q> 01?6 E :a.go
<J) ID...... C:;;,. 0.. (1) ,-"g"13
c:"~"~ (D ro 8 g.s ~p rJJ 2
.9 UI ~ J ':!;:: "~ "S :o-.D -g z:- "'gj
t:5 K~ ~ g --02 Q) -0 s 6 0
~ 2 tn c'M ro ~"; ~_0"!: ~ -5 ~o.;;:ro
c:: __ (\J ill "~
8 +-: ~ 2 {E o..;;,."~ ~ {E ~ Eo::( -5:.
""
Uj
,h
~
c
.~
~
8
u
"~
>
~
"3
-"
u
1!i
"E ~
ii3 '"
o.~
.
0"1 ~ E: \J) 01=
-,5 e a3.S'~
2~d;8~@
1Q"'Q)~~~
~~ g ~ ID ~
~~g'6.pE
ID - 11) ~ ~E
O~Q..a.-"'"
0. '0 ~ ~
~,::::.9~-o3:~
~ vi ~ ~.~ Q) .0::
(tI~~Ea..g~
E"OO ~ u -oro ::J
~ 2.2 a.. e
(ry ~..='~ 2 8-s
>-.. ~ '-~.2:-~ U ~
~O)~~>-c~
c:~=cOQ)
2~'g~ro~~
~~E~ogLo
:G~~.~ g>iE 221?2
1)~ 0 ~ ] ~ "!"::~
inj ~~~~ ~t~
c: <'3 :::I 0 -i5.. 11).9 a... en 11)
o 0 0 ..a ..CI 0) -'= Qj 0
E"- i5 c=fJ)~-o..c:c
o -g 16 ro .~ ~>..= ~ ......
lL s.g-o ~ <n6~ 0">~-i5
o "~~@~VJO'I~~
'5. <n::J 3: ro - g r::. c.
.~ 5 ~o 5 ~ 5 ~ :.~ <J)
~~od:soE coro
~~'~s:~~~58~
0>" E ~ ill "6::> ~...... c: 0)
c '- a.. 0 ..... .~ ro -.s
i5 ~'s 8 ;;; :Q '8 i1 ~ 'Vi
I ~.f.g~~ 3.~~ ~
<i
.'"
~ 5
:.5"13
2
.W 11)
~c
88
~
~ a
@t5
~.2
~
~.g
c
c "
Q u
~.$
::"6
E~
~ >-
-s~~
o'&~
~ a;
8 (I}'=:
~c:a:
cffifu'
E: ~o
2 "
Q..Oi::;
E~o
15 V) 0
<I)~~
c a. i::
Q).S ~
E ~
_~ IV CL
~ u "
g.g-E
"- ';!! c:
,.., 0
g-.:7~
1) - 0
ro 6& .
.~ ~~!!2
-g ~*
o>c'--
-f;ro:.o
.s a:: ~
"3 ro:€
O)~~
g.Q:\D
2 ~.'@
0- u
E ill ~
8.s~
~~.~~
o~-5ro
II! ~
g' ~ ~ <n
~~~2
_ ~"c
OJ~50
o ro g E
"8= Q)13~ ~
E "0 ~ "8',:::: 6
IF> g 0 ~
ro -0 V) ro'~
~~'~{3~
V;28.ro__
'rn~ ~ Q) 2
.Qc: -s-
o ~ ~
" 0
~ ~
.cWrJ)
E ::J <1}
rn 0 ~
"> .2
:i ~~
o
"
'"
'"
co
co
Ii.
IX:
~
~
Z-c
.~ "t::
'" ~
=
"
"'10
~~
= c
o "
C:2
'"
'"
'^
"
"
.~
2
u
~
'>
"
'5
~
u
<t
o
o
N
q;
~
0>
~
<(
cim
c
c
52
.c
o
E
o~=~c~c~~o8~",~~.-~~
:16~~:.:reEo~- 0 0-
~ Q ~ -ro b;g ~.~ $ ~ ~ g> ~ .~ ~ ~
]\<og g !>jug", OJ ~.?:''g ~~ m m
c__It1ID'-2roUQro......W ~..;.:::
Q).a~o--o2&-g15c'B --ro'ci$1 ~5
'g2E~ffio.Q)o.. cEU'J ':)3
Q_Q)Q) EE\1> .ro"=>( -o-oZ:i(1}
2m~~~oEOC~~e~.C~~Z
~~ .el~8~W~&~~.Sg~~
:::J~i:::'8 5(\}g_{ij~""O.~'iD-o .3:<1>
~cro~g~'-Eg ~~~~~ ~
~ro~ ._~ u'-c~'-- _mQ)
~ ~~~ro~Q)~mcro~B~.~g.5
-~~~SBS ~~m~~ '-i~""O",
cQ).,Cm:GCJ-c.or:::w -c-::s-o
~~Q)S~g'i~~mQ)-~-~~roQ)U~
%CDCro ..c c~~-o _D~~
o_.-co -D8~~;~ s
;g~:?~-;;;8o >.- -~~s:
o.gc;'6c::ffi~cO~ 8m_~
_moroo '-" -ou::: -oe-P~~
= a,'- ro '- ~ ai ........ -g ~ 'ill $ -c "m
OJ 1;;'~ <\'J g UI 8 t- 0.. '--" N .--- ~ $
"E ~ ~ -a a..5 ?6 <n 0..."; "iJ) U U 0- c: Q)
o 0- E'= .g E i6 ~ <'( ~ 'a3 :is -0 ~ '01-:S
E ~ ~ .S: S Cl-.E ~.S ~ 2; ;3 ~ u a:, a
g'&
U
S<.9
'"
c~
"'8
",'"
",,",
~
12 12
'" '"
:> :>
'" ro
Ci -:;
"" ""
0 0
"6 "6
?;- ?;-
<3 <3
x oK
2g
=ffio
~w
-~
,;.:....
