Findings of Fact for the
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan
Project
AUGUST 2025
Prepared for:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Contact: Jeff Steichen
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Alex Martini
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
14541 i
AUGUST 2025
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Environmental Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 5 4 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 5 Environmental Impacts Found to be Not Significant or Less Than Significant ................................................ 8 6 Environmental Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant After Mitigation ................................................ 15 7 Potentially Significant Impacts That Cannot Feasibly be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance ............. 25 8 Findings Regarding Alternatives....................................................................................................................... 26 9 Other CEQA Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 28 10 Certification of the Final EIR, CEQA Guidelines§ 15090 ................................................................................ 29
TABLE(S)
Table 1. Effects Found Not to be Significant or Less Than Significant .......................................................................... 8
ROHR WOHL SPECIFC PLAN PRJECT – FINDINGS
14541 ii
AUGUST 2025
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14541 iii
AUGUST 2025
ROHR WOHL SPECIFC PLAN PRJECT – FINDINGS
1 Introduction
As a Responsible Agency (California Public Resources Code section 21069), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in conjunction with the Board of Port Commissioners (Board) of the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) hereby makes the following Findings of Fact concerning the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR or FEIR) for the Rohr Wohl Specific Plan (Proposed Project or Project), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Pubic Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines) and specifically CEQA Guidelines section 15096. 2 Project Description
The proposed project involves the preparation of a Specific Plan that would govern future development within the three Planning Areas (A, B-1, and B-2) at the project site. Specific plans are a mechanism to ensure that projects develop in an organized and cohesive manner. Specific plans incorporate a development framework for detailed land use, circulation, infrastructure including drainage, sewer, and water facilities, and urban design and landscape plans. A comprehensive set of design guidelines and devel opment regulations are included to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character within the Specific Plan area ensuring that excellence in design is achieved during project development. The Rohr Wohl Specific Plan establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Specific Plan area.
A General Plan and Land Use Plan Amendment is proposed to be processed concurrently with Specific Plan adoption, which would change the existing I-G (General Industrial) zoning designation to three zoning districts: PA- A (for Planning Area A), PA-B-1 (for Planning Area B-1), and PA-B-2 (for Planning Area B-2). These new designations would provide for permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses within six land use categories: Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Visitor (CV), Commercial Office (CO), Light Industrial (LI), Regio nal Technology Park (RTP), and Business Park Flex (BPF). The existing zoning designation of I-G would be amended to complement the Collins Aerospace Campus to allow a flexible combination of light industrial, office, commercial and visitor -oriented uses to complement both the overall Chula Vista Bayfront area and the western part of Chula Vista. California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 –65457) permits adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementat ion tool for the local general plan. Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines, and programs with the goals and policies set forth in the general plan. The Rohr Wohl Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Chula Vista General Plan as amended, in providing a commercial/light Industrial use on an underutilized property, creating new employment opportunities, and providing regulations that support the success of an employment area o f the City.
The project site is approximately 44.8 acres located in the City of Chula Vista (City), California. The site is in the northwest portion of the City, directly adjacent to the City of San Diego. More specifically, the project site is located west of Interstate (I) 5, north of H Street, south of G Street, east of Marina Parkway, and 0.5 miles east of the San Diego Bay (Figure 4-1, Project Location). The site Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 571-330-35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.
The project site is divided into three separate planning areas. The eastern portion of the project site, closest to I-5 (between G Street and H Street), is designated as Planning Area A and is 9.29 acres. The largest planning area is Planning Area B-1, totaling 26.13 acres. Planning Area B-2, which is located south of B-1, totals 9.36 acres.
2.1 Project Objectives
Following are the objectives of the proposed project:
• Generate a diverse spectrum of employment opportunities and regain for Chula Vista the approximately 1,000 jobs that existed on the site during Rohr Industries operations. • Foster Chula Vista’s capture of leading businesses and employers in existing and emerging economic sectors that drive the regional economy.
• Encourage clean industrial, research & development, and office use designations (e.g., defense, Port - related, e-commerce, technology, hospitality, and medical device/life sciences). • Allow a flexible combination of light industrial, commercial, and visitor -oriented uses to enhance both the existing Collins Aerospace campus and the greater Chula Vista Bayfront area, while taking advantage of its proximity to the I-5 FWY, the Port of San Diego, various defense industry assets and contractors. • Attract significant capital investment to Chula Vista at vacant and underutilized property. • Highlight the proximity to the “E” Street and “H” Street Trolley Stations to encourage transit usage by visitors and workers.
• Expand mobility options of today and the future and thoughtfully address Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). • Leverage ideal location in the bi -national region, with proximity to Mexico, convenient access by air (SAN, CBX) and enhanced border crossing infrastructure under development. • Provide flexibility for land uses and development that evolves as the Chula Vista Bayfront matures over the coming years and decades.
