Summary of some of Problems with previous DEIR:

In summary the current DEIR does not meet minimal disclosure requirements for a project level EIR for any of the projects in Phase I. The project description is totally inadequate to provide the public with the information needed to fully evaluate the probable adverse negative environmental effects of the project and suggest specific mitigations or ways of avoiding impacts. None of the mitigations suggested except the formula replacement of specific lost habitats is specifically required by the DEIR for specific effects. This is totally unacceptable in a CEQUA document. The recommendation is withdrawal of the document and reissuing it when there is sufficient specific information and plans to write a project level EIR on some of the projects.

The new program level EIR should be reissued with a combination of the Overall Reduction in Density Alternative, The Reduction in Height Alternative and the Alternative Land Trade Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. Doing this in conjunction with adopting numerous specific mitigation measures should greatly reduce the number of significant and unmitigatable effects of the Master Plan. It is totally unacceptable to make no effort to reduce these significant impacts or eliminate them.

http://www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/index.html a) Basic Purposes of CEQA.

The basic purposes of CEQA are to:

(1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

The lack of specific descriptions of projects has denied the SWCVCA the information needed to fully determine the potential, significant environmental effects, because the proposed activities are not precisely described.

(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.

The DEIR does not specifically identify ways of avoiding or significantly reducing specific environmental damage. In fact it begins by declaring a great deal of environmental damage to air quality, energy availability, wildlife, aesthetics, traffic, etc. to be unavoidable if the project is implemented as planned.

(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.

(4) Choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need;

It is clearly feasible and possible to adopt specific mitigation measures and change the project by adopting a combination of the Overall Reduced Density Alternative, Height Reduction Alternative and Alternative Land Trade Alternative. Except for the No Project Alternative none of the Alternatives on its own prevents or avoids an adequate amount of significant avoidable damage to the environment. The vagueness of the project descriptions actually makes it impossible to determine exactly what the effects are that need to be mitigated and, therefore, impossible to determine exactly what appropriate strategies for avoidance or mitigation would help reduce them below the level of significance.

5) Disapproving the project;

(6) Finding that changing or altering the project is not feasible; 

(7) Finding that the unavoidable significant environmental damage is acceptable as provided in Section 15093.

The citizens of Chula Vista will not tolerate the declaration of over-riding circumstances for so much environmental damage that could be largely avoided and/or mitigated by changing the project and adopting appropriate mitigation measures such as those outlined in Appendix AA and suggested during various meetings prior to the issuance of this document. It is also questionable whether considering the Port’s trust requirements and goals that the Port could ever legally make such a finding without violating its obligation to protect the lands it manages in trust for the people of California.