]Ii
;;; ro
Ec-d
::j x Q)
g2~
u<o-
s g- E
'"
~cc>
-roGe
ID'~ -0
\0 :ij
..o$ID
E-oD
::J ~ 2
;;: 0 'cu
2E-ro
<:(~~
'"
c
10'"
,,\3
~\&
~
C>
"
'"
<>>
'"
'"
0:-
0:
::<
::<
x
G?hJSg~~~
g5&-::;:;'5u'J:=J
,,, $$
____~~ 2 Q)
(1) ---- <n ~8if> c: B~
-o~-o S.....3t
82m 6
"~ -g -c t.> (j)
ty)Q) ~ ~'E
c:1:: (/) if) ro
~o~"~~~
~"~~ If)
<l)r-~~-g
E~Eu-5ro
(5 .~ 2 "5-'S c '0
"c '-" ~ c.~-3
:? ~~ g>.g~
s; * ffi"'5 ?3 8
q:~u--oU5
. ro c: -0
E ~.~ ~
~~@&jg
I- </)0 ror
OJ
"
c
ro
"5.
E
3
'"
iij
"
~
c
"*
8
u
~
>
"
"3
"'
u
c
Q
'"
>-
c> '"
._ c
E 0
'" E
<jj '"
",0
------
~ 0
o ~
" d..
'" '"
~ ~
~ "' J3 fA
'" '"
'7 '7 '7
;> "' J3 '"
'" ? " "'
6 6 .c <5
0
"6 "6 "6
"6 .2' !;i z:
12 0 0 0
'-'
--------
E'.
~
'"
- '"
,n "
3~
'g\5
-=::::--';J).
o -
,,::c
><
><
><
><
><
~~~~
.S ~ "g.-g
~ R<5 Z
~~~ 0
-ro '" 1D iii
o~~6
~~
0.. if! -S ~
'3 ~.~ U)
;SEc'>>
3~.g-S
~ ~,e <f}
o '''' iJ} ~
ro '8 -~ -5
~g9ih
rJ, O--~
$ \d'~
'"'&,'O?f,
~ Ceo
~~ ."'-
P--~
B~'@
gg~
-gg%
B~{h
E -
15'iiJ.9
~~ %
0Q.)'t:c~
dJ 'ro~;5
8 to 'OJ <f!
~..s 9 ~
<I1-o~(\)
'E35:G
~$~~
o%~~
G~
fu8 9
E 'S .%_- '"
~o ~
(l) '& "g 's
~~-'~'~
'6.9~
v;~a
- \5 %
~S.0
,%~<"'3
g~"rtI
'"m -- -S
p.~QJ
~ ~ .~
'-'=ffico
'i~-E
<v'5~
8:~ ~
.~ ~ ~
(l)~%
ro g> s
.s!!E~
'~'5 8
$~~
';!::: o..-.c:
><
i6.Q
~
roV-
is
,~;;)
'8'"
15$
- j.
;:a is
,,"'"
g.g ~
5 S;.;::.
2f:.~
"'E
-roBD
go
g' '" <5
s-~~
5-3~
'" =
ro '" "i'
O-Eb
4~ c:
'"
."
o
0.90~~:'E2~E~
Rjc.1>!T!.....-oo&-t5g~
Eca:>s~ o~e
(l) g ~ tz ~~ 0- 5 -6 ~ ~
1& Q>~.'!2"€>b <l)~!~ ~9
~<Ii-V1J}6%ro~~ ~
~ ro ll}?Jg roi3 ro':e1$ %
~~(/)~ ,-ro~~gw
o:~~~$o.Q)e\l>a)
CI- o:::;.z::-c:n~::a:>~
5oE~~0ss:c:$::,"'-
"m <Ji g c: 0 -:g ~ Q) ...... 0 S
<2 Q,) g E. \1) :J -0 26. CI- Q)
Q)~"'6$-'B~~<p~~.s<J)
~_c:g=oro.,s -oQ}1/?
0,,02"''''-''' "".j;
.~ g ~ ",.~{7,ij\ -'~ ~ "'-g
'iii 8~~-:::c=:;:':-E"" ~ if> ro
"-",s.?:;::\3}S~S\99~
>-- ". C ,.:;:::;. :=I ..;; 0
s ~ S ". ~ '6 '" ",aI ~ ~ 1%
o.%\~Q)(';){f>'~~-o -g
o Q)'-b~~'ffi'&''f'S':r::6
1- 3 e C)...1- 0- ~~ .Q 0.......
'"
""
'b;
'~
i
.""
