National City City Council
April 4, 2023

publ
ic roads.
• Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
• Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred.
• Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads.
• Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow- off during hauling.
• Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
• Cover/water onsite stockpiles of excavated material.
• Enforce a 15 mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
• On dry days, sweep up any dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce re- suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Clean approach routes to construction sites daily for construction-related dirt in dry weather.
• Hydroseed, landscape, or develop as quickly as possible all disturbed areas and as directed by the District and/or SDAPCD to reduce dust generation. • Limit the daily grading volumes/area.

The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for each component shall submit evidence of the use of fugitive dust reduction measures to the District or City after the completion of construction.

MM-AQ-4: Use Low-VOC Interior and Exterior Coatings During Construction (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component). To control VOC e missions during any painting activities during construction, the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for all phases of GB Capital Component (Phase 1 and Phase 2) and City Program – Development Component shall use low-VOC coatings for all surfaces that go beyond the requirements of SDAPCD Rule 67.0. If architectural coatings (painting) of any single component or multiple components would exceed 10,000 square feet per day, then each project component active on that day shall use coatings with a VOC content of 10 grams per liter or less for all surfaces to be painted. If architectural coatings (painting) of any single component or multiple components would be below 10,000 square feet per day, then each component shall use coatings with a VOC content of 75 grams per liter or less. Prior to the commencement of construction activities associated with the GB Capital Component, the project proponent shall submit a list of coatings to be used, their respective VOC content, and a summary of surface area to be painted to the District’s Development Services Department. Prior to the commencement of construction activities associated with the City Program – Development Component, the project proponent shall submit a list of coatings to be used, their respective VOC content, and a summary of surface area to be painted to the City’s Community Development Depart ment. The District and City, for their respective jurisdictions, may conduct inspections during construction to

v
erify the use of low-VOC coatings.

MM
-AQ-5: Use Modern Harbor Craft During Construction Activities (GB Capital Component). Prior to commencing any waterside construction or activities, the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the GB Capital Component shall ensure that any harbor craft, including but not limited to tugboats, pusher tugs, tow boats, work boats, crew boats, and supply boats for use during the duration of any in-water work, shall meet the following criteria:
• F
or all construction between 2022 and 2025, ensure all equipment is Tier 3 or better (cleaner).
• For all construction after 2025, ensure all equipment is alternatively fueled or electrically powered. If alternatively fueled or electrically powered equipment that emits less emission than Tier 4 or better (cleaner) is not available, then the project proponent shall ensure all equipment is Tier 4 or better.
• Use renewable diesel fuel in all heavy -duty off -road diesel -fueled equipment. Renewable diesel must mee t the most recent ASTM D975 specification for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50% of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum diesel fuels sold in California.

If clean harbor craft are not available within 200 miles of the project site for the duration of all dredging activities, the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the GB Capital Component shall prioritize use of equipment that is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.

The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the GB Capital Component shall document and submit evidence to the District’s Development Services Department and/or the City’s Community Development Department prior to commencement of waterside construction activities, that equipment meeting the above tiering requirements or better standards is not available for use during the duration of all in- water activities. Regardless of the equipment used, the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for each component shall verify that all equipment has been checked by a mechanic experienced with such equipment and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into the construction area. The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for each component shall submit a report prepared by the mechanic experienced with such equipment of the condition of the construction and operations vehicles and equipment to the District’s Development Services Department and/or the City’s Community Development Department prior to commencement of their use.

M
M-AQ-6: Stagger Overlapping Construction Phases and Components (All Project Components). Each project proponent/operator and/or its contrac tor(s) shall submit a construction schedule and assumed construction activity at least 3 months prior to the start of construction to the District and City. If grading and waterside construction activities (associated with GB Capital Component Phase 1)

a
re to take place at the same time, they shall be reduced or staggered as to not to exceed daily air quality thresholds and such reduction or staggering shall be a condition of grading and building permits. However, multiple project components’ grading may take place at the same time. The District and City, for their respective jurisdictions, may conduct inspections during construction to verify activity.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce potential impacts from construc tion-related emissions to less -than-significant levels, as shown in Tables 4.2- 18 through 4.2- 23 in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Health Risk, of Volume 2 of the EIR, by implementing measures and practices that reduce emissions and limit the overlap of activities associated with separate projects and project components.

4.2.3 Impact-AQ-3: Emissions in Excess of Criteria Pollutant Thresholds During Proposed Project Operation (GB Capital Component, City Program Component, and Balanced Plan)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on air quality and health risk (Impact-AQ-3) resulting unmitigated emissions during project operation exceeding criteria pollutant thresholds for volatile organic compound (VOC) and particulate matter (PM)10. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.2, 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 identified as Impact-AQ-3 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on air quality and health risk (Impact-AQ-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.2, Air Quality and Health Risk. Potential Impact-AQ-3 would result from emissions during the operation of the GB Capital Component, City Program Component, and the Balanced Plan exceeding the VOC and PM10 thresholds that have been set to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS . The major component of VOC and PM10 emissions during operation are woodburning hearths and fireplaces that may be attributed to RV park uses.

The potentially significant impact on air quality and health risk (Impact-AQ-3) would be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of mitigation measure MM- A
Q-7: Restrict Installation of Fireplaces and Firepits in New Construction , which is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR . This mitigation measure is discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Health Risk, of Volume 2 of the EIR and provides as follows:

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). The

proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) of the City Program – Development Component, the GB Capital Component, and the Balanced Plan shall ensure that no outdoor woodburning s toves, fireplaces, or fir epits are installed, and all fireplaces and firepits shall be fueled by natural gas. The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s ) for each component shall submit evidence that no outdoor woodburning stoves, fireplaces, or firepits are wood-b urning to the District (or City for City Program), and the District (or City for City Program) may conduct inspec tions during construction to verify the details that were submitted are accurate.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ-7 would reduce potential impacts associated with emissions from the operation of the proposed project to a less-t han-significant level, as shown in Table 4.2-2 4 in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Health Risk, of Volume 2 of the EIR, by restricting the installation of fireplaces and firepits in new construction.

4.2.4 Impact-A Q-4: Health Effects During Construction (All Project
Components)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on human health risk (Impact-A Q-4) from project-related emissions during construction exceeding applic able significance thres holds for VOC, PM10, PM2.5, nitrogen oxide (NO X), and carbon monoxide (CO).

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially signific ant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.2, 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 s ignificant environmental effect on air quality and health r isk identified as Impact-AQ-4 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on air quality and health risk (Impact-A Q-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.2, Air Quality and Health Risk. Potential Impact-AQ-4 would result from unmitigated project emis sions during construction exceeding applicable significance thresholds that have been set to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, the purpose of which is to pr ovide for the protection of public health.

The potentially significant impact on air quality and health (Impact-AQ-4) would be reduced to below a level of s ignificance by implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2: Implement Diesel Emission-R eduction Measures During Construction (All Project Components), MM-A Q-3:

Implement Fugitive Dust Control During Constr uction (All Project Components), MM-AQ-4: Use Low-V OC Interior and Exterior Coatings During Construction (GB Capital Com ponent and City Program – Development Component), MM -AQ-5: Use Modern Harbor Cr aft During Construction Activities (GB Capital Com ponent), and MM-A Q-6: Stagger Overlapping Construction Phases and Components (All Project Com ponents). These mitigation measures are set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table

2-3 in the Executive Summary and ar e discussed in Secti on 4.2, Air Q uality and Health Risk, in Volume 2 of the Final EIR.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce potential health impacts from construction- related emissions to less- than- significant levels by implementing measures and practices that reduce emissions and limiting the overlap of activities associated with separate projects and project components.

4.3 Biological R esources

4.3.1 Impact -BIO-1: Impacts on Estuary S eablite D uring Construction (Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-1) related to construction activities that could result in direct mortality of estuary seablite, a special-status plant species. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-1 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potential ly significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 3, Biological Resources . Potential Impact -BIO-1 would result from indirect effects, such as trampling or other inadvertent impacts on estuary seablite during construction due to the plant’s proximity to the work areas for the Bayshore Bikeway Component.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-1) would be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of m itigation measure MM -BIO-1: Conduct Surveys and Monitoring for Estuary Seablite (Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3) . 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-BIO-1: Conduct Surveys and Monitoring for Estuary Seablite (Bayshore Bikeway Component 3): An authorized biologist shall be present onsite during construction within or adjacent to suitable habitat for estuary seablite to ensure that avoidance and minimization measures are in place according to specifications and to monitor construction in the vicinity of the estuary seablite population at a frequency necessary to ensure that avoidance and minimization measures are followed properly. The biological monitor shall report any noncompliance to CDFW within 24 hours.

B
efore ground disturbance or other activities as sociated with construction of

Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3, a qualified botanist shall survey all proposed construction and access areas for presence of special -status plant species. Preconstruction surveys shall occur during the appropriate season and in accordance with established protocols up to 1 year in advance of construction, provided temporary construction easements have been granted to construction areas. These surveys shall be conducted in all construction areas that contain suitable habitat for special -status plant species. These surveys shall be for the purpose of documenting plant locations relative to the construction areas and ensure avoidance, where feasible. I f construction starts prior to the appropriate season, and it is unfeasible to conduct preconstruction surveys, then plant documentation for avoidance and ESA fencing shall rely on previous population locations.

Populations of estuary seablite or other special- status plant species observed during these surveys shall be clearly mapped and recorded, along with the approximate numbers of individuals in each population and their respective conditions. Construction areas and construction access roads shall avoid loss of individual estuary seablite and other special status species.

M
M-BIO-1 requires (1) a qualified botanist to conduct a preconstruction survey to document the location of special-status plant species and ensure avoidance, and (2) an authorized biologist to be present onsite during construction within or adjacent to suitable habitat for estuary seablite to ensure that avoidance and minimization measures are in place and followed properly. I mplementation of mitigation measure MM -BIO-1 would reduce inadvertent impact s on estuary seablite (Impact -BIO-1) to less- than-significant levels by requiring surveys, monitoring, and avoidance measures when construction activities occur in close proximity to habitat for this species.

4.3.2 Impact -BIO-3: Impacts on N esting A vian S pecies (GB C apital Component and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact -BIO-3) from construction- related noise (e.g., grading, site preparation) in close proximity to salt marsh habitats supporting Belding’s S avannah sparrow or light -footed Ridgway’s rail and in- water construction near low-potential California least tern nesting habitat (although very low probability to occur) that could cause nest or chick abandonment. These impacts would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4. 3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-3 in the EIR.

Fa
cts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-3 would result from the noise from construction activity that could impede the use of bird nesting sites during the nesting season. Disturbance to nesting activity would be considered a significant impact in violation of the MBTA or CFGC.

Th
e potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-3) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-BIO-3: Avoid Avian Species During the Breeding Season. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and in Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM
-BIO-3: Avoid Construction within 300 Feet of Avian Species During the Breeding Season (GB Capital Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3). All project construction activities occurring within 300 feet of salt marsh habitat (e.g., portions of Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3 and some of the GB Capital Component) shall take place outside of the light -footed Ridgway’s rail and Belding’s Savannah sparrow breeding season (i.e., February 15– September 15); no construction work shall occur within 300 feet of the marsh during this time period.

T
o ensure protection of California least terns nesting at the D Street colony, project proponents shall avoid impact pile during the least tern nesting season. The nesting season for California least terns is defined here as April 1 through September 15.

MM
-BIO-3 requires all construction activities occurring within 300 feet of salt marsh habitat to take place outside of the light -footed Ridgway’s rail and Belding’s Savannah sparrow breeding season (i.e., February 15– September 15 ).

Implementation of mitigation measure MM -BIO-3 would reduce the biological resources impact associated with disturbance to nesting activity (Impact-BIO-3) to less-than-significant levels by requiring that the start of construction activities occurs outside of the breeding season for light-footed Ridgway’s rail and Belding’s Savannah sparrow.

4.3.3 Impact-BIO-4: Impacts on Nesting Osprey (Pepper Park Expansion, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Roadway Configuration in Balanced Plan)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-B IO-4) associated with construction-related noise in close proximity to ospr ey nests, such as those proposed for the Pepper Park Expansion, Pasha Rail Improv ement Component, and roadway improvements envisioned in the Balanced Plan that could cause nest or chick abandonment.

These impacts would be incons istent with the MBTA or CFGC. Detailed

i
nformation and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-4 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact -BIO-4 would result from construction activities could generate noise that has the potential to cause nest or chick abandonment.

Th
e potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-4) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM -BIO-4:

Avoid Impacts on Osprey During Nesting Season (January 15– June 15) . 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
-BIO-4: Avoid Impacts on Osprey During Nesting Season (January 15 –June 15) (Pepper Park Expansion and Roadway Configuration in Balanced Plan, and Pasha Rail Improvement Component). To ensure nesting ospreys are not disturbed, the project proponent for the Balanced Plan (specifically, the roadway improvements and Pepper Park expansion), as well as the project proponent for the Pasha Rail Improvement Component, shall avoid all noise- generating construction activities during the osprey nesting season (Januar y 15 –June 15) within all proposed construction areas or shall implement all of the following:
• S
urveys of historical nest locations maintained by the District shall be conducted to determine current occupancy status within 72 hours prior to construction/onset of noise-generating activities. If nests are occupied, or if the nest occupancy cannot be determined due to the height of the nest, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an avoidance buffer of sufficient size to avoid impacts on the nest. The project biologist shall determine the size of the avoidance buffer based on behavioral observations, ambient versus construction- related noise, and other data gathered during nest monitoring. All work within the avoidance buffer shall cease until the nesting cycle is complete. • Surveys of all potential osprey nest locations, including existing utility poles, shall be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction/ onset of noise- generating activities within 500 feet of any proposed work areas where noise-generating activities could affect nest success. These surveys could be conducted concurrent with those anticipated under MM-BIO-5 for MBTA avian species or conducted separately.

If nests are occupied, or if the nest occupancy cannot be determ ined due to the

hei
ght of the nest, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an avoidance buffer of sufficient size to avoid impacts on the nest. The project biologist shall determine the size of the avoidance buffer based on behavioral observations, ambient versus construction- related noise, and other data gathered during nest monitoring. All work within the avoidance buffer shall cease until the nesting cycle is complete.

MM
-BIO-4 requires the project propon ent to avoid all n oise-generating construction activities during the osprey nesting season (January 15 – June 15) within all proposed construction areas or to retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and flag and map occupied nest locations and avoidance buffers on the construction plans. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO- 4 would reduce the impact related to construction noise causing potential osprey nest or chick abandonment (Impact-BIO-4) to less -than-significant levels by requiring that the start of construction activities occurs outside of the osprey breeding and nesting season or by implementing preconstruction surveys, construction avoidance and minimization measures (e.g., avoidance buffers), and monitoring.

4.3.4 Impact-BIO-5: Potential Disturbance or Destruction of Nests Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CFGC (Pepper Park Expansion and Roadway Configuration in Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-5) from the removal of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat during construction, as well as noise from construction activity, which could impede the use of bird breeding sites during the nesting season (February 15–September 15). The destruc tion of an occupied nes t would be considered a significant impact if it were a violation of the MBTA or CFGC. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in V olume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved pr oject that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environm ental effect on biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-5 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impac t of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-5) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-B IO-5 would result from active nests being destroyed or abandoned (e.g., due to human dis turbance or noise) during construction, such as vegetation removal, grading, or site- preparation activities.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-5) would be reduced to below a lev el of significance by mitigation measure MM-B IO-5: Avoid Impacts on MBTA Avian S pecies, Including Non-L isted Avian Species. This

m
itigation 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
-BIO-5: Avoid Impacts on MBTA Avian Species, Including Non -Listed Avian Species (Pepper Park Expansion and Roadway Configuration in Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3). To ensure compliance with the MBTA and similar provisions under CFGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5, the project proponent for the Balanced Plan (specifically, roadway improvements, Pepper Park expansion), GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, and City Program – Development Component shall conduct all vegetation removal during the non- breeding season between September 15 and January 14 or shall implement the following:
• I
f construction activities are scheduled between January 15 and September 14, a biological survey for nesting bird species shall be conducted within the proposed impact area and at least a 300-foot buffer within 72 hours prior to construction. The nesting bird survey is applicable to all avian species protected under the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The number of surveys required for covering this area shall be commensurate with the schedule for construction and the acreage that shall be covered. Multiple surveys for nesting birds shall be separated by at least 48 hours in order to be confident that nesting is detected, but the survey shall be no more 72 hours prior to the onset of construction.
• If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an avoidance buffer of sufficient size to avoid impacts on the nest. The project biologist shall determine the size of the avoidance buffer based on behavioral observations, ambient versus construction-related noise, and other data gathered during nest monitoring.

All work within the avoidance buffer shall cease until the nesting cycle is complete.
• Nest b uffers, nest survey techniques, and nest monitoring requirements shall be determined based on the project proponent’s avian biologist. In accordance with this mitigation measure, nest buffers shall be implemented to ensure compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Additionally, if grading activities, construction activities, or other noise-generating activities lapse for more than 48 hours, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted. The results of the nesting bird surveys and buffers, including any determinations to reduce buffers, shall be included in a monitoring report submitted to the project proponent.
• If a nesting bird management plan is required as part of the site- specific impact analysis and mitigation for a particular component, then the parameters in this mitigation measure shall be applied as the minimum requirements for that particular component. More restrictive measures than these can be stipulated in the nesting bird management plan for that

particular project component.

