Item 8.3 - CEQA Finding of Fact — National City City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Page 98 of 137 ends

equipment, which could exceed 0.04 in/sec at the closest residential structures during construction of the proposed Bayshore Bikeway.

The potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-7) would be reduced to less than significant by mitigation measure MM-NOI-11: Avoid or Reduce Groundborne Vibration from Pile Driving (GB Capital Component). This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-NOI-11: Avoid or Reduce Groundborne Vibration from Bikeway Construction (Bayshore Bikeway Component). During all construction activity at the Bayshore Bikeway Component, the project proponent shall require its construction contractor(s) to observe the following buffer zones to reduce groundborne vibration at nearby at nearby residences to 0.04 in/sec or less:
• Avoid the use of hydraulic breakers within 130 feet of residential buildings. • Avoid vibratory compaction within 115 feet of residential buildings. • Avoid the use of heavy earthmoving equipment within 55 feet of residential buildings.

If the listed buffer distances cannot be maintained, impacts can be reduced to less than significant by using alternative equipment that avoids or reduces high vibration levels at the source. Jackhammers (manually held and operated, not mounted to any other construction equipment) may be used in place of other breakers, non-vibratory rollers may be used in place of vibratory roller, and smaller earthmovers (Bobcat, skid steer, etc.) may be used instead of full-size heavy earthmoving equipment.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM-NOI-10 would reduce Impact-NOI-6 to less-than-significant levels because the measure would ensure that buildings located close to proposed pile driving would be protected from potential damage or repaired if any cosmetic or structural damage was to occur.

4.10 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking

4.10.1 Impact-TRA-1: Generate Vehicle Miles Traveled in Exceedance of Employment-Based Thresholds During Project Operations (Phase 1 and Phase 2 of GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-1) associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding employment-based thresholds during project operations. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Page 110 of 222 ends

Page 99 of 137 ends

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-1) as identified in the EIR. However, the changes or alterations required will not reduce the significant effects (Impact TRA1) below a level of significance and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-1 would result because employment associated with operation of the proposed project would not reduce VMT to 15% below the 2050 regional average. Therefore, employment uses associated with the proposed project (GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component) would have a significant VMT impact.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-1) would be reduced by mitigation measure MM-TRA-1: Implement TDM and VMT Reduction Measures. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-TRA-1: Implement TDM and VMT Reduction Measures (GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component). To reduce VMT generated by employee trips, the project proponent (GB Capital and City) shall implement the following TDM and VMT reduction measure from the SANDAG Mobility Management Toolbox, using the VMT Reduction Calculator Tool (SANDAG 2019b), starting the first day of project operations for the GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component.
• Mandatory Employer Commute Program – The employer for the GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component shall offer and pay for an employer commute-trip reduction program, which may include a carpool program, transit subsidy passes, or a vanpool program.

Implementing these measures could result in a 2.6% reduction in the project’s employee VMT.

Mitigation measure MM-TRA-1 would reduce Impact-TRA-1 by requiring implementation of transportation-demand-management (TDM) and VMT reduction measures from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Mobility Management Toolbox, using the VMT Reduction Calculator Tool, which would reduce employment-based VMT generated during project operations. However, despite implementation of the measures, employment-based VMT generated by the proposed project would not be below the applicable threshold. Therefore, this

Page 111 of 222 ends

Page 100 of 137 ends

impact would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

4.10.2 Impact-TRA-3: Inadequate Emergency Access from Temporary Road Closures During Project Construction (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-3) associated with blocked roadways during construction, which could prevent access to the project site or surrounding vicinity by emergency vehicles. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-3 would result from inadequate emergency access from temporary road closures during project construction. Lanes and/or entire roadways may be closed during construction for each of the project components because of equipment, material deliveries, or construction activities within the right-of-way.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-3) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-TRA-3: Implement Traffic Control Measures During Construction.

This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-TRA-3: Implement Traffic Control Measures During Construction (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, and City Program – Development Component). For any project components that temporarily require partial and/or full roadway closures during construction, the project proponent [requiring the partial or full roadway closure(s)] shall require its contractor to plan, use, place, and maintain traffic control devices while in use at the construction site to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided throughout the duration of the road closure. If construction activities require blocking of a traffic lane(s), the project proponent shall require its contractor to use a flashing arrow board during daytime hours; however, a solar flashing arrow board shall be required for any nighttime construction that requires the closure of any traffic lanes. In certain lane closures, the use of high-level warning flags, along with other devices, is

Page 112 of 222 ends

Page 101 of 137 ends

acceptable if installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans 2018). The City shall verify the proper use of traffic control devices for the Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component, and potentially the GB Capital Component if the proposed roadway is a City street, while the District shall verify the proper use of traffic control devices for the Balanced Plan, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and potentially the GB Capital Component if the proposed roadway is a District street.

In addition to traffic control measures, the project proponent shall require its contractor to maintain the following traffic lane requirements throughout the duration of the partial or full road closure:

1. For two-way streets (e.g., a four-lane roadway), a minimum of one lane shall be provided in each direction.

2. The minimum width of a traffic lane shall be 10 feet. The lane shall be clear of obstructions, including traffic cones or delineators. Emergency vehicle access may require a traffic lane of up to 14 feet wide.

3. A separate left- or right-turn lane shall be proved if there is an existing leftor right-turn lane.

4. Complete closure of a roadway shall not be permitted without a valid Special Traffic Permit (STP) or a City-approved traffic routing plan. This includes a plan that allows one lane to be used for two directions of traffic (i.e., two-way flag control). An STP is required to use two-way flag control.

5. If work occurs at or within 100 feet of an intersection on a two-way street, an STP is required to prohibit left turns at the intersection. This requirement applies where two lanes are reduced to one and through vehicles cannot physically pass a left-turning vehicle.

6. If needed, room for a traffic lane(s) may be made available by temporarily prohibiting parking. Traffic lanes must be at least 10 feet wide and provide a sufficient transition before the lane begins and after the lane ends.

To ensure that the traffic lanes provided are adequate and continuous, only one contractor at a time shall be allowed to work on any one block. If a second contractor is planning to work on a block that has a contractor, or on an adjacent block, then the second contractor shall obtain an STP before starting any work.

Moreover, a contractor shall not be allowed to work within a block of a project that is under City contract without receiving approval from the Resident Engineer for the subject contract, obtaining an STP, and notifying the City Fire Department and City Police Department.

Flagging personnel shall be required when workers or equipment will temporarily block a traffic lane that is used for access into and out of a construction site.

Flagging personnel shall ensure that traffic congestion and permanently blocked

Page 113 of 222 ends

Page 102 of 137 ends

roads do not occur. The following shall apply to the flagging personnel required during project construction:

1.Flaggers must be properly equipped with a Type II vest (daytime) or Type III vest (nighttime) and a sign paddle.

2. Flaggers must be certified and have their certification card at all times.

3. A minimum of two flaggers shall be required when one lane is to be used for two directions of traffic (i.e., two-way flag control).

4. Police officers may be hired to provide flag control.

A construction TDM plan shall be prepared by the respective project proponent for each project component and implemented during construction activities. The TDM plan shall be submitted by the respective project proponent to the City or District, depending on the jurisdiction where the project component is located, for review and approval prior to construction. The TDM plan shall incorporate various TDM strategies to reduce congestion during construction and may include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Implementation of a ride-sharing program to encourage carpooling among workers.
• Adjusting work schedules so workers do not access the site during peak hours. • Providing offsite parking locations for workers outside the area, with shuttle services to bring them onsite.
• Providing subsidized transit passes for construction workers.

Mitigation measure MM-TRA-3 would reduce Impact-TRA-3 to less-thansignificant levels by requiring implementation of traffic control measures during project construction. This would ensure that emergency vehicle access to the project site and surrounding area would be maintained.