• Provide for roadways, infrastructure, and utilities to support on-site land uses as the project evolves. • Facilitate the establishment of design guidelines and development standards consistent with the citywide design guidelines for commercial and industrial uses and Local Coastal Program guidelines. • Develop a plan that is economically feasible and capable of implementation based on reasonably anticipated economic conditions such that no economic burden to the City of Chula Vista would occur. 3 Environmental Review Process
The lead agency approving the Project and conducting environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines) , hereinafter collectively, CEQA) shall be the City of Chula Vista. The City as lead agency shall be primarily responsible for carrying out the Project. In compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation on October 7, 20 22, which began a 30 -day period for comments on the appropriate scope of the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21083.9, the City held a public
agency scoping meeting on October 20, 2022, at the City of Chula Vista City Hall, Building A, Conference Room #103, located at 276 4th Avenue, City of Chula Vista, California 91910. The purpose of this meeting was to seek input and concerns from public agencies and members of the public regarding the environmental issues that may potentially result from the Project . The NOP received seven comment letters related to transportation, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, land use and planning, and the project alternatives.
The City published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Project on August 23, 2024 , in compliance with CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, upon publication of the Draft EIR, the City filed a Notice of Completion with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, indicating that the Draft EIR had been completed and was available for review and comment by the public. The City also posted a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR at this time pursuant to C EQA Guidelines Section 15087. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public review and comment from August 23, 2024, through October 7, 2024.
Once the 45 -day public review period concluded, the City reviewed all public comments on the Draft EIR and provided a written response to all written comments pertaining to environmental issues as part of the Final EIR. A total of f ive written comment letters were received on the Draft EIR from different agencies. Responses to each comment letter received, has been included as part of the Final EIR. Each of the written comment letters have been assigned an alphanumeric label, and the in dividual comments within each written comment letter are bracketed and numbered. For example, Comment Letter A1 contains four comments that are numbered A1-1 through A1-4.
The responses to each comment on the Draft EIR represent a good -faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the City, as lead agency, is not required to respond to all comments on the Draft EIR, but only those comments that raise environmental issues. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared the written responses describing the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised (see the Final EIR). CEQA does not require the City to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.
Rather, CEQA requires the lead agency to provide a good faith, reasoned analysis supported by factual information.
To fulfill these requirements, the City’s experts in planning and environmental sciences consulted with, and independently reviewed, the analysis responding to the Draft EIR comments prepared by Dudek and other experts, each of whom has years of educational and field experience in these categories of environmental sciences; is familiar with the project and the environmental conditions in the Ci ty; and is familiar with the federal, state, and local rules and regulations (including CEQA) applicable to the proposed project. Accordingly, the final analysis provided in the responses to comments are supported by substantial evidence . Changes have been made to the Final EIR in strikeout/underline format in response to comments and to provide updates and clarifications to information provided therein. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), these revisions have been made to clarify text for c onsistency or revise punctuation as appropriate throughout the document, and these revisions do not result in what constitutes new significant information that would require recirculation of the document.
The Final EIR for the Project was published August 19, 2025. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15084(d)(3), the applicant retained a consultant, Dudek, to assist with the preparation of the environmental documents. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted drafts and certified that the Final EIR reflects its own independent judgment and analysis under Guideline Section 15090(a)(3) and CEQA Section 21082.1(a)-(c).
The Final EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The Final EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the Proj ect. The Final EIR addressed the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project and identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The Final EIR is incorporated by reference into this CEQA findings document.
The Final EIR is the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the Project. Environmental impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. In accordance with CEQA, if a lead agency approves a Project that has significant, unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significance, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons and overriding considerations for approving the Project based on the final CEQA documents and any other information in the public record for the Project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093). This statement is called a “statement of overriding considerations” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093). No impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable as part of the project.
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City’s CEQA findings are based are located at City of Chula Vista, 276 4th Avenue, City of Chula Vista, California 91910. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(2). 4 Findings
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002, the CEQA Guidelines require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment.
2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environme ntal impact report. [CEQA, Section 21081 et seq.; Guidelines, Section 15091 et seq.]
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives where feasible to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with the implementation of the Project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with another agency. [Guidelines Section 15091(a)(b)] For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. [CEQA Section 21081(b) and Guidelines Section 15093] If such findings can be made, the Guidelines state in Section 15093 “the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable.'” CEQA also requires
that the findings made pursuant to Section 15091 be supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(b)). Under CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information has been provided (reasonable inferences from this i nformation may be made) to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15384).
The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions in the Final EIR for the Project as fully set forth therein. Although Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines does not require findings to address environmental impacts that an EIR identifies as merely “potentially significant,” these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. For each of the significant impacts associated with the Project, the following sections are provided:
• Description of Significant Effects: A specific description of the environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including a conclusion regarding the significance of the impact. • Finding: One or more of the three specific findings set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. • Mitigation Measures: Identified feasible mitigation measures or actions, that are required as part of the Project, and if mitigation is infeasible, the reasons supporting the finding that the rejected mitigation is infeasible.
• Rationale: A summary of the reasons for the finding(s). • Reference: A notation on the specific section in the Final EIR which includes the evidence and discussion of the identified impact.