Implementation of MM -BIO-5 would reduce impacts on common and special - status avian species during construction activities (Impact -BIO-5) to less- than- significant levels by requiring that the start of construction activities occurs outside of the breeding and nesting season or implementing construction measures and conducting preconstruction surveys in accordance with the MBTA and similar provisions under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the CFGC.

4.3.5 Impact -BIO-6: Bat Roost Site Direct Impacts (GB Capital Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-6) related to removal or trimming of suitable roost trees, which could directly harm roosting bats, resulting in mortality of common or special -status bat species. These impacts could result in large bat mortality events and would be significant absent mitigation. Temporary indirect effects, such as noise, vibration, dust, and night lighting from construction, also could disturb roosting bats, should they be present within the area. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-6 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-6) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-6 would result from the removal or trimming of suitable roost trees, which could directly harm roosting bats, should they be present within the area during project construction.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-6) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM -BIO-6:

Conduct Surveys for Maternal Bat Roost Site Surveys and Avoid Seasonal Impacts. 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:

M
M-BIO-6: Conduct Surveys for Maternal Bat Roost Site Surveys and Avoid Seasonal Impacts (GB Capital Component and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3). Prior to the start of project construction on the GB Capital Component or

Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3, a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a daytime assessment to examine structures and trees suitable for bat use. If bat sign is observed at that time, then nighttime bat surveys shall be conducted to confirm whether the structures or trees with suitable habitat identified during the preliminary assessment are utilized by bats for day roosting or night roosting, ascertain the level of bat foraging and r
oosting activity at eac h of these locations,

and
perform exit counts to determine visually the approximate number of bats utilizing the roosts. Acoustic monitoring shall also be used during these surveys to identify the bat species present and determine an index of relative bat activity for that site on that specific evening.

I
f maternity sites are identified during the preconstruction bat habitat assessment, then no construction activities at that location shall be allowed during the maternity season (i.e., April 1– August 31) unless a qualified bat biologist has determined that the young have been weaned. If maternity sites are present, and it is anticipated that construction activities cannot be completed outside of the maternity season, then the qualified bat biologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall complete bat exclusion activities at maternity roost sites either as soon as possible after the young have been weaned or outside of the maternity season, or the qualified bat biologist, in coordination with CDFW, otherwise approves.

T
he removal of mature trees and snags shal l be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Prior to tree removal or trimming, qualified bat biologist shall examine large trees and snags to ensure that no roosting bats are present. Palm frond trimming, if necessary, shall be conducted outside the maternity season (i.e., April 1–August 31) to avoid potential mortality to flightless young and outside the bat hibernation season (November–February).

Implementation of MM-BIO-6 would avoid impacts on bat maternal roost colonies by requiring that project proponents survey for maternal bat roost sites and avoid impacts on these sites through seasonal avoidance or monitoring prior to the start of construction activities.

4.3.6 Impact-BIO-7: Potential Disruption of Fishes, Green Sea Turtle, and Marine Mammals and Altered Prey Availability to Sensitive Fish - Feeding Avian Species (GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant im pact on biological resources ( Impact-BIO-7) associated with impact-hammer and vibratory-hammer pile-driving activities that could potentially generate enough underwater noise to injure (Level A Harassment) or alter behavior (Level B Harassment) of green sea turtles, fishes, and marine mammals. Noise-generating impacts resulting from project c onstruction activ ities that cause fish to flee the project area could mean incr eased foraging distan ce for California least ter ns, resulting in lowered nes t s uccess for California least terns using the D Street nesting colony. The inc reased turbidity due to suspension of marine sediments during pile driving (impact, vibratory, jetting) or other sediment-disturbing activities can reduce the ability of fish-f eeding marine birds to c apture prey. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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

s
ubstantially lessen the significant environmental effect on biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-7 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-7) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact- BIO-7 would result from pile driving activities that could generate underwater noise that has the potential to injure (Level A Harassment) or alter behavior (Level B Harassment) of green sea turtles, fishes, and marine mammals.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-7) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM -BIO-7:

Avoidance of Impacts on Special -Status Wildlife During In- Water Construction Activities. 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
-BIO-7: Avoidance of Impacts on Spec ial-Status Wildlife During In- Water Construction Activities (GB Capital Component). During in- water pile installation, the contractor shall utilize pile jetting or vibratory methods (vibratory methods subject to additional measures below) to reduce the daily number of pile strikes to the extent practicable and must use fewer than 750 pile strikes per day to set pilings.

P
rior to construction activities involving impact-hammer and vibratory in-water pile driving, the project proponent shall prepare and implement a marine mammal, fish injury, and green sea turtle monitoring program such as a Marine Fish Species Impact Avoidance and Minimization Plan. The District shall review the monitoring program, which shall include the following requirements:
• F
or a period of 15 minutes prior to the start of in- water construction, a qualified biologist, retained by the project proponent (i.e., GB Capital) and approved by the District’s Director of Development Services or their designee, shall monitor around the active pile driving areas to ensure that special-status species are not present. Monitors shall also monitor for injured fish and have the authority to stop work if there is an observation of concern.
• The construction contractor shall not start work if any observations of special-status species are made prior to starting pile driving. • In-water pile driving shall begin with soft starts, gradually increasing the force of the pile driving. This allows marine mammals, green sea turtles, and fishes to flee areas adjacent to pile-driving activities. • All monitors must meet the minimum requirements as defined by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Guidance for Developing a Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (NOAA 2019). • Recommendations in the marine m ammal and green sea turtle monitoring program shall be consistent with the District’s Regional General Permit (RGP) 72.
• If the biological monitor determines that underwater noise is causing an

obs
ervable impact to any sensitive species, the biological monitor stop in- water construction or may require a bubble curtain be placed around pilings during impact driving to reduce the intensity of underwater sound pressure levels.
• A silt curtain shall be placed around the pile driving activity to restrict the distribution of turbidity associated with the re- suspension of marine sediments. The silt curtain shall be placed such that it does not drag on the bottom or contact eelgrass resources. In addition , the project proponent shall have a qualified contractor prepare and implement a water quality monitoring plan for the District’s review and approval to ensure that turbidity outside of the silt curtain does not increase more than 20% above ambient conditions during pile driving.
• The monitoring plan shall be implemented during all pile driving activities and be a part of any construction contracts of GB Capital’s in- water construction.

Implementation of MM-B IO-7 would reduce impacts on marine mammals , fishes, and green sea turtles (Impact-B IO-7) to less-t han-significant levels by monitoring for marine mammals and green sea turtles prior to and during impact-hammer and vibratory pile driving and halting in-water pile-driving activities until the species has left the construction area. MM-BIO-7 would also reduce impac ts on nesting California least tern to less than significant by ensuring that their prey (fish) is not disturbed during the nesting season by pile driving. Finally, MM-B IO-7 would reduce turbidity impacts on the foraging succes s of California brown pelican and other fish foraging marine birds to less than significant by maintaining water clarity and thereby allowing for foraging success similar to areas beyond the project area.

4.3.7 Impact-B IO-9: Reflective Materials and Increased Bird Strikes (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component) Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant im pact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-9) from the use of reflective building and glass finishes associated with hotel development, which may confuse birds in flight, leading to an increase in str ikes. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorpor ated in the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the s ignificant environmental effect on biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-9 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact-BIO-9) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-B IO-9 would result from the use of reflective building and glass finishes associated with hotel development, which may confuse birds in flight, leading to an increase in strikes. T he proposed

pr
oject is also located along the coastline and includes a portion of a bird migration corridor and likely includes important migratory stopover habitat.

Th
e potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-9) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM -BIO-9:

Implement Bird Strike Reduction Measures on New Structures . This mitigation measure is set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 of the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

M
M-BIO-9: Implement Bird Strike Reduction Measures on New Structures (GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component). Prior to issuance of any building construction/permits for any portion of the GB Capital Component or City Program – Development Component where the building would be taller than three stories, an ornithologist (retained by the respective project proponent and pre-approved by the District for the GB Capital Component or the City for the City Program – Development Component) familiar with local species will review building plans to verify that the proposed building has incorporated specific design strategies that qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits, as described in the American Bird Conservancy’s Bird - Friendly Building Design (Sheppard and Phillips 2015) or an equivalent guide to avoid or reduce the potential for bird strikes. Final building design strategies shall be in accordance with the Bird -Friendly Building Design , by incorporating strategies to minimize the threat to avian species, including but not limited to the following:
• B
uilding Façade and Site Structures.
o Develop a building façade and site design that are visible as physical barriers to birds.
• Elements such as Netting, Screens, Grilles, Shutters, and Exterior Shades to Preclude Collisions.
o Incorporate materials that have a low threat potential based on the Bird Collision Threat Rating and the Bird Collision Threat Rating Calculation Spreadsheet to achieve a maximum total building Bird Collision Threat Rating of 15 or less.
 High Threat Potential: Glass: Highly Reflective or Completely Transparent Surface.
 Least Threat Potential: Opaque Surface
• Exterior Lighting
o Fixtures not necessary for safety, entrances, and circulation shall be automatically shut off from midnight until 6:00 a.m.
o Exterior luminaires must meet these requirements for all exterior luminaires located inside project boundary based on the following:
 Photometric characteristics of each luminaire when mounted in the same orientation and tilt as specified in the project design; and
 The lighting zone of the project property (at the time

c
onstruction begins). Classify the project under one lighting zone using the lighting zones definitions provided in the Illuminating Engineering Society and International Dark Sky Association (IES/IDA) Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) User Guide (2011).
• Performance Monitoring Plan
o The project proponent (e.g., GB Capital) shall develop a 3- year postconstruction monitoring plan to routinely monitor the effectiveness of the building and site design in preventing bird collisions for buildings over three stories high that shall include methods to identify and document locations where repeated bird strikes occur, the number of collisions, the date, the approximate time, and features that may be contributing to collisions, and shall list potential design solutions and provide a process for adaptive management.
o The project proponent (e.g., GB Capital) shall provide an adaptive monitoring report demonstrating which design strategies have been incorporated and the results of adaptive monitoring for District review.

Implementation of MM-BIO-9 would reduce impacts on birds in flight (Impact-BIO- 9) to less-than-significant levels by requiring the incorporation of design strategies that enable birds to recognize structures from the open sky.

4.3.8 Impact -BIO-10: Disruption of W ildlife B ehavior D ue t o A dditional Lighting (GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-10) from new parking and landscape lighting that would be added to the GB Capital Component area as a result of the proposed development, including an RV park, retail, expanded marina, modular cabins, and hotel buildings, that would disrupt wildlife behaviors . Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-10 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact -BIO-10) is analyzed in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-10 would result from the new lighting added to the GB Capital Component area as a result of the proposed development, including an RV park, retail, expanded marina, modular cabins, and hotel buildings, that would disrupt wildlife behaviors.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-B IO-10) would

be r
educed to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM -AES-8:

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

MM
-AES-8: Limit Lighting (GB Capital Component). Proposed outdoor lighting in the parking lots, in the marina, and outside of buildings shall not exceed a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvins in order to emit less high frequency blue light. The project proponent shall provide details (i.e., Kelvins) of the proposed lighting to the District’s Development Services Department for review and approval prior to commencement of construction of the GB Capital Component.

Implementation of MM -AES-8 would reduce the potential to disrupt wildlife behaviors from additional lighting sources (Impact-BIO-10) to less-than-significant levels by requiring lighting features that would emit less high- frequency blue light from the GB Capital Component.

4.3.9 Impact-BIO-11: Potential Loss of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub During Project Construction (GB Capital Component and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-11) related to the potential removal of Diegan coastal sage shrub (including restored and baccharis-dominated forms) from construction activities, such as grading . Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-11 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially si gnificant impact of the proposed project on biological r esources ( Impact-BIO-11) i s anal yzed in Volum e 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-9 would result from construction activities f or t he Bayshore Bi keway C omponent and GB C apital Component, which has the potential to remove Diegan coastal sage scrub.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-11) would be reduced to below a l evel of significance by mitigation measure MM-BIO-10:

Provide Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts on Coastal Sage Scrub. 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-BIO-10: Provide Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts on Coastal Sage Scrub (GB Capital Component and Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3).

Compensation for permanent impacts on Diegan coastal sage scrub habitats shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio, with compensation occurring as creation, enhancement, or restoration. The compensation can occur through a combination

of one or more of the following: onsite enhancement, re-establishment, or creation; or payment into an agency-a pproved in-l ieu fee, mitigation pr ogram, or other approved mitigation pr ovider. Compensation type and final mitigation ratios shall be determined during the pr oject’s coastal development permitting phase.

Temporary impacts on Diegan coastal sage scrub habitats shall be r eplaced at a 1:1 ratio through onsite restoration. Onsite, in-k ind restoration of temporarily affected Diegan coastal sage scrub would occur at their current locations on completion of construction, consisting of returning affected areas to or iginal contour grades, decom pacting the soil, and replanting with hydr oseeding or container plantings using a plant palette composed of native species from the local region prior to dis turbance. All revegetated areas shall avoid the use of any nonnative plant species.

For any areas that shall be restored, enhanced, or created onsite, the project proponent (e.g., National City for Bayshore Bikeway ; GB Capital, etc.) shall prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) prior to project construction in accordance with requirements of the CCC. The HMMP shall outline all required components, including, but not limited to, a project description, goal of the mitigation, mitigation site, implementation plan, monitoring plan, com pletion of mitigation/ success criteria, and contingency measures . The HMMP shall addres s the onsite restoration of tem porary impact areas and c ompensatory mitigation at on- or offsite areas to mitigate permanent impacts.

Implementation of MM-BIO-10 would mitigate for impacts (Impact-BIO-11) on Diegan coastal sage scrub to less-than-significant levels by requiring the project proponent to provide assurances for the provision of compensatory mitigation at ratios agreed on by the resource agencies.

4.3.10 Impact-BIO-13: Potential Reduction in Eelgrass Habitat and Productivity During Construction (GB Capital Component) Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-B IO-13) related to eelgrass beds within the waterside portion of the GB Capital Component being potentially reduced by in- water construction ac tivities. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is prov ided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-13 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological res ources (Impact-B IO-13) is analyzed in V olume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-13 would result from in-water construction activ ities, which have the potential to affect eelgrass beds within the waterside portion of the GB Capital Component. Impacts to eelgrass

may include direct physical disturbance to the beds from anchoring, propeller wash, and staging of equipment, temporary shading from construction- related equipment, and elevated turbidity levels from construction- related activities such as pile driving.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-13) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-BIO-7:

Avoidance of Impacts on Special -Status Wildlife During In- Water Construction Activities, MM-BIO-12: Provide Contractor Education, Utilize Ecological Moorings, and Develop an Eelgrass Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in Compliance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, and MM -BIO-13: Implement Overwater Coverage Mitigation Through the USACE Permitting Process in Consultation with CCC, NMFS, USFWS, RWQCB, and the District to Compensate for Loss of Open Water Habitat and Function. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.MM-BIO-7 also is set forth in full above and MM-BIO-12 and MM-BIO-13 provide as follows:

MM-BIO-12: Provide Contractor Education, Utilize Ecological Moorings, and Develop an Eelgrass Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in Compliance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (GB Capital Component). Prior to the start of any in- water construction, the project proponent shall retain a qualified marine biologist to provide contractor education relative to the presence and sensitivity of eelgrass beds. The contractor shall be provided with a map that depicts the location of eelgrass within the work area. The contractor shall be instructed to use the minimal propeller thrust necessary when working in shallow water to avoid dislodging eelgrass or generating excessive turbidity. The contractor shall also be instructed not to place anchors or spuds over portions of the seafloor that support eelgrass.

The proposed vessel moorings shall use ecologically sensitive mooring systems that minimize contact with the ocean bottom, to reduce scouring impacts.

Examples of these systems include flexible lines with anchors that are permanently embedded into the bottom. The GB Capital Component shall include educational materials to boat operators describing how ecological moorings work and specifying that boat operators shall utilize the ecological moorings.

Prior to the start of any in-water construction, the project proponent shall retain a qualified marine biologist to develop an eelgrass mitigation plan in compliance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Distr ict and resource agencies for approval and shall be implemented to compensate for losses to eelgrass in the event that the surveys described below indicate the project affected eelgrass. The eelgrass mitigation plan shall use updated eelgrass monitoring data to establish the amount of eelgrass present, and that data shall be collected within six months of the first draft of the mitigation plan.

Additionally, the mitigation plan shall provide a summary of all mitigation sites c
onsidered during the evaluation and provide the rationale for the chosen

m
itigation site(s). A mitigation site must be secured prior to in- water construction that would impact eelgrass. Finally, the plan shall also include a habitat loss/gain analysis table and any changes to the losses or gains shall be captured in revisions to the mitigation plan as additional surveys as specified below are performed.