g
'8
'S
o
'"
eo
x
x
~~~~'_E~~OW~~B~iro~~S8~
-~2~~- ~~ wroc~~E~ro
€ g ~~ ~ 3: >-~ __ -e ffi"g CD ~ ro ~ en
3:(J)~~_E.Q Q5i5St9",~u:>'01~8..~
~~ ~WWQ~~~~ ~a~o~ ~
.-. 'v _ _ __ -(/) E c: U c ro
~~c:cO<na ~~eW",-~~EOw<n
ED.Q.Q~~~B w~Ow=~w ~EE
o~~~zcro ~o~~~ e-u .w
uIDffi~ ro _ _nZ~~c ro2oc
~o-- f/)C _~ ~"'g~~~~ro
~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~i<nEg~_
...... '" _ '" ..... "" _ Q) U (.) -- 0 w > E Q.. Y U E ::;
:1~.5$~i~~~~(J)w~~~&~g i
~<nc€Cro 2~ ~~ro~co~~~~~
5gw2~~:~gro~~~~gww ~~-
'5..'16~~C ~>""',*WWEC~-SQ)"'@o..2g
~~e~E2 O~ _~.....oo~~ro~ c
~.~<n'= ~~ ~ro~S~~~~ c~8
~~ill~W2~E ~~~W2$~ c~~c
.~~ WiCDO~"'~o~~~E Q~~Q
_~ ~~E~~Qcrou-8~~~U ~~
~~~fu2~2 ~~m5~OE3~~~ ~
~~~~.~~~~~~(J)E~50C~C~~c
~rooo_De~0~g6~~'~m8ro8~m8
U'J"--ro ~uQ)f/)
~ "?: ~ * :5 ~ Q -~ -E ~
CI-~o~o~g~oQ
..9 .~ 0) E ~ ::2: ..-- -- <n 5
&~.9-g~ ~ &E~1U ro
roJ::U1 ro...... 0 o.E O),c
Q)~-,-~-oQ)-.$
~3C~--O<B5~-
>. ~ ~ .~ g:] ~ Cf" ..... (5
Ci g. ~ -v "Vi 0 !!' ~ g
5(j,)t1*~>-Qi~N
(Ja>~-o~.5.s U5
~ E 0 __0- 0 E (J
.8a::@~~a:--2~
~ -0 "S ro (I) (tI t) (f) @
~.-::g(/)r:."':!?"~Cz
"~ : ~ ~ 9 .- ~ .e -g
~Wffi-~Q3(l)~~
2~~~-o~g~a..
2g>5~@~-o~
o~co..ro~-o~~
-wr3~ g~ sr~U5~
;;
~
co
a>
co
~
~
"-
a:
:2
:2
\3
tj
'"
a::
c
"
E
"
go
co
'"
,.
'"
iU
~
w
c
"~
o
U
"~
>
~
-;
.c
V
.,.
o
o
N
;;;
"
0>
~
<(
ill-o
CD I"
."
u
I"
~
'"
'"
~
"
Q
:s
v;-
D-
ID"
t=se-
:==:'0
" '"
~"
'" 0
~cn
'" '"
'O~
1S."
",0>
o '"
~.s
~ 0
"'-
='"
-roi5
'0
'"
~
.~
~
~
";j
~
'"
.D
-g""~,,;A1~Q5CO 1\15 :".1\
:.a.b.G~EQ..o~g~ ~~ g-o
0- oE.9dg--o(/) 0 :s:t: \'5[::
ro~-o'$.Q $"0 8.g"'if> (/).9 g~
~~f5.9-~..o> 0. if! >-.J:;;
Q) rot/)s >:DID-g.'JI
rog~..c:5}g9ro<U5 g..-e X<f)
'"_._ ~if> ~.<'"o "-
~t'f~~t~~t~ ~~cu;~
~_ IV C7 ~ _:; $ ~ c .?J 0 '0 0
.e"g-.2~if>." ~~ o~{i;So
$22K-5g~J!!.1 2~"~~c;ou
;'i ~ ~ $ ,,'" '" 2" 3,g 25 \ij ~.fij
_~ >- _E 0. _oe .s
Mici~,,;i~_"'1\~~BUO ~
_~oEo~~ov,~~ ~u ro ~
G:I.......-,=,<J) :E:__=~-_ro.. -rot,).L=
2~e~rn~~e~"G2~~~~'~~-o~
~_"_~,,_,,-=E,,,"'=i- M-
"'~ ~"'2~_~..E.g~e"-~~
S~E~E.D~.D"'a.D~~O"O"'o~
~ ~ . ~~ u> ro
e~i?~f5~'E
1'5 ;:J "5. ro ~ ro
Q.Q...Q)O'1Ue
<I> :::> Q) ~ E en
i~1;~*~
c.:g"5..rn~"O~
?-Q8g~:gt-ffi~
""' _ .$; ro,,:oo-.--o ~
.!!!ro .3o..~162b
.Q;"i:?z...o~~g-S~C:
at 8 ro'O- ~_"'O OJs:e
o s<'O<1).;-:--6220.....
g'g-;>:::~~CL-<;:::UJ!
~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ro'-
c"5.. ~ E Q) ro tI)
'ifjO~~_i~b~
~'"2as~o15EC6
cg>---&~-~~
80-~~8:..'3Se>>
.
.
.
.
3-g~2S
ro"i3 _
ro U7 ~ ~
~~><
",'"
~ g.:Q
'" 0 0
~ ~ fu
.
.
1b'"
c '"
2'ii\
c -
0'0
o 0
.
~
q
'"
<0
'"
"'
~
&
:;;
:;;
c
o
.;;;
e
'0",
fi?
o .
~.f)~
"~~ -~
o a~
'"
",.0
g-~
~if>
'"
'"
C if>
0;;\
--5 E
2-
-{j)g
c c
o 0
00
"'
u:i
,
'"
"~
,^
?
C
~
":;;
.
"3
"'
u
.
ij
~
."
=
~
'"
ro
w
C'
'"
E
m
~
~
'"
.in
'"
TI
~
in
'"
~
.j;;
g
:s
'"
~
f-
QJ n... c; -o..c..c Q)
-O~~ ~~~~
";: Q) Ci2
2 ~ B gj,-o ~ E
<nB-t) ~ffi31~
Q)UID C)(I):::)ro
:5 ro ..c c: 0) a>
C;....... 'is.~-O
-roroC)....;::;)"O-ro.8
~ ~ :5 .~ ~ :g -tS
ro~~a::u)2~
i~~~~~i
13~2.J:::::O$
c: OJ rn::;) ro "'5
2 .2 ~ ID'~ ~ 0)
4: ~~~~ ~~
.