4.10.3 Impact-TRA-5: Inadequate Emergency Access from the Closure of Tidelands Avenue During Operation (Pasha Road Closures
Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-5) from the closure of Tidelands Avenue during project operations, which could result in inadequate emergency access. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Page 114 of 222 ends

Page 103 of 137 ends

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-5) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-5 would result from the closure of Tidelands Avenue during project operations, which could result in inadequate emergency access.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-5) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-HAZ-9: Coordinate with the City Fire Marshal. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-HAZ-9: Coordinate with the City Fire Marshal (Pasha Road Closures Component). Prior to closure of the Pasha Road Closures Component to throughtraffic, the project proponent for said project component shall prepare and submit plans to the City Fire Marshal for review and approval that demonstrate compliance with applicable state and local fire code regulations related to secondary access, emergency access, and maximum dead‐end road length. At a minimum, the plans shall demonstrate that the project will include the following items related to emergency vehicle access:
• An emergency access road, on the existing alignment of Tidelands Avenue between Bay Marina Drive and the 32nd Street, that has an unobstructed minimum width of 20 feet (or 26 feet when a fire hydrant is located on the emergency access road), exclusive of shoulders or rolled curbs. The emergency access road shall be paved using an all‐weather surface and shall support the imposed loads (75,000 pounds) of a fire apparatus. The emergency access road shall include official approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words “NO PARKING – FIRE LANE.” At all times, the emergency access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles.
• Any entrance/exit gates to/from the Pasha Road Closures Component shall be equipped with Knox Key Switches and Emergency Strobes to provide emergency vehicle access, including ingress and egress. A lock box (Knox Key Switch for fire and police) shall be required in conjunction with a detector/strobe switch to allow emergency vehicles to flash a vehicle-mounted strobe light towards the detector/strobe switch, which in turn overrides the system and opens the gate. The lock box and detector/strobe switch shall be placed at the front of each gate (the side of the gate that is adjacent to a public street). Any electric gate opener shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates utilizing emergency strobe operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F2200, and shall be maintained operational at all times, including but not limited to, in the event of an electrical outage. Any entrance/exist gates to/from the Pasha Road Closures Component shall maintain an unobstructed vertical clearance of a minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches.

Page 115 of 222 ends

Page 104 of 137 ends

• Fire hydrants shall be located throughout the Pasha Road Closures Component site and shall be spaced no less than 400 feet apart. Fire hydrants shall be located within 400 feet of all locations that are roadway accessible (measurement starts from the nearest existing fire hydrant to the Pasha Road Closures Component site). Where a fire hydrant is located on an emergency access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. All turns available for fire access and travel shall maintain a minimum radius of 28 feet.

Prior to utilization of the Pasha Road Closures Component for marine-related operations, the above-described emergency vehicle access shall be field-verified by the City Fire Marshal, or the Fire Marshal’s designee. Written verification of inclusion of the above-described emergency vehicle access shall be provided to the District’s Director of Planning prior to Pasha’s utilization of the Pasha Road Closures Component for marine-related operations. Said written verification can be provided via a copy of the plans that have been stamped/approved by the City Fire Marshal, or the Fire Marshal’s designee, or verification can be provided with a copy of the Fire Permit.

Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-9 would reduce Impact-TRA-5 to less-thansignificant levels by requiring coordination with the City Fire Marshal to ensure that necessary features would be included as part of the Pasha Road Closures Component, such as an emergency access road, entrance/exit gates, and fire hydrants.

4.10.4 Impact-TRA-7: Inadequate Emergency Access from Marina Way Realignment (Balanced Plan)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-7) associated with the realignment of Marina Way, which could result in inadequate emergency access during operation through the installation of traffic-calming devices. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-7) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-7 could result in inadequate emergency access during operation through the installation of traffic-calming devices.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-7) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-HAZ-11 Manage Marina Way Realignment Conditions. This

Page 116 of 222 ends

Page 105 of 137 ends

mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-HAZ-11: Manage Marina Way Realignment Conditions (Balanced Plan or GB Capital Component). The Marina Way Realignment proposed as part of the Balanced Plan (or GB Capital Component) shall not include traffic calming devices (e.g., speed humps), unless prior-written approval is obtained from the City Fire Marshal.

Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-11 would reduce Impact-TRA-7 to less-thansignificant levels by ensuring that any traffic-calming devices incorporated into the realignment Marina Way would be approved by the City Fire Marshal.

4.10.5 Impact-TRA-8: Insufficient Parking During Project Construction (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-8) related to loss of parking during construction of the proposed project, which could temporarily decrease public coastal access. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-8) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-8 would result from the potential overlap of construction for several of the project components and number of daily construction workers and trucks, which could cause a temporarily insufficient parking supply that would lead to a temporary decrease in public coastal access.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-8) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-TRA-5: Require Offsite Parking, Shuttle Transportation, and Incentives for Transit Use for Construction Workers and Wayfinding Signage for Visitors. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-TRA-5: Require Offsite Parking, Shuttle Transportation, and Incentives for Transit Use for Construction Workers and Wayfinding Signage for Visitors (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, and City

Page 117 of 222 ends

Page 106 of 137 ends

Program – Development Component). Prior to the commencement of construction activity, the project proponent for each component shall provide an offsite parking location for construction workers and a shuttle service from the offsite parking location to the project site and back. For project components within the District’s jurisdiction, the designated offsite parking location shall be approved by the District’s Development Services Department (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Pasha Road Closures Component). For project components within the City’s jurisdiction, the designated offsite parking location shall be approved by the City. In addition, the project proponent shall provide incentives for construction workers to use public transit.

Workers who cannot commute by transit and must use personal vehicles shall be required to park at the offsite parking facility. The parking requirements for the workers shall be detailed in their contract with the project proponent. Moreover, during the construction phase, some public parking shall remain open, to the extent feasible, through the phasing of construction. If onsite public parking is displaced, the project proponent shall provide conspicuous signage to direct visitors to available parking facilities throughout the duration of the construction that displaced the public parking to maintain public coastal access.

With implementation of MM-TRA-5, impacts related to the loss of parking during construction and its effects on public coastal access (Impact-TRA-8) would be reduced to less than significant because public parking would continue to be accessible, and construction workers would be required to park at an offsite location and use a shuttle system or use public transit, thereby maintaining sufficient parking and continued coastal access for the public.

4.10.6 Impact-TRA-9: Insufficient Parking for Terminal Employees During Operations (Pasha Road Closures Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-9) related to loss of parking for National City Marine Terminal (NCMT) employees from proposed road closures, which could inhibit public coastal access. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-9) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-9 would result from the proposed road closures (Pasha Road Closures Component) causing a net decrease in the number of parking spaces available for NCMT employees who would have to park on adjacent roadways, which could inhibit public coastal access.

Page 118 of 222 ends

Page 107 of 137 ends

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-9) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-TRA-6: Reconfigure Lot Q [located on the southwest corner of Bay Marina Drive and Tideland Avenue] to Accommodate 590 Striped Parking Spaces.

This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-TRA-6: Reconfigure Lot Q to Accommodate 590 Striped Parking Spaces (Pasha Road Closures Component). Prior to implementation of the Pasha Road Closures Component, the project proponent shall restripe Lot Q (located on the southwest corner of Bay Marina Drive and Tidelands Avenue) to provide additional parking for employees and offset the loss of 249 parking spaces. Upon completion of this restriping, there would be 590 parking spaces in Lot Q; this would accommodate the 574 existing NCMT employees. Once completed, evidence indicating completion of the restriping shall be provided by the project proponent for the Pasha Road Closures Component to the District’s Development Services Department. Pasha shall require its employees to use Lot Q and allow other employees at NCMT to use the parking lot.

Mitigation measure MM-TRA-6 would reduce Impact-TRA-9 to less-thansignificant levels by increasing the amount of employee parking at Lot Q to accommodate the existing NCMT employees and ensure sufficient parking.

4.10.7 Impact-TRA-10: Insufficient Parking for Pepper Park Expansion and Reconfiguration (Balanced Plan)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-10) related to insufficient parking for the Pepper Park expansion, which could inhibit public coastal access.

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-10) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-TRA-10 would result from an insufficient amount of parking for the Pepper Park expansion, which could inhibit public coastal access.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-10) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-TRA-7: Accommodate 23 Additional Flex Parking Spaces at the Pepper Park Parking Lot. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

Page 119 of 222 ends

Page 108 of 137 ends

MM-TRA-7: Accommodate 23 Additional Flex Parking Spaces at the Pepper Park Parking Lot (Balanced Plan). Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit for Pepper Park (Balanced Plan), the District shall accommodate an additional 23 parking spaces, for a total of 116 parking spaces at Pepper Park. The additional 23 spaces shall be designed to be flex spaces that can be used as either an active area of the park or parking for public uses and coastal access within the project area. Following the completion of the Pepper Park expansion (including the 23 spaces), the District shall prepare a study that determines the actual (i.e., on-theground) demand for parking at the newly expanded park. If the results of the study demonstrate that the amount of parking can be reduced, the District will reduce the number of parking spaces to the actual on-the-ground demand identified in the study (but no more than a reduction of 23 spaces).

With implementation of MM-TRA-7, impacts related to the loss of parking at Pepper Park and its impacts on public coastal access (Impact-TRA-10) would be reduced to less than significant because adequate parking would be added at Pepper Park, thereby maintaining sufficient parking for continued coastal access for the public.

4.11 Utilities and Service Systems

4.11.1 Impact-UTIL-1: Insufficient Water Facilities Available to Serve the Proposed Project (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-1) associated with a potentially significant increase in water demand because of implementation of the proposed project which could require relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities to provide water to the project components. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Potential Impact-UTIL-1 would result from a potentially significant increase in water demand because of implementation of the proposed project, which could require relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities to provide water to the project components.

The potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-1) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-UTIL1: Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study and MM-UTIL-2: Implement Water Conservation Measures. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the

Page 120 of 222 ends

Page 109 of 137 ends

MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provide as follows:

MM-UTIL-1: Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component). Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component, the respective project proponent shall prepare a utility infrastructure study and submit the study to the District’s Development Services Department (Balanced Plan and GB Capital Component only) and the City’s Community Development Department (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component only) for review and approval. The utility infrastructure study shall identify the capacity of existing utilities, the ability of those utilities to serve the project proponent’s project component, any necessary utility improvements that would be needed to serve project proponent’s project component, and alternative locations and best management practices (BMPs), if necessary, to meet the standards described as follows: avoidance of sensitive habitat and species, construction BMPs related to ground disturbance such as daily watering in high-dust areas and use of a stabilized construction entrance to reduce offsite tracking, a soil and groundwater management plan pursuant to MMHAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-4, including recommendations on pipe materials based on Sweetwater Authority Design Standards, if disturbed areas may be subject to contamination, a soil disposal plan (if applicable), a traffic management plan if roadways will need temporary closures, consistency with the City’s Noise Ordinance, and avoidance of historical, archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources. The project proponent shall implement any and all new utility improvements or upgrades identified in the utility infrastructure study.

MM-UTIL-2: Implement Water Conservation Measures (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component). The project proponent for the respective project component shall incorporate and implement water-efficient design measures into its individual project component. Waterefficient design measures shall at a minimum, include:
• Implement indoor water reduction measures, including high-efficiency toilets, high-efficiency urinals, low-flow faucets, and low-flow showers (as applicable). • Install only drought-tolerant landscaping and perform any landscaping watering through a drip system or low-flow irrigation devices.
• Install cisterns above or below ground that shall collect and store runoff from rooftops and other impervious surfaces.
• Install water-efficient water coolers and equipment and monitor cooling tower and boiler water chemistry to minimize mineral buildup in the system and maximize the number of times water can be recycled through the system. • Limit the use of turf and, in Pepper Park, limit the use of turf to activity fields. • Educate employees on water conservation measures on an annual basis and post water conservation stickers, signs, and posters in bathrooms, kitchens,

Page 121 of 222 ends

Page 110 of 137 ends

cafeterias, conference rooms, and other places where employees congregate.

Mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1 would ensure the capacity of utility facilities are assessed prior to construction, and mitigation measure MM-UTIL-2 would require the implementation of water conservation measures, which would require the application of BMPs to reduce potential impacts on the environment should new or expanded facilities be required. Therefore, implementation of MM-UTIL-1 and MMUTIL-2 would reduce Impact-UTIL-1 to a level below significance.

4.11.2 Impact-UTIL-2: Insufficient Pipeline Capacity to Meet the Fire Flow Demands Plus Maximum Day Demands (GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-2) associated with the pipeline upgrades that are needed in order to accommodate the fire-flow demands of the project. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Potential Impact-UTIL-2 would result in the event that upsizing of the pipelines does not occur because the current pipeline capacity is insufficient to accommodate fire-flow demands of the project.

The potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-2) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-UTIL-3:

Upsize the Existing Bay Marina Drive Pipeline and Install New Pipeline Along the Proposed Road Realignment to Meet Project Fire Flow Demands. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-UTIL-3: Upsize the Existing Bay Marina Drive Pipeline and Install New Pipeline Along the Proposed Road Realignment to Meet Project Fire Flow Demands (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component).

Prior to occupancy and operation of the proposed City Program – Development Component or the four-story 81-room hotel to be operated under Phase 2 of the GB Capital Component, whichever occurs first, the project proponent for that project component (Payee) shall upsize the existing 12-inch PVC pipeline on Bay Marina Drive between the intersection of Harrison Avenue and Cleveland Avenue to a 16-inch PVC pipeline. In addition, the Payee shall install approximately 1,500

Page 122 of 222 ends

Page 111 of 137 ends

linear feet of 16-inch main pipeline along Marina Way and upsize approximately 1,700 linear feet of the existing 12-inch PVC pipeline with 16-inch pipeline. Design, permitting, and construction of the new pipelines shall be coordinated with the City Fire Marshal and SWA.

Prior to occupancy and operation of the project component that is constructed second (i.e., the GB Capital Component if the City Program – Development Component is constructed first, or the City Program – Development Component if the GB Capital Component is constructed first), the project proponent for that project component (Reimbursee) shall reimburse the Payee 50% of the actual cost of designing, permitting, and constructing the new pipelines. Such reimbursement shall be a condition of the Coastal Development Permits for the City Program – Development Component or the four-story 81-room hotel to be operated under Phase 2 of the GB Capital Component.

Mitigation measure MM-UTIL-3 would reduce Impact-UTIL-2 to less-thansignificant levels by requiring the upsizing of existing 12-inch PVC pipeline on Bay Marina Drive to ensure sufficient fire flow would be available to serve the proposed project.

4.11.3 Impact-UTIL-3: Insufficient Sewer Facilities to Convey Wastewater Generated by Future Development (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-3) associated with potentially insufficient capacity to accommodate future project-specific generated wastewater. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Potential Impact-UTIL-3 would occur in the event that wastewater facility improvements are required and do not occur, resulting in insufficient capacity to accommodate future projectspecific generated wastewater.

The potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-3) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-UTIL1: Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study, and MM-UTIL-4: Issue Payment for City’s Sewer Capacity Fee. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provide as follows:

Page 123 of 222 ends

Page 112 of 137 ends

MM-UTIL-1: Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component), as described above.

MM-UTIL-4: Issue Payment for City’s Sewer Capacity Fee (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component). Prior to the issuance of the respective building permits for the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component, the respective project proponent shall pay the City’s established sewer capacity fee.

Mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1 would require the preparation of a utility infrastructure study that would require sufficient sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to be available to serve operation of the proposed project. Mitigation measure MM-UTIL-4 would require project proponents to issue payment for the City’s sewer capacity fee. Therefore, mitigation measures MM-UTIL-1 and MM-UTIL-4 would reduce impacts associated with sewer capacity (Impact-UTIL-3) to less-than-significant levels.

4.11.4 Impact-UTIL-4: Insufficient Stormwater Facilities to Convey Stormwater Generated by Future Development (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component) Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-4) associated with potentially insufficient capacity to accommodate future project-specific generated stormwater.

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Potential Impact-UTIL-4 would occur in the event that stormwater facility improvements are required and do not occur, resulting in insufficient capacity to accommodate future projectspecific generated stormwater.

The potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-4) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1:

Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study. This mitigation measure is set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Page 124 of 222 ends

Page 113 of 137 ends

the proposed project. Therefore, mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1 would reduce Impact-UTIL-4 to less-than-significant levels.

4.11.5 Impact-UTIL-5: Insufficient Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities to Serve the Project Components (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-5) associated with potential construction of new or expanded electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities to serve the project components, which could result in physical impacts on the environment. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-5) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Potential Impact-UTIL-5 would result from the potential construction of new or expanded electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities to serve the project components, which could have physical impacts on the environment.

The potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-5) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1:

Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study. This mitigation measure is set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1 would reduce Impact-UTIL-5 to less-thansignificant levels by ensuring electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities with the ability to serve the project components are assessed prior to construction.

4.11.6 Impact-UTIL-6: Insufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Proposed Project (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-6) related to uncertainties around available water supply which is necessary for the operation of the proposed project. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

Page 125 of 222 ends

Page 114 of 137 ends

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-6) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Potential Impact-UTIL-5 would result from the proposed project having insufficient water availability to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development. Sweetwater Authority cannot guarantee that at some point in the future, supply of imported water would not be diminished due to uncertainty with the pending lawsuit filed by the Imperial Irrigation District, potential cutback in Colorado River water deliveries in accordance with the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan, and potential for prolonged droughts due to climate change that could last more than the multiple 3-dry-year scenario analyzed in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed project.

The potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-5) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-UTIL1: Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study, MM-UTIL-2: Implement Water Conservation Measures, MM-UTIL-5: Confirm Water Supply Availability for Recreational or Ornamental Water Feature, and MM-UTIL-6: Confirm Water Supply Availability for Development Project Components Prior to Issuance of Building Permits. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provide as follows:

MM-UTIL-1: Prepare Utility Infrastructure Study (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component), as described above.

MM-UTIL-2: Implement Water Conservation Measures (Balanced Plan, City Program – Development Component, and GB Capital Component), as described above.

MM-UTIL-5: Confirm Water Supply Availability for Recreational or Ornamental Water Feature (Balanced Plan, City Program – Development Component, and GB Capital Component). Prior to construction of any recreational or ornamental water feature, if it is determined that there is a low water supply, then the feature shall not be constructed until water supply is secured or there is an alternative design that incorporates low water use.

MM-UTIL-6: Confirm Water Supply Availability for Development Project Components Prior to Issuance of Building Permits (Balanced Plan, City Program – Development Component, and GB Capital Component). Water availability shall be confirmed by SWA prior to issuance of building permits. The confirmation of water availability shall be provided in written form by SWA. If SWA indicates there is not sufficient water supply to serve the project, the scale of the project shall be reduced to a level that is serviceable by SWA or use recycled water.

Page 126 of 222 ends

Page 115 of 137 ends

Implementation of mitigation measure MM-UTIL-1 would ensure the capacity of utility facilities is assessed prior to construction, and mitigation measure MM-UTIL2 would require the implementation of water conservation measures.

Implementation of MM-UTIL-5 and MM-UTIL-6 would ensure sufficient water supplies are available or require project design to match availability, prior to construction and issuance of building permits, respectively. Therefore, MM-UTIL1, MM-UTIL-2, MM-UTIL-5, and MM-UTIL-6 would reduce Impact-UTIL-6 to a lessthan-significant level.

5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a proposed project (State CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)). Cumulative impacts are those that are considered significant when viewed in connection with the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (State CEQA Guidelines §15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.

The EIR analyzes cumulative impacts by compiling a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects outside the agency’s jurisdiction (State CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1)(A)). The list of “past, present and probable future projects” should include related projects that already have been constructed, are presently under construction, are approved but not yet under construction, and are not yet approved but are under environmental review at the time the Draft EIR is prepared (State CEQA Guidelines §15130, Discussion of Cumulative Impacts). The list must include not only projects under review by the lead agency, but also those under review by other relevant public agencies.

The EIR cumulative analysis of near-term conditions for a majority of issue areas used the List Method, which is “a list of past, present, and probable activities producing related or cumulative impacts” based on State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b). However, the Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed project bases the 2050 future year conditions on the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) Series 13 Travel Demand Model. Consequently, the cumulative analyses for transportation as well as traffic-related impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise and vibration use the Plan Method.

Additionally, the cumulative analysis related to future water supply in the utilities and service systems chapter uses the Plan Method because it is based on the adopted 2015 Sweetwater Authority Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

The EIR considered 53 cumulative projects in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. The projects listed in the proposed project’s cumulative study area have had applications submitted or have been approved, are under construction, or have recently been completed. A detailed description of these cumulative projects is provided in Table 5-2 and a map depicting the location of these projects in relation to the project site is provided on Figure 5-1 (project numbering

Page 127 of 222 ends

Page 116 of 137 ends

corresponds to numbers shown in Table 5-2) in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of Volume 2 (Final EIR).

The proposed project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to air quality and health risk, GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and transportation, circulation, and parking. The findings below identify each of the significant cumulative environmental impacts, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or to avoid them, or the reasons proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other considerations, if an impact is identified as significant and unavoidable. The findings incorporate by reference the analysis of significant cumulative impacts contained in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts.

The significant cumulative impacts related to air quality and health risk, and noise and vibration identified in the EIR would be reduced to a level below significance after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. However, even with mitigation incorporated, the proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable and unavoidable contributions to impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change; and transportation, circulation, and parking.

5.1 Air Quality and Health Risk

5.1.1 Impact-C-AQ-1: New Land Use Designations Not Accounted for in the RAQS and SIP (All Project Components)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-1) in that the proposed project would conflict with applicable state and regional air quality plans because the emissions associated with the proposed land uses could be greater than under existing land uses and these new emissions have not been accounted for in the current RAQS and SIP. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-1) as identified in the EIR. Further, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(2), certain of the changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the District and such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Potential Impact-C-AQ-1 will result from the new land use designations not being accounted for in the RAQS and SIP.

Page 128 of 222 ends

Page 117 of 137 ends

The potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (ImpactC-AQ-1) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MMAQ-1: Update the RAQS and SIP with New Growth Projections. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in Section 4.2.1 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Mitigation measure MM-AQ-1 requires the District to pursue the administrative process to update SANDAG’s growth projections. Pursuant to California Evidence Code § 664, it is presumed that SANDAG and the SDAPCD will update the RAQS and SIP to adequately consider the redesignated land and water uses at the project site. With implementation of MM-AQ-1, the proposed project’s inconsistency with the RAQS and SIP (Impact-C-AQ-1) would be rectified and would be less than cumulatively considerable.

5.1.2 Impact-C-AQ-2: Emissions in Excess of Criteria Pollutant Thresholds During Proposed Project Construction (All Components)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-2) in that project emissions during construction, before mitigation, would exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Potential Impact-C-AQ-2 will result because unmitigated project emissions during construction would exceed applicable significance thresholds that have been set to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS.

The potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (ImpactC-AQ-2) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-AQ-2: Implement Diesel Emission-Reduction Measures During Construction (All Project Components), MM-AQ-3: Implement Fugitive Dust Control During Construction (All Project Components), MM-AQ-4: Use Low-VOC Interior and Exterior Coatings During Construction (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component), MM-AQ-5: Use Modern Harbor Craft During Construction Activities (GB Capital Component), and MM-AQ-6: Stagger Overlapping Construction Phases and Components (All Project Components).

These mitigation measures are set forth in full in Section 4.2.2 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Page 129 of 222 ends

Page 118 of 137 ends

Implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts during construction (Impact-C-AQ-2) to a level considered less than cumulatively considerable by implementing measures and practices that reduce emissions and limit the overlap of activities associated with separate projects and project components.

5.1.3 Impact-C-AQ-3: Emissions in Excess of Criteria Pollutant Thresholds During Proposed Project Operations (GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component, and Balanced Plan)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-3) in that unmitigated project emissions during operation would exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Potential Impact-C-AQ-3 will result because unmitigated project emissions during operation of the GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component, and Balanced Plan would exceed applicable significance thresholds that have been set to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Potential Impact-C-AQ-3 will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-AQ-7: Restrict Installation of Fireplaces and Firepits in New Construction (City Program, GB Capital Component [Phase 1 and Phase 2], and Balanced Plan). This mitigation measure is set forth in full in Section 4.2.3 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

MM-AQ-7 would restrict the use of wood-burning fireplaces and firepits at the City Program – Development Component, the GB Capital Component, and the Balanced Plan. With implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ-7, Impact-CAQ-3 would be less than cumulatively considerable because it would reduce operational-related VOC and PM10 emissions to a level below the threshold.

5.1.4 Impact-C-AQ-4: Emissions that Contribute to Health Effects During Proposed Project Construction (All Project Components)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-4) from projectrelated emissions during construction exceeding applicable significance

Page 130 of 222 ends

Page 119 of 137 ends

thresholds for VOC, PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO that have been set to protect public health. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on air quality and health risk (Impact-C-AQ-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Air Quality and Health Risk).

Potential Impact-C-AQ-4 will result from unmitigated project emissions during construction exceeding applicable significance thresholds that have been set to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of public health.

Potential Impact-C-AQ-4 would be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2: Implement Diesel EmissionReduction Measures During Construction (All Project Components), MM-AQ-3:

Implement Fugitive Dust Control During Construction (All Project Components), MM-AQ-4: Use Low-VOC Interior and Exterior Coatings During Construction (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component), MM-AQ-5:

Use Modern Harbor Craft During Construction Activities (GB Capital Component), and MM-AQ-6: Stagger Overlapping Construction Phases and Components (All Project Components). These mitigation measures are set forth in full in Section

4.2.4 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce emissions during construction to below thresholds that were adopted for the purpose of protecting human health.

Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ6, Impact-C-AQ-4 would be less than cumulatively considerable.

5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

5.2.1 Impact-C-GHG-1: Inconsistency with the District and City Climate Action Plans’ Numerical Targets
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-1) in that the proposed project would not meet the numerical efficiency targets in the District and City CAPs. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change).

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved project that avoid or

Page 131 of 222 ends

Page 120 of 137 ends

substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-1) as identified in the EIR. However, it cannot be stated with certainty that such measures would reduce the significant effects to a level below significance and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change). Potential Impact-C-GHG-1 will result because the proposed project’s combined construction and operation emissions would exceed the numerical efficiency target for both 2025 and 2050 set forth in the District and City CAPs.

The potentially significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-1) will be reduced by mitigation measures MM-GHG-1:

Implement Diesel Emission-Reduction Measures During Project Construction and Operation, MM-GHG-2: Comply with District CAP Measures, MM-GHG-3: Comply with the Applicable City CAP Measures, MM-GHG-4: Use Modern Harbor Craft for Waterside Construction Activities, MM-GHG-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero-Net-Energy Buildings, MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project Onsite, or Other Verifiable Actions or Activities on Tidelands or Within Another Adjacent Member City, or Purchase the Equivalent GHG Offsets from a CARB– Approved Registry or a Locally Approved Equivalent Program, and MM-GHG-7:

Implement a Renewable Energy Project On Site, or Other Verifiable Actions or Activities Within National City or Within an Adjacent Community, or Purchase the Equivalent GHG Offsets from a CARB–Approved Registry or a Locally Approved Equivalent Program. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR, and are described above in Section 4.6.1.

Implementation of MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-7 would result in project-related GHG emissions below the numerical efficiency targets. However, because it cannot be stated with certainty that the project would result in emissions that would represent a fair share of the requisite reductions toward the statewide carbon neutrality goal, impacts would be cumulatively considerable after mitigation and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091 is required.

5.2.2 Impact-C-GHG-2: Inconsistency with District Climate Action Plan and Only Partial Consistency with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Programs
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-2) in that the proposed project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable District CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of reducing

Page 132 of 222 ends

Page 121 of 137 ends

GHG emissions. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change).

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change). Potential Impact-C-GHG-2 will result because the proposed project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable District CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations.

The potentially significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-2) will be reduced by mitigation measures MM-GHG-1:

Implement Diesel Emission-Reduction Measures During Project Construction and Operation, MM-GHG-2: Comply with District CAP Measures, MM-GHG-4: Use Modern Harbor Craft for Waterside Construction Activities, MM-GHG-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero-Net-Energy Buildings, and MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project Onsite, or Other Verifiable Actions or Activities on Tidelands or Within Another Adjacent Member City, or Purchase the Equivalent GHG Offsets from a CARB–Approved Registry or a Locally Approved Equivalent Program. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR, and are described above in Section

4.6.2. MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-4 through MM-GHG-6 would ensure consistency with plans, policies, and regulatory programs that are outlined in local and statewide plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including the District’s CAP.

Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-4 through MM-GHG-6, Impact-C-GHG-2 would be less than cumulatively considerable.

5.2.3 Impact-C-GHG-3: Inconsistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan and Only Partial Consistency with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Programs
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-3) in that the proposed project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable City CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially

Page 133 of 222 ends

Page 122 of 137 ends

significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change).

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change). Potential Impact-C-GHG-3 will result because the proposed project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable City CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations.

The potentially significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-C-GHG-3) will be reduced by mitigation measures MM-GHG-3:

Comply with the Applicable City CAP Measures, and MM-GHG-7: Implement a Renewable Energy Project On Site, or Other Verifiable Actions or Activities Within National City or Within an Adjacent Community, or Purchase the Equivalent GHG Offsets from a CARB–Approved Registry or a Locally Approved Equivalent Program. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR, and are described above in Section

4.6.3. MM-GHG-3 and MM-GHG-7 would ensure consistency with plans, policies, and regulatory programs that are outlined in local and statewide plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including the City’s CAP. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures MM-GHG-3 and MM-GHG-7, Impact-C-GHG-3 would be less than cumulatively considerable.

5.3 Noise and Vibration

5.3.1 Impact-C-NOI-1: Exceedance of the City’s General Plan Noise Exposure Standards Due to Traffic Noise at Onsite Visitor Accommodations (City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on noise and vibration (Impact-C-NOI-1) in that traffic noise exposure could exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed hotel at the City Program – Development Component site due to traffic on Cleveland Avenue and Bay Marina Drive. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Noise and Vibration).

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved project that avoid or

Page 134 of 222 ends

Page 123 of 137 ends

substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on noise and vibration (Impact-C-NOI-1) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-C-NOI-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Noise and Vibration). Potential Impact-C-NOI-1 will result because traffic noise exposure could exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed hotel at the City Program – Development Component site due to traffic on Cleveland Avenue and Bay Marina Drive.

The potentially significant cumulative impact on noise and vibration (Impact-CNOI-1) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MMNOI-4: Design and Construct the Proposed Hotel at the City Program – Development Component Site to Achieve an Interior Noise Level of 45 dB CNEL or Less at Noise-Sensitive Occupied Spaces. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in Section 4.9.2 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM-NOI-4 would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic noise impacts (Impact-C-NOI-1) to less-thansignificant levels because it would ensure that development at the City Program – Development Component site would be designed and constructed to control exterior-to-interior noise that could affect sensitive occupied spaces.

5.3.2 Impact-C-NOI-2: Exceedance of the City’s General Plan Noise Exposure Standards Due to Rail Noise at Onsite Visitor
Accommodations (GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on noise and vibration (Impact-C-NOI-2) in that rail noise exposure could exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed hotels and RV resort at the GB Capital Component site due to operations at the proposed Pasha Rail Improvement Component and existing NCMT rail operations. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Noise and Vibration).

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-C-NOI-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Noise and Vibration). Potential Impact-C-NOI-2 will result because rail noise exposure could exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed hotels and RV resort at the GB Capital Component site due to operations at the proposed Pasha Rail Improvement Component and existing NCMT rail operations.

Page 135 of 222 ends

Page 124 of 137 ends

The potentially significant cumulative impact on noise and vibration (Impact-CNOI-2) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MMNOI-5: Reduce Rail Noise Levels at the Proposed GB Capital RV Sites to 65 dB CNEL or Less, and MM-NOI-6: Design and Construct the Hotels at the GB Capital Component to Achieve an Interior Noise level of 45 dB CNEL or Less at NoiseSensitive Occupied Spaces. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in Section 4.9.3 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Mitigation measure MM-NOI-5 would require a noise barrier or the dry boat storage (proposed by GB Capital) to be enclosed and made from solid material to reduce the rail noise exposure at the proposed GB Capital Component RV sites to 65 dB CNEL or less for compliance with the City’s exterior noise compatibility guidelines, as specified in the National City General Plan Noise Element. Mitigation measure MM-NOI-6 would ensure GB Capital Component hotels would be designed and constructed so as to control exterior-to-interior noise that could affect sensitive occupied spaces. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-5 and MM-NOI-6 would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative rail noise impacts (Impact-C-NOI-2) to less-than-significant levels because interior noise levels would be in compliance with the interior noise standards specified in the National City General Plan Noise Element.

5.4 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking

5.4.1 Impact-C-TRA-1: Generate Cumulatively Considerable Vehicles Miles Traveled in Exceedance of Employment-Based Thresholds During Project Operations
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-C-TRA-1) associated with VMT exceeding employment-based thresholds during project operations. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant cumulative impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Transportation, Circulation, and Parking).

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-C-TRA-1) as identified in the EIR. However, the changes or alterations required will not reduce the significant effects (Impact-CTRA-1) below a level of significance and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the proposed project on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-C-TRA-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts (Transportation, Circulation, and Parking). Potential Impact-C-TRA-1 would result because employment associated with operation of the proposed project would not reduce

Page 136 of 222 ends

Page 125 of 137 ends

VMT to 15% below the 2050 regional average. Therefore, employment uses associated with the proposed project (GB Capital Component, City Program – Development Component) would have a significant VMT impact.

The potentially significant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-C-TRA-1) would be reduced by mitigation measure MM-TRA-1:

Implement TDM and VMT Reduction Measures. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in Section 4.10.1 above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Mitigation measure MM-TRA-1 would reduce Impact-C-TRA-1 by requiring implementation of TDM and VMT reduction measures from the SANDAG Mobility Management Toolbox’s VMT Reduction Calculator Tool, which would reduce employment-based VMT generated during project operations. However, despite implementation of the measures, employment-based VMT generated by the proposed project would not be below the applicable threshold. Therefore, ImpactC-TRA-1 would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable after mitigation and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091 is required.

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. In preparing and adopting findings pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating the approval of a project with significant environmental impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation in its findings to consider the feasibility of alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated. Accordingly, in adopting the findings concerning alternatives for the project, the District considers only those significant environmental impacts of the project that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.

Where a project will result in some unavoidable significant environmental impacts even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in an EIR, the lead agency must consider the feasibility of alternatives to the project which could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental impacts. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (Pub. Res. Code § 21061.1; State CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the ability of an alternative to accomplish the objectives of a project and the desirability of an alternative from a policy standpoint, to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social and

Page 137 of 222 ends

Page 126 of 137 ends

technological factors.

While an EIR evaluates whether alternatives are potentially feasible, the lead agency’s decision-making body considers in its findings whether the alternatives are actually feasible. A lead agency may not approve a project if there are feasible alternatives which would avoid or substantially lessen any unmitigated significant impacts. If there are no feasible alternatives, the lead agency may approve a project if it determines that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks and the lead agency adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093.)

The Final EIR concluded that the project may result in the following unavoidable significant impacts which would not be mitigated to a level below significance even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures:
• Direct/project impacts on GHG emissions and climate change; noise and vibration; and transportation, circulation, and parking; and • Cumulative impacts on GHG emissions and climate change; and transportation, circulation, and parking.

The Final EIR also examined a range of reasonable alternatives to determine whether they could meet the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the proposed project’s significant impacts. The EIR analyzed four alternatives to the proposed project: (1) the No Project Alternative, (2) the No Waterside Development in Sweetwater Channel Alternative, (3) GB Capital Component Phase 1 Only Alternative, and (4) Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. Detailed information and analysis concerning these alternatives are set forth in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

In considering the feasibility of the alternatives evaluated in the EIR, the District examined the project objectives and weighed the ability of each alternative to meet these objectives. The objectives of the project are set forth in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 3.3, Project Objectives as follows:2

1. Further activate the project site by modifying the land uses and their configurations to foster the development of high-quality commercial and recreational uses to maximize employment opportunities, maximize recreational opportunities for visitors, maximize economic development opportunities, and improve cargo and transportation efficiencies of maritime industrial uses associated with operations at NCMT.

2. Reconfigure maritime and commercial uses to balance the anticipated 2 Objective 9, expand aquaculture potential on District tidelands, was removed because GB Capital withdrew its request for aquaculture from the proposed project.

Page 138 of 222 ends

Page 127 of 137 ends

future market demands for those uses, while also increasing public access on the project site.

3. Implement cohesive commercial development that is designed to enhance enjoyment of the National City Marina District and surrounding city area, contribute to the area’s economic vitality, and generate economic revenue for the City including through increased Transient Occupancy Tax.

4. Increase park space and recreational opportunities to enhance the waterfront experience for all visitors and maximize opportunities to attract tourism to the city.

5. Reduce unnecessary train movements and reduce the required effort associated with building daily trains by improving near-terminal rail storage capacity and creating a more direct connection between the BNSF Railway National City Yard and the NCMT.

6. Offset the loss of existing land used for maritime operations, as proposed in the Balanced Plan, by closing internal District streets (i.e., Tidelands Avenue and West 28th Street) adjacent to existing maritime operations to create contiguous space for maritime operations and configuring cargo operations at and adjacent to the NCMT to create cargo-handling efficiencies to reduce cargo movements.

7. Incorporate District properties into the PMP that are not currently regulated by the PMP to ensure consistency with the California Coastal Act, Public Trust Doctrine, and Port Act.

8. Be consistent with the City’s environmental policies and the District’s Climate Action Plan, Clean Air Program, and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program to ensure that the proposed project does not adversely affect the District’s or City’s ability to attain their respective long-range environmental and sustainability goals.

10. Incorporate a land use pattern for the National City Marina District into the PMP that establishes habitat buffers and implements operational features to avoid land use and operational inconsistencies between commercial, recreational, open space, and maritime uses.

11. Integrate National City art, culture, and history into the development of the proposed project.

12. Increase the connectivity of the project area to the surrounding area and facilitate increased pedestrian activity and enjoyment of San Diego Bay for visitors.

The findings below describe the alternatives examined in Volume 2, Chapter 7 of

Page 139 of 222 ends

Page 128 of 137 ends

the EIR, discuss their ability to avoid or substantially lessen any of the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, and determine whether they are feasible. Based on the substantial evidence contained in the record of these proceedings, the District hereby finds that the alternatives analyzed in the EIR which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the unavoidable significant impacts of the project are infeasible for the reasons set forth below.

6.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines §15126(d)(2)) to discuss and analyze potential impacts that would occur if the project was not implemented. The No Project Alternative serves as the alternative to compare the effects of the proposed project and other project alternatives on the existing conditions.

Under the No Project Alternative, the site would operate in its current state, and the land use redesignations associated with the Balanced Plan would not occur.

Tidelands Avenue between Bay Marina Drive on the north and 32nd Street on the south and West 28th Street between Quay Avenue and Tidelands Avenue would still function as roadways, and no Pasha rail improvements would occur. The existing Pier 32 Marina would not be expanded to include overnight accommodations, moorings, floating docks, and piers. The alternate Segment 5 of the Bayshore Bikeway would not be developed, and the existing Segment 5 on Tidelands Avenue and 32nd Street would remain in place. Pepper Park would not be expanded. In addition, the following would not be built: recreational vehicle (RV) resort, dry boat storage, and modular cabins; two-story building with restrooms, laundry facilities, and staff support services; maintenance building and yard; public access corridors; view corridors; or hotels (up to four). In addition, the City Program – Plan Amendments Component—which includes amendments to the City’s General Plan, LCP, Harbor District Specific Area Plan, and Land Use Code for seven parcels north of Bay Marina Drive and development of a five-story hotel with retail and restaurant space—would not be implemented and future development would not occur.

The potential impacts of the No Project Alternative are discussed in detail in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Section

7.5.1). Because the proposed project would not be implemented, the No Project Alternative would avoid or substantially reduce the unavoidable significant impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change; noise and vibration; and traffic, circulation, and parking.

However, the No Project Alternative is not a feasible alternative as defined by CEQA because it would not meet any of the project objectives, which include further activating the project site by modifying the land use and their configurations to foster the development of high-quality commercial and recreational uses, maximizing employment, recreational, and economic development opportunities, and improving cargo and transportation efficiencies of maritime industrial uses associated with operations at NCMT.

Page 140 of 222 ends

Page 129 of 137 ends

The District finds that the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project’s objectives and would preclude obtaining the benefits of the project. The District finds that all potential significant environmental impacts of the project will be mitigated by the design of the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the Project’s significant impacts on GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and traffic, circulation, and parking. The District further finds that, although the No Project Alternative would avoid or substantially lessen these significant potential impacts, the No Project alternative is infeasible because it would not attain any of the project objectives and would not provide the District and the region with any of the benefits of the project described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and thus would be undesirable from a policy standpoint. For the potential significant impacts which cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance, therefore, the District adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093.

6.2 Alternative 2 – No Waterside Development in Sweetwater Channel Alternative
Alternative 2 would include the land use redesignations associated with the Balanced Plan; most of the GB Capital Component, including construction and operation of an RV park, modular cabins, dry boat storage, and up to four hotels; the Pasha Rail Improvement Component, including construction and operation of a rail connector track and storage track; the Pasha Road Closures Component; the Bayshore Bikeway Component, including development of Segment 5 of the Bayshore Bikeway; and the City Program – Development Component, including construction and operation of hotel, restaurant, retail, and/or a combination of tourist-/visitor-serving commercial development north of Bay Marina Drive.

However, under Alternative 2, the Pier 32 Marina would not be expanded into Sweetwater Channel, which would avoid potential impacts on eelgrass, an essential fish habitat. Alternative 2 would include the proposed waterside Pier 32 Marina improvements of constructing an approximately 580-foot-long and 8-footwide dock with two 80-foot-long and 5-foot-wide gangways within the existing Pier 32 Marina basin north of the jetty.

The potential impacts of the No Waterside Development in Sweetwater Channel Alternative are discussed in detail in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Section 7.5.2). This alternative would slightly reduce impacts associated with biological resources (i.e., avoiding removal of eelgrass and reducing pile-driving noise impacts on wildlife) compared to the project because of the elimination of construction activities within Sweetwater Channel.

All other impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant impacts of the project related to GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and transportation, circulation and parking.

The No Waterside Development in Sweetwater Channel Alternative would also not meet the project objectives associated with the development and operation of the

Page 141 of 222 ends

Page 130 of 137 ends

project. Alternative 2 would meet Objectives #1, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 by modifying the land uses and their configurations to further activate the project area.

Alternative 2 would only meet a portion of Objectives #2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 by reconfiguring maritime and commercial uses while increasing public access in the project area to eliminate impediments, such as existing roads and non-contiguous land use configurations; fostering the development of high-quality commercial uses and increasing park space and recreational opportunities; and ensuring consistency with the Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program.

The District finds that all potential significant environmental impacts of the project will be mitigated by the design of the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the project’s significant impacts on GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and traffic, circulation, and parking. The District further finds that the No Waterside Development in Sweetwater Channel Alternative is not a feasible alternative as defined by CEQA because it would not avoid or substantially lessen the project’s potential unavoidable significant impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and transportation, circulation and parking. The District further finds that this alternative is not a feasible alternative because it would partially meet Objectives # 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12, but not to the same extent as the project because it would not provide as much recreational and visitorserving opportunities, public access and meet market demand. This alternative also would not provide the District and the region with all of the benefits of the project described above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations to the same extent as the project and thus would be undesirable from a policy standpoint.

For the potential significant impacts which cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance, therefore, the District adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093.

6.3 Alternative 3 – GB Capital Component Phase 1 Only Alternative Alternative 3 would include the land use redesignations associated with the Balanced Plan; the Pasha Rail Improvement Component, including construction and operation of a rail connector track and storage track; the Pasha Road Closures Component; the Bayshore Bikeway Component, including development of Segment 5 of the Bayshore Bikeway; and the City Program – Development Component, including construction and operation of hotel, restaurant, retail, and/or a combination of tourist-/visitor-serving commercial development north of Bay Marina Drive. However, only Phase 1 of the GB Capital Component would be included. Phase 2 of the GB Capital Component would be eliminated.

Consequently, construction and operation of the following elements would not occur: an up-to-three-story hotel with as many as 40 rooms generally on Parcel B1 of the Balanced Plan; an up-to-four-story building, including approximately 16,500 square feet of retail space and a hotel with up to 60 rooms on Parcel B6 of the Balanced Plan; an up-to-11-story hotel with up to 282 rooms on Parcel B3 of the

Page 142 of 222 ends

Page 131 of 137 ends

Balanced Plan; and an up-to-four-story hotel with up to 81 rooms on Parcel B3 of the Balanced Plan.

The potential impacts of the GB Capital Component Phase 1 Only Alternative are discussed in detail in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Section 7.5.3). This alternative would slightly reduce impacts associated with GHG emissions compared to the project because of the elimination of the development of up to four hotels. Although activities that have the potential to generate significant GHG emissions would be reduced, all other project components would be constructed and operated, would not meet the numerical efficiency targets in 2025 or 2050, and would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable District and City CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations. Overall, under Alternative 3, impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change would be reduced compared to those of the project, but would still remain significant.

Alternative 3 would also reduce noise and vibration impacts associated with construction of four hotels, including the pile driving that would be required to support those buildings. Alternative 3 would eliminate the significant onsite rail noise impacts at adjacent hotel locations and would incrementally reduce traffic noise levels by reducing the number of visitors to the hotel. All other impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project. Alternative 3 would not eliminate the remaining impacts predicted at onsite noise-sensitive receptors due to traffic, rail, and operational noise, or at offsite locations due to project mechanical equipment. The project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to rail noise exposure at the proposed RV sites at the GB Capital Component, and operational noise from the proposed dry boat storage facility, would remain unchanged.

Although Alternative 3 would not include Phase 2 of the GB Capital Component, this alternative would include development of all waterside components of the proposed project and a majority of the landside components. As such, Alternative 3 would still generate vehicle trips and total VMT from these uses, but the amount of vehicle trips and total VMT generated would be reduced compared to the project due to the elimination of four hotels under this alternative. However, while total VMT would be reduced under this alternative, it is anticipated that Alternative 3 would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT after mitigation because the ratio of VMT per employee and per visitor would not improve, similar to under the proposed project. Additionally, Alternative 3 would result in significant impacts associated with inadequate emergency access during construction, as well as insufficient parking during construction and insufficient parking for terminal employees during operations that could lead to a decrease in public coastal access.

Because the extent of construction would be reduced under Alternative 3, construction-related impacts on emergency access and parking supply would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. Similar to those of the proposed project, however, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation identified in Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Page 143 of 222 ends

Page 132 of 137 ends

The GB Capital Component Phase 1 Only Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives associated with the development and operation of the project.

Alternative 3 would meet Objectives #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 by modifying the land uses and their configurations to further activate the project area; however, activation would be reduced with the absence of up to four hotels. Alternative 3 would only meet a portion of Objectives #2, 8, 10 11, and 12 by increasing public access in the project area to eliminate impediments, such as existing roads and non-contiguous land use configurations; increasing park space and recreational opportunities; and ensuring consistency with the Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program.

The District finds that the GB Capital Component Phase 1 Only Alterative is not a feasible alternative as defined by CEQA because it would not avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant impacts of the project related to GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and transportation, circulation and parking.

The District further finds that this alternative is not a feasible alternative because it would partially meet Objectives # 2, 8, 10, 11 and 12, but not to the same extent as the project because activation of the project area would be reduced by the absence of up to four hotels. This alternative also would not provide the District and the region with all of the benefits of the project described above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations to the same extent as the project and thus would be undesirable from a policy standpoint. The District further finds that all potential significant environmental impacts of the project will be mitigated by the design of the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the project’s significant impacts on GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and traffic, circulation, and parking. For the potential significant impacts which cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance, therefore, the District adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093.

6.4 Alternative 4 – Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Under Alternative 4, the overall development intensity within the GB Capital Component would be reduced by approximately 50% by reducing the number of hotel rooms. Specifically, the height of the 11-story hotel and number of rooms proposed for that hotel would be reduced to six stories and 140 rooms; the threestory, 40-room hotel would be eliminated; and that area would continue in its current use as a small grassy area and putting green for Pier 32 Marina. The reduction in the size of the features would enable the expansion of the Central Promenade extending from the existing Marina Way alignment to the viewpoint at Pier 32 from a 24-foot width to a 30-foot width. Similarly, under this alternative, the height of the five-story hotel and number of hotel rooms proposed for the City Program – Development Component would be reduced to a three-story hotel with 75 rooms.

All other project components would be the same as under the project, including the land use redesignations associated with the Balanced Plan, a portion of the GB Capital Component (i.e., construction and operation of dry boat storage), the Pasha Rail Improvement Component (i.e., construction and operation of a rail connector track and storage track), the Pasha Road Closures Component, and one route of

Page 144 of 222 ends

Page 133 of 137 ends

the Bayshore Bikeway Component (i.e., development of Segment 5 of the Bayshore Bikeway).

The potential impacts of the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative are discussed in detail in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Section 7.5.4). Alternative 4 reduces the second-largest number of significant impacts and is considered the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternative 4 would reduce the height of the hotels and number of rooms proposed under the GB Capital Component and reduce the height of the five-story hotel and number of hotel rooms as part of the City Program – Development Component, which would reduce impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality and health risk, GHG emissions, noise and vibration, and transportation, circulation, and parking.

The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in construction and operational sources similar to those of the project, but in lesser quantities because Alternative 4 includes reduced intensity and less development than the proposed project. Similar to under the project, however, project components would not meet the numerical efficiency targets in 2025 or 2050 and would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable District and City CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations prior to mitigation identified in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. Therefore, although Alternative 4 would result in slightly reduced GHG impacts compared to the project, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would eliminate some noise and vibration associated with construction. It would also reduce the intensity and/or duration of construction at the GB Capital Component. However, these sites would be a large distance from the closest offsite noise-sensitive receptors and, therefore, Alternative 4 would not change the predicted significant construction impacts at offsite locations. The reduced intensity of visitor accommodations would incrementally reduce traffic noise levels by reducing the number of visitors to the GB Capital Component and Pier 32 Marina. However, this alternative would not eliminate the remaining impacts predicted at onsite noise-sensitive receptors due to traffic, rail, and operational noise, or at offsite locations due to project mechanical equipment. Although slightly reduced when compared to the project, overall noise and vibration impacts under Alternative 4 would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in a reduced number of hotel rooms and reduced vehicle trips and total VMT due to the decrease in overall development intensity under this alternative. However, while total VMT would be reduced under this alternative, it is anticipated that Alternative 4 would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT after mitigation because the ratio of VMT per employee and per visitor would not improve. Additionally, Alternative 4 would result in significant impacts associated with inadequate emergency access during construction and operation, as well as insufficient parking during construction and insufficient parking for terminal employees during operations that could lead to

Page 145 of 222 ends

Page 134 of 137 ends

a decrease in public coastal access. Because the extent of construction would be reduced under Alternative 4, construction-related impacts on emergency access and parking supply would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. Similar to those of the proposed project, however, these impacts would be reduced to lessthan-significant levels with mitigation measures identified in Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking. Overall, Alternative 4 would have slightly reduced impacts on transportation, circulation, and parking when compared to the project, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives. It would meet Objectives # 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. The reduction of hotel heights and number of hotel rooms proposed by this alternative would only partially meet Objectives #1, 3, 8, and 12 by modifying land uses and their configurations to further activate the project area. This alternative would fail to meet Objective #1 by failing to maximize employment opportunities and resulting in economic impacts associated with the proposed hotel development. Objective #3 would not be met in that the economic vitality of the project and its revenue generation, including Transient Occupancy Tax, would be substantially compromised, possibly jeopardizing the feasibility of this portion of the project. This alternative would partially meet Objective #8 by ensuring consistency with the Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program. Objective #12 would only be partially met because the reduced number of hotel rooms would result in less fewer visitors and less pedestrian activity and enjoyment of San Diego Bay for visitors.

The District finds that the Reduced Development Intensity Alterative is not a feasible alternative as defined by CEQA because it would not avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant impacts of the project related to GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and transportation, circulation and parking. The District further finds that this alternative is not a feasible alternative because it would not achieve several of the fundamental objectives of the project to the same extent as the project. With the reduced number of hotel rooms, fewer economic development opportunities would occur and less transient occupancy tax would be collected and Alternative 4 would only partially meet Objectives #1 and #3, respectively. It would only partially meet Objective #8 because it would only ensure consistency with the Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program. With fewer hotel rooms, there also would be fewer visitor-serving opportunities and enjoyment of the Bay by visitors, resulting in Alternative 4 only partially meeting Objective #12. This alternative also would not provide the District and the region with all of the benefits of the project described above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations to the same extent as the project, and thus would be undesirable from a policy standpoint. The District further finds that all potential significant environmental impacts of the project will be mitigated by the design of the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the project’s significant impacts on GHG emissions and climate change, noise and vibration, and traffic, circulation, and parking. For the potential significant impacts which cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below

Page 146 of 222 ends

Page 135 of 137 ends

significance, therefore, the District adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project would have significant environmental impacts on the following areas after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, which are described in detail in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 4, Environmental Impacts, and Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts:
• Project/direct impacts on GHG emissions and climate change; noise and vibration; and transportation, circulation, and parking; and • Cumulative impacts on GHG emissions and climate change; and transportation, circulation, and parking.

The District analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project/No Build Alternative, the No Waterside Development in Sweetwater Channel Alternative, the GB Capital Component Phase 1 Only Alternative, and the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. Based on the evidence contained in the EIR and presented during the administrative proceedings, the District determined that none of the alternatives is feasible because they would not avoid or substantially reduce the unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project and would not meet all or some of the fundamental objectives to the same extent as the project.

Therefore, the Board of Port Commissioners of the District has adopted the proposed project.

Notwithstanding the unavoidable significant environmental impacts of the projects, CEQA allows the District to approve the project as proposed. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15043 and 15093, the District must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to approve the proposed project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a lead agency to consider the specific economic, social, or other expected benefits of a project in order to determine whether these benefits outweigh the project’s potential unavoidable significant environmental risks.

Although the District has no obligation under CEQA to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant impacts that will be mitigated to a level below significance, the District wishes to make clear its determination that the benefits of the approved project described below are of such importance to the community and the region as to outweigh all significant adverse impacts described in the EIR or suggested by participants in the public review process.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093, the District hereby finds that the proposed project would have the following benefits and that each of the following benefits is sufficient, on its own, to justify adoption of the proposed project:
• The project will advance the goal articulated in the Port’s mission statement that provides: “While protecting the Tidelands Trust resources, the Port will

Page 147 of 222 ends

Page 136 of 137 ends

balance economic benefits, community services, environmental stewardship, and public safety on behalf of the citizens of California.” The project will provide a stimulus to the local and regional economy through the creation of temporary and permanent jobs for the construction and operation of the hotels, restaurant, retail development, RV park, dry boat storage, and expanded marina components of the project. In addition, the public access areas and expanded Pepper Park would be available for future visitor and public uses that will provide community services to residents and visitors to the San Diego region and National City. • The project would further the District’s commitment to lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. The project proposes to improve the existing Pepper Park and expand Pepper Park by 2.5 acres. Pepper Park is a recreational facility that is free and accessible to the public; and after the park expansion it would remain free and accessible to the public. The project would also implement several recreational opportunities, including bicycle and pedestrian paths. In addition, the project would expand Pepper Park in order to attract more visitors. Further, the overnight accommodations included in the proposed project are anticipated to be lower-cost because the National City hotel market is a lower cost market as compared to the City of San Diego. The overnight accommodations (e.g., hotels, motels) currently operating in National City have average daily rates below $100.00. The proposed overnight accommodations included with the proposed project will reflect the local hotel market conditions.
• The project will stimulate economic growth for the District, the City of National City, and the overall region by paying leasing fees to the District, creating hotel tax revenues for the City, and by providing a hotel for overnight accommodations to visitors to the San Diego region and National City that will contribute to the local economy.
• The project will increase employment opportunities within the region by providing approximately 211 temporary jobs during construction and approximately 437 jobs during operation of the components of the project. • The project would provide a connection to the regional bikeway network, create a safer environment for bicyclists, and support the implementation of SANDAG’s Regional Bike Plan through the construction of Segment 5 of the Bayshore Bikeway.
• The project would incorporate a parcel into the Port Master Plan that is owned by the District and the District should have land use jurisdiction over but is currently in the City’s Local Costal Program.

The District has weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its potential unavoidable significant environmental risks in determining whether to adopt it as the approved project. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, the Board of Port Commissioners has determined

Page 148 of 222 ends

Page 137 of 137 ends

that the specific benefits identified above outweigh the significant unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. Each of the benefits and the fulfillment of the objectives of the approved project, as stated herein, is determined to be a separate and independent basis for overriding the unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified above. For the foregoing reasons, the District finds that the proposed project’s potentially significant unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by the benefits described above.

Page 149 of 222 ends

National City City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

National City City Council
March 21, 2023