5 Environmental Impacts Found to be
Not Significant or Less Than Significant
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR evaluates and identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts associated with the project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact without the implementation of mitigation measures in the following resource areas, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a).
Table 1. Effects Found Not to be Significant or Less Than Significant Environmental Topic Impact
Aesthetics (EIR Section 5.1) • Less than significant effect on a scenic vista. • No impact from substantially damage to scenic
resources, including, but not limited to trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway.
• Less than significant impact related to
substantially degrading the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings in non-urbanized areas and
related to conflicts with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality in
urbanized areas.
• Less than significant creation of a new source
of substantial light or glare, which will
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area.
• No cumulatively considerable impact on
aesthetics.
Biological Resources (EIR Section 5.3) • No impact related to riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities.
• No impact related to on state or federally
protected wetlands.
• No impact related to barriers that would
prevent wildlife movement and wildlife
corridors.
Energy (EIR Section 5.5) • Less than significant impact related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation.
• Less than significant impact related to conflict
with or obstruction of state or local plans for
renewable energy or energy efficiency.
• No cumulatively considerable impact with
respect to energy.
Geology and Soils (EIR Section 5.6) • Less than significant impact related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
• Less than significant impact related to strong
seismic ground shaking.
• Less than significant impact related to seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction.
• Less than significant impact related to
landslides.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (EIR Section 5.7) • Less than significant impact related to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
• Less than significant impact related to conflicts
with applicable plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
• No cumulatively considerable impact with
respect to greenhouse gases.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EIR Section 5.8) • Less than significant impact creating a hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
• Less than significant impact creating a hazard
to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
• Less than significant impact related to the
emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
• Less than significant impact from being
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, will create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
• No impact related to project location within an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport, which will result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area.
• No impact related to impairing implementation
of or physically interfering with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
• No impact from exposing people or structures
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
• No cumulatively considerable impact with
respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality (EIR Section 5.9) • Less than significant impact related to violation of any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements.
• Less than significant impact related to the
substantial decrease of groundwater supplies
or interference with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.
• Less than significant impact related to
substantial alteration of the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which will resu lt in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site.
• Less than significant impact related to
substantial alteration of the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which will substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which will result in flooding on or off site.
• Less than significant impact related to
substantial alteration of the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which will create or contribute runoff
water which will exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
• Less than significant impact related to
substantial alteration of the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which will impe de or redirect flood
flows.
• Less than significant impact related to risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation
in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
• Less than significant impact related to conflict
with or obstruction of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan.
• No cumulatively considerable impact with
respect to hydrology or water quality.
Land Use and Planning (EIR Section 5.10) • Less than significant impact related to the physical division of an established community.
• Less than significant impact related to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect.
• No cumulatively considerable impact with
respect to land use and planning.
Noise (EIR Section 5.11) • Less than significant impact related to the generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies.
• Less than significant impact related to the
generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels.
• Less than significant impact related to the
project’s proximity to a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such plan has
not been adopted, and would not expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels.
• No cumulatively considerable impact to noise.
Population and Housing (EIR Section 5.12) • Less than significant impact related to the direct or indirect inducement of substantial
unplanned population growth.
• No impact related to the displacement of
substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
• No cumulatively considerable impact related to
population and housing.
Public Services (EIR Section 5.13) • Less than significant impacts from creation of adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of, or need for, new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to m aintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
o Fire Protection
o Police Protection
o Schools
o Parks
o Other Public Facilities (No Impact)
• No cumulatively considerable impact related to
fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks, or other public facilities.
Recreation (EIR Section 5.14) • Less than significant impact from increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility
will occur or be accelerated.
• Less than significant impact from inclusion of
recreational facilities or requirement of the
construction or expansion of such facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment.
• No cumulatively considerable impact related to
recreation.
Transportation (EIR Section 5.15) • Less than significant impact related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.
• Less than significant impact related to conflicts
or inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), as it is not
applicable.
• Less than significant impacts related to the
substantial increase in hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment).
• Less than significant impacts related to
inadequate emergency access.
• No cumulatively considerable impact related to
geometric design or emergency access.
Utilities and Service Systems (EIR Section 5.16) • Less than significant impacts from requiring or resulting in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, or storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
• Less than significant impact related to having
sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years.
• Less than significant impact related to
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.
• Less than significant impacts related to the
generation of solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
• Less than significant impact related to
compliance with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
• No cumulative impact related to utilities and
service systems.
6 Environmental Impacts Found to be
Less Than Significant After Mitigation
The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) that the following potentially significant impacts will be less than significant after implementation of the specified mitigation measures. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Final EIR.
Air Quality
Threshold: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Description of Significant Effects: The project would be seeking a General Plan Amendment, so it is possible that the future job growth on the project site may be more intensive than what previously existed and therefore not within job growth projections from SANDAG. The anticipated growth in employment and population and consequently VMT would therefore not be within regional growth forecasts. Implementation of the proposed project could conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the RAQS and/or applicable portions of the SIP, and the impact would be potentially significant without mitigation.
Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure that the appropriate growth and land use projections at the project site would be incorporated into the next SANDAG RTP/SCS and the following SDAPCD Clean Air Plan, which would resolve this inconsistency in the future.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM-AQ-1 Update the Regional Growth Forecast. The applicant will inform the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) of the project so that SANDAG’s next Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2025 Regional Plan , can appropriately reflect employment locations and forecasts in Chula Vista. The updated information provided to SANDAG is anticipated be used by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) to update th eir Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) Plan. The applicant shall prepare and submit a letter notifying SDAPCD of this revised forecast for use in the future updates to the plan as required.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts to conflicting with or obstruct ing the implementation of an applicable air quality plan would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.2-33 through p. 5.2-37.
Threshold: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Description of Significant Effects: The project would have a potentially significant impact related to emissions of criteria air pollutant emissions during construction as daily construction emissions for the project would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for VOC, primarily from painting emissions.
Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would require the use of super compliant VOC paint, which is 10 mg of VOC per liter.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM AQ-2: Low VOC Paints. The project shall use super-compliant VOC paint (defined as less than 10 g/L of VOC) during project construction for architectural coatings.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2, impacts to the project resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.2-37 through p. 5.2-38.
Threshold: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Description of Significant Effects: The project would exceed the cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million.
Finding: Mitigation Measure AQ-3 and AQ-4 would utilize electrical hook ups, electric equipment, and ensure that no construction equipment shall be used that is less than Tier 4 Final during project construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 through AQ-8 would implement zero-emissions vehicles, restricted operation with Tier 4 Final certified emergency generators, loading dock and truck requirements for optimized vehicle performance, and implementation of a transportation demand management program to reduce empl oyee commute vehicle emissions.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM AQ-3 Provision of Electrical Infrastructure for Construction and Use of Electric Construction Equipment. After the grading phase of Project construction, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide temporary electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than diesel -fueled generators, for contractors’ electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors. The use
of diesel-fueled generators for on -site construction activities shall be prohibited unless electrical infrastructure is not yet available on the Project site. Diesel-fueled generators may be used for off- site construction work. All off -road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during Project construction must be electric -powered. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall include these requirements in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors.
MM AQ-4 Tier 4 Final Construction Equipment. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the applicant or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Chula Vista (City) that for off-road equipment with engines rated at 75 horsepower or greater, no construction equipment shall be used that is less than Tier 4 Final. In the event of changed circumstances (e.g., changes in availability of specific types of construction equipment), the applicant may submit a request to the City to apply an equivalent method of achieving project-generated construction emissions that fall below the numeric cancer risk standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Documentation using industry -standard emission estimation met hodologies shall be furnished to the City Community Development Department demonstrating that estimated project-generated construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold with the alternate construction method(s). If the documentation demonstrates project- generated construction emissions will remain below the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold, then the City may approve the alternate construction method(s) at the Development Director's discretion. Required construction equipment fleet and methodologies approved by the City shall be included in the in the contract specifications for the applicant’s contractor.
MM AQ-5 Cargo Handling Equipment. All cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero -emission vehicles. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations or other necessary infrastructure for cargo handling equip ment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.
MM AQ-6 Tier 4 Emergency Generators. The project operations shall be conditioned to operate with Tier 4 Final certified emergency generators.
MM AQ-7 Truck Requirements and Restrictions. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City shall confirm the following:
▪ The loading docks shall be designed to accommodate SmartWay trucks. ▪ Applicant shall provide project specifications, drawings, and calculations that demonstrate that main electrical supply lines and panels have been sized to support heavy truck charging facilities when these trucks become available.
- The calculations shall be based on reasonable predictions from currently available truck manufacturer’s data. Electrical system upgrades that exceed reasonable costs shall not be required.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City shall confirm the following:
▪ Any tenant lease agreement shall require tenants that do not already operate 2010 and newer trucks to apply in good faith for funding to replace/retrofit their trucks, such as Carl Moyer, VIP, Prop 1B, SmartWay Finance, or other similar funds. If awarded, the tenant shall be required to accept and use the funding. Tenants shall be encouraged to consider the use of alternative
fueled trucks, as well as new or retrofitted diesel trucks. Tenants shall also be encouraged to become SmartWay Partners, if eligible. This measure shall not apply to trucks that are not owned or operated by the facility operator or facility tenants since it would be legally infeasible to prohibit access to the site by any truck that is otherwise legal to operate on California roads and highways.
▪ Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged; and telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
MM AQ-8 Transportation Demand Management. The project shall include contractual language in tenant lease agreements requiring that any facility operator with more than 100 employees require the establishment of a transportation demand management program to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions. Measures to reduce employee commute emissions may include but are not limited to the following:
▪ Offering secure bicycle storage, and changing facilities; ▪ Providing free or discounted transit passes to encourage employees to use public transportation;
▪ Establishing carpool or vanpool groups to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the road;
▪ Establishing a car-sharing or bicycle-sharing program; ▪ Providing on-site amenities such as cafeterias, fitness centers, etc. to reduce the need for employees to travel during the day;
▪ Providing incentives to encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 through Mitigation Measure AQ-8, impacts to the project resulting in exceeding the cancer risk threshold would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.2-43.