.
rem
u~
w
15 .~
2-0
'" E
o
1?Uiooo
3: Q) 0) 0
5~'-
ID U) 0) -= cv
"E ~'~B-S
Oc::ro$-o
.S .2 -0 ii1 3 ~
.~ Q) CD ::2 "en
~~162~2
~ ~ D-~ *
8..~ ~~ g ~
~g~8~~
. .
ro 0
-55'~
w
w rn
~ '"
.~ ro E
=-0$
'" ~
g-w
U ~
~ .~
~ TI
~ E
'" 5
-:511)
o '"
~E
",g>
E'-c
'" '"
TIC
w '"
--a.9
"'",
E~
w
Ct
TI8.
'" '"
!Ea::::
c~
'" .~
:g Q)
'"
~~
"" ~
"'W
t
~ rn
o ~
EU)
0",
Uo
o
",'"
U ~
~ '"
~n
~ ~
>
_0",
<<2n
'"
.c
w
w
'"
U
.~
U
rn
0.
TI
'"
E
'"
E
'"
a.
'"
c c:
'" Q
Eto
'" ~
"'.:0
rn ~
~ ~
rn 0
E U
'"
u; ~
~~
=0
~-
j;;TI
.2 ~
:2€
'" '"
~ '"
f- n
WSo
-.O2~
ro "00 0
=00
"'IDE
<.5"e 0
Q5 ~.~
00-52
~o.5E
ij5 ~.Q
:~1ij
- =
'U:;~.s;:
~ - rn
~ "'-
W85
n_U
rn 0
~~~
ro~"E
0c..o
~ M
o
..t 0..
00 cr:
~ :;;
:;;
'"
~
.Ei.
E
~
TI
~.s g>
Q5 "0 "C
> ~ :J
o",TI
U >""
~ 0 0
(I) I:::::J l) c::
'52 w2
g- ~ ..a 0
-o.Qi~
ro ~ ~ "5. (I) 1;5
~O)rot5.$~
CUcc:oC/).Q
ill:.E .Q>(;j 0...0
.~ ~ ~ ~ C
a:;::""O -oQ)~
:::-'Q)roc::-o~ij5
.!Bw.!:.Qca.>
~g~~-:Q~
=gg1!?2w..l::
E ~ro-o1U
-~4:'~8EC5~
'"
w
^
M
o
~
o
u
.fl
0-
"
-;
~
u
"'
o
0>
N
;;;
~
0>
~
<<
.
'%....:E
~~~
~ ~-a.
p..5
~ O""ffi c:
0_ g
.~ m CI
~a;gS
:;, C.J:::. (/)
-0 t1} cs> C
\D (9 68:
g~..c:""O
g - re
0E-gc
C-o-ID
3 ~ID ~
2oE-2
Qm..9::!<l>
a.:> a...:>
4:-8~~
.
~
o
...
'"
0>
M
..
rL
0:
:2
:2
'" '"
'" '"
'> '>
'" '"
"S "S
c .c
<.) <.)
'0 '0
"" ""
G c3
><
><
><
o c
Z .~
aJ
",E
'"
'" '"
",.c
.:?:I--
.0
><
><
c;-D
.!!L ~
'2-2
0-'"
'" '"
5.0
ct5~5E~~
.!'<_,,-::-: ..3~c
....,---5~Q.1~
o..:Em~o~~c.
g-8"E~C)o's
ID <l) 0... Z --
<f}-o,s~~g..s:::1rl~
g ~~'~'~~'~l~
roO 8.groE~!6::o
~.sU~ O)C am ~~ c
~ c:~ ~~ ~.~ :.~{j).~
3='~ E OJ~ ~ Q) .g'~
f;UJ orob .D~5.
8~~~-:gQ)2
g~C:~~GI--
.~2~'~~ro'~
.9 fu 'J' u f.f) Q)
.9 ~ -0 ~ -~ g ~
0: ~ ~ 0...:2 ~ E
..
o
o
N
~
~
.;
'" -c '"
-s'~ ~
ot1J'$
'" -'"
E.9~26
--c
'"
~
'1j
'"
"2
co
o
"
c
o
.'"
o
"
~E~-g.~~~.~~
u ..,.:gc::@-?IDE
,"&1:),%.a210~cg-
g--g::;~c rn~a)
~.'=: 5 ~ ~ OJ~ c: ~
...... E OlO~'E. 5.20
..n $B 0':::: "'....... c;
'E~ ~C?-o'x Q.1.:t:::g
>- 3-SQ),:=~ro
~r6-g5 0 1IJ--,---g8. .
g> Pi 8 E ~ ->> Q... ~ VI E
22~g~5SlB~~
-S<J1ep --0 Eilll-e
~.~ g'$ 5 <!) ~ 3=-~a..
~";;:.p~~?e-oB~
g$-gf.f)~ (LC 0
IQ?<f)_~.s::::.cc821--
.~ ~ ~ ~:: E ~ ~:!
S8.9o~~~~<l)t3
oro2?ID'---='5.. -gIQ
&-t5G~~]E2~E
c-gCi>
Bro~
"5.cUJ
0-0>
o;q'", c:
\1) Q) ro
--6"'0'2
.~~ 5
'" '" c
a.. E .~
.~ ~-g
~ ~E
.0
'0
8 .9 rn
ffi~ :g~
ifi9iro~<l)
.~ c -0 ..a
.9 ill 2
o'i6~
'I::.s::::. 0
"-"'''
c
'"
>
'"
"
5
'"
'"
"
~
'"
>
'"
U)
c'O
'" '"
'"
'2
2-
'"~
0- _
e 0
0-
'"
iU
~
~
'9.
e
v
9
~
:;
"
"3
.c
V
.9g;
'= c
'"
'"
~
'"
.D
i
u
Q
'0 _
~ "
c
'" c
'" '"
~'g
.0 E
115'"
'" c
.s OJ Q)
en E
E-c-5
o ill ~
- g '-
6'-5'0
5: ro a5
-------------
<l) ,<3>d<oci-GZ'''@.