T
o the extent practical, the mitigation shall attempt to achieve the creation of a contiguous eelgrass bed with eelgrass density at or above that present within the patchy eelgrass beds present within the Sweetwater River Channel. This will provide for enhanced fisheries benefit and therefore benefit to fish- foraging avian species such as California least tern. The mitigation plan shall be provided with permit applications required under the Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) and CWA (Section 401, Section 404), which would require supplemental resource agency consultation during the permitting process. The specific eelgrass mitigation plan elements shall include the following:
• P
rior to the commencement of any in- water construction activities, a qualified marine biologist that the project proponent retains and the District approves shall conduct a preconstruction eelgrass survey per the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Surveys for eelgrass shall be conducted during the active eelgrass growing season (March– October), and results shall be valid for 60 days, unless completed in September or October; if completed in those months, results shall be valid until resumption of the next growing season. The qualified marine biologist shall submit the results of the preconstruction survey to the District and resource agencies within 30 days. • Within 30 days of completion of in -water construction activities, a qualified marine biologist that the project proponent retains and the District approves shall conduct a postconstruction eelgrass survey during the active eelgrass growing season. The postconstruction survey shall evalua te potential eelgrass impacts associated with construction. On completion of the postconstruction survey, the qualified marine biologist shall submit the survey report to the District and resource agencies within 30 days. • At least 2 years of annual postconstruction eelgrass surveys shall be conducted during the active eelgrass growing season. The additional annual surveys shall evaluate the potential for operational impacts on eelgrass. Specifically, the surveys shall be designed to evaluate potential shading impacts noted in the project’s marine biological assessment (Appendix H of the EIR).
• In the event that eelgrass impacts are detected during post -construction monitoring, the project proponent shall implement the following:
o A qualified marine biologist that the project proponent retains for the GB Capital Component and the District approves shall develop a mitigation plan for in- kind mitigation per the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. The qualified marine biologist shall submit the mitigation plan to the District and resource agencies within 60 days following the postconstruction survey.
o Mitigation for eelgrass impacts shall be at a ratio of 1.2:1, and the

pr
oject proponent shall determine eelgrass mitigation sites prior to the commencement of construction activities.
o Mitigation shall commence within 135 days of any noted impacts on eelgrass, such that mitigation commences within the same eelgrass growing season that impacts occur.
o Any mitigation that requires harvesting and transplantation of eelgrass shall require the qualified marine biologist to obtain a scientific collecting permit from CDFW for the purpose of harvesting eelgrass to support the mitigation.
• Upon completing mitigation, the qualified biologist shall conduct mitigation performance monitoring at performance milestones of 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. The qualified biologist shall conduct all mitigation monitoring during the active eelgrass growing season and shall avoid the low -growth season (November –February). Performance standards shall be in accordance with those prescribed in the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy.
• The qualified biologist shall submit the monitoring reports and spatial data to the District and resource agencies within 30 days after the completion of each monitoring period. The monitoring reports shall include all of the specific requirements identified in the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy.

MM
‐BIO‐13: Implement Overwater Coverage Mitigation t hrough the USACE Permitting Process in Consultation with CCC, NMFS, USFWS, RWQCB, and the District to Compensate for Loss of Open Water Habitat and Function (GB Capital Component). The waterside GB Capital Component within Sweetwater Channel shall require implementation of regulatory agency-approved mitigation prior to implementation of the project to reduce overwater coverage. This may include reduction in overwater coverage at another location in San Diego Bay, restoration of upland riparian habitats, restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation, water quality-improvement techniques, restoration of soft-bottom habitats, such as mud flats, or use of mitigation bank credits or credits from the USACE permit for the construction of the marina from uplands or paying an in lieu fee (once a program is developed but prior to increase in overwater coverage). Detailed shading studies would be required in the future when construction and project design details are available, which would require supplemental environmental revie w. The project proponent shall conduct the shading studies and implement the following:
• T
o the extent practical, overwater structures shall be placed in a manner that minimizes shading of eelgrass and avoids scouring impacts on the seabed.
• Prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit, the p roject proponent (i.e., GB Capital) shall request a pre- application meeting with the USACE, in consultation with CCC, NMFS, USFWS, RWQCB, and the District, to identify locations within San Diego Bay or the San Diego region to mitigate

i
mpacts on both sensitive avian species and nearshore habitat associated with loss of beneficial uses associated with overwater coverage and loss of open water- habitat function as a result of increased structural fill within San Diego Bay.
• Prior to the commencement of construction activities of the waterside improvements of the GB Capital Component, the project proponent shall implement mitigation options that the regulatory agencies identified above review and approve.
• The project proponent shall secure all applicable permits for the mitigation of overwater coverage prior to commencement of waterside construction.

Implementation of MM-BIO-7, MM-BIO-12, and MM-BIO-13 would reduce impacts on eelgrass during construction ( Impact-BIO-13) to less-than-significant levels by mitigating any loss of eelgrass habitat at a ratio of 1.2:1, as prescribed in the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, and requiring mitigation to be reviewed and approved by appropriate resource agencies.

4.3.11 Impact-BIO-14: Potential Loss of Eelgrass Habitat Due to Overwater Coverage or Shading Impacts During Operations (GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-B IO-14) related to the potential loss of eelgrass habitat within the waterside portion of the GB Capital due to s hading from overwater structures, including the floating dock, docked vessels, and moored vessels. Scouring from mooring c hains and tackle can also directly disturb soft- bottom vegetated habitats. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is prov ided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved projec t that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environm ental effect on biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-14 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological r esources (Impact-B IO-14) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-14 would result from operations associated with the waters ide portion of the GB Capital Com ponent, which have the potential to affect eelgrass beds due to shading of eelgrass habitat from overwater structures, including the floating dock, docked vessels, and moored vessels.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-14) would be reduced to below a level of s ignificance by mitigation measures MM-B IO-12:

Provide Contractor Educ ation, Utilize Ecological Moorings, and Develop an Eelgrass Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in Compliance with the California Eelgrass

M
itigation Policy , and MM -BIO-13: Implement Overwater Coverage Mitigation Through the USACE Permitting Process in Consultation with CCC, NMFS, USFWS, RWQCB, and the District to Compensate for Loss of Open Water Habitat and Function. T hese mitigation measures are set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Implementation of MM-BIO-12 and MM-BIO-13 would reduce impacts on eelgrass during construction ( Impact-BIO-14) to less -than-significant levels by mitigating any loss of eelgrass habitat at a ratio of 1.2:1, as prescribed in the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, and requiring mitigation to be reviewed and approved by appropriate resource agencies.

4.3.12 Impact-BIO-15: Potential Conflict with the INRMP (Pepper Park Expansion and Roadway Configura tion Balanced P lan, GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-15) related to the potential conflict with related strategies and objectives of the INRMP. Detailed informati on and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-15 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact -BIO-15) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-15 would result from potential conflicts between strategies and objectives of the INRMP and operations associated with the waterside portion of Pepper Park Expansion and Roadway Configuration Balanced Plan and the GB Capital Component.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact -BIO-15) would be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of mitigation measures MM -BIO-1 through MM-BIO-10. These mitigation measures are set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table 2- 3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-10 would reduce impacts relating to conflict with the strategies and objectives of the INRMP (Impact-BIO-15) to less- than-significant levels by avoiding or reducing the related physical impacts to biological resources and ensuring that the project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the INRMP.

4. 3.13 Impact-BIO-16: Potential Conflict with City General Plan – Agriculture and Open Space Element (Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3) Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact-BIO-16) related to the potential conflict with related strategies and objectives of the City General Plan – Agriculture and Open Space Element (Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3) . Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

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 biological resources identified as Impact-BIO-16 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on biological resources (Impact -BIO-16) is an alyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Potential Impact-BIO-16 would result from potential conflicts between strategies and objectives of the City General Plan – Agriculture and Open Space Element and the Bayshore Bikeway Component Route 3.

The potentially significant impact on biological resources (Impact -BIO-16) would be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of mitigation measures MM -BIO-1 through MM -BIO-10. These mitigation measures are set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table 2- 3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM -BIO-10 would reduce impacts relating to conflict with the strategies and objectives of the City General Plan – Agriculture and Open Space Element (Impact-BIO-16) to less -than-significant levels by avoiding or reducing the related physical impacts to biological resources and ensuring that the project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City General Plan – Agriculture and Open Space Element.

4.4 Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources

4.4.1 Impact-CUL-2: Excavation Related to the Proposed Project Would Potentially Damage Significant Archaeological Resources (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component) Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on archeological resources (Impact-CUL-2) resulting from inadvertently unearthing significant unknown ar chaeological resources during ground-disturbing construction activities in areas of archaeological sensitivity.

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2

(Final EIR) , Section 4. 4, Cultural R esources, T ribal C ultural R esources, and Paleontological Resources.

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 cu ltural r esources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources identified as Impact-CUL- 2 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on archeological resources (Impact-CUL-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.4 , Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources . Potential Impact -CUL-2 would result from inadvertently damaging or destroying significant unknown archaeological resources during ground- disturbing construction activities in areas of archaeological sensitivity (defined as the area east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive).

The potentially significant impact on archaeological resources (Impact -CUL-2) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM- CUL-2: Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan, MM- CUL-3: Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Awareness Training Prior to Project Construction, MM- CUL-4: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity, and MM -CUL-5: Conduct Native American Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity. 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-CUL-2: Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component).

Prior to the commencement of any ground- disturbing activities within the areas requiring archaeological monitoring (i.e., activities occurring in the area that is both east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive), the respective project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist (approved by the District for components within its jurisdiction or the City for components within its jurisdiction) who meets the SOI Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61) to prepare a CRMDP for designated portions of the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road C losures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component that are sensitive for archaeological resources, defined as the area east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive. Monitoring areas are defined as land- based ground- disturbing activities associated with project components east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive. Procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery apply to all applicable project components. The CRMDP shall be submitted to the City and District, as applicable based on the jurisdiction in which the project component is loc
ated, and shall be reviewed and approved by

the relevant agency. If the District or City do not have in-house expertise to review the CRMDP, they shall respectively hire an expert who meets the SOI Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61) and the project proponent shall pay for said expert.

The District’s CRMDP review shall ensure that appropriate procedures to monitor construction and treat unanticipated discoveries are in place. District review and approval of the CRMDP shall occur prior to the commencement of any construction activities subject to the requirements of the CRMDP. The CRMDP shall include required qualifications for archaeological monitors and supervising archaeologists and shall lay out protocols to be followed in relation to cultural resources, including both archaeological and tribal cultural resources. The CRMDP shall provide a summary of sensitivity for buried cultural resources. In addition, it shall describe the roles and responsibilities of archaeological and Native American monitors, District personnel (as applicable), City personnel (as applicable), and construction personnel. Additionally, the CRMDP shall describe specific field procedures to be followed for archaeological monitoring, including field protocol and methods to be followed should there be an archaeological discovery. Evaluation of resources; consultation with Native American individuals, tribes, and organizations; treatment of cultural remains and artifacts; curation; and reporting requirements shall also be described. The CRMDP shall also delineate the requirements, procedures, and notification processes in the event human remains are encountered.

The CRMDP shall delineate the area(s) of archaeological sensitivity that require archaeological monitoring. Mapping of the area(s) shall be made available to the project proponent, who shall incorporate this information into the respective construction specifications for the Balanced Plan Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component.

M
M-CUL-3: Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Awareness Training Prior to Project Construction (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component). Prior to, and for the duration of, project -related ground disturbance in the areas east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive, the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component respective project proponent shall hire a qualified archaeologist who meets the SOI Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR 61) and is approved by the District for components within its jurisdiction, and the City for components within its ju risdiction, to provide cultural resources awareness training to project construction personnel. The training shall include a discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law; samples or visual representations of artifacts that might be found in the project vicinity; and the steps that must be taken if cultural resources are encountered during construction, including the authority of ar
chaeological monitors, if required to be on site during the project, to halt

construction in the area of a discovery. A hard copy summary of cultural resource laws, discovery procedures, and contact information shall be provided to all construction workers. Completion of the training shall be documented for all construction personnel, who shall be required to sign a form confirming they have completed the training. The form shall be retained by the project proponent to demonstrate compliance with this mitigation measure.

M
M-CUL-4: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component). Within the areas of the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive, the project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist(s) who meets the SOI Professional Qualifications Standards as promulgated in 36 CFR 61. The qualified archaeologist(s) shall supervise archaeological monitoring of all proposed ground-disturbing activities for the project in the archaeologically sensitive portion(s) of the project site. The archaeologically sensitive portion(s) of the project site is defined as land- based gr
ound-disturbing activities associated with project components east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive. Monitoring actions and procedures shall be completed per the CRMDP described in MM-CUL-2.

MM-CUL-5: Conduct Native American Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component). A Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall be present at all areas designated for archaeological monitoring—defined as land-based ground-disturbing activities associated with the portions of the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, and Bayshore Bi keway Component that are east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive.

This monitoring shall occur on an as-needed basis and is intended to ensure that Native American concerns are considered during the construction process. Native American monitors shall be retained from tribes who have expressed an interest in the project and have participated in discussions with the District. If a tribe has been notified of scheduled construction work and does not respond, or if a Native American monitor is not available, work may continue without the Native American monitor. Roles and responsibilities of the Native American monitors shall be detailed in the CRMDP described in mitigation measure MM -CUL-2. Costs associated with Native American monitoring shall be borne by the project proponent.

After implementation of mitigation measures MM -CUL-2 through MM -CUL-5, Impact-CUL-2 would be reduced to a less -than-significant level because the preparation and implementation of a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan and Cultural Resources Awareness Training, as well as archaeological and Native American monitoring of any
ground-d isturbing activities on des ignated

por
tions of the project site, would minimize the potential to damage, or result in the loss of, unknown subsurface archaeological resources.

4.4.2 Impact-CUL-3: Excavation Related to the Proposed Project Would Potentially Damage Tribal Cultural Resources (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on tribal cultural resources (Impact-CUL-3) resulting from inadvertently unearthing significant unknown tribal cultural resources during ground-disturbing construction activities in areas of archaeological sensitivity. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources.

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 effec t on cultural r esources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources identified as Impact-CUL- 3 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on tribal cultural resources (Impact-CUL-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.4 , Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources . Potential Impact -CUL-3 would result from inadvertently damaging or destroying significant unknown tribal cultural resources during ground- disturbing construction activities in areas of archaeological sensitivity (defined as the area east of the mean high tide line and south of Bay Marina Drive).

The potentially significant impact on tribal cultural resources (Impact -CUL-3) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM- CUL-2: Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan, MM -CUL-3: Prepare and Implement a Cultural Resources Awareness Training Prior to Project Construction, MM -CUL-4: Conduct Archaeological Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity, and MM -CUL-5: Conduct Native American Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity. These mitigation measures are set forth in full above and in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

After implementation of mitigation measures MM -CUL-2 through MM -CUL-5, Impact-CUL-3 would be reduced to a less -than-significant level because the preparation and implementation of a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan and Cultural Resources Awareness Training, as well as archaeological and Native American monitoring of any ground- disturbing activities on designated portions of the project site, would minimize the potential to for damage or loss of unknown tribal cultural resources.

4. 4.3 Impact-CUL-4: Excavation Related to the Proposed Project Would Potentially Disturb Buried Paleontological Resources (City Program – Development Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources (Impact-CUL-4) related to the excavation for the proposed project at the City Program – Development Component and portions of the proposed Bayshore Bikeway Component . Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact is provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources.

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 cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources identified as Impact-CUL- 4 in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on p aleontological resources (Impact-CUL-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 4, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources. Potential Impact-CUL-4 has the potential to result from excavation in excess of 1,000 cubic yards and to depths greater than 10 feet, which could directly or indirectly impact a unique paleontological resource or site.

The potentially significant impact on p aleontological resources (Impact-CUL-4) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM - CUL-6: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity. 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-CUL-6: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring in Areas of Sensitivity (City Program – Development Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component). A qualified paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology qualifications (retained by the respective project proponent and pre- approved by the District or City as applicable) shall review the paleontological records search prepared by the San Diego Natural History Museum to confirm the locations of paleontologically sensitive areas as well as the existing literature for the proposed project area. The following monitoring measures shall be implemented to recover remains before they are lost or destroyed.
• Where highly sensitive fossil-bearing deposits are likely to be affected and the proposed construction methodology allows for the recovery of fossils, then paleontological monitoring shall be incorporated into the project specifications.
• A qualified paleontologist shall attend preconstruction meetings to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in

pal
eontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of San Diego County, and who has worked as a paleontological monitoring project supervisor in the county for at least 1 year.
• A paleontological monitor shall be on site on a full -time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits of high-sensitivity formations to inspect exposures for contained fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.
• If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time; however, some fossil specimens, such as a complete large mammal skeleton, may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on site.
• Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and catalogued. • Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections, such as the San Diego N atural History Museum. Donation of the fossils by the project proponent shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. • A final data recovery report shall be completed that outlines the results of the monitoring program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.

After implementation of mitigation measure MM -CUL-6, Impact-CUL-4 would be reduced to a less -than-significant level because the recommended monitoring of any ground- disturbing activities in areas of paleontological sensitivity would minimize the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature.

4.5 Energy

4.5.1 Impact-EN-1: Potential Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources During Construction (Balanced Plan, Bayshore Bikeway Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement, Pasha Road Closures Component, and City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impac t on energy (Impact-EN-1) due to the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessar y

consumption of energy resources during construction of the proposed project .

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.5, Energy.

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 energy (Impact-EN-1) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on energy (Impact-EN-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.5, Energy. Potential Impact-EN-1 would result from the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction.