Biological Resources
Threshold: A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Description of Significant Effects: The American peregrine falcon was observed briefly passing through the project site and no evidence of long -term use or nesting was observed , however, prior to mitigation, impacts would be potentially significant. This species has a low potential to nest on site. Ospreys have a moderate potential for nesting on the site and two osprey nests were observed at the site; therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. The study area has the potential to support nests tha t would be protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, under which it is unlawful to “take, possess, or needlessly destroy” avian nests or
eggs. Thus, if additional vegetation clearing or grading happens during the breeding season, impacts would be potentially significant . T he area is not known to support roosting colonies of special -status bats ; therefore, construction is not anticipated to substantially affect either species. Nonetheless, prior to mitigation, impacts would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure BIO -1 through Mitigation Measure BIO -5 would require a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting raptor survey, and nesting structures be removed and monitored. Vegetation clearing, structure removal, and ground-disturbing activities would also b e required to be conducted outside of the nesting season.
Pre-construction surveys for special-status bat species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to demolition of buildings and other structures potentially used for roosting and if found, biological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM-BIO-1 Nesting Raptors. Vegetation clearing, structure removal, and ground disturbing activities should be conducted outside of the raptor nesting season (January 15 –July 31), where feasible. If these activities occur during the raptor nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting raptor survey within 3 days prior to any disturbance of the project site, including tree and shrub removal, disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active raptor nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and no construction activity may occur within the buffer areas until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests, as determined by the qualified biologist. Raptor species will generally have an avoidance buffer of 500 feet; however, these buffers may be reduced in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In additi on, noise reduction measures consistent with the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan shall be implemented if deemed necessary by the qualified biologist. If active nests are not identified, vegetation clearing, and ground -disturbing activities may commence. If ground-disturbing activities are scheduled outside the raptor nesting season, a nesting raptor survey will not be required.
MM-BIO-2 Osprey Nests. Should any osprey nests be established within the project site prior to commencement of construction, nesting structures shall be removed only during the non-breeding season (January 15 to July 31) and subject to monitoring by a qualified biologist during nest removal to ensure there are no direct impacts on osprey who may use the structures as perches during non-breeding season. If nests are found, the City and applicant will coordinate with CDFW and obtain a Scientific Collecting Pe rmit if nest removal activities are required. Coordination with USFWS would also be required in order to ensure all protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are adhered to.
MM-BIO-3 Nesting Birds. Vegetation clearing, structure removal, and ground-disturbing activities should be conducted outside of the nesting season (generally February 15 –August 31). If these activities occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior to any disturbance of the project site, including tree and shrub removal, disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Bird species other than raptors will have an avoidance buffer of 300 feet. These buffers may be reduced in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. If active nests are not identified, vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities may commence. If ground-disturbing activities are scheduled outside the nesting season, a nesting bird survey may not be required.
MM-BIO-4 Special-Status Bats. Pre-construction surveys for special-status bat species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to demolition of buildings and other structures potentially used for roosting. Pre -construction surveys shall take place no more than 14 days prior to the start of demolition activities. If active roosts are identified, a biological monitor shall be employed to direct avoidance measures (identified in MM-BIO-5). Following completion of the survey, a report will be submitted to the City of Chula Vista that documents the findings.
MM-BIO-5 Avoidance Measures for Special-Status Bats. If special-status bat species are detected during pre-construction surveys, biological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that project activities do not result in direct take. The biologist shall be present for all demolition activities in areas known or suspected to support roosting bats. The biological monitor shall perform clearance surveys at the start of each workday in areas scheduled for immediate demolition. The monitor will direct project activities away from special -status bat species, should they be found on site, to ensure that impacts on these species are avoided to the fullest extent possible. If present, bats are expected to flush from the project site at the on set of demolition activities. However, if they persist on site through demolition of non -roost site areas, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife may be required.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through Mitigation Measure BIO -5, impacts to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.3-14-15.
Threshold: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources AND conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Description of Significant Effects: The
Finding: Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would require that the project must comply with the guidelines set forth in the ‘Adjacency Management Issues’ discussion of Section 7.5 of the City MSCP Subarea Plan , which requires implementation of best management practices to ensure that adjacency issues do not arise due to project activities.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM-BIO-6 MSCP Subarea Plan Consistency and Adjacency. The project must comply with the guidelines set forth in the ‘Adjacency Management Issues’ discussion of Section 7.5 of the City MSCP Subarea Plan, which requires implementation of best management practices to ensure that adjacency issues do not arise due to project activities. These practices include, but are not limited to, the use of silt fencing or fiber rolls around work areas, restriction of construction activities to daylight hours, and use of non- invasive plant species in ornamental landscaping. In addition, the project will comply with the City’s SUSMP which requires measures to control erosion during and following construction.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -6, impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans, would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.3-18.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
Description of Significant Effects: The potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils to the depths of proposed ground disturbance is unknown. In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, an assessment and evaluation of the resource would be conducted, potentially resulting in the determination that the resource is historical in accordance with the definition outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As a result, the project has a potential to impact and thus cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown historical resource. Impacts would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required.