D__~a","'~8d".Z;OD8~~ro .
."'~n"E~Eo~&S~SZ;~~go. ~-~c. -~
$~ $ ~~_=o ~ c_~c~owro~~ro~@-mro
'i]~1i\~~~~"'~~I~~~$ ~.~g,~~oi~
a ~ _ ~ \!\ '" 1i\ ~ ~;S $ ~ '!; '5 '!; ~% ~ g ~ => .g 'iK>- - \1\ '6=
~ ~1i\oi~~. _.",Sw."Q- . ~aD"'.
08~.~~~8~1--"".-'" ..'6B.BD~~U~
~wa8.a~",~ggZE.~.la.l.a~n~3~~6
uJ 00 OD" ~EO"'Ooo"O"O."'~~ -0".
o~a~.~s.~.D"Dro'6a"'~80~OO.ro"'~.
",,,<<,,,$ "",>-g~~roE -~",a 6.~w\1\",6'0~j>
6ro06m~0~u.~~~TI~R9~~~~8.~%a !
_ uJ ~ ",.. cO _ ",;;; '" ~ ~;: - 0 ~.- ~ 0. '" -a
~~UnEro8_W2"'S~~E~~\!\~~-,.~o.~5~
o ro Q; ro _ ro 0 _ ~ '" .'" '" '" 0" '" 9\ - ~ 0
_.,,~2g~.0~oa8g!~_i~\1\~'.1i\i~.3
~>>~:_",:gii~d-",~_saI8~ ~~.~o''''E%
~"'%60~""'D.E81i\2S- - _00 O~ ro
~D."~1~6_~"0_~,,,z;.aa--~~~~W-
~z;~z"",.ai~~~& ~~~~~&~ i"'c~~~
~roo~~~~~oww~$IO~~. ~o.ro"'E~ "
_s",@~9_~a~%8.~~.~~~E3~~g-.%~
"o.-"~ roo"'____8TIEO~!;:~.;;;"'g~~0'"
~.~%~"o~~8(Qg"'$~~3~33-3
TI~W\!\~~.EO~~$.~NW-O
r% q:; ~ <3) j-- E- 0 a.-U-- (1)
~
~
.<:
8
'g
-0"0
~a
" D
",Z;
-S'O
.s ;;;
_ ro
'S'"
~~
_ 0
",0
'S.
~G
-
q
'"
cO
'"
<<>
'"
-
\
,;;
1\
~
"
0.-
.....~s
~"5'"
__ <5
ro<1)~
~-G~
.
.
E
.
.2
'"
fj
o~
~"
-c. ~
.e~
.8
mE~
-0 '(j) ~
'6 .'!J "%
.s~~
'"
w
.,
,
,~
'jij
E
~
~
ro
B
1J
a C5>
'" a
-e "B
:) "E
;;; 'I'
'6 C
3~-S
O"tfj "s
'" ~ 0
@8..D-
g~"
'<J, ~g
"E ~ ~
::Jro:::J
a
o
'5
2
;;;
co
o
o
.
~
~
E
0-
.s
as
a
o
't5
2
;;;
a
8
.,.
o
~'-5
'" '"
E"
0-
S '"
g3
.
01
iD
~
0-
d>
'0
"
~
'"
C5>
.)"
a
o
."
~
!J
"
~
'"
'6
J:;
~
~
'"
@
'"
g> 5
--,is
.~ ~ ~
\5.9- 6
~ &0
u '" '"
'.~~ ,s
::0 'ai
~~
o
~
Z'c
Ci521l>
.~ 8 ~
g ~'S (1)
a.~ g3
.
.
B
~
ffi
~
1J
!
011:\
-gE
a,:~
_E
010
",-
~$
138
~~
"" :g
",0-
U;Ci-U"J
~~;
~Q}~
.- ...... ~
.2gcr~
.~ J~ i{3 ~
.SJ5%:.2~
t:roa.>O)<;'3
"E (j) ro Z CL
.
og'
16':2
*-E
.'"
~~
8. "'3
~
~ :v
~ ~ ~
e (l.2
c tS:B
a> ~ m
ffi ~m
E "Q
8.a)~
:BQ5
.~ ~
8.::0
~
'"
~
t>
s
0-
~
'"
.
.
N '"
~ a
.......c
~ 00
"'~
..,""
_ 0
'" '"
a 0
roD
C '"
-Cij g
E~
(5 ~
~B
-t5"2
sg
"S~
~~
g
C:"''R
\.'!?"fuo
o __ ...... <.0
0-1/) G) '1)
E c: b {3
280~
J'!
~
5
'"
"
~
u
a
Z'
G
o
o
di
~
g~
-0'"
a'"
roN
~
~8
0"
E'"
2~
~ 0
'-6 .~
0>
.'"
"'5
'"
~
.
"0 r.n
~ '"
g
= 'to
ro ~
~
""
'" ~
O-ro
~
~ c
<f)~
x
x
~~
<J)
.c:
~>-
g,iJ
~~
~
'"
~ '"
BE
~e
"E C
'" 8
'"
;;;0
.- ~"%' .'
.c:;.o...ID
ii5$~
o
~c
D-
~-otJI
E2~
o..(I;)~
.~:~ Q)
ill E E
~ "'
0> ~
;i \\:
~ :2'
:2'
o~
~~
-og
%'"
~
<D~
B~
()-ogB
zffi~\1)
~!::: ~ ~
_ Q).;, <l)
() E Q).Q
'6 Q- c:
.g b-'6 t:Y.>
ill OJ ~.s
a..(j) o:S
~_~ ~-o
g -0 g <>>
~:~g~-g
c:- VI ~ c::: 0
g g ~ "E "S
J:;
~
0-
o
d>
o
'"
'"
iil
~
w
o
."