The potentially significant impact on energy (Impact-EN-1) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM -GHG-1: Implement Diesel - 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: Implement Diesel Emission- Reduction Measures During Project Waterside Construction Activities, MM -GHG-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero- Net-Energy Buildings , MM -GHG-6: Implement a Renew able Energy Project On Site, or Other Verifiable Actions or Activities on Tidelands or Within Offsite Tidelands, or Within another Adjacent Member City, or Purchase the Equivalent GHG Offsets from a CARB -Approved Registry or a Locally Approved Equivalent Program, 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 P rogram, and MM -AQ-5 Use Modern Harbor Craft During Construction Activities . These measures are discussed in detail and set forth in full in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Health Risk, and Section

4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, of Volume 2 of the EIR and are incorporated herein by this reference. These mitigation measures also are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

M
M-GHG-1 would help ensure that the use of diesel -operated vehicles during construction would not be wasteful. MM -GHG-2 and MM -GHG-3 (applies to the City Program Component) would require several sustainability measures to help ensure the project would reduce energy demand and avoid inefficient use of energy resources. MM -GHG-4 would require use of modern harbor craft for waterside construction activities. MM -GHG-5 would require all development to meet the state’s draft zero net energy standards, if and when adopted as part of the California Building Code, and for the City and the District to encourage project developers to construct all -electric buildings. MM -GHG-6 and MM -GHG-7 would require project proponents to incorporate renewable energy and/or the purchase of an equivalent of greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets at the time of future design. MM- AQ-5 would require the GB Capital Component to use modern harbor craft during construction to reduce emissions. Implementation of mitigation measures MM - GHG-1 thr ough MM-G HG-7, and MM-A Q-5, would reduce potential impacts

related to the wasteful, i nefficient, a nd unnecessary co nsumption of e nergy (Impact-EN-1) to less-than-significant levels.

4.5.2 Impact -EN-2: Potential Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources During Operation (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, and City Program – Development Component) Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on energy (Impact-EN-2) due to the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources duri ng operation of the proposed project .

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.5, Energy.

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 energy (Impact-EN-2) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the pr oposed project on energy (Impact-EN-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.5, Energy. Potential Impact-EN-2 would result from the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation.

The potentially significant impact on energy (Impact-EN-2) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-GHG-1: Implement Diesel - 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-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero- Net-Energy Buildings, MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project On Site, or Other Verifiable Actions or Activities on Tidelands or Within Offsite 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 Act ivities 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 measures also are discussed in detail in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, of Volume 2 of the EIR and are incorporated herein by this reference. These mitigation measures also are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2- 3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

MM-GHG-1 would help ensure that the use of diesel -operated vehicles during construction would not be wasteful. MM -GHG-2 and MM -GHG-3 (applies to the City Program Component) would require several sustainability measures to help ensure the project would reduce energy demand and avoid inefficient use of energy resources. MM-GHG-5 would require all development to meet the state’s draft zero net energy standards, if and when adopted as part of the California B
uilding Code, and for the City and the District to encourage project developers to

construct all-electric buildings. MM-GHG-6 and MM-GHG-7 would require project proponents to incorporate renewable energy and/or the purchase of an equivalent of greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets at the time of future design. Implementation of mitigation measures MM -GHG-1 through MM-GHG-3 and MM -GHG-5 through M
M-GHG-7 would reduce potential impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy (Impact-EN-2) to less-than-significant levels.

4.5.3 Impact -EN-3: Potential I nconsistency w ith Applicable Energy Use Reduction Plans (All Project Components)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on energy (Impact -EN-3) due to the project’s potential inconsistency with applicable energy use reduction plans. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.5, Energy.

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 energy (Impact-EN-3)

as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on energy (Impact-EN-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.5, Energy. Potential Impact -EN-3 would result from the project’s potential inconsistency with the District’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the City’s CAP, since the project does not include measures specific to either CAP. The potentially significant impact on energy (Impact -EN-3) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM -GHG-2: Comply with District CAP Measures and MM-GHG-3: Comply with the Applicable City CAP Measures. These measures are discussed in detail and set forth in full in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, of Volume 2 of the EIR and are incorporated herein by this reference. These mitigation measures also are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Mitigation measure MM-GHG-2 is designed to ensure that the District’s CAP measures will be incorporated into the Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Bayshore Bike way Component [Only Area within District Jurisdiction]). Mitigation measure MM-GHG-3 is designed to ensure that applicable City CAP measures will be incorporated into the City Program – Development Component. Implementation of MM- GHG-2 and MM-GHG-3 would ensure compliance with the District’s CAP and the City’s CAP, respectively, and would reduce Impact-EN-3 to less-than-significant levels.

4.6 Greenhouse G as Emissions and Climate Change

4.6.1 Impact -GHG-1: Inconsistency with D istrict an d C ity Climate Action Plan Numerical Targets (All Project Components)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and climate change (Impact -GHG-1) because the project construction and operations would not meet efficiency targets in 2025 or 2050 and therefore the project would be inconsistent with the District and City CAPs. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.6, 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-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 impact of the proposed project on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact -GHG-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4. 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. Potential Impact -GHG-1 would result from the project’s potential inconsistency with the District’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the City’s CAP, since the project construction and operations would not meet numerical efficiency targets in 2025 or 2050.

The potentially significant impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact- GHG-1) would require the following mitigation measures to be implemented: 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 Bui ldings, 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 Equival ent 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 measures are discussed in detail in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, of Volum e 2 of the EIR and are incorporated herein by this reference These mitigation measures are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the E
xecutive Summary of the Final EIR and provide as follows:

MM
-GHG-1: Implement Diesel Emission -Reduction Measures During Project Construction and Operation (All Project Components). The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for each component of the proposed project shall implement the following measures during project construction and operation and, where specified below, submit reports demonstrating compliance for review and approval to the District’s Development Services Department (or successor department) for project components in the District’s jurisdiction or the City’s Community Development Department for project components in the City’s jurisdiction.

1. Construction:
a. The project proponent shall verify that all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.

Prior to the commencement of construction activities using diesel -powered vehicles or equipment, the project proponent shall verify that all vehicles, as well as equipment, have been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into the delivery driveway and loading areas. The project proponent shall submit a report prepared by the certified mechanic regarding the construction vehicles’ and equipment’s compliance with this requirement to the District’s Development Services Department (or successor department) or the City’s Community Development Department prior to commencement of their use.
b. The project proponent shall limit all construction truck idling times by shutting down trucks when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the construction entrance(s) and shall submit monthly reports of violators to the District. Repeat violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure, 13 CCR Section 2485. c. Prior to commencing construction activities, the project proponent shall ensure that all off-road construction equipment shall meet the following criteria: (I) For all construction between 2020 and 2025, ensure all equipment is Tier 3 or better (cleaner); ( ii) For all construction after 2025, ensure all equipment is alternatively fueled or electrically powered. If alternatively fueled or electrically powered equipment that emits fewer emissions than Tier 4 or better (cleaner) equipment is not available, then the project proponent shall ensure all equipment is Tier 4 or better; and ( iii) Use renewable diesel fuel in all heavy -duty, off-road diesel-fueled equipment. Renewable diesel must meet the most recent ASTM D975 specification for ultra-low-sulfur diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50% of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum diesel fuels sold in California.

2. Operation: The project proponent shall limit all delivery truck idling times by shutting down trucks when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit annual reports of violators to the District. This measure s hall be implemented by

t
he hotel and marina supervisors. Repeat violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure, 13 CCR Section 2485.

MM-GHG-2: Comply with District CAP Measures (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component [Only Area within District Jurisdiction]). Prior to approval of the final design plans, the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for each component of the proposed project shall list all applicable GHG-reducing measures from the District CAP and demonstrate in the plans where the measures shall be located. A report demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the District’s Development Services Department (or successor department). Buildings associated with the proposed project components shall achieve certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, or the Green Building Rating Systems of the Green Building Certification Institute, or achieve equivalent efficiency if it is determined that LEED certification cannot be achieved because of site factors or other reasons. For construction where LEED or an equivalent program or efficiency certification is not applicable (e.g., dry boat storage), all other applicable measures below shall be required, subject to verification of the District’s Development Services Department (or successor department). The following is a list of the proposed sustainability measures that would be consistent with the District CAP. Any measures selected shall be required and incorporated into the Coastal Development Permit for each project component.
• General Measures
o No commercial drive-through shall be implemented.
• Water
o Indoor water consumption shall be reduced to a level 20% lower than that of the baseline buildings (defined by LEED as indoor water use after meeting Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements) through use of low -flow fixtures in all administrative and common-area bathrooms.
o Plantings with low water requirements and drip irrigation shall be installed, and domestic water demand from the City system for landscaping purposes shall be minimized.
• Waste
o Compliance with AB 939 shall be mandatory and shall include recycling at least 50% of solid waste; recycling of demolition debris shall be mandatory and shall include recycling at least 65% of all construction and demolition debris. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project.
o All commercial, restaurant, and retail uses shall recycle, compost food waste and other organics, and use reusable products instead of disposable products to divert solid waste from the landfill stream.

o R
ecycled, regional, and rapidly renewable materials shall be used where appropriate during project construction.
• Energy
o Renewable energy design features that may be implemented are as follows:
 Implement onsite renewable energy to new buildings, unless the system cannot be built because of structural an d operational constraints. (Evidence must be provided if not feasible, subject to District concurrence.)
 Install co -generation systems (i.e., combined heat and power systems) in new buildings constructed at the project site.  Ensure that, at a minimum, 6% of parking spaces are equipped with electric-vehicle charging stations.
 For all construction after 2025, ensure all construction vehicles and equipment are alternatively fueled or electrically powered, to the extent feasible and available. (GB Capital Component and Balanced Plan only)
 For all construction, use renewable diesel fuel in all heavy -duty, off-road diesel-fueled equipment. Renewable diesel must meet the most recent ASTM D975 specification for ultra -low-sulfur diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50% of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum diesel fuels sold in California. (GB Capital Component and Balanced Plan only)
 Construct buildings that are ZNE or, if full ZNE is infeasible, implement all feasible m easures identified in the feasibility analysis. (GB Capital and Balanced Plan only)
 Incorporate renewable energy (a) on the project site, (b) within the District’s jurisdiction, or (c) within the adjacent community or member city outside of the District’s jurisdiction. Undertake other verifiable actions or activities on tidelands approved by the District, such as electrification of equipment, including vehicles and trucks; financial contribution to a future local or GHG emission reduction program on tidelands; or similar activities or actions that reduce operational GHG emissions. (GB Capital and Balanced Plan only)
o Energy-efficiency design features that exceed 2019 Title 24 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be incorporated. The measures that may be implemented are as follows:
 Use only fluorescent lights, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), compact fluorescent lights, or the most energy-efficient lighting that meets

r
equired lighting standards and is commercially available. This measure also requires replacement of existing lighting on the project site if not already highly energy efficient.
 Install occupancy sensors for all vending machines in new buildings at the project site.
 Install high- performance glazing with a low solar heat -gain coefficient value that reduces the amount of solar heat allowed into the building, without compromising natural illumination.  Install increased insulation.
 Install cool roofs with an R value of 30 or better.
 Install sun shading devices as appropriate.
 Install high -efficiency heating, ventilating, and air -conditioning systems and controls.
 Install programmable thermostats.
 Install variable frequency drives.
 Install Energy Star–rated appliances.
 Install shore power capabilities where suitable upgrades are feasible in marinas.
• Mobile Sources
o Implement a construction transportation demand management plan for each project component that promotes ride- sharing, vanpooling, alternate work schedules, and offsite parking with shuttles and provides subsidies for transit passes to reduce worker trips and parking demand, which provides incentives for using alternative modes of transportation instead of individual vehicles.
o Implement an operational transportation demand management plan for each project component that requires mandatory employer commuting measures, such as carpooling, transit subsidies, and vanpools, to reduce worker trips and parking demand, which provides incentives for using alternative modes of transportation instead of individual vehicles. o Ensure that bicycle parking is included in the project design. The number of spaces shall be, at a minimum, 5% of the new automobile parking spaces.
• Carbon Sequestration and Land Use
o Install trees and shrub planters throughout the project area as part of the landscape plan.

MM-GHG-3: Comply with the Applicable City CAP Measures (City Program – Development Component). Prior to approval of the final design plans, the project

pr
oponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the City Program – Development Component shall list all GHG -reducing measures from the City’s CAP and demonstrate in the plans where these measures shall be located. A report demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department. Buildings associated with the proposed project component shall achieve certification under the LEED program, or the Green Building Rating Systems of the Green Building Certification Institute, or achieve equivalent efficiency if it is determined that LEED certification cannot be achieved because of site factors or other reasons. The following is a list of proposed sustainability measures from the City CAP that shall be required and incorporated into the Coastal Development Permit for the City Program – Development Component:
• Incorporate energy -efficiency design features that exceed 2019 Title 24 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
• Prioritize parking for high- occupancy vehicles as well as carpooling, vanpooling, and transit vehicles.
• Ensure that at a minimum 6% of parking spaces are equipped with electric- vehicle charging stations.
• Ensure that bicycle parking is included in the project design. The number of spaces shall be, at a minimum, 5% of the new automobile parking spaces. • Encourage telework programs and alternati ve work schedules for new businesses.
• Provide financial incentives for commuters to reduce the number of vehicle trips by walking, bicycling, using public transit, and carpooling. • Implement programs to reduce, reuse, and recycle construction and demolition waste.
• Encourage rooftop gardens for flat-roofed commercial buildings. • Pursue a pump-efficiency cycling schedule.
• Adopt water efficiency principles similar to the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use (available at
https://www.lgc.org/wordpress/docs/ahwahnee/ahwahnee_water_principle s.pdf), such as the following:
o Use compact, mixed-use, walkable, and transit-oriented community designs;
o Preserve and restore natural resources such as wetlands, floodplains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open spaces, and native habitats;

o U
tilize water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality, and decrease flooding;
o Use low-water plantings in landscaping;
o Use permeable surfaces for hardscapes;
o Install dual plumbing that allows reuse of gray water; o Maximize use of recycled water in the project design; o Use low-flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and efficient w ater- using industrial equipment in new construction; and
o Maximize the use of drought -proof water supplies, such as groundwater treatment and brackish water desalination.
• Install trees and shrub planters throughout the project area as part of the landscape plan.

MM-GHG-4: Use Modern Harbor Craft for Waterside Construction Activities (GB Capital Component). Prior to commencing any waterside construction or activities the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the GB Capital Component shall ensure that any harbor craft, including, but not limited to, tugboats, pusher tugs, tow boats, work boats, crew boats, and supply boats for use during the duration of any in-water work, shall meet the following criteria:
• For all construction between 2020 and 2025, ensure all equipment is Tier 3 or better (cleaner);
• For all construction after 2025, ensure all equipment is alternatively fueled or electrically powered. If alternatively fueled or electrically powered equipment that emits fewer emissions than Tier 4 or better (cleaner) equipment is not available, then the project proponent shall ensure all equipment is Tier 4 or better; and
• Use renewable diesel fuel in all heavy -duty, off- road diesel -fueled equipment. Renewable diesel must meet the most recent ASTM D975 specification for ultra- low-sulfur diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50% of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum diesel fuels sold in California.

If clean harbor craft are not available within 200 miles of the project site for the duration of all dredging activities, the project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the GB Capital Component shall prioritize the use of equipment that is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for the GB Capital Component shall document and submit evidence to the District’s Development Services Department (or successor

dep
artment) or the City’s Community Development Department, depending upon the jurisdiction that the project component is located in, prior to commencement of waterside construction activities. Regardless of the equipment used, the project p roponent/ operator and/or its contractor(s) for each project component with waterside construction activities shall verify that all equipment has been checked by a mechanic experienced with such equipment and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into the construction area. The project proponent/operator and/or its contractor(s) for each project component with waterside construction activities shall submit a report prepared by the mechanic experienced with such equipment regarding the condition of the vehicles and equipment for construction and operations to the District’s Development Services Department (or successor department) or the City’s Community Development Department, depending upon the jurisdiction that the project component is located in, prior to commencement of their use.

MM-GHG-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero- Net-Energy Buildings (GB Capital Component, Balanced Plan, City Program – Development Component).

The City and the District shall require all development to meet the state’s ZNE standards, if and when adopted as part of the California Building Code. In addition, the City and the District shall encourage project developers to construct buildings that are ZNE. Prior to issuance of any Coastal Development Permit or City-issued permit, as applicable, the project proponents/operators and/or its contractor(s) shall submit a feasibility analysis, prepared by a qualified consultant, regarding the construction of buildings as ZNE, and the project component shall implement all feasible measures identified in the feasibility analysis (e.g., electric heating). Prior to implementation of all feasible measures, this report shall be submitted to the District for review and approval for the GB Capital Component (all phases) and Balanced Plan, and submitted to verification the City for review and approval for the City Program – Development Component.

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 Equival ent GHG Offsets from a CARB –Approved Registry or a Locally Approved Equivalent Program (GB Capital Component and Balanced Plan).

A. Options for Reducing GHG Emissions.

To reach the numerical efficiency metric, each project proponent shall, in order of preference, considering availability of structures and feasibility, implement the following, which may be combined with consideration to the preference described below:

1. Incorporate renewable energy
a) On the project site,
b) Within the District’s jurisdiction, or

c
) Within the adjacent community or member city outside of the District’s jurisdiction.

2. Undertake other verifiable actions or activities on tidelands approved by the District, such as electrification of equipment, including vehicles and trucks; financial contribution to a future local or GHG emission reduction program on tidelands; or similar activities or actions that reduce operational GHG emissions;

3. Purchase GHG emission offset credits that (1) are real, additional, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable, as specified in California Health and Safety Code Section 38562(d)(1) and (2) and further defined in CCR Title 17, Section 95802 (see below); (2) use a protocol consistent with or as stringent as CARB protocol requirements under CCR Title 17, Section 95972(a); and (3) are issued by an CARB -approved offset registry. For offset credits from projects outside California, the project proponent must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the District that the offset project meets requirements equivalent to or stricter than California’s laws and regulations, ensuring the validity of offset credits.