Finding: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the project archaeologist and Native American representative to be involved with pre-construction activities, the assigning of an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor to be present at the initial disturbance of soil, daily monitoring logs would be prepared, procedures for disturbing potentially significant archaeological resources, ensuring that all cultural materials collected go through the proper procedures, disturbed Native American remains are monitored and arrangements are made to designate a Most Likely Descendant, a monitoring results report gets submitted to the City, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report, and that the archaeologist shall be responsible for recording any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM-CUL-1 Cultural Resources Avoidance and Curation Measures.
A. Prior to beginning construction activities, the project archaeologist and Native American representative shall attend any pertinent preconstruction meetings with the construction manager and/or grading contractor in order to provide recommendations and answer questions relating to the archaeological monitoring program. The project archaeologist shall be familiar with the cultural inventory conducted for the current project and shall be prepared to introduce any pertinent information concerning expectations and probabilities of discovery during ground - disturbing activities. Prior to the initiation of construction, the cultural consultant shall acquire all evaluation information and the draft evaluation report, if a report was prepared.
B. Both an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor shall be present full time during the initial disturbance of soil with potential to contain cultural deposits. All areas of initial project -related subsurface disturbance shall be assumed to have the potential to contain cultural deposits. Monitoring of initial ground disturbance shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) unless cultural resources are identified or if, through direct inspection of subsurface exposures by the project Archaeologist, an area is observed to have the potential to support the presence of archaeological deposits at greater depths.
Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced from initial full-time monitoring to periodic
spot checks, or discontinued if appropriate, once the project archaeologist determines that there is little or no risk of encountering cultural material.
C. Daily archaeological and Native American monitoring logs shall be prepared. Logs shall include monitor names and affiliations, a description of general activities observed, cultural discoveries, as well as comments or concerns as applicable.
D. In the event of an archaeological discovery, and when requested by the archaeological monitor or Native American monitor, the resident contractor will divert, redirect, or temporarily halt ground disturbing activities in the area of discovery or impacts to allow for preliminary inspection of potentially significant archaeological resources or impacts. The significance of the discovered resources or impacts shall be determined by the archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Chula Vista (City). For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be prepared and carried out to mitigate impacts before grading activities in the area of discovery shall be allowed to resume.
E. The project archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural materials collected will be cleaned, catalogued, and curated permanently with an appropriate institution; that a letter of acceptance from the curation institution has been submitted to the City; that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material will be identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate. The project archaeologist shall make a good-faith effort to ensure that all archaeological material collected through previous work is appropriately curated with any material recovered through construction monitoring.
F. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be followed by the archaeological monitor after notification to the County Coroner by the project Archaeologist. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendant, who shall arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains.
G. Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring, two copies of a monitoring results report (even if negative) and/or evaluation report, if applicable, that describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics) shall be submitted to City.
H. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report.
Two copies of the final monitoring report for significant archaeological resources, if required, shall be submitted to the City. This final monitoring report should also incorporate a summary of the evaluation results and analyses previously conducted within the project area.
I. The archaeologist shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate CA DPR 523 Series forms) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program in accordance with Section 106 and the City’s Cultural Resources Guidelines, and submittal of such forms to the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University with the final monitoring results report.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.4-11.
Threshold: Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
Description of Significant Effects: Given the presence of resources in proximity to the project site, there is potential that buried archeological deposits are present within the boundaries of the project site, which may have been masked by current conditions at the site. Therefore, it is re commended that implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program be conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during any additional grading activities. Prior to implementation of mitigation , impacts would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the project archaeologist and Native American representative to be involved with pre-construction activities, the assigning of an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor to be present at the initial disturbance of soil, daily monitoring logs would be prepared, procedures for disturbing potentially significant archaeological resources, ensuring that all cultural materials collected go through the proper procedures, disturbed Native American remains are monitored and arrangements are made to designate a Most Likely Descendant, a monitoring results report gets submitted to the City, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report, and that the archaeologist shall be responsible for recording any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.
Mitigation Measure(s):
See MM-CUL-1 above.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.4-11 – 12.
Threshold: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Description of Significant Effects: In the unlikely event that excavation activities during construction inadvertently uncover buried human remains, they would require handling in accordance with existing regulations. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has de termined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, the County Coroner shall notify NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendants from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant s shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The most likely descendants would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, disposition of the human remains. Prior to mitigation, impacts would be poten tially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the project archaeologist and Native American representative to be involved with pre-construction activities, the assigning of an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor to be present at the initial disturbance of soil, daily monitoring logs would be prepared, procedures for disturbing potentially significant archaeological resources, ensuring that all cultural materials collected go through the proper procedures, dis turbed Native American remains are monitored and
arrangements are made to designate a Most Likely Descendant, a monitoring results report gets submitted to the City, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report, and that the archaeologist shall be responsible for recording any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.
Mitigation Measure(s):
See MM-CUL-1 above.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.4-12.
Threshold: A substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Description of Significant Effects: In the event that unanticipated resources are encountered during project implementation, an assessment and evaluation of the resource would be conducted, potentially resulting in the determination that the resource is historical in accordance with the defi nition outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As a result, the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown historical resource. Therefore, impacts would be p otentially significant, and mitigation would be required.
Finding: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the project archaeologist and Native American representative to be involved with pre-construction activities, the assigning of an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor to be present at the initial disturbance of soil, daily monitoring logs would be prepared, procedures for disturbing potentially significant archaeological resources, ensuring that all cultural materials collected go through the proper procedures, disturbed Native American remains are monitored and arrangements are made to designate a Most Likely Descendant, a monitoring results report gets submitted to the City, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report, and that the archaeologist shall be responsible for recording any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.
Mitigation Measure(s):
See MM-CUL-1 above.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.4-12 – 13.
Geology and Soils
Threshold: Destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Description of Significant Effects: According to Appendix F, due to t he high paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point and San Diego Formations in San Diego County, as well as the presence of fossil localities in the vicinity of the project site, construction of the proposed project has the potential to uncover paleontological resources. Any
proposed excavation activities that extend deep enough to encounter previously undisturbed deposits of th ese geologic units (i.e., below the depth of artificial fill, young alluvial flood plain deposits, or any previously disturbed sediments present within the project site) have the potential to impact the paleontological resources preserved therein. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required.
Finding: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a qualified paleontologis t be acquired and prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project.
Mitigation Measure(s):
MM GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the 2010 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Pa leontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the 2010 SVP guidelines and should outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the proposed project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for micro vertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The PRIMP shall also include a statement that any fossil lab or curation costs (if necessary due to fossil recovery) are the responsibility of the project proponent/applicant. The qualified pale ontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting, and a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during any proposed excavation activities that extend deep enough to encounter previously undisturbed deposits of the Bay Point and San Diego Form ations. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during excavation, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50 -foot-radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the paleontological monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.
Rationale: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts to unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features would be less than significant.
Reference: EIR, p. 5.6-11.
7 Potentially Significant Impacts That
Cannot Feasibly be Mitigated Below a
Level of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less -than significant level. Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of the EIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, where feasible. As discussed in this EIR, implementation of the proposed proj ect would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources before mitigation. All of these impacts would be reduced
to below a level of significance through mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.
8 Findings Regarding Alternatives
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which will feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
Four alternatives, including the No Project/No Build Alternative, were analyzed in the Final EIR, Chapter 10, Alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Alternative 2: Build to Existing Land Use Designations Alternative Alternative 3: Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B-2
Alternative 4: Exclusion of All Planning Area B-2
These alternatives are evaluated for their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the project identified in the EIR, as well as consideration of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project as described in the EIR Chapter 4, Section 4.3 Project Objectives.
For the reasons set forth below, and in light of the analysis presented in the EIR Chapter 10, Alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would involve no changes on the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition, effectively eliminating those project impacts discussed in this EIR. In accordance with CEQA, if the environmentally superior alternat ive is the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Section 15126[e][2]).
The next environmentally superior alternative would be the Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B -2 Alternative.
Under this alternative development would still occur in Planning Area B -1 and the existing industrial building in Planning Area A would remain in operation; however, instead of a hotel being built in Planning Area B -2, a less intensive land use would be built instead. Implementation of this alternative would still introduce uses that would generate operational air pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, but not to the same extent that a hotel would. Compared to the proposed project, the Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B -2 Alternative, would have reduced impacts, because a hotel would not be built and a less intensive development, consistent with the Specific Plan, would be built instead. In addition, exclusion of a hotel in Planning Area B -2 would, because of the unique operational characteristics of a hotel, substantially reduce operational impacts associated traffic, and utilities (water supply, wastewater service, and solid waste generation). This alternative would still meet all of the project’s objectives. For these reasons, the Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B-2 is considered the environmentally superior alternative.
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: No construction would occur on site. Planning Areas B -1 and B -2 would remain vacant with newly remediated soil. The warehouse in Planning Area A would remain in current condition similar to proposed project.
Finding: The No Project/No Build Alternative would not provide any development, so overall impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project, with the exception of aesthetics and land use and planning. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.
Rationale: Compared to the Project, this alternative would result in reduced impacts to all of the potentially significant impacts identified in the FEIR. However, this alternative would cause greater impacts to aesthetics and land use and planning. Leaving the project site as vacant graded land with no development would likely increase aesthetics impacts and would negatively contribute to the scenic quality of the area. A lso, a vacant site would provide less compatibility with surrounding uses. Infrastructure would not be upgraded (i.e., utility undergrounding, sidewalk improvements, etc.) and no development impact fees would be collected by the City. Overall, leaving the site vacant could result in greater conflicts with land use plans and land use compati bility. This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.
Reference: Final EIR, Section 10.4.1.
Alternative 2: Build to Existing Land Use Designations Alternative Description: The site would remain zoned General Industrial (I) and remain designated Industrial (I) by the General Plan. Development under this alternative would be required to be consistent with existing permitted uses in the General Industrial zone. Permitted uses in this zone include food service commercial, convenience sales and service commercial, business and communication service commercial, retail business supply commercial, research and development commercial, general wholesale sales commercial, t ransportation and warehousing commercial, automotive fee parking commercial, custom industrial, light industrial, general industrial, and essential service civic.
Finding: Compared to the Project, this alternative would result in similar impacts to all of the environmental resource topics.
Rationale: Depending on what is ultimately developed under this alternative it can be assumed that some of the project objectives would likely be met, but not to the same extent as the proposed project.
Reference: Final EIR, Section 10.4.2.
Alternative 3: Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B-2
Description: This alternative would allow some of the project’s proposed uses for Planning Area B -2 (such as restaurants, office space, and visitor serving uses) other than a hotel. Exclusion of a potential hotel in Planning Area B-2 would, because of the unique operational characteris tics of a hotel, substantially reduce operational impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, traffic, and utilities (water supply, wastewater service, and solid waste generation). All of the same approvals and amendments to existing documents as the proposed project would be required under this alternative. The approval of the Rohr Wohl Specific Plan would amend the City’s zoning for the property to allow the development of the proposed project with commercial, industrial, and office uses. This would remain the same under the Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B-2 Alternative. Site access, internal circulation, and connection to existing utilities would still occur.
Finding: Compared to the Project, this alternative would result in reduced impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and utilities and service systems. For all other impacts, this alternative would have similar levels of significance. All project objectives would be met under this alternative.
Rationale: Emissions from traffic trips would be reduced when compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in daily trips associated with a hotel. Implementation of this alternative would still introduce uses that would generate operational air pollutant emi ssions, but not to the same extent that a hotel would. Hotels also generate a significant demand for water and generate significant amounts of wastewater, so compared to the proposed project, impacts to utilities would be slightly reduced. Compared to the proposed project, the Exclusion of Hotel in Planning Area B-2 Alternative, would have reduced impacts, because a hotel would not be built and a less intensive development, consistent with the Specific Plan, would be built instead.
Reference: Final EIR, Section 10.4.3.
Alternative 4: Exclusion of All Planning Area B-2
Description: Exclusion of Planning Area B -2 entirely would have reduced construction and operational impacts compared to the proposed project in the near-term. However, B-2 would remain vacant, zoned General Industrial, and future development could still occur in Planning Area B-2, albeit would not be required to adhere to the design guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan. This alternative would reduce near -term traffic impacts because average daily trips would be reduced by 5,000 trips. There would also be a reduction in near-term construction emissions and noise; however, development would still likely occur in Planning Area B -2 at a later date, consistent with the underlying zoning and land use. Therefore, it’s unlikely that emissions and noise would be reduced in the long-term.
Impacts would not be substantially reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed project.
Finding: The other project impacts for this alternative would all have similar impacts as the proposed project and some of the project objectives would be met, but not to the same extent as the proposed project.
Rationale: Compared to the Project, this alternative would result in increased impacts to aesthetics by l eaving Planning Area B-2 vacant, while all other surrounding parcels in the bayfront are being developed with compatible uses. This alternative would also result in slightly reduced impacts to transportation and utilities and service systems since daily trips and emissions would be decreased.
Reference: Final EIR, Section 10.4.4.
9 Other CEQA Findings
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City, in adopting these Findings, also adopts the MMRP for the project. The MMRP is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City and other responsible parties will comply with the mitigation measures adopted in these Findings. The City hereby binds itself to cause the various feasible mitigation measures and project design features described in the MMRP to be implemented in accordance with the Final EIR and MMRP. The measures identified in the MMRP constitute a binding set of obligations upon the City’s certification and approvals identified herein.
The City hereby finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated into the project conditions of approval, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of project conditions intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental effects of the project.
Regulatory Compliance
Federal, state, regional, and local laws contain certain regulatory compliance measures that must be adhered to in implementing the project. The Final EIR describes the regulatory setting within each chapter, which includes the details of regulatory compliance measures. Where regulatory compliance measures are required by law, the City has not separately proposed or adopted mitigation requiring regulatory compliance (as it would be declaratory of existing law).
Nonetheless, the City finds that the project must comply with all applicable regulatory compliance measures. 10 Certification of the Final EIR, CEQA
Guidelines§ 15090
The City Council certifies that the Final EIR, dated July 2025, on file with the Development Services Department (SCH #2022100138), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, which reviewed and considered the information contained therein and in the record of proceedings for the proposed project, and recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR and the record of proceedings, and finds that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15090.)