",
8
V
11
'>
~
-S
'"
V
.
.
~.s
'13 u
~.~
is
..n~2
OJ 'V
2U)~
~~'S
~~ ~
'0 c:
Ciro~ Q
a5-g
.~ '6 ~ ~
.S 16 <F>_!:
:;;
'" "
3m
s:
E ~
-go
~ "
-5 ~ 1'5 ~'w
::? -5 .S:1 -5
22c:r aC5
<F> ~ ~ ~ ~:
f6 a. ~ 'E jg O~
gC(/)cu-
a Q) t:: Q5 - E
~~~:[~
Q) Cs..~ ~ 1B
..c: E '- Q) V)
~ ._ 0 ';!:::; C .S
'" ;;! '"
'" '"
'> '> '>
ro '" '"
cs cs cs
~ .c ~
'-' '-' '-'
0 a 0
c ~ c
(3 '-' '-'
><
.sffi~.~=6
ci.-~D- 53 ~
~t::o<J)J::
:;2WSL..o
- ::-.<::( ~.......
S -= 0.>::-'
L..O~(/)G
~~.......o~
a> -- 15 ar ro
.,s.8-co0
OO.>IDC2
~ ~~ ro
8U>ID......g.
ro5V)o-o
-oEocro
8.g~u~
~ro 8..1?2
(])..c:e.....
.s U) a...~
2 c: (]) ro
~ E <u
CL-g ~ ro 1j3
roEU)
><
x
,,;
3
1:)2
,~-o
e2
CLIO
(])'e
'"
u 0 -0 ::-. '- 0 -0 \F) 0 ro '- (]) ~..c:
.~3 :g B ~ -- Q) t) g1 0 0 ~.o ro.2>
o::? o15!:~0--5""'<..D cI
Ci. a... .~ c: .':= E E 'c:. V) ~ ~ .~ (])E ~
ID 0"'0 ::? Q).- Q) - ::? 0 0
~~1i5U)cgQ3<1)U)r5,QY} (1)'c
.....--u~C'OL..-o~Q52-Eo~[jJ~
.~iU'~a...~2S~_~'5.88cU)-ffiC3
E a.. ~.~ 0 0 Q) Q) ""0 ~ 'S; 6 -E :;: ro
8...8LLQ} E.Y.?tf€ ~ '-';.. E 3:
O)-ou~~C13u~ ~croo~*
.S ~ ~ 0 ::-.'~ .~ -ar oS: ro <V -c 3:
~'~E.8 gco-C L...~i;~~U)
..CI ~ ~ ::;;- ID ~ ~Q ID := ro'- 0 -S 0
...... '"" '"" 0)._ Q) L.. E --0 ..... -0 a.. :0
O<vEQ)(j}Q..>Q)Q)cuc Dc
m.a a...S E g- 8 g ai -~ .~~ <( :: ro
g _ ..2 ~ Q.) Q.) Q) o,.g if! 5. "'9. 5J
roro~W ..c:a:::c:o~o _ w
::?..I::Q) ail-mW Q.)cuc;--O
.;3 <J) 0 ?;- ~ _ (f ..q ~ S -E ~ .2 ~
2cgju8.illQ)u<,;::: ~EfD_:;;
~:g~ u.s::::Q) ._,_ (5
oa'u .2:;:'-50 :;*~~~
&g-~E~m~~.8 ~u;v;.s~
o
-+
'"
'"
'"
"-
rL
[i
:2
:2
,!!.? ro CD
.....~ .s
:@ 'E
2Q.j.D
ro CL~
cE:O) '-
O)~05ro
(l) ~ ~
.c '"
,;::",
0_
",0
.~ ~
c::o c
'ro ~ ~
C..c:V)
o .!!?
u ro 0
~.~ :: ID
ro &}.2? 15
(/) _0.. en
.8.~-ci-g
~ " '"
U~E
9l.L.."'ffi
e ffi Q)
CL3~
'"
Uj
"
'"
"
,
"
o
U
~
~
"
~
..
-"
U
..
o
o
N
..
~
'"
~
<<
:;
~
OJ
'"
'"
OJ
~
~
:;;
---------- - - - ----- ----
'"
-;;;
:>
'"
~
G
"5
~
G
'"
-;;;
:>
'"
A
o
"5
~
G
- ---------
--------------
'"
'"
><
><
"'''''''~''' ~?-.~ot~~~~ofu
s.!8i ~6~~ s$.'" "
ii.~ 80~ ..eg",..~
E~~%~ ~~~~~~~~~~ro%
-g-o~~~-'tU ~~J!.%~~S[~8
3~~~ ~o~OO-~<f)O ~".
~w~ e~~o~~E e~I'E~~
I~""~:"'E~O...~%~~,,,I
i~~g~g~~.3~~"5"'~~~.
~~~i~N~ 8 I~,"~~;u~~'"
_ ~ c~,,~"'~E~W",,"c"""
! ~ict8.e~~~. im8~
r~-~~ ",~~D.~.!~ ~~
.ro~~o~~o~ro5E~~~ "'~
V~&",&O~w~ "",.. ~~~
i%roB",~8furo~ ~~6 8~c
~~roE i_O~N-tU"'ro~c--g
",.~~I&S~~2\~~:1~\~'S
~!1331.w.-g ~I &-geie&
0-0"'- ",.~~~~.roc~ ,,~~
~e;.~Ee2C_~..~~R~.We
0-0- ~eD c_"'o~,,~..uO-.
~~S~0-~Ee~&E&~5S~~~.S
~~
. '"
.S ~
E"1
.C><
C >~
8
~g-5'G~E~~~~~"5
ore..g.gg~_~~~roro
~.g'~....2ro(20)$~
'a ~_ '-e ~ ~ 05 .c .Q. Q) =B E ~
_ ~ O-<.f)cg.-o~t,/)
'fl<&. R1Q<.f)IJ)~~;?:~
'0 0 .S -0 -=- .;:; 15 '}5 t\) -o'~ --
O\~i~%~<f)%~I?,EW..