For purposes of this section, the definitions are as follows:
a) “Real” means, in the context of offset projects, that GHG reductions or GHG enhancements result from a demonstrable action or set of actions and are quantified using appropriate, accurate, and conservative methodologies that account for all GHG emissions sources, GHG sinks, and GHG reservoirs within the of fset project boundary and account for uncertainty and the potential for activity-shifting leakage and market-shifting leakage. [17 CCR 95802] b) “Additional” means, in the context of offset credits, GHG emission reductions or removals that exceed any GHG reduction or removals otherwise required by law, regulation, or legally binding mandate, and that exceed any GHG reductions or removals that would otherwise occur in a conservative BAU scenario. [17 CCR 95802]
c) “Permanent” means, in the context of offset credits, either that GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements are not reversible, or when GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements may be reversible, that mechanisms are in place to replace any reversed GHG emission reductions and GHG removal enhancements to ensure that all credited reductions endure for at least 100 years. [17 CCR 95802] d) “Quantifiable” means, in the context of offset credits, the ability to accurately measure and calculate GHG reductions or GHG removal enhancements relative to a project baseline in a reliable and replicable manner for all GHG emission sources, GHG sinks, or GHG reservoirs included within the offset project boundary while accounting for uncertainty and activity -shifting leakage and market -shifting leakage. [17 CCR 95802]
e) “Verifiable” means that a non- California offset project is located in a state that has laws and regulations equivalent to or stricter as California’s with respect to ensuring the validity of offsets and an Offset Project Data Report assertion is well

doc
umented and transparent such that it lends itself to an objective review by an accredited verification body. [17 CCR 95802]
f) “Enforceable” means the authority for the offset purchaser to hold the offset provider liable and to take appropriate action if any of the above requirements are not met. [Adapted from definition in 17 CCR 95802 for use in this measure.] “Enforceable” also means that the offset must be backed by a legal instrument or contract that defines exclusive ownership and the legal instrument can be enforced within the legal system of the State of California.

B. Required Annual GHG Emissions Reductions: The option(s) implemented pursuant to paragraph A above shall achieve the following required GHG reductions for the activities of the proposed project, assuming full buildout of each project component:
• Balanced Plan (only Pepper Park Expansion) = 836 MTCO2e per year or 4,317 MWh/year.
• GB Capital Component = 6,627 MTCO2e per year or 34,219 MWh/year.

The required reductions may be reduced by the District, based on the actual amount of development and activities associated with that development and the other adjustment provisions specified below.

C. Implementation of GHG Emissions Reduction Options. Prior to becoming operational and annually thereafter, the District shall notify the project proponent of the option(s) available for achieving its respective annual maximum GHG required emissions reduction, as identified in paragraph B above, in the order of priority specified above, and the project proponent(s) shall:

1. Develop a renewable energy project(s) or take other verifiable actions or activities identified by the District to meet or partially meet the required amount of MTCO
2e or MWh reductions specified above.
a) If the project proponent develops a renewable energy project(s), or takes other verifiable actions or activities to reduce GHG emissions, the project proponent shall submit to the District’s Planning Department (or successor department, for its review and approval, a report specifying the annual amount of MTCO 2e or MWh
reduction achieved by the renewable energy project(s), or actions, or activities; submit evidence that the renewable energy project(s), actions, or activities are not being used to offset GHG emissions for any other project or entity; and submit any other information requested by the District’s Planning Department (or successor department), to verify the amount of GHG emissions reduction achieved by the renewable energy project, or actions or activiti es (collectively, “GHG Emission Reduction Report”).
b) If the GHG Emission Reduction Report is approved by the District, a reduction to the required offsets shall be calculated by the District’s Planning Department (or successor department), and the reduction of offsets shall be transmitted to the project proponent in writing and the amount of GHG reduction shall count toward

th
e required GHG reduction for the proposed project component (“GHG Reduction”).

2. P
urchase GHG emission offsets in conformance with paragraph A(3) above in an amount sufficient to achieve the required reduction of MTCO 2e or MWh specified above, which may be decreased by the amount of annual MTCO 2e or MWh reduction that is achieved by any renewable energy project(s) or other verifiable action or activities if developed and/or implemented pursuant to paragraph (1) above. The purchase of offsets to achieve the required reduction in MTCO2e or MWh shall occur as follows:
a) E
ach project component shall purchase offsets for its first 2 years of operation; b) P
urchase offsets at least annually thereafter, prior to becoming operational, beginning with the third year of operation, for the life of the proposed project component’s operations or until the termination of a lease agreement (for GB Capital Component only) between the District and the project proponent. The project proponent may purchase more than 1 year of operation emissions offsets, consistent with the amount of MTCO2e or MWh reduction specified above for the corresponding project component.
c
) On or before the first year of operation of the respective project proponent and annually thereafter, the project proponent shall submit certificates for offsets purchased to achieve the required GHG emission reductions, including written verification by a qualified consultant approved by the District that the offsets meet the requirements for GHG emission offset credits set forth in paragraph A(3) above, to the District’s Planning Department (or successor department).

D. A
djustments to Required GHG Emissions Reductions.

If the project proponent complies with paragraphs A(1) or A(2) above, in an amount that meets the total amount of MTCO 2e or MWh reductions specified above, or complies with paragraph A(3) above and purchases the requisite offsets, or does a combination of paragraphs A(1), (2), and (3) to meet the reduction target, then nothing further shall be required under this mitigation measure.

1. Reduction of Emissions through Development of a Renewable Energy Project Requirement: Although none are identified at this time, the project proponent may be required by the District to develop a renewable energy project at any time during the life of the project (subject to future approvals and the priorities listed above) and may request a reduction of required offsets. If any reduction in offsets is requested by the project proponent because of the development of a renewable energy project(s), the project proponent shall submit a GHG Emission Reduction Report for the District Planning Department’s (or successor department’s) review, pursuant to the process specified above in paragraph C(1) above, and required offsets shall be determined by the District and reduced.

2. Reduction of Emissions through Verifiable Actions or Activities on Tidelands Requirement: Although none are identified at this time, the project proponent may be required by the District to take other verifiable actions or activities at any time during the life of the project (subject to future approvals and the priorities listed above) and may request a reduction of required offsets. If any reduction in offsets is requested by the project proponent because of the other verifiable actions or activities on tidelands, the project proponent shall submit a GHG Emission Reduction Report for the District Planning Department’s (or successor department’s) review pursuant to the process specified above in paragraph C(1), and required offsets shall be determined by the District and reduced.

3. R
eduction of Emissions through Purchase of Offsets: Subsequent to purchasing GHG emission offsets pursuant to paragraph C(2) above, the project proponent’s future annual purchase of offsets to achieve the GHG emissions reduction specific in paragraph B above may be adjusted if the development is less than assumed here, which is the following:
• Balanced Plan includes a 2.54-acre park.
• GB Capital Component landside features, including 134 RV sites; 40,000 square feet of dry boat storage; 60 modular cabins; 10,000- square-foot administration/recreation building; 10,000 -square-foot building with restrooms, laundry facilities, and staff support services in the vicinity of the existing marina buildings; and a 4,000- square-foot maintenance building and associated approximately 8, 200-square-foot maintenance yard northeast of the proposed dry boat storage. Waterside uses include 20 moorings in Sweetwater Channel; 620- foot-long and 8- foot-wide floating dock that includes up to 30 fingers, which accommodate up to 50 boats; and a 580-foot-long and 8-foot-wide dock with two 80-foot-long and 5-foot- wide gangways within the existing marina basin north of the jetty to accommodate up to 25 smaller boats.
4 . The District or a District-retained consultant (at the project proponent cost) shall calculate, using the best available science, the amount of unused GHG reduction offsets, based on the actual development constructed and in operation. Any unused offsets shall be used for the next year of operation of the project component, and the project proponent shall purchase offsets in the necessary amounts (required amount les s any unused offsets) for the subject year. This procedure shall be repeated on an annual basis. In the event that newly discovered information shows that an offset, previously certified as compliant pursuant to paragraph C(3)(c), does not comply with the requirements of paragraph A(3), the project proponent shall purchase an equivalent amount of replacement offsets that comply with the requirements of paragraph A(3) within 30 days of receiving notice of the noncompliance. After verification of unused and available offsets, unused offsets may replace previously compliant offsets should those offsets subsequently be determined noncompliant with paragraph A(3). At the project proponent’s written request to the District, the project proponent may waive the annual adjustment described above and purchase the required MTCO 2e or MWh offsets

on a
t least an annual basis.

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 (City Program – Development Component).

A. O
ptions for Reducing GHG Emissions.

To reach the numerical efficiency metric, each project proponent shall, in order of preference, considering availability of structures and feasibility, implement the following, which may be combined with consideration to the preference described below:

1. Incorporate renewable energy
a) On the project site,
b) Within the City’s jurisdiction, or
c) Within the adjacent community or the city.

2. U
ndertake other verifiable actions or activities approved by the City, such as electrification of equipment, including vehicles and trucks; financial contribution to a future local or GHG emission reduction program within the city; or similar activities or actions that reduce operational GHG emissions;

3. P
urchase GHG emission offset credits that (1) are real, additional, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable, as specified in California Health and Safety Code Section 38562(d)(1) and (2) and further defined in California CCR Title 17, Section 95802 (see below); (2) u se a protocol consistent with or as stringent as CARB protocol requirements under CCR Title 17, Section 95972(a); and (3) are issued by an CARB -approved offset registry.7 For offset credits from projects outside California, the project proponent must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the City that the offset project meets requirements equivalent to or stricter than California’s laws and regulations, ensuring the validity of offset credits.

F
or purposes of this section, the definitions are as follows:
a) “Real” means, in the context of offset projects, that GHG reductions or GHG enhancements result from a demonstrable action or set of actions and are quantified using appropriate, accurate, and conservative methodologies that account for all GHG emissions sources, GHG sinks, and GHG reservoirs within the offset project boundary and account for uncertainty and the potential for activity-shifting leakage and market- shifting leakage. [17 CCR 95802] b) “
Additional” means, in the context of offset credits, GHG emission reductions or removals that exceed any GHG reduction or removals otherwise required by law, regulation, or legally binding mandate and that exceed any GHG reductions or removals that would otherwise occur in a conservative BAU scenario. [17 CCR 95802]

c
) “Permanent” means, in the context of offset credits, either that GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements are not reversible, or when GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements may be reversible, that mechanisms are in place to replace any reversed GHG emission reductions and GHG removal enhancements to ensure that all credited reductions endure for at least 100 years. [17 CCR 95802] d) “
Quantifiable” means, in the context of offset credits, the ability to accurately measure and calculate GHG reductions or GHG removal enhancements relative to a project baseline in a reliable and replicable manner for all GHG emission sources, GHG sinks, or GHG reservoirs included within the offset project boundary while accounting for uncertainty and activity -shifting leakage and market -shifting leakage. [17 CCR 95802]
e) “
Verifiable” means that a non- California offset project is located in a state that has laws and regulations equivalent to or stricter as California’s with respect to ensuring the validity of offsets and an Offset Project Data Report assertion is well documented and transparent such that it lends itself to an objective review by an accredited verification body. [17 CCR 95802]
f
) “Enforceable” means the authority for the offset purchaser to hold the offset provider liable and to take appropriate action if any of the above requirements are not met. [Adapted from definition in 17 CCR 95802 for use in this measure.] “Enforceable” also means that the offset must be backed by a legal instrument or contract that defines exclusive ownership and the legal instrument can be enforced within the legal system of the State of California.

B
. Required Annual GHG Emissions Reductions:

The option(s) implemented pursuant to paragraph A above shall achieve the following required GHG reductions for the activities of the proposed project, assuming full buildout of each project component:
• C
ity Program = 3,549 MTCO2e per year or 18,323 MWh/year.

T
he required reductions may be reduced by the City, based on the actual amount of development and activities associated with that development and the other adjustment provisions specified below.

C
. Implementation of GHG Emissions Reduction Options.

Prior to becoming operational and annually thereafter, the City shall notify the project proponent of the option(s) available for achieving its respective annual maximum GHG required emissions reduction, as identified in paragraph B above, in the order of priority specified above, and the project proponent(s) shall:

1. Develop a renewable energy project(s) or take other verifiable actions or activities identified by the City to meet or par tially meet the required am ount of

MT
CO2e or MWh reductions specified above.
a) I
f the project proponent develops a renewable energy project(s), or takes other verifiable actions or activities to reduce GHG emissions, the project proponent shall submit to the City’s Community Development Department, for its review and approval, a report specifying t he annual amount of MTCO 2e or
MWh reduction achieved by the renewable energy project(s), or actions, or activities; submit evidence that the renewable energy project(s), actions, or activities are not being used to offset GHG emissions for any other projec t or entity; and submit any other information requested by the City’s Community Development Department to verify the amount of GHG emissions reduction achieved by the renewable energy project, or actions or activities (collectively, “GHG Emission Reduction Report”).
b) I
f the GHG Emission Reduction Report is approved by the City, a reduction to the required offsets shall be calculated by the City’s Community Development Department, and the reduction of offsets shall be transmitted to the project proponent in writing and the amount of GHG reduction shall count toward the required GHG reduction for the proposed project (“GHG Reduction”).

2. P
urchase GHG emission offsets in conformance with paragraph A(3) above in an amount sufficient to achieve the required reduction of MTCO 2e or MWh specified above, which may be decreased by the amount of annual MTCO 2e or MWh reduction that is achieved by any renewable energy project(s) or other verifiable action or activities if developed and/or implemented pursuant to paragraph (1) above. The purchase of offsets to achieve the required reduction in MTCO2e or MWh shall occur as follows:
a) E
ach project component shall purchase offsets for its first 2 years of operation; b) P
urchase offsets at least annually thereafter, prior to becoming operational, beginning with the third year of operation, for the life of the proposed project component’s operations or until the termination of any lease agreement between the City and the project proponent. The project proponent may purchase more than 1 year of operation emissions offsets, consistent with the amount of MTCO 2e or MWh reduction specified above for the corresponding project component. c
) On or before the first year of operation of the respective project proponent and annually thereafter, the project proponent shall submit certificates for offsets purchased to achieve the required GHG emission reductions, including written verification by a qualified consultant approved by the City that the offsets meet the requirements for GHG emission offset credits set forth in paragraph A(3) above, to the City’s Community Development Department.

D
. Adjustments to Required GHG Emissions Reductions.

I
f the project proponent complies with paragraphs A(1) or A(2) above, in an amount that meets the total amount of MTCO2e or MWh reductions specified above in the reduction target, or complies with paragraph A(3) above and purchases the requisite offsets, or does a combination of paragraphs A(1), (2), and (3) to meet the reduction target, then nothing further shall be required under this mitigation measure.

1. R
eduction of Emissions through Development of a Renewable Energy Project Requirement: Although none are identified at this time, the project proponent may be required by the City to develop a renewable energy project at any time during the life of the project (subject to future approvals and the priorities listed above) and may request a reduction of required offsets. If any reduction in offsets is requested by the project proponent because of the development of a renewable energy project(s), the project proponent shall submit a GHG Emission Reduction Report for the City’s Community Development Department’s review, pursuant to the process specified above in paragraph C(1) above, and required offsets shall be determined by the City and reduced.

2. R
eduction of Emissions through Verifiable Actions or Activities in the City of National City Requirement: Although none are identified at this time, the project proponent may be required by the City to take other verifiable actions or activities at any time during the life of the project (subject to future approvals and the priorities listed above) and may request a reduction of required offsets. If any reduction in offsets is requested by the project proponent because of the other verifiable actions or activities on tidelands, the project proponent shall submit a GHG Emission Reduction Report for the City’s Community Development Department’s review pursuant to the process specified above in paragraph C(1), and required offsets shall be determined by the City and reduced.

3. R
eduction of Emissions through Purchase of Offsets: Subsequent to purchasing GHG emission offsets pursuant to paragraph C(2) above, the project proponent’s future annual purchase of offsets to achieve the GHG emissions reduction specific in paragraph B above may be adjusted if the development is less than assumed here, which is the following:
• C
ity Program Plan includes a 150-room hotel along with 15,500 square feet of restaurant space and 12,000 square feet of retail space.

4. The City or a City-retained consultant (at the project proponent cost) shall calculate, using the best available science, the amount of unused GHG reduction offsets, based on the actual development constructed and in operation. Any unused offsets shall be used for the next year of operation of the project component, and the project proponent shall purchase offsets in the necessary amounts (required amount less any unused offsets) for the subject year. This procedure shall be repeated on an annual basis. In the event that newly discovered information shows that an offset, previously certified as compliant pursuant to

par
agraph C(3)(c), does not comply with the requirements of paragraph A(3) , the project proponent shall purchase an equivalent amount of replacement offsets that comply with the requirements of paragraph A(3) within 30 days of receiving notice of the noncompliance. After verification of unused and available offsets, unused offsets may replace previously compliant offsets should those offsets subsequently be determined noncompliant with paragraph A(3). At the project proponent’s written request to the City, the project proponent may waive the annual adjustment described above and purchase the required MTCO 2e or MWh offsets on at least an annual basis.

I
mplementation of MM -GHG-1 through MM -GHG-7 would result in emissions below the numerical target. Mitigation would ensure the project would generally comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in the adopted Scoping Plan and those adopted or recommended by CARB or other California agencies for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. However, because no plans, policies, and regulatory programs have been adopted to achieve the carbon neutrality goal set by E xecutive Order B-55-18, 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. Therefore, Impact-GHG-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

4. 6.2 Impact-GHG-2: Inconsistency with District Climate Action Plan and Only Partial Consistency with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Programs (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-GHG-2) because the project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable District CA P measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations . Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.6, 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 pr oject that avoid or substantially lessen the s ignificant environmental effects on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-GHG-2) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-GHG-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. Potential Impact-G HG-2 would result because the project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in applicable

C
ity CAP measures and applicable state reduction goals and plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The potentially significant impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact- GHG-2) would require the following mitigation measures to be implemented: 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, and MM-GHG-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero- Net-Energy Buildings. These measures are discussed in detail in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , of Volume 2 of the EIR and are set forth in full above. These mitigation measures also are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2- 3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

I
mplementation of MM -GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, MM-GHG-4, and MM -GHG-5 would reduce Impact-GHG-2 to less than significant levels because the project would be consistent with the relevant plans, policies, and regulatory programs.

4.6.3 Impact-GHG-3: Inconsistency with City Climate Action Plan and Only Partial Consistency with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Programs (City Program – Development Component, a Portion of the Bayshore Bikeway Component , and a Portion of the GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-GHG-3) because the 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. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.6, 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact-GHG-3) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on GHG emissions and climate ch ange (Impact -GHG-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4. 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. Potential Impact -GHG-3 would result because the 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.

The potentially significant impact on GHG emissions and climate change (Impact- GHG-3) would require the following mitigation measures to be implemented: MM- GHG-1: Implement Diesel Emission-R educ
tion Measures During P roject

Construction and Operation, MM -GHG-3: Comply with City CAP Measures, MM- GHG-4: Use Modern Harbor Craft for Waterside Construction Activit ies, and MM- GHG-5: Implement Electric Heating and Zero- Net-Energy Buildings. These measures are discussed in detail in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , of Volume 2 of the EIR and are set forth in full above . These mitigation measures also are set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2- 3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR.

Implementation of MM -GHG-1, MM-GHG-3, MM-GHG-4, and MM -GHG-5 would reduce Impact-GHG-3 to less than significant levels because the project would be consistent with the relevant plans, policies, and regulatory programs.

4.7 Hazard s and Hazardous Materials

4.7.1 Impact -HAZ-1: Residual S oil C ontamination (City P rogram – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact -HAZ-1) from the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils during project construction activities that could result in a release of h azardous materials and exacerbate the existing hazardous conditions. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

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 hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-1) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Potential Impact - HAZ-1 would result from the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils during project construction activities that could result in a release of hazardous materials and exacerbate the existing hazardous conditions.

The potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact - HAZ-1) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM- HAZ-1: Prepare and Implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, MM- HAZ-2: Prepare and Implement a Monitoring and Reporting Program, and MM- HAZ-3: Prepare and Submit a Project Closeout Report. 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-HAZ-1: Prepare and Implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (City Program – Development Component). Prior to the City’s approval of the project grading plans and the com mencement of any construction activities that

w
ould disturb the soil on the City Program – Development Component site, the project proponent shall retain a licensed Professional Geologist, Professional Engineering Geologist, or Professional Engineer with experience in contaminated site redevelopment and restoration to prepare and submit a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan to the City for review and approval. After the City’s review and approval, the project proponent shall implement the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, which shall include the following:
• A S
ite Contamination Characterization Report (Characterization Report) delineating the vertical and lateral extent and concentration of residual contamination from the site’s past uses throughout the City Program – Development Component construction area. The Characterization Report shall include a compilation of data based on historical records review and from prior reports and investigations and, where data gaps are found, include new soil and groundwater sampling to characterize the existing vertical and lateral extent and concentration of residual contamination. The project proponent shall coordinate with the County of San Diego Department of Health if the Characterization Report identifies contamination.
• A S
oil Testing and Profiling Plan (Testing and Profiling Plan) for those materials that shall be disposed of during construction. Testing shall occur for all potential contaminants of concern, including CA Title 22 metals, PAHs, VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, TPH, PAHs, or any other potential contaminants, as specified within the Testing and Profiling Plan. The Testing and Profiling Plan shall document compliance with CA Title 22 for proper identification and segregation of hazardous and solid waste as needed for acceptance at a CA Title 22 –compliant offsite disposal facility. All excavation activities shall be actively monitored by a Registered Environmental Assessor for the potential presence of contaminated soils and for compliance with the Testing and Profiling Plan.
• A S
oil Disposal Plan (Disposal Plan), which shall des cribe the process for excavation, stockpiling, dewatering, treating, and loading and hauling of soil from the site. This plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Testing and Profiling Plan (i.e., in accordance with CA Title 22 and DOT Title 40 CFR Par t 263, California Code of Regulations Title 27), and current industry best practices for the prevention of cross contamination, spills, or releases.

Measures shall include, but not be limited to, segregation into separate piles for waste profile analysis based on organic vapor, and visual and odor monitoring.
• A S
ite Worker Health and Safety Plan (Safety Plan) to ensure compliance with 29 CFR Part 120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations for site workers at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Safety Plan shall be based on the Characterization Report and the planned si te construction activity to ensure that site workers potentially exposed to site

c
ontamination in soil are trained, equipped, and monitored during site activity.

The training, equipment, and monitoring activities shall ensure that workers are not exposed to contaminants above personnel exposure limits established by Table Z, 29 CFR Part 1910.1000. The Safety Plan shall be signed by and implemented under the oversight of a California State Certified Industrial Hygienist.

MM-HAZ-2: Prepare and Implement a Monitoring and Reporting Program (City Program – Development Component). Prior to commencement of construction of the City Program – Development Component, the project proponent shall prepare a Monitoring and Reporting Program and submit it to the City for review and approval. The Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be implemented during and upon completion of construction of the City Program – Development Component.

The Monitoring and Reporting Program shall document implementation of the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, including the Testing and Profiling Plan, Disposal Plan, and Safety Plan, as required by MM -HAZ-1. The Monitoring and Reporting Program shall include a requirement that the project proponent submit monthly reports (starting with the first ground disturbance activities and ending at the completion of ground disturbance activities) to the City, signed and certified by the licensed Professional Geologist, Professional Engineering Geologist, or Professional Engineer, as applicable, documenting compliance with the provisions of these plans and the overall Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

MM-HAZ-3: Prepare and Submit a Project Closeout Repor t (City Program – Development Component). Within 30 days of completion of landside construction of the City Program – Development Component, the project proponent shall prepare a Project Closeout Report and submit it to the City for review and approval.

The Project Closeout Report shall summarize all environmental activity at the site and document implementation of the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, as required by MM -HAZ-1, and the Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by M
M-HAZ-2.

Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 would ensure the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soil during construction activities. In addition, MM -HAZ-2 and MM- HAZ-3 requires the preparation and submittal of a Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Project Closeout Report , which would ensure that the Soil Management Plan is properly implemented and documented. Implementation of MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, and MM-HAZ-3 would reduce Impact-HAZ-1 to less-than- significant levels by ensuring safeguards would be implemented during ground- disturbing construction activities to ensure upset and accidental conditions do not occur, and detrimental effects in the event of unanticipated upset conditions would be minimized.

4. 7.2 Impact-HAZ-2: Residual Soil Contamination ( Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact -HAZ-2) from the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils during project construction activities associated with the Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component that could result in the release of hazardous materials and exacerbate the existing hazardous conditions. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

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 hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-2) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Potential Im pact- HAZ-2 would result from the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils during project construction activities that could result in a release of hazardous materials and exacerbate the existing hazardous conditions.

The potentially significant impac t on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact - HAZ-2) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM- HAZ-4: Prepare and Implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, MM- HAZ-5: Prepare and Implement a Monitoring and Reporting Program , and MM- HAZ-6: Prepare and Submit a Project Closeout Report. 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-HAZ-4: Prepare and Implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component). Prior to the District’s and the City’s, as applicable, approval of the project’s grading plans and the commencement of any construction activities that would disturb the soil, the project proponent shall retain a licensed Professional Geologist, Professional Engineering Geologist, or Professional Engineer with experience in contaminated site redevelopment and restoration, to prepare and submit a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan to the District‘s Environmental Protection Department and the City, as applicable, for review and approval. After the District’s and the City’s, as applicable, review and approval, the project proponent shall implement the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, which shall include the following:
• A Site Contamination Characterization Report (Characterization Report) delineating the vertical and lateral extent and concentration of residual contamination from the site’s past uses throughout the Pasha Road Closure

C
omponent construction area. The Characterization Report shall include a compilation of data based on historical records review and from prior reports and investigations and, where data gaps are found, include new soil and groundwater sampling to characterize the existing vertical and lateral extent and concentration of residual contamination. The project proponent shall coordinate with the County of San Diego Department of Health if the Characterization Report identifies contamination.
• A Soil Testing and Profiling Plan (Testing and Profiling Plan) for those materials that shall be disposed of during construction. Testing shall occur for all potential contaminants of concern, including CA Title 22 metals, PAHs, VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, TPH, PAHs, or any other potential contaminants, as specified within the Testing and Profiling Plan. The Testing and Profiling Plan shall document compliance with CA Title 22 for proper identification and segregation of hazardous and solid waste as needed for acceptance at a CA Title 22 –compliant offsite disposal facility. All excavation activities shall be actively monitored by a Registered Environmental Assessor for the potential presence of contami nated soils and for compliance with the Testing and Profiling Plan.
• A Soil Disposal Plan (Disposal Plan), which shall describe the process for excavation, stockpiling, dewatering, treating, and loading and hauling of soil from the site. This plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Testing and Profiling Plan (i.e., in accordance with CA Title 22 and DOT Title 40 CFR Part 263, California Code of Regulations Title 27), and current industry best practices for the prevention of cross contamination, spills, or releases.

Measures shall include, but not be limited to, segregation into separate piles for waste profile analysis based on organic vapor, and visual and odor monitoring.
• A Site Worker Health and Safety Plan (Safety Plan) to ensure compliance with 29 CFR Part 120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations for site workers at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Safety Plan shall be based on the Characterization Report and the planned site construction activity to ensure that site workers potentially exposed to site contamination in soil are trained, equipped, and m onitored during site activity.

The training, equipment, and monitoring activities shall ensure that workers are not exposed to contaminants above personnel exposur e limits established by Table Z, 29 CFR Part 1910.1000. The Safety Plan shall be signed by and implemented under the oversight of a California State Certified Industrial Hygienist.

MM-HAZ-5: Prepare and Implement a Monitoring and Reporting Program (Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component). Prior to commencement of construction of the Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component, the respective project proponent shall prepare a Monitoring and Reporting Program and submit it to the District’s Environmental Protection

Department and the City, as applicable, for review and approval. The Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be implemented during and upon completion of construction of the Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Impr ovement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component. The Monitoring and Reporting Program shall document implementation of the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, including the Testing and Profiling Plan, Disposal Plan, and Safety Plan, as required by MM -HAZ-4. The Monitoring and Reporting Program shall include a requirement that the project proponent submit monthly reports (starting with the first ground disturbance activities and ending at the completion of ground disturbance activities) to the District’s Development Services Department and the City, as applicable, signed and certified by the licensed Professional Geologist, Professional Engineering Geologist, or Professional Engineer, as applicable, documenting compliance with the provisions of these plans and the overall Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

M
M-HAZ-6: Prepare and Submit a Project Closeout Report (Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component). Within 30 days of completion of landside construction of the Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component, the project proponent shall prepare a Project Closeout Report and submit it to the District’s Environmental Protection Department and the City, as applicable, for review and approval. The Project Closeout Report shall summarize all environmental activity at the site and document implementation of the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, as required by MM -HAZ-4, and the Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by MM-HAZ-5.

Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-4 would ensure the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soil during construction activities related to the Pasha Road Closures Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, and Bayshore Bikeway Component . In addition, MM -HAZ-5 and MM -HAZ-6 require the preparation and submittal of a Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Project Closeout Report, which would ensure that the Soil Management Plan is properly implemented and documented. Implementation of MM -HAZ-4, MM- HAZ-5, and MM-HAZ-6 would reduce Impact-HAZ-2 to less-than-significant levels by ensuring safeguards would be implemented during ground-disturbing construction activities to ensure upset and accidental conditions do not occur, and detrimental effects in the event of unanticipated upset conditions would be minimized.

4.7.3 Impact -HAZ-3: Conflict w ith Conditions of R egulatory C losure (City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-3) resulting from a conflict with the requirements of the Department of Environmental Health ( DEH) closure and the proposed development of the City Program – Development Component, which would include hotel uses. Detailed information and analysis regarding this

pot
entially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4. 7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

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 hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-3) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Potential Im pact- HAZ-3 would result from the development of City Program – Development Component for hotel use, which would conflict with the requirements of the DEH closure and could exacerbate existing hazardous conditions.

The potentially significant impact on haz ards and hazardous materials (Impact - HAZ-3) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM- HAZ-7: Coordinate with the DEH. 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-7: Coordi
nate with the DEH (City Program – Development Component).

Prior to ground disturbing activities on the City Program – Development Component site, the project proponent for the City Program – Development Component shall coordinate with the DEH to reopen VAP Cases #H23772- 005, #H36620-001, and #H23772-004 to determine if the existing conditions would be below acceptable cleanup thresholds for hotel use. If the DEH determines the onsite conditions do not meet thresholds for future hotel uses, the project proponent must comply with the requirements of the DEH to achieve remediation standards.

Implementation of MMHAZ-7 would reduc e Impact-HAZ-3 to less-than-significant levels because coordination with the DEH would ensure the cases would be reviewed, and remediated if necessary, to the appropriate remediation standard for future hotel use.

4.7.4 Impact-HAZ-4: Inadequate Emergency Access from Temporary Road Closures During Construction (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact -HAZ-4) from construction activities causing potential road blockages that could prevent emergency response vehicles from accessing parts of the project site or vicinity and physically interfere with the implementation of an emergency access or response plan. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

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 hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-4) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact-HAZ-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Potential Impact - HAZ-4 would result from construction activities causing potential road blockages that could prevent emergency response vehicles from accessing parts of the project site or vicinity and physically interfere with the implementation of an emergency access or response plan.

The pot entially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact - HAZ-4) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM -
TRA-3: Implement Traffic Control Measures During Construction, and MM-HAZ-8:

Maintain Emergency Access Road During Construction. Th ese 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-TRA-3: Implement Traffic Control Measures During Construction (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component). See Section 4.12, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

MM-HAZ-8: Maintain Emergency Access Road During Construction (Pasha Road Closures Component). A temporary emergency access road shall be maintained by the project proponent at all times during construction of the Pasha Road Closures Component. The location and components, as defined per the California Fire Code, of the temporary emergency access road shall be submitted to the City Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to closure of the roadway(s) to through- traffic. Written verification of inclusion of the temporary emergency vehicle access shall be provided to the District’s Director of Planning prior to closure of the roadway(s) to through-traffic. 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.

MM-TRA-3 would require the implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, which would maintain emergency access to the proposed project and nearby properties . MM- HAZ-8 would require the project proponent to submit the location and components of the temporary emergency access road to the City Fire Marshal. Implementation of MM-TRA-3 and MM-HAZ-8 would reduce Impact-HAZ-4 to less-than-significant levels by ensuring emergency vehicle access would be maintained to the proposed project site and nearby properties during construction.

4. 7.5 Impact-HAZ-5: Inadequate Emergency Access from the Closure of Tidelands Avenue D uring Operation (Pasha Road Closures Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on hazards (Impact-HAZ-5) due to inadequate emergency access during operation from the closure of portions of Tidelands Avenue. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

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 hazards (Impact-HAZ- 5) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on hazards (Impact-HAZ-5) is analyzed in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section

4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potential Impact-HAZ-5 would result from the c losure of port ions of Tidelands Avenue causing inadequate emergency access during operation.

The potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials (Impact - HAZ-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 through- traffic, 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

em
ergency 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. • 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.

MM-HAZ-9 would require coordination with the City Fire Marshal that would 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. Implementation of MM-HAZ-9 would reduce Impact-HAZ-5 to less-than- significant levels by ensuring emergency vehicle access would be maintained to the proposed project site and nearby properties during operation.

4.7.6 Impact -HAZ-7: Inadequate Emergen cy Access from M arina Way Realignment (Balanced Plan or GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on hazards (Impact-HAZ-7) associated with inadequate emergency access during operation from the implementation of traffic calming devices along Marina Way .

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the approved project t hat avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on hazards (Impact-HAZ- 7) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on hazards (Impact-HAZ-7) is analyzed in Vol ume 2 ( Final EIR), Section

4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The realignment of Marina Way (Balanced Plan or GB Capital Component, if that alignment of Marina Way is selected) has the potential to result in inadequate emergency access during operation through the installation of traffic-calming devices (Impact-HAZ-7).

The potentially significant impact on hazards (Impact -HAZ-7) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM -HAZ-11: Manage Marina Way Realignment Con ditions. 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-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.

MM-HAZ-11 would ensure that any traffic-calming devices incorporated as part of the Marina Way alignment (whether it is the alignment in the Balanced Plan or the alignment in the GB Capital Component) would be approved by the City Fire Marshal. Implementation of MM-HAZ-11 would reduce Impact-HAZ-7 to less-than- significant levels by ensur ing unapproved traffic calming devices would not be installed and emergency vehicle access would be maintained to the proposed project site and nearby properties.

4.8 Land Use a nd Planning

4.8.1 Impact -LU-2: Temporary Inundation for 2030 and 2050 (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on land use and planning (Impact-LU-2) associated with temporary inundation that is projected to impact the Pepper Park expansion of the Balanced Plan and the jetty area of the GB Capital Component. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning.

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 land use and planning (Impact-LU-2) as identified in the EIR.

F
acts in Support of Finding: T he potentially significant impact of the proposed project on land use and planning ( Impact-LU-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning. Potential Impact-LU-2 would result from temporary inundation that is anticipated to impact greater portions of Pepper Park and park expansion site as well as the jetty area of the GB Capital Component.

The potentially significant impact on land use and planning (Impact-LU-2) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-LU-2:

Design the Pepper Park Expansion to Account for Sea Level-Rise through 2050 and MM-LU-3: Conduct Engineering-Level, Site-Specific Assessment of Sea Level-Rise through 2050. 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
-LU-2: Design the Pepper Park Expansion to Account for Sea- Level Rise through 2050 (Balanced Plan). The project proponent for the Pepper Park expansion shall design the park to accommodate water during future flooding events. Methods to accommodate water during future flooding events include, but are not limited to:
• Elevating the waterside promenades;
• Regrading coastal edges and/or inland portions of the park as appropriate; • Creating living shorelines;
• Ensuring that any new vegetation is salt tolerant;
• Developing an operational plan to close the parking lot and move parked vehicles prior to storm events;
• Including pervious surfaces such as turf, sand, and pervious concrete.

Moreover, public access to Pepper Park shall be restricted during flood events.

If any structures are constructed in Pepper Park, prior to construction, the project proponent shall conduct an engineering- level, site -specific assessment of the projected SLR at the site through 2050.

Additionally, the project proponent shall create an early warning system to monitor the risk of potential flooding of any structure. An early warning system should consist of protocols for obtaining information on local weather alerts and established levels at which additional action (e.g., sandbagging) will be taken.

Also, the project proponent shall establish emergency evacuation procedures for people to relocate to higher ground on short notice. Before a large storm, deployment of sandbags or inflatable barriers shall occur if deemed necessary.

M
M-LU-3: Conduct Engineering- Level, Site -Specific Assessment of Sea- Level Rise through 2050 (GB Capital Component). The project proponent for the GB Capital Component shall conduct an engineering-level, site-specific assessment of the projected SLR at the site through 2050. If the assessment projects the jetty to be temporarily inundated by 2050, the development on the jetty shall include the following:

S
mart Design Decisions – to be incorporated into building design and part of construction:
• Place any mechanical and electrical equipment at least 2 feet above the design flood elevation to reduce risk of flood damage. If equipment must be placed in lower areas, elevate base or ensure assets are composed of flood damage – resistant materials.
• Design water supply, sanitary sewage, and stormwater systems to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into systems and vice versa. • Ensure that all building exterior walls are composed of materials that have an impermeable and waterproof membrane.

F
uture Adaptation Strategies – to be incorporated into building design and part of construction:
• Ensure that building foundations, if any, are capable of supporting future flood walls or temporary flood barriers.
• Design building openings (e.g., doors, windows, utility penetrations) to be capable of future retrofitting to make them watertight and resistant to flood loads.
• Design key structural elements of the jet ty to allow future increases in the elevation of the jetty.

O
perational Strategies – to be implemented during operation:
• Establish an early warning system to monitor the risk of potential flooding. An early warning system should consist of:
o Protocols for obtaining information on local weather alerts and established levels at which additional action (e.g., sandbagging) will be taken;
o Protocols for monitoring water levels at nearby storm gauges prior to the storm arrival, and regular checking of the water levels along the jetty as the storm progresses;
• Establish emergency evacuation procedures for people to relocate to higher ground on short notice;
• Obtain backup power generators for occupiable development on the jetty and portable pumps and ensure there is sufficient fuel to operate these. Establish protocols for operating said generators and pumps during storm events or other such events;
• Before a large storm, deploy sandbags or inflatable barriers; • Before a storm, test emergency power sources and pumps and ensure there is sufficient fuel to run these, and inspect building exteriors to ensure there are no penetrations that lack flood proofing;
• Restrict public access during storms or flooding events.

Prior to issuance of the first building permit for any development on the jetty, the assessment and project plans (revised pursuant to the findings of the assessment, if the assessment projects inundation by 2050) shall be submitted to the District’s

D
evelopment Services Department and the City’s buil ding permit department for review and approval.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM -LU-2 and MM-LU-3 would reduce Impact-LU-2 to a less -than-significant level because those project components would be designed and constructed to accommodate projected inundation.

However, because permanent inundation at Pepper Park is not expected until closer to 2100, coastal protections that effectively mitigate permanent inundation could be implemented later in the century, rather than in the near future.

4.8.2 Impact-LU-3: Temporary and/or Permanent Inundation for 2100 (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on land use and planning (Impact-LU-3) associated with temporary and permanent inundation that is projected to occur in 2100 at the Pepper Park expansion and the first point of rest parcel of the Balanced Plan, the jetty area of the GB Capital Component, the Pasha Road C losures Component, and the Bayshore Bikeway Component. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning.

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 land use and planning (Impact-LU-3) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on land use and planning (Impact -LU-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning. Potential Impact-LU-3 would result from temporary and permanent inundation that is anticipated to impact Pepper Park expansion and the first point of rest parcel of the Balanced Plan, the jetty area of the GB Capital Component , the Pas ha Road Closures Component, and the Bayshore Bikeway Component in 2100.

The potentially significant impact on land use and planning (Impact -LU-3) would be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures MM-LU-4: Use Updated Modeling and Monitoring for Adaptive Management for 2100 Scenario (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Com ponent, Pasha Road Closures Component, portion of Bayshore Bikeway Component) and MM-LU-5: Use Updated Modeling and Monitoring for Adaptive Management for 2100 Scenario (most of Bayshore Bikeway Component). 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:

M
M-LU-4: Use Updated Modeling and Monitoring for Adaptive Management for 2100 Scenario (Balanced Plan, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road Closures Component, portion of Bayshore Bikeway Component). For areas of the Balanced Plan (Pepper Park and the FPR), the GB Capital Component, the Pasha Road Closures Component, and the portions of the Bay shore Bikeway Component

(
within the District’s jurisdiction) that are projected to be inundated in 2100, the District shall conduct ongoing monitoring of these project component sites every 5 to 10 years. If, through monitoring, the observed SLR conditions appear to be consistent with the 2100 projections identified in this EIR, a site- specific assessment shall be conducted to identify future SLR projections using the best science available at the time and identify appropriate adaptation strategies to ensure that these areas are resilient to coastal flooding and inundation from SLR.

Such strategies may include a neighborhood- level effort, raising of grades, additional shoreline protection, removal or movement of assets, and conversion of impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces.

MM
-LU-5: Use Updated Modeling and Monitoring for Adaptive Management for 2100 Scenario (most of Bayshore Bikeway Component). For the areas of the Bayshore Bikeway Component that are within the City’s jurisdiction, the City shall conduct ongoing monitoring of these areas every 5 to 10 years. If, through monitoring, the observed SLR conditions appear to be consistent with the 2100 projections identified in this EIR, a site-specific assessment shall be conducted to identify future SLR projections using the best science available at the time and identify appropriate adaptation strategies to ensure that these areas are r esilient to coastal flooding and inundation from SLR. Such strategies may include a neighborhood-level effort, raising of grades, additional shoreline protection, or removal or movement of assets.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM -LU-4 and MM-LU-5 would reduce Impact-LU-3 to a less-than-significant level because ongoing monitoring of these project component sites would be conducted to observe SLR conditions and, if necessary, site -specific assessments would be prepared to identify appropriate adaptation strategies to ensure that areas projected to be inundated are resilient.

4.9 Noise and Vibration

4.9.1 Impact-NOI-1: Exceedance of the City’s Noise Ordinance During Project Construction (Balanced Plan, Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road Closures Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant im pact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-1) assoc iated with construction-related noise that would exceed the threshold of 70 dB A L max at noise-s ensitive receptors.

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or inc orporated in the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-1) as identified in the E IR. However, such changes or alterations may not reduce all construc tion noise levels to a level below significance and a

S
tatement 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 noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-1) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 10, Noise and Vibration . Potential Impact- NOI-1 would result from project construction noise exceeding 70 dBA Lmax between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. at noise-sensitive receptors. These impacts would occur during construction of the Bayshore Bikeway at residential receptors within 520 feet of the selected bikeway alignment; at residential receptors north of the site (on Cleveland Avenue) and the National City Adult School to the east (across I -5) during pile driving at the City Program – Development Component; and at the proposed Balanced Plan Pepper Park due to construction at the GB Capital Component and the Pasha Road Closures Component.

T
he potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-1) would be reduced by mitigation measures MM -NOI-1: Prohibit Exterior Construction Activities Outside of the Permitted Construction Hours (Balanced Plan, Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road Closures Component), MM -NOI-2: Avoid or Reduce Construction Noise from Pile Driving (City Program – Development Component, GB Capital Component) , and MM-NOI-3: Avoid or Reduce Construction Noise from Other (Non- Pile-Driving) Construction Activities (Bayshore Bikeway Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road Closures Component). 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
-NOI-1: Prohibit Exterior Construction Activities Outside of the Permitted Construction Hours (Balanced Plan, Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road C losures Component). For the Balanced Plan, Bayshore Bikeway Component, City Program – Development Component, GB Capital Component, and Pasha Road Closures Component, the project proponent for that respective project component shall require their contractor(s) not to conduct exterior construction activities outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Material or equipment deliveries and collections shall also be prohibited outside of these hours. Except for construction personnel specifically working on interior construction tasks within a completed building shell, construction personnel shall not be permitted on the job site outside of the permitted hours.

MM-NOI-2: Avoid or Reduce Construction Noise from Pile Driving (City Program – Development Component, GB Capital Component). During all pile driving at the City Program – Development Component and GB Capital Component, the project proponent shall require its construction contractor to implement one of the following methods to reduce maxim um pile -driving noise levels at the affected noise-sensitive receptors (res idences on Cleveland Avenue, the National City

A
dult School, and Pepper Park) to 70 dBA Lmax or less:
• A
void impact pile driving by using quieter alternative installation methods, such as press -in piles or drilled piles (e.g., cast -in-drilled-hole, poured- in-place piles).
• U
se an acoustical shroud around impact pile driving. The shroud shall be constructed of materials that provide a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of 28 (examples include sound-rated acoustical blankets).

MM
-NOI-3: Avoid or Reduce Construction Noise from Other (Non- Pile-Driving) Construction Activities (Bayshore Bikeway Component, GB Capital Component, Pasha Road Closures Component). During all non-pile-driving construction activity at the Bayshore Bikeway Component, GB Capital Component, and the Pasha Road Closures Component, the project proponent shall require their construction contractor(s) to implement one of the following methods to reduce maximum noise levels at the affected noise-sensitive receptors (residences on Cleveland Avenue and McKinley Avenue, and Pepper Park) to 70 dBA L
max or less:
• A
void operating high impact demolition equipment (hydraulic breakers, jackhammers, concrete saws) within 520 feet of any noise- sensitive receptors and avoid operating all other mechanized construction equipment within 280 feet of the affected noise-sensitive receptors.
• W
here the above-specified distances cannot be maintained, install temporary noise barrier(s) between construction activities and the noise -sensitive receptor(s). Barriers may be constructed around the site perimeter or, when construction activities are restricted to a smaller portion of the site, around that smaller portion of the site, or around any noisy stationary construction equipment such as generators or dewatering pumps. All such barriers must be at least 8 feet high and of sufficient height to break the line- of-sight between the construction equipment and the ground floor of any noise- sensitive receptor. These barriers shall be constructed in one of the following ways that the project proponent establishes, in writing and to the sati sfaction of the District, shall achieve a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28:
o F
rom acoustical blankets hung over or from a supporting frame. The blankets should be firmly secured to the framework. The blankets should be overlapped by at least 4 inches at seams and taped and/or closed with hook-and-loop fasteners (i.e., Velcro®) so that no gaps exist. The blankets shall be draped to the ground to eliminate any gaps at the base of the barrier.
o F
rom commercially available acoustical panels lined with sound- absorbing material (the sound- absorptive faces of the panels should face the construction equipment).

o F
rom common construction materials such as plywood.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM -NOI-1, MM- NOI-2, and MM -NOI-3 would reduce Impact-NOI-1. However, it may not be possible to fully reduce all construction noise levels to comply with the noise limits specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 12.10.160). Limitations may include the inability to use alternative pile -driving methods or acoustical shrouds due to engineering, constructability, or safety considerations; the need to operate construction equipment in proximity to noise-sensitive receptors; or the inability to construct efficient temporary noise barriers due to local terrain conditions, or engineering, constructability, or safety considerations. As a result, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

4.9.2 Impact-NOI-2: 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 impact on noise and vibration (Impact -NOI-2) associated with traffic noise that co uld exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed City Program – Development Component proposed hotel site due to traffic on Cleveland Avenue and Bay Marina Drive.

Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-2) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-2) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration. Potential Impact-NOI-2 would result from traffic noise that could exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed City Program – Development Component proposed hotel site due to traffic on Cleveland Avenue and Bay Marina Drive.

The potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact -NOI-2) would be reduced by mitigation measur e MM-NOI-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 the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provides as follows:

MM-NOI-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 (City Program – Development Component). During the architectural and engineering design, prior to the issuance

of
any building permits for the hotel, the project proponent for the City P rogram – Development Component shall retain an acoustical consultant to ensure that the building design provides adequate noise insulation to achieve the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL, as specified in the National City General Plan Noise Element, at occupied spaces. If necessary, the consultant shall recommend design features such as, but not limited to, fresh-air supply systems (to allow windows to remain closed), sound- rated windows, or other façade upgrades. The project proponent shall submit a copy of the acoustical consultant’s report, along with evidence that all recommended design features have been incorporated into the project design, to the City’s Community Development Department for review and approval prior to hotel construction.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM-NOI-4 would reduce Impact-NOI-2 to less-than-significant 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. As a result, interior noise levels would comply with the interior noise standards specified in the National City General Plan Noise Element (i.e., 45 dB CNEL at sensitive interior spaces).

4.9.3 Impact-NOI-3: Exceedance of the City’s General Plan Noise Exposure Standards Due to Rail Noise at Proposed Onsite Visitor
Accommodations (GB Capital Component, Pasha Rail Improvement Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-3) associated with rail noise exposure that could exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed hotels and RV resort at the GB Capital Component site due to operations of the proposed Pasha Rail Im provement Component and existing National City Marine Terminal rail operations. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incor porated in the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-3) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-3) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration. Potential Impact-N OI-3 would result from rail noise exposure that c ould exceed 65 dB CNEL at the proposed hotels and RV resort at the GB Capital Component site due to operations of the proposed Pasha Rail Improvement Component and existing National City Marine Terminal rail operations.

The potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-3) would be reduced by mitigation measur es MM-NOI-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 Noise -Sensitive Occupied Spaces . Th ese 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-NOI-5: Reduce Rail Noise Levels at the Proposed GB Capital RV Sites to 65 dB CNEL or Less (Pasha Rail Component, GB Capital Component). The project proponent for the GB Capital Component shall design its dry boat storage so that it is enclosed and made from solid material (versus fabric, chain link fencing or similar pervious/open materials) and shall submit a noise study conducted by an acoustical consultant that analyzes the noise from the Pasha Rail Improvement Component with the enclosed dry boat storage as a buffer, demonstrating the noise levels at the proposed RV park location. The noise study shall be submitted to the District’s Development Services Department for its review 3 months after issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for any phase of the GB Capital Component and prior to the construction of the RV park. The project proponent shall construct the dry boat storage as designed. If the noise study shows that the rail noise exposure at the proposed RV sites is at or below 65 dB CNEL, then no additional steps as specified in this mitigation measure shall be required.

If the noise study shows that noise levels are above 65 dB CNEL at the proposed RV sites, then prior to occupancy of the GB Capital RV Resort or operation of the Pasha Rail Improvement Component, whichever occurs last, a sound barrier shall be constructed to reduce the rail noise exposure at the proposed RV sites to 65 dB CNEL or less. The noise barrier shall be the equal (50/50) shared financial responsibility of the project proponents for the Pasha Rail Improvement Component and the GB Capital Component. In the event that both components are not constructed at the same time, the project proponent (Payee) of the component last constructed shall construct and pay for the enti re specified noise control and the other project proponent (Reimbursee) shall reimburse the Payee 50% of the actual cost of designing, permitting, and constructing the noise control unless another payment arrangement is agreed upon between the project proponents and approved by the District. Such reimbursement shall be a condition of the CDPs for the Pasha Rail Improvement Component and the RV resort associated with the GB Capital Component. The noise barrier shall be constructed between the south side of the Pasha Rail Improvement Component and the GB Capital RV Resort. The barrier shall fully block the line- of-sight between the RV sites and a standard freight locomotive on the Pasha Rail Improvement Component site, and is anticipated to be a minimum barrier height of 16 feet relative to the finished track elevation. The barrier shall be a continuous structure without gaps or openings and shall extend from the north end of the Pasha Rail Improvement Component to Tidelands Avenue. The barrier shall be constructed of a solid material and, if necessary to meet the noise requirement, the density of 4 pounds per square foot (e.g., concrete block or concrete panels).

MM-NOI-6: Design and Construct the Hotels at the GB Capital Component to

A
chieve an Interior Noise Level of 45 dB CNEL or Less at Noise- Sensitive Occupied Spaces (GB Capital Component). During the architectural and engineering design, prior to the issuance of any building permits for the hotels, the project proponent for the GB Capital Component shall retain an acoustical consultant to ensure that the project design provides adequate noise insulation to achieve the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL, as specified in the National City General Plan Noise Element, at occupied spaces. If necessar y, the consultant shall recommend design features such as, but not limited to, fresh- air supply systems (to allow windows to remain closed), sound- rated window s, or other façade upgrades. The project proponent shall submit a copy of the acoustical consultant’s report, along with evidence that all recommended design features have been incorporated into the project design, to the District’s Development Services Department for review and approval prior to construction of any hotel.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-5 and MM -NOI-6 would reduce Impact-NOI-3 to less-than-significant levels. 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. As a result, interior noise levels would be in compliance with the interior noise standards specified in the National City General Plan Noise Element (i.e., 45 dB CNEL at sensitive interior spaces).

4.9.4 Impact-NOI-4: Potential Exceedance of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Standards at Existing Offsite Sensitive Receptors Due to Onsite Operations (City Program – Development Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-4) associated with mechanical equipment noise levels from the City Program – Development Component proposed hotel, which could exceed the municipal code limits at nearby homes to the nor th and at the Best Western Hotel to the south. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are pr ovided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section

4.10, 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-4) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-4) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration. Potential Impact-N OI-4 would result from mechanical equipment noise levels from the City Progr am – Development

C
omponent proposed hotel potentially exceeding the nighttime limits of 45 dBA Leq at nearby homes to the north and 60 dBA L eq at the Best Western Hotel to the south. Mechanical equipment noise would also cause a nighttime ambient noise increase of 5 dB at the Best Western Hotel.

The potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact -NOI-4) would be reduced by mitigation measur e MM-NOI-7: Design and Install All Onsite Mechanical Equipment at the City Program – Development Component Site to Comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. 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-7: Design and Install All Onsite Mechanical Equipment at the City Program – Development Component Site to Comply wi th the City’s Noise Ordinance (City Program – Development Component). During the architectural and engineering design phase, prior to the issuance of any building permits for the City Program – Development Component, the project proponent for the City Program – Development Component shall retain an acoustical consultant to evaluate the design and provide recommendations, as necessary, to ensure that all aspects of this project component, including mechanical equipment and other onsite stationary sources (e.g., trash compactors, loading docks), are designed and will be installed to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.06). Such recommendations may include, but are not limited to, changes in equipment locations; sound power limits or specifications; rooftop parapet walls; acoustic absorption materials, louvers, screens, or enclosures; or intake and exhaust silencers. The project proponent shall submit a copy of the acoustical consultant’s report, along with evidence that all recommended design features have been incorporated into the project design, to the City’s Community Development Department for review and approval prior to hotel construction.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM-NOI-7 would reduce Impact-NOI-4 to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that development at the City Program – Development Component site would be designed and constructed so that noise from onsite mechanical equipment and other onsite stationary sources would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance.

4.9.5 Impact-NOI-5: Potential Exceedance of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Standards at Onsite Sensitive Receptors Due to Onsite Operations (GB Capital Component, Balanced Plan)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impac t on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-5) associated with noise levels from the dry boat storage facility which could exceed municipal code noise limits at the Phase 1 and Phase 2 RV resort at the GB Capital Component. Additionally, noise levels from events at the potential Balanced Plan Pepper Park amphitheater could exceed nighttime noise limits at GB Capital Component RV Resort Phase 1, Hotel #1, Hotel #2, and modular cabins. Detailed information and analysis regarding this

potentially significant i mpact are provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.10 , 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-5) as identified in the EIR. Although such changes or alterations would reduce noise impacts associated with the potential Balanced Plan Pepper Park Amphitheater to below a level of significance, impacts from noise from the dry boat storage facility would remain significant even after implementation of the required changes or alterations 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 noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-5) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration. Potential Impact-NOI-5 would result from noise levels from the dry boat storage facility, which could exceed both the daytime and nighttime limits of 60 and 65 dBA L eq, respectively, at the Phase 1 and Phase 2 RV resort at the GB Capital Component. Noise levels from events at the proposed Balanced Plan Pepper Park amphitheater could exceed nighttime limits of 60 dBA Leq at GB Capital Component RV Resort Phase 1, Hotel #1, Hotel #2, and modular cabins. Noise from the amphitheater could also exceed the daytime limits of 65 dBA Leq at the GB Capital Component RV Resort Phase 1, Hotel #1, and modular cabins.

The potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact -NOI-5) would be reduced by mitigation measures MM-NOI-8: Design and Operate the P roposed Dry Boat Storage Facility to Comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance at the Adjacent Proposed RV Resort and MM -NOI-9: Regulate Organized Events at Pepper Park, Including Use of the Proposed Amphitheater . Th ese mitigation measures ar
e set forth in full in the MMRP and Table 2-3 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR and provide as follows:

MM-NOI-8: Design and Operate the Proposed Dry Boat Storage Facility to Comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance at the Adjacent Proposed RV Resort (GB Capital Component). During the architectural and engineering design phase for the dry boat storage facility, prior to the issuance of any building permits for such, the project proponent for the GB Capital Component shall retain an acoustical consultant to evaluate the design and provide recommendations, as necessary, to ensure that operation of the dry boat storage facility will comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.06.020) at the adjacent RV sites during the sensitive evening and nighttime hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (i.e., 65 dBA Leq between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA Leq between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.).

Noise control techniques may include, but are not limited to, restricting hours of operation to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), selecting quieter equipment (when commercially available), or installing additional noise barriers to screen the fac
ility from the RV resort. The project proponent s hall submit a copy of the

acoustical consultant’s report, along with evidence that all design features have been incorporated into the project design (to ensure that operation of the dry boat storage facility would comply with the City Noise Ordinance at the adjacent RV sites during the sensitive evening and nighttime hours), to the District’s Development Services Department for review and approval prior to commencement of construction of the dry boat storage facility. The project proponent shall implement the noise control techniques.

MM-NOI-9: Regulate Organized Events at Pepper Park, Including Use of the Proposed Amphitheater (Balanced Plan). Organized events at Pepper Park shall be properly regulated for noise control. Per Section 8.02 of the District’s Port Code, any event with over 25 attendees shall obtain a permit from the District. As further stipulated by Section 8.02 of the Port Code, each “permit shall be subject to the requirements regarding noise…as contained in the Municipal Code of the particular City in which the park is located.” Therefore, any event for which noise generating activities will occur at the amphitheater will be subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance. Although the City’s Noise Ordinance indicates that daytime and nighttime noise standards would be 65 and 60 dBA Leq(h), respectively, at the GB Capital Component visitor accommodations (RV resort and hotels), t he City’s Noise Ordinance also includes exceptions for these noise standards; the exceptions are on a case-by-case basis and include temporary noise exceedances for organized events (e.g., parades, concerts). Further, as part of the District’s permitting process for organized events that are proposed to have amplified sounds (e.g., concerts), the District shall coordinate with the City, and if the City requires a maximum decibel level limit or hours in which all noise needs to cease, that information shall be added to the District permit for that organized event. In addition, the District shall coordinate notification to adjacent tenants of upcoming organized large events, and the permittee of the organized event shall coordinate with the same tenants within 2 weeks of the organized event.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-8 and MM -NOI-9 would reduce Impact-NOI-5. However, it is possible that full implementation of MM-NOI-8 would not be feasible due to factors such as the type of mechanical equipment required to lift and transport boats, the desired hours of operation (including the sensitive evening and nighttime hours), the proximity to the RV sites, and the difficulty in providing effective shielding given the height of the storage structure and the southerly access to the facility from Mar ina Way. Mitigation measure MM -NOI-9 would ensure that events at Pepper Park would be conducted in compliance with local requirements including obtaining and complying with the terms of an applicable event permit granted by the District and coordination with the City and adjacent tenants. Therefore, potential noise impacts associated with operation of Pepper Park would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM- NOI-9. However, given the uncertainty associated with implementing adequate noise control, Impact-NOI-5 would remain potentially significant and unavoidable with respect to noise from the dry boat storage facility and a Statement of Ov
erriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093 is required.

4. 9.6 Impact-NOI-6: Exceedance of Caltrans Guideline Criteria for Potential Building Damage During Project Construction (GB Capital Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-6) associated with vi bration levels from pile driving which could exceed Caltrans Guideline Criteria during construction of Hotel #3 at the GB Capital Component. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 ( Final EIR), Section 4.10, 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-6) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-6) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4. 10, Noise and Vibration. Potential Impact- NOI-6 would result from vibration levels from pile driving which could exceed 0.5 in/sec at the closest structure (Waterfront Grill at the Pier 32 Marina) during construction of Hotel #3 at the GB Capital Component.

T
he potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact -NOI-6) would be reduced by mitigation measure MM -NOI-10: 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-10: Avoid or Reduce Groundborne Vibration from Pile Driving (GB Capital Component). Where feasible, the project proponent for the GB Capital Component shall require its construction contractor(s) to avoid pile driving within a 32- foot buffer zone of existing buildings at the Pier 32 Marina. If piling cannot be avoided within this distance, the following shall be implemented:
• Alternative installation methods shall be used, s uch as press-in piles or drilled piles (e.g., cast-in-drilled-hole, poured-in-place piles). • The following steps shall be taken to protect buildings within 32 feet of pile- driving locations:
o The project proponent/contractor shall retain a qualified structural or geotechnical engineer to conduct preconstruction s urveys of neighboring structures (inc luding photographing and/or videotaping) to document existing building conditions for future comparison if any vibration-related damage is suspected or results from cons truction- related activities; and

o B
ased on review of the specific buildings involved, the structural/ geotechnical engineer may provide updated vibration thresholds and buffer distances for potentially affected buildings; and o M
onitoring shall be conducted during construction to check for vibration- related damage during pile driving; such monitoring shall include vibration measurements obtained inside or outside of the buildings or other tests and observations deemed necessary; and
o T
he person(s) conducting the monitoring shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to the pile- driving contractor if excessive vibration levels are measured or other observations occur that indicate potential building damage may occur; in the event of such an occurrence, the monitor shall notify the project proponent (GB Capital) and the District; and
o I
f any damage to existing buildings is determined to occur as a result of pile driving at the GB Capital Component, the project proponent shall be financially responsible for the necessary repairs, structural or cosmetic, to return the damaged building to its pre-existing state.

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.

4.9.7 Impact-NOI-7: Exceedance of Caltrans Guideline Criteria for Potential Human Annoyance During Project Construction (Bayshore Bikeway Component)
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-7) associated with vibr ation levels from vibratory rollers (compactors) or heavy earthmoving equipment which could exceed Caltrans Guideline Criteria at the closest residential structures during construction of the proposed Bayshore Bikeway. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, 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 substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-7) as identified in the EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on noise and vibration (Impact-NOI-7) is analyzed in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration. Potential Impact-N OI-7 would result from vibration levels due to vibratory rollers ( compactors) or heavy earthmoving

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

T
he 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:
• A
void 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.

I
f 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 infor mation and analysis r egarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volum e 2 (Final EIR), Section

4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and P arking.

Fi
nding: 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 TRA- 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 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 e mployment 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.

T
he 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 meas ure from the SANDAG Mobility Management Toolbox, using the VMT Reduction C alculator Tool (SANDAG 2019b), starting the first day of project operations for the GB Capital Component and City Program – Development Component.
• M
andatory 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-T RA-1 would reduce Impact-T RA-1 by r equiring implementation of transportation-demand-management (TDM) and VMT reduction measures from the San Diego Association of Gover nments (SANDAG) Mobility Management Toolbox, us ing the VMT Reduction Calculator Tool, which would reduce employment-b ased VMT generated during project operations. However, despite implementation of the measures, employment-b ased VMT generated by the proposed project would not be below the applicable thres hold. Therefore, this

i
mpact 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.

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-3) as identified in the EIR.

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 fr om in adequate 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 Construct ion.

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 Cit y 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-l evel warning flags, along with other devices , is

ac
ceptable 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.

I
n 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. F
or 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. Emerge ncy 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 left - or 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 wor k on a block that has a contractor, or on an adjac ent block, then the second contrac tor 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 contr act without receiving approval from the Res ident Engineer for the subject contract, obtaining an STP , and notifying the City Fire Department and City Police Department.

Flagging personnel shall be requir ed when workers or equipm ent 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

r
oads 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:
• I
mplementation of a ride- sharing program to encourage carp ooling 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 -than- significant 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.

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-5) as identified in the EIR.

Fa
cts 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 through- traffic, 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 i nclude 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.

• F
ire 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 ac cessible (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 P asha Road Closures Component for marine-r elated operations, the above-d escribed emergency vehic le access shall be field-v erified by the City Fire Marshal, or the Fire Marshal’s designee. Written verification of inclusion of the above-d escribed emergency vehic le access shall be provided to the District’s Director of Planning prior to Pasha’s utilization of the Pasha Road Closures Component for marine-r elated 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-H AZ-9 would reduce Im pact-TRA-5 to less-t han- significant levels by requiring coordination with the City Fire Marshal to ensure that necessary features would be inc luded 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 emergenc y access during operation through the installation of traffic-c alming devices. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact are provided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.13, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking.

Finding: Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorpor ated in the approved pr oject that avoid or substantially lessen the s ignificant environmental effec ts on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-7) as identified in the EIR.

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, Cir culation, and Parking.

Potential Impact-T RA-7 could result in inadequate emergency access during operation through the installation of traffic-c alming devices.

The potentially signific ant impact on transportation, circulation, and parking (Impact-TRA-7) will be reduced to below a level of s ignificance by mitigation measure MM-H AZ-11 Manage Marina Way Realignment Conditions. This

m
itigation 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 pr ior-written approval is obtained from the City Fire Marshal.

Mitigation measure MM -HAZ-11 would reduce Impact -TRA-7 to less -than- significant 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.

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-8) as identified in the EIR.

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, P
asha Road Closures Component, Bayshore Bikeway Component, and City

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 Developmen t 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 requirem ents 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 M
M-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 P arking f or Te rminal E mployees 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 propos ed 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.

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 (Im
pact-TRA-9) as identified in the EIR.

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.

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 exist ing 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 u se 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- than- significant 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 P arking for P epper P ark 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), Sect ion 4.13, 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 (Im
pact-TRA-10) as identified in the EIR.

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:

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 act ual (i.e., on-the- ground) 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 i n 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 propos ed project which could require relocation or construc tion of new or expanded water facilities to provide water to the project components. Detailed information and analysis regarding this potentially significant impact ar e pr ovided in Volume 2 (Final EIR), Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems.

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 utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-1) as identified in the EIR.

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-U TIL-1 would result from a potentially significant increase in water demand becaus e 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 ser vice systems (Impact-UTIL-1) will be reduced to below a level of signific ance by mitigation measures MM-UTIL-1:

Prepare Utility Infras tructure Study and MM-U TIL-2: Implement Water Conservation Measures. These mitigation measures are s et forth in full in the

M
MRP 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 capacit y 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 entranc e to reduce offsite tracking, a soil and groundwater management plan pursuant to MM- HAZ-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. Water - efficient design measures shall at a minimum, include:
• I
mplement 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,

c
afeterias, conference rooms, and other places where employees congregate.

M
itigation 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 MM- UTIL-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.

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 utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-2) as identified in the EIR.

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

l
inear 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.

P
rior 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.

M
itigation measure MM-UTIL-3 would reduce Impact -UTIL-2 to less-than- significant 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.

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 utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-3) as identified in the EIR.

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 project - specific 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-UTIL- 1: 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:

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.

Mi
tigation 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 impac t 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.

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 utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-4) as identified in the EIR.

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 S ervice Systems. Potential Impact-U TIL-4 would occur in the event that stormwater facility improvements are required and do not occur, resulting in insufficient capacity to accommodate future project- specific generated stormwater.

The potentially significant impac t on utilities and service s ystems (Impact-UTIL-4) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM-U TIL-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 require the pr eparation of a utility infrastructure study that would require sufficient sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to be available to serve operation of

t
he 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.

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 utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-5) as identified in the EIR.

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.

Mit
igation measure MM-UTIL-1 would reduce Impact -UTIL-5 to less -than- significant 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.

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 utilities and service systems (Impact-UTIL-6) as identified in the EIR.

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 D istrict, potential cutback in Colorado River water deliveries in accordance with the Lower Basin D rought 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 W ater 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-UTIL- 1: 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: P repare Utility I nfrastructure Study ( Balanced Plan, G B C apital Component, and City Program – Development Component), as described above.

MM-UTIL-2: Implement Water Conservation Measures (Balance d 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.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM -UTIL-1 would ensure the capacity of utility facilities is assessed prior to construction, and mitigation measure MM-UTIL- 2 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-UTIL- 1, MM-UTIL-2, MM-UTIL-5, and MM-UTIL-6 would reduce Impact-UTIL-6 to a less- than-significant level.

5.0 FINDINGS RE GARDING 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 r
elation to the project s ite is provided on Figure 5-1 (project numbering

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 Qu ality 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 a pproved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on air quality and health r
isk (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.

The potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality and health risk (Impact- C-AQ-1) will be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measure MM- AQ-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 sit e. 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).

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-2) as identified in the EIR.

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 (Impact- C-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.