=o.~g"\ & "'~\,,-S"'ro~
(f> </J 1::Y%(? g_~o ~-3~"@ 0.-
$~:1",~..'G'a\jg8e~~
'" ."~.,",,!)\8
I '& ~ I '" · ~~. %, 'e
.",^Ss g ~ ! " e -g ~ 8 ~
%g~"'i~8~%~~g.!'l'<i>
15 ~ ~ c ~ " .. ",- .i.6 e "0
.<.E..-- sgroww'--:::;;(/)
. ~",,-g_"0-.~
:ge~.~~;t.'"- ~-g~i '2
.~ ~fu -;: '6 ;; 2 EO 8 - ~!!l 8
:3 ~ ro ._ ..0 (J "if, Z:. g- ro a.. IJ) C
i6"5eC~E<;\5;;~:s~"'8
~
,^
o
.~
~ '"
o
..t ri
'" '"
~ :<
:<
U} _.J:: C
__ ~"_ ro
{i "
"
OJ
02 b
OJ w
2$~~Q)
c'iJj ~ E g v)
00 u 0 ~ ~ .~
<I) .- 1B ..c
Z'et~c;
roD..g{~'rec::
::) 0 E"o
o <]) ..... <n
:5 D-m-o
::0 -0 Q) <-) ~
ro"D-cO
3:"'~3:
(ij.8rna::
5 Q) = Q)
6>~._ :S
&~~:5
Q)_.!2..~
,sOJ
-oU~~t5~
g~'B~~t
W ~.~ 8 ~ .~
c
o
c
'"
g'c
_;::: 0
.9$
"2 Ow
o
E=
TI
o C
-'"
'"
iiJ
i:1
"
.,
w
2
u
"
"
;;;
"
]
U
...
o
o
N
00
"
'"
~
Ree Minutes
- 2-
A71ACI-f...~1~.;I-' 1 ~
June 7. 2004
NEW BUSINESS
1. EIR-04-03 - Chula Vista Crossings, 4501 Main Street
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) stated that staff will
record the Commissioners comments on a wall graphic, which can be used by the
Commission to formulate their recommendation motion(s). The minutes will reflect
that the Commission discussed the draft EIR but will not contain every individual
comment made by the Commissioners. Only those comments, which are included as
part of a motion will be included in the minutes. If an individual Commissioner wishes
to provide a comment(s) to the Planning Commission and City Council, which is not
part of the RCC comments, they may submit an individual comment letter on the
draft EIR, which will be included in the final EIR.
Mr. Benjamin Guerrero (Environmental Projects Manager) presented the Chula Vista
Crossings Environmental Impact Report.
Staff Recommendation: That the RCC finds the EIR adequate according to CEQA.
Ms. Ponseggi indicated that the Planning Commission would be holding their public
hearing on July 7,2004 to close the public review period.
Chair Thomas asked if any members of the public wished to provide any comments
to the RCC?
Ms. Laura Hunter (Environmental Health Coalition, 1717 Kettner Blvd., Suite 100,
San Diego, CA 92101) expressed her desire to provide comments to the
Commission on behalf of the Environmental Health Coalition. The first issue she
discussed was the proposed storm water management program. She stated that the
EIR must clearly analyze the potential impacts and identify the mitigation measures
that are necessary to address those impacts. She stated that infiltration is one of the
things that need to be looked at. Mr. Guerrero pointed out that there may be some
infiltration areas incorporated into the project, but that none have been identified at
this time. She stated that adequately treating storm water runoff depends on what
pollutants you are trying to address, how you are going to get at them, who is going
to pay for the O&M, and an analysis of whether or not it is going to work. She also
stated that since the runoff from the adjacent Pacific Bell site will also be treated on-
site that their runoff needs to be characterized. She encouraged the RCC to press
for the preparation of the storm water management plan up front, that it be as
detailed as possible, and that it be very clear and specific about what is required.
The second issue she discussed was the presence of sandblast grit on-site. She
stated that the EIR is missing an environmentally superior alternative and suggested
that the removal of the sandblast grit be included as part of that alternative.
RGG Minules
- 3 -
June 7, 2004
The third issue she discussed was regulatory due diligence. She indicated that this
site has a very long regulatory history. She encouraged the RCC to strongly
recommend that the City go back to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
get them to look at this site again. She indicated that the plan for protecting workers
and neighbors from potential exposure to hazardous materials is a real concern. She
expressed that she is not confident that the City has the full picture of the sites'
history.
The final issue she discussed was the protection of biological resources. She
suggested that an alternative should consider 100% protection of on-site MSCP
Preserve land. She stated that she would also like to see an additional buffer area
added for the planned trail through the site. She stated that she did not see a
discussion of the habitat restoration rnentioned in Mr. Guerrero's presentation in the
draft EIR.
Ms. Hunter submitted a forrnal cornrnent letter on the draft EIR Frorn the
Environmental Health Coalition.
The Commissioners then discussed adequacy of the draft EIR.
Commissioner Means left the meeting at 6:07 p.m.
MSC (Jasek/Diaz) that the RCC finds Draft EIR-04-03 to be adequate and to
submit the comments contained in Attachment 1 as formal RCC comments on
the Draft EIR.
A motion to amend the motion was presented by Vice-Chair Reid to delete
the comment regarding water quality sampling and monitoring during
construction and beyond as it is well beyond the scope and responsibility of
this project. The maker and second of the motion accepted the
amendment.
Vote: (6-0-0-1) with Means absent.
Ms. Ponseggi asked the Commissioners how they felt about the new procedure for
recording the Commission's comments on a draft EIR. By common consent, the
Commissioners agreed that it worked well.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR COMMENTS
Ms. Ponseggi stated that the Commissioners would no longer receive EIR technical
appendices together with draft EIRs. However, she stated that after receiving draft
EIRs, Commissioners may contact the project manager to obtain copies of any technical
appendices that they would like to review. Chair Thomas requested that she continue to
receive the full set of technical appendices for draft EIRs.
ATTACHMENT 1
RCC Consensus Comments on The Crossings Draft EIR
.
Assess the adequacy of the proposed vertical fil1 buffer between building pads and
groundwater to protect groundwater quality, based upon current and historical
data regarding on-site contaminants and potential water quality impacts associated
with the long-term operation of the project.
.
Address the potential for contaminants to be released through the crushing of
concrete debris present in the undocumented fil1 on-site.
.
The hazardous materials consultant should verify that al1 contaminants potential1y
occurring on-site, including chromium and organics, have been tested for and test
for any that have not been tested for.
.
Decomposition, reactivity, and water solubility processes associated with
sandblast grit and volatile organic compounds present on-site should be addressed
with respect to potential long-term impacts to the Otay River.
.
An adequate buffer area should be provided between the project development area
and the Otay River to al10w site runoff to percolate prior to entering the Otay
River. Appropriate pJant species capable of absorbing contaminants should be
planted within the buffer area, including canopy type trees; no palm trees should
be planted.
.
A public access easement from Main Street to the Otay Val1ey Regional Park
should be provided on-site, including a staging area with an information kiosk and
parking if possible.
.
Identify where contaminated soils wil1 be disposed of in the event any needs to be
exported from the site as wel1 as where fil1 soils wi1l be obtained frorn in the event
any needs to be imported to the site.
.
Appropriate biological experts should be consulted prior to and during
construction as needed to adequately address potential1y significant indirect
impacts to sensitive biological resources.
.
Incorporate the requirernents of an approved solid waste management plan into
the project.
.
Verify the accuracy of the mapping of the La Nacion and Rose Canyon faults in
the project vicinity.
.
Address the timing of construction of the second left-turn lane at the I-80S/Main
Street southbound off-ramp identified as a mitigation measure for cumulative
traffic impacts.
,-Ik1(' t7ttt{j,.:r ((
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, July 7,2004
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Absent:
Madrid, O'Neill, Hall, Hom, Felber
Castaneda, Cortes
Staff Present:
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Ben Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager
Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
MOTION TO EXCUSE
MSC (Felber/O'Neill) to excuse Commissioners Cortes and Castaneda. Motion
carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
Close of Public Review Period for Chula Vista
Crossings Draft EIR 04-03.
Background: Ben Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager stated that the
purpose of tonight's meeting is to close the public comment period on the Crossing
Draft EIR. Mr. Guerrero further stated that all comments received at tonight's
meeting, including all comments made by the Planning Commission will be
considered and addressed as part of the Final EIR.
The Crossings Draft EIR has evaluated the redevelopment of an existing outdoor
storage facility to a commercial retail use and conceptual tentative map. The project
proposes the construction of seven buildings within an approximate total leasable
building area of 188,038 sf. The proposed project would include two free-standing
restaurants, a main department store anchor and additional retail spaces. The draft
EIR was circulated for public review beginning on May 21,2004 and tonight's hearing
will mark the close of the 45 day public review period. At this time, staff is requesting
that comments be limited to issues related specifically to the information presented in
the draft EIR. A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission on
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
July 7, 2004
August 11,2004 for consideration of the site plan and a certification of the Final EIR.
Public Testimony
Teresa Acerro, 3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista, CA stated that she submitted
comments to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Sierra Club. They are:
· two plant species (Otay Tar Plant and orcis bird beek) were not listed in the draft
EIR as sensitive plant species
· concerned with cumulative impacts from hazardous waste coming from the Omar
Rendering Plant and Apache Services
. the inadequacy of the proposed Reduced Density Alternative
Krista Ostoich, San Diego Baykeeper, 2924 Emerson St. Ste. 220, San Diego, CA
expressed concern with storm water run-off and that the EIR simply states that the
Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan would reduce impacts to a level below
significance, however, the plan has not yet been developed.
Another area of concern is that, unlike other projects, the City is not requiring the use
of Integrated Pest Management for this project.
Lastly, a reduction of the paved area of the parking of the parking lot would be
desirable.
Frank Ohrmund, 2908 Weeping Willow Road, Vice Chair for the Otay Valley
Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee, raised concerns associated with the
River Valley, they are: 1) the transient problem, 2) graffiti, 3) storm water run-off, and
the inclusion of trails.
Mr. Ohrmund stated that the connectivity of a good trail system that links west 1-805 to
east 1-805 and leads to the Center is very desirable. To address the graffiti problem,
a galvanized pole fence, similar to what was installed at the John Lippitt Corp Yard
would be advisable, with a gate that could be closed at nights to keep out transients
that would be attracted to loiter around dumpsters. The project should also complete
the restoration of the river valley by removal of non-native species on the portion
that's on their property. Lighting should be properly shielded to reduce glare and
adequate landscaping with mature vegetation to serve as a buffer leading to the river
valley, would be desirable.
Commission Comments:
Cmr. Felber stated that according to his recollection, the draft EIR addresses a
filtration system for water run-off and asked for clarification on this.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
July 7, 2004
Marilyn Ponseggi clarified that a response to comments made this evening will be
prepared and will address specific issues that were raised by the public tonight. The
Response to Comments will cite those section in the EIR that speak specifically the
issues raised tonight.
MSC (O'Neill/Madrid) (5-0-2-0) to close the 45-day public review period for Draft
EIR 04-03. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT at 6:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2004.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission