Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Attch 2 - Mitigated Neg DeclMitigated Negative Decla PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Project Setting Lutheran 1 810 Buen, APN 642 - Lord Arch R. Bennet IS -13 -002 July 1, 20 August 4, The 8.43 -acre project site is located at 810 Buena Vista Way at the intersection of Buena Vista Way and East H Street. The project site is comprised of one parcel located in the urbanized northeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista (see Exhibit A- Location Map). The project site is relatively flat at the corner intersection where school buildings currently exist. Beyond the existing buildings are large slopes along East H Street and Buena Vista Way. Vehicular access is currently provided from one driveway located on Buena Vista Way. The project site currently contains a one -story, 4,900 square -foot church building and six (6) temporary modular classroom buildings and one (1) restroom building for the Lutheran High School. The lot includes on and off -site improvements, paved parking lot, lighting, landscaped treatments, and a trash enclosure. The project site is within the PC -CPF (Planned Community- Community Purpose Facility Zone and RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation. The land uses surrounding the site are as follows: North: Discovery Community Park South: Single Family Homes East: Multi- Family Homes West: Multi - Family Homes B. Project Description The project proposal consists of a Master Plan for the existing Church of Joy and the proposed Lutheran High School, which will consist of two phases of development over a 4 -8 year period. Phase l: Two -story 17,000 square -foot gym and multi - purpose field with bleachers for 380 spectators and 164 parking spaces; Phase 2: Two -story 24,000 square -foot classroom and administration building. The school will have a maximum of 350 students. There is a future Phase 3 for a new sanctuary building, however, this was not covered under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Exhibit B - Site Plan-Final Build -Out). Additionally, proposed on -site improvements for the parcel include a 170 -space parking lot, new landscaping, and two trash enclosures. Off -site improvements include street improvement to both East H Street and Buena Vista Way. The proposal consists of a Design Review, Variance, and Conditional Use Permit Attachment 2 Vista Way. The proposal consists of a Design Review, Variance, and Conditional Use Permit Map application. The project is identified as developable area within the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the PC -CPF Zone (Planned Community - Community Purpose Facility) and RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation. The PC -CPF Zone allows for the proposed church and school with a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review. The proposed 170 off - street parking spaces meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. D. Public Comments On April 4, 2014, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended April 14, 2014. No comments were received. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect, there would not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Air Qua lit To assess potential air quality impacts an Air Quality Impact Report, dated July 2013 was prepared by LSA. The analysis evaluated emissions associated with both the construction and operation of the proposed project. Short -Term Construction Activities The proposed project could result in a short-term air quality impact created from construction activities associated with the proposed project. The grading of the site for future school and church development, and worker and equipment vehicle trips, will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated with the construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting from construction - related operations are considered short-term in duration. A comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's thresholds, and comparison using the California statewide factors and emissions thresholds of significance for each pollutant was analyzed. The addition of emissions to an air basin is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. It was concluded that emissions associated with the construction and operation were below the significance thresholds for all construction phases and pollutants. To further ensure better air quality, implementation of the Mitigation Measure 1 2 contained in Section F below would improve short-term construction- related air quality. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Combined Short -Term and Long -Term Impacts In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to regional air quality. The proposed project, a small infill development, once completed will not result in any significant long -term air quality impacts. According to the Traffic Study for the proposed project, the project generated traffic volume of 714 trips would not result in significant long- term local or regional air quality impacts. Through project design, emission - controlled construction vehicles and efficiency building product, no area source or operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance, thresholds, therefore, no operational or long -term mitigation measures are required. Operational Activities In terms of operational impacts, the study concluded that based on the estimates of the emissions associated with project operations, the operational impacts for the proposed school site are below the significance criteria for all pollutants. Through project design, emission - controlled gas, electricity, water use, solid waste disposal, and motor vehicle use, no area source or operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance threshold, therefore, no operational or long -term mitigation measures are required. GHG Emissions In November 2002, Chula Vista adopted the Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan in order to lower the community's major greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen the local economy, and improve the global environmental. The proposed project would be required to comply with Section 15.26.030 of the City's Municipal Code, which requires that new nonresidential construction, additions, remodels and alteration projects that fall within Climate Zone 7 be at least 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Energy Code. As such, building design would employ energy efficient measures beyond that required by the Energy Code including, but not limited to, energy efficient lighting, low -flow toilets, and drought tolerant landscaping, resulting in a 15 percent reduction in emissions generated by in- building energy use. The proposed project would reduce GHG emissions by 28.1 percent beyond business as usual. The project would therefore, exceed the target of 20 percent below business as usual that has been established for the purposes of assessing operational GHG emissions of projects in the City of Chula Vista, and this reduction would be consistent with the goals of AB32. The project would, therefore, have a less than significant impact on global climate change. Energy efficient measures are outlined in Table N of the project Air Quality Impact Report and implementation of said measures is required mitigation as outlined in Section F. 3 Noise An Acoustical Analysis Report was prepared by LSA, dated, April 2014, to assess the potential noise impacts of the project. The Acoustical Analysis Report is summarized below. Existing Conditions The primary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are from roadway traffic from East H Street, Buena Vista Way, and other streets in the project vicinity. The Project site is located in a suburban area without hard pavement or surface around the proposed facilities. Project Impact According to the Acoustical Analysis Report, the noise created by the additional traffic generated by the proposed use is considered not significant after mitigation. For interior noise levels, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, mechanical ventilation such as air - conditioning systems is-required for all buildings along East H Street and Buena Vista Way. Front -row classrooms associated with the proposed two -story modular classroom building are also required to provide a minimum of 23 A- weighted decibels (dBA) exterior - to- interior noise attenuation. The noise level along Buena Vista Way and East H Street as a result of the Project would increaze by 1.4 dBA or less, as a result of the project, which is small and not discernible by the human ear. Therefore, no significant project related off -site traffic noise impacts would occur. Multiuse Field The area surrounding the multiuse field and the field itself is considered a soft site for noise propagation purposes. The area between the multiuse field and the apartment complex on the west will be fully landscaped and is also considered a soft site. The apartment complex's property line is approximately 32 -ft. to the west of the multiuse field. The existing apartment complex located to the west of the site is three stories high, with the top floor above the base of the plateau for the school site /football field. There are outdoor active use areas such as balconies at these residences facing the project site that are 11 ft. from the property line. The project proposes to construct a 6 ft. high sound wall consisting of concrete masonry units (CMU) along the northwestern edge of the proposed football field, starting from approximately one -third of the north end of the multiuse field extending west and continuing south to the southern end of the carport south of the 3 -story apartment building and west of the multiuse field. This wall will provide complete coverage of the residences to the west from the majority of noise - generating sources at the football field. The residents to the east of the project site are approximately 225 -ft. from the multiuse field and would be completely shielded by the proposed gymnasium building. The gymnasium building would provide a minimum of 20 dBA in noise reduction for the residents to the east. Combining the distance divergence and building shielding, noise associated with activities at the football field, including spectators on the bleachers and loudspeakers, would be reduced by 33 dBA and below 45 dBA. Therefore, noise from the multiuse field will not exceed daytime standard of 55 dBA or the nighttime standard of 45 dBA for single - family residential uses to the east. The residents to the south, across East H Street from project site, are approximately 600 -ft. from the multiuse field. They are below the project site in elevation and would be mostly shielded by the existing sanctuary and the proposed multipurpose hall building. These buildings would provide a minimum 20 dBA in noise reduction for residents to the south. Noise associated with activities at the multiuse field, including spectators on the bleachers and loudspeakers, would be reduced by 38 dBA and below 45 dBA. Therefore, noise from the multiuse field will not exceed the daytime standard of 55 dBA or the nighttime standard of 45 dBA for single - family residential uses to the south. Bleacher Seating There are 300 permanent bleacher seats on the east side of the field approximately 225 -ft. from the nearest residential property lines on the west. There will be 80 portable bleacher seats located approximately 40 -ft. from the residential property line to the west. Permanent Bleacher Seats The noise level generated by 300 spectators in the permanent bleachers would be reduced to 56 dBA, if it is assumed that the crowd noise continues for the entire hour. Combined with the elevated western project boundary, proposed CMU sound wall, as mentioned above, would reduce the spectator noise by 14.9 dBA for firs, floor receivers, 10.7 dBA, for second floor receivers, and 5 dBA for third floor receivers, assuming the spectators are approximately 10 -ft. above the multiuse field. The combination of distance divergence and sound wall attenuation would result in a total noise reduction of 24.4 dBA for first floor, 20.2 dBA second floor, and 14.5 dBA third floor receivers and reduce noise levels to 40.6, 44.8, and 50.5 dBA, respectively. Therefore, the spectator noise levels would be well below the City's daytime standards of 60 dBA at the project's property line for multi - family residential uses to the west of the project site. No nighttime noise impacts would occur. Portable Bleacher Seats The noise level generated by 80 spectators in the portable bleachers for visitors along the western property boundary would be approximately 64.5 dBA. These spectators will be facing east and directing their noise to the east, thereby reducing the noise levels to the west by a minimum of 5 dBA. Combined with the elevated western project boundary, proposed CMU wall as mentioned above, would reduce the spectator noise by 10.9 and 7.3 dBA for receivers on the first and second floor. Receivers on the third floor would not benefit from the 6 -ft high sound wall due to their direct line -of -sight to the visitor bleacher seats. Total noise reduction by directivity of the crowd voices and the sound wall would be 15.9, 12.3, and 5.0 (third floor receivers receive only the 5dBA reduction from the directivity reduction due to spectators sitting on the portable bleachers facing east). Total noise reduction by directivity of the crowd voices and the sound wall would result in noise levels of 48.6, 52.2, and 59.5 dBA. Therefore, the spectator noise levels would be below the City's daytime standards of 60 dBA at the project's property line for multi- family residential uses to the west of the project site. No nighttime noise impacts would occur. 5 Multiuse Field Loudspeakers The multiuse field would have four (4) loudspeakers attached to the light poles for the field, two (2) loudspeakers adjacent to the pennanent bleacher seats and two (2) loudspeakers adjacent to the portable bleacher seats. The speakers will be placed 12 -ft. high on the light pole and directed toward the home team bleacher area. Since the loudspeakers would be directed downwards and to the east toward the seating area, noise levels to the west would be reduced by 5 -15 dBA, depending on the directivity of the speakers. As a worst case scenario, only a 5 dBA reduction is considered for speaker noise to the west. Therefore, the four speakers would result in approximately 77.1 dBA. With the distance attenuation of approximately 205 -ft., the speaker noise at the project property line near the nearest residences to the west would be reduced by 12.2 dBA. In addition, the 6 -ft CMU sound wall along the northwestern edge of the football field that is approximately 17.5 ft. higher than the ground level of the multifamily residences to the west, would reduce the speaker noise by 14.8, 10.7, and 5 dBA for the first, second, and third floor receivers. The combination of distance divergence and sound wall attenuation would result in a total noise reduction of 27.0 22.9, and 17.2 dBA for the first, second and third floor receivers from the speaker noise and would reduce noise levels of to 50.1, 54.2, 59.9 dBA. Therefore, the home team bleacher speaker noise levels would be below the City's daytime standards of 60 dBA at the project's western property line. There will be no loudspeakers associated with the portable bleacher seats along the western project boundary. No nighttime noise impacts would occur. The combination of the speaker noise and crowd noise from the both the permanent bleacher seats and portable bleachers seats would result in a noise level of 52.7 dBA at the first floor of the multifamily residence to the west of the project site. Therefore, the combined noise levels would be below the City's daytime standards of 60 dBA, and at the nighttime standard of 50 dBA at the project's west property line. Exterior -to- interior noise attenuation with windows closed would provide 24 dBA noise reductions. The interior noise levels inside these residences would meet the 45 dBA CNEL standard with windows closed. Since the proposed multiuse field is not expected to be used after 10:00 p.m., no nighttime operation noise would occur, and no violation of the City's noise standards would occur. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures, the multiuse field shall be restricted to end all events at 10:00 p.m. to avoid noise impacts to residents to the west during nighttime hours. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potentially significant noise impacts to below a level of significance. Biological Resources A Biological Resources Report was prepared by LSA, dated March 2014, to assess the potential biological resource impacts of the project. A baseline field study of the project site was conducted on May 19, 2008 and more recently on July 5, 2012 to identify existing vegetation on the site. The biological resource analysis is summarized below. G Existing Conditions The 8.45 -acre project site includes mostly undeveloped vacant land with six modular buildings surrounding as small parking lot and a church building in the southeastern corner of the parcel. The site primarily consists of relatively open, moderate quality Diegan coastal sage scrub. In various areas of the site, there is disturbed habitat, coastal sage, riparian scrub, coastal California Gnatcatcher, and a natural flood channel running along the eastern boundary property line. The southeastern portion of the site is developed with the existing church site. The wildlife that was observed or detected on the site consisted of species typically found in coastal sage scrub and disturbed areas associated with landscaping and development. No areas within the project site were considered wetland waters of the U.S. There is a total of 0.009 acre of potential nonwetland waters of the U.S. and a total of 0.094 acre of potential CDFW jurisdiction within the study area, which includes streambeds and banks and associated riparian vegetation. The riparian scrub and natural flood channel within the study area are expected to meet the City's definition of wetland. The project site is located within in-the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan boundary in an area designated as a "Development Area." Under the Subarea Plan, the proposed project is subject to the requirements under the Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance. Wildlife /Sensitive Species /Sensitive Habitats The biological report stated that five (5) special- status species occupy the site. Three vegetation communities and one non - vegetated land cover were identified and recorded within the project study area. Project Impact The project will occupy 6.65 acres out of the 8.45 acre parcel. The cumulative impacts of all phases at final build -out is the loss of 0.6 acre of Disturbed Habitat, 0.4 acres of non - native vegetation, and 5.2 acres of developed habitat. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and coastal sage scrub /chaparral will be mitigated through the purchase of coastal sage scrub credits at a ratio of 1:1 if purchased within the Preserve, and 2:1 if purchased outside of the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve. With implementation of mitigation discussed below, impacts to Tier II habitats as a result of project development will be less than significant. There are also potential displacement impacts to the Special- Status Species. The San Diego barrel cactus is listed as a Species Adequately Conserved in the Subarea Plan. Indirect impacts to these species would be less than significant with the mitigation measures. Nesting failure could result due to direct and indirect impacts from construction disturbance and loss of nesting habitat. Potential impacts could occur if the development occurs during the breeding season, between January 15 through August 31. If construction must occur during the breeding season, pre - construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptors. Therefore, the proposed project may result in impacts to sensitive biological resources and mitigation measures are required. 7 Further mitigation measures include clearing, grubbing or grading pennits, the Applicant shall prepare a Salvage and Translocation Plan for the San Diego barrel cactus. The Salvage and Translocation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department. Upon the City's approval of the Salvage and Translocation Plan, the Applicant shall implement and monitor the plan subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a level below significance. Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HLIT) Permit The project area is located within an area designated by the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan as Developed Areas Outside of City of Chula Vista Covered Projects. The project will result in impacts to Covered Species. Therefore, a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) permit pursuant to Section 17.35 of the CVMC is required. Geology and Soils To assess the potential geological /soils impacts of the project, an Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., dated February 23, 2009. The site was graded previously with the development of the existing church building. The area to be developed consists of vacant hill covered with brush and vegetation. No groundwater was encountered on the site. No major groundwater related problems, either during or after construction, are anticipated if proper site drainage is maintained. No significant geological or soil impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project as conditioned. Fill Materials Most of the soil on the site is considered suitable for reuse as fill, provided soils are relatively free of organic, degradable, or compressible materials and materials greater than three inches in maximum dimensions. The on -site soils are moderately expansive and will require blending with granular soils to reduce their expansion potential. As recommended in the Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the fill soils should be evaluated by the Soils Engineer to evaluate their engineering characteristics before importation to the site. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit as a standard Land Development Division requirement. According to the City's Land Development Division, the project will require a grading permit. In order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will be required to comply with best management practices in accordance with NPDES Order No. R9- 2007 -0001. The appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final grading plans and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Land Development Division. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into City drainage systems would be less than significant. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential geological /soils impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Provided findings of the report are incorporated into the design and construction, no significant geological or soil impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project as conditioned. Drainage and Water Quality In order to assess potential drainage and water quality impacts, a Preliminary Drainage Study, dated August 31, 2012, and a Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report, dated March 25, 2014, prepared by Cvaldo Corporation Civil Engineering respectively, were submitted for the project. According to the Land Development Division, the proposed improvements and mitigation are adequate to handle the project storm water runoff generated from the site. The existing flow and future anticipated flows are to be analyzed under the 2, 10, 50 and 100 -year flood event. The results of these studies are surmnarized below: Existing The existing on -site condition consists of a developed commercial use and a parking lot. The developed parcel allows storm runoff to sheet flow on a south - easterly direction across the property onto an existing vegetated Swale. Under the existing conditions, approximately 13.5% of the project site, approximately 1.14 acres, is impervious. Surface runoff from the site drains in multiple directions; however, runoff is directed via slopes, hardscape and swales towards the south- easterly direction on the site. Proposed According to the Land Development Division, the proposed improvements are adequate to handle the project storm water runoff generated from the site. The proposed development will have appropriate. runoff collection and treatment. The Project will include treatment facilities to prevent nuisances from the developed site from entering the existing storm drain system at the northeast end of the project. The runoff from the Project sheet flows mainly across in a southeast direction of the property then into an existing vegetated swale and finally into an existing storm drain system. Eventually, the runoff will be conveyed into an unmanned channel northwest of the property. The proposed project will not alter drainage patterns on the site. The storm water discharge points will remain the same. The project will maximize landscape areas and utilized existing vegetated swale; therefore, the impervious areas will be kept to a minimum. Drainage will be directed toward bio- retention basins and/or linear bio- retention for treatment prior to entering the existing storm drain system. No adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. Best Management Practices (BMP's) to prevent, reduce, and treat storm water pollution will be implemented during construction of this project. The project proposes to increase impervious areas by adding additional parking areas and buildings, however, the discharge points will not change. Parking lot runoff will be directed toward landscape areas to X additionally help treat pollutants. Enclosed trash area is designed to preclude runoff and run on. A designed bio- retention and linear bio retention have been designed to treat pollutants. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of the project grading plans. Properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of the site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, compliance with required NPDES regulations and BMPs will reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (See Section F). Wastewater Services /Sewer System The existing area sewer facility system includes an 8 -inch PVC sewer line that runs northerly along Buena Vista. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. The applicant will be required to submit a final sewer study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. Transportation/Traffic In order to assess potential traffic and transportation impacts, a Traffic Impact Study, dated July 11, 2013, prepared by Federhart & Associates, was submitted for the project. The results of the study are summarized below. Existing According to SANDAG rates, the project currently generates 44 Average Daily Trips (ADTs). The intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way in the AM and PM hours operates at a LOS "B ". The intersection of Buena Vista Way and Serena Circle in the AM and PM hours operates at a LOS "A ". Both levels are acceptable according to the Land Development Division. Proposed The high school buildings will generate 582 ADTs and the new sanctuary with the increase in seating to a maximum of 400 persons will generate 132 ADTs. The weekday impacts of the project would be far greater than Sunday, and therefore, no Sunday traffic impacts analysis was required by the Land Development Division. The construction of the football field with 380 person bleachers will draw small crowds, well after weekday peak hours, so that even with a full crowd in the bleachers, it will not increase peak hour traffic conditions. Compared to the current traffic generated by the site today, only 714 ADTs are being added as a result of the Project. The Traffic Study also analyzed the East H Street and Buena Vista Way intersection to see if additional turn out lanes would be required due to the proposed project. The Project will require a 12 -ft. right -of -way dedication along H Street, modification to the existing traffic signal at the intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way, restriping of Buena Vista Way so as to provide a left turn land into the project at Serena Circle, as well as restripe, in 10 school yellow, all four of the crosswalks at the signalized intersection. Furthermore, no left turns will be pennitted leaving the project site from the southerly most driveway along Buena Vista Way. The results of the traffic study concluded that the intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way in the AM and PM hours will continue to operate at a LOS "B ", which is an acceptable level of service according to the Land Development Division. The results of the traffic study also concluded that the intersection of Buena Vista Way and Serena Circle in the AM and PM hours will continue to operate at a LOS "A ", which is an acceptable level of service according to the Land Development Division. No significant traffic impacts will be created as a result of the proposed project. Li hting In order to assess potential lighting impacts, a Sports Lighting Photometrics Study, dated January 29, 2014, prepared by Musco Lighting, was submitted for the project. The results of the study are summarized below. Existing The existing development on the site is located at the corner intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way, where lighting is provided around the existing buildings and parking lot. No lighting is currently provided within the area where the multiuse field is proposed. The adjacent property to the west, a three story apartment complex, provides a source of ambient light from the apartment parking lot lighting, lighting at the apartments that provide illumination at doorways and at pathways along the western property line. Proposed Surrounding the proposed multiuse field are a total of four (4) 70 -ft. high field lights, two (2) light poles on each side of the field, to be used during nighttime events for the multiuse field. The lighting design proposed will minimize the spill lighting to the maximum extent possible, with the design of the pole height and aiming angles of the fixtures, while at the same time providing adequate lighting on the field. Due to proximity of the field to the western property line, there will be minimal light beyond the property line, however, the light trespass does not fall onto the apartment buildings and is very low at that distance. The light levels from the field lights outside of the boundary will be less than ambient moonlight. As a project feature, there will be tree planting in the slope between the field and the property line. The pole height and aiming angles of the fixtures have been designed in accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) design recommendations for safe play. Repositioning the lights to eliminate minor fractions of a footcandle over the property line would leave dark spots and inconsistent light levels on the field, which provides a safety /liability issue for the athletes. A 14" long visor is provided on all the light fixtures to help prevent glare onto adjacent properties. Reflector inserts will also be inserted within the fixture around the lamp to direct light downward onto the field and reduce atmospheric light waste. The current design is the, maximum spill and glare control design possible to still achieve adequate field lighting. The 11 spill, which is less than the ambient moonlight, does not reach the apartment buildings on the west. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding residential neighborhood area. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential lighting impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality 1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the Development Services Department: • Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. • Use low pollutant- emitting construction equipment. • Use electrical construction equipment as practical. • Use catalytic reduction for gasoline - powered equipment. • Use injection- timing retard for diesel - powered equipment. • Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. • Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. • Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. • Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available. • Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. • Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public 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 miles per hour. 2. Applicant shall implement the proposed project design features to reduce GHG Emissions outlined in Table N, page 45 of Air Quality Impact Report for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, prepared by LSA, dated July 2013. 12 Noise 3. Prior to the approval of the building pen-nit, the Applicant shall submit a subsequent noise study for approval by the Project Planner demonstrating that the final mechanical ventilation such as air - conditioning systems for all buildings along East H Street and Buena Vista Way comply with the City's noise control ordinance at the property boundaries of 50 dBA Leq (one hour) during nighttime hours and 60 dBA Leq (one hour) during daytime hours or ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 4. Prior to issuance of occupancy, the Applicant shall install a minimum of 23 A- weighted decibels (dBA) exterior -to- interior noise attenuation to all front -row classrooms associated with the proposed two -story modular classroom building. 5. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall install a sound wall along the northwestern edge of the multiuse field, with a minimum height of 6 -ft. above ground. 6. The multiuse field shall be restricted to end all events at 10:00 p.m. to avoid noise impacts to residents to the west during nighttime hours. 7. The multiuse field's loudspeakers proposed at the home team bleachers on the east side of the field shall be directed downward and to the east toward the seating area at all times. Biological Resources 8. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the Applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts to 3.577 acres of coastal sage scrub pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. For the loss of 3.577 acres of coastal sage scrub and coastal sage scrub /chaparral (combined) located outside of the Preserve, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits at a ratio of 1:1 if purchased within the Preserve, and a ratio of 1.5:1 if purchased outside of the Preserve. In compliance with the City's Subarea Plan, the Applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City /Wildlife Agency approved Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such credits consistent with the ratio specified in Table F, below. 13 Table F: Upland Impacts and Associated Mitigation 'All project impacts occur outside of the City's MSCP Preserve. Final approval of mitigation credits is subject to approval by City staff in consultation with the regulatory wildlife agencies. The City will require a biological assessment for any parcels considered for use as mitigation in order to ensure that the selected parcels adequately offset project impacts. The applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase to the City prior to issuance of any land development permits. Verification that mitigation credits have been obtained shall be provided to the City prior to approval of any land development permits. In the event that a project applicant is unable to secure mitigation through an established conservation bank approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies, the project applicant shall secure the required mitigation through the conservation of an area containing in- kind habitat within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area in accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 5 -3 of the City's Subarea Plan and subject to Wildlife Agency concurrence. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, and to the satisfaction and oversight of the City's Development Services Director (or their designee), the applicant shall secure the parcel(s) that will be permanently preserved for in -kind habitat impact mitigation, prepare a long -tern Management and Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the mitigation area, secure an appropriate management entity to ensure long- term biological resource management and monitoring of the mitigation area is implemented in perpetuity, and establish a long -term funding mechanism for the management and monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity. The long -term MMP shall provide management measure to be implemented to sustain the viability of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the MMP. The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future development and permanently preserved through the recordation of a conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies as being sufficient to ensure that the lands are protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies shall be recorded prior to issuance of any land development permits. The project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the biological integrity of the mitigation area and shall abide by all management and monitoring measures identified in the MMP until such time as the established long -term funding mechanism has generated sufficient revenues to enable a City- approved management entity to assume the long -term maintenance and management responsibilities. 14 Mitigation Required Mitigation Required Ratio Mitigation Ratio Mitigation MSCP (Inside (Inside (Outside (Inside Habitat Type Tier Acres' Preserve) Preserve) Preserve) Preserve) Coastal Sage Scrub II 3.577 1:1 3.577 1.5:1 5.4 'All project impacts occur outside of the City's MSCP Preserve. Final approval of mitigation credits is subject to approval by City staff in consultation with the regulatory wildlife agencies. The City will require a biological assessment for any parcels considered for use as mitigation in order to ensure that the selected parcels adequately offset project impacts. The applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase to the City prior to issuance of any land development permits. Verification that mitigation credits have been obtained shall be provided to the City prior to approval of any land development permits. In the event that a project applicant is unable to secure mitigation through an established conservation bank approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies, the project applicant shall secure the required mitigation through the conservation of an area containing in- kind habitat within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area in accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 5 -3 of the City's Subarea Plan and subject to Wildlife Agency concurrence. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, and to the satisfaction and oversight of the City's Development Services Director (or their designee), the applicant shall secure the parcel(s) that will be permanently preserved for in -kind habitat impact mitigation, prepare a long -tern Management and Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the mitigation area, secure an appropriate management entity to ensure long- term biological resource management and monitoring of the mitigation area is implemented in perpetuity, and establish a long -term funding mechanism for the management and monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity. The long -term MMP shall provide management measure to be implemented to sustain the viability of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the MMP. The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future development and permanently preserved through the recordation of a conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies as being sufficient to ensure that the lands are protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies shall be recorded prior to issuance of any land development permits. The project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the biological integrity of the mitigation area and shall abide by all management and monitoring measures identified in the MMP until such time as the established long -term funding mechanism has generated sufficient revenues to enable a City- approved management entity to assume the long -term maintenance and management responsibilities. 14 9. Prior to initiating any construction related activities, including clearing, grubbing, grading and construction, the Permittee shall install fencing in accordance with CVMC 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well - installed fencing and signage shall be in place wherever the limits of grading are adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities or other biological resources, as identified by the qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans for areas adjacent to sensitive biological resources. 10. Prior to issuance of any land development pen-nits (including clearing, grubbing or grading permits), construction permits, and /or utilities permit, the project Applicant shall provide written confinnation that a City- approved biological monitor has been retained and shall be on -site during clearing, grubbing, and /or grading activities. The biological monitor shall attend all pre - construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches stockpiles, storage areas and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated project activities that may be in violation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and/or permits issued by any other agencies having juridical authority over the project. 11. Prior to issuance of any land development pennits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Salvage and Translocation Plan for the San Diego barrel cactus. The Salvage and Translocation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). At a minimum, the plan shall identify and /or include 1) the ai;,as where salvageable cacti are located, 2) number of cacti to be salvaged, 3) the methodology salvaging the cacti, 4) the location of suitable receptor sites, 5) the requirements for the preparation of receptor sites, and 6) the short- and long -tenn monitoring and maintenance requirements. Upon the City's approval of the Salvage and Translocation Plan, the applicant shall implement and monitor the plan subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director (or their "designee). Because San Diego barrel cactus is listed as a Species Adequately Conserved in the Subarea Plan, because the proposed project site is located within a Development Area, and because all potential impacts are considered covered, direct impacts will be less than significant with implementation of the management requirements described above. 12. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by a City- approved biologist to recognize and avoid these areas which have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 13. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, (including clearing, grubbing or grading, and construction permits), the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City that all required regulatory permits including, but not limited to, Section 401 Clean Water Certification from RWQCB, a Section 404 Permit from the Corps, and a Section 1600 streambed Alteration Agreement with SDFW have been obtained. Section 5.2.4 of the City's Subarea Plan provides mitigation ratios for unavoidable impacts to wetland (Table 5 -6, pages 5 -18). In compliance with the City's 15 Wetland Protection Program, mitigation measures proposed by Federal or State agencies must be equivalent to or greater that those imposed by the City. 14. To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and /or any migratory birds, removal of habitat that . supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (January 15 to August 31). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the applicant shall retain a City- approved biologist to conduct a pre - construction survey to detennine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre - construction survey must be conduction within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The applicant shall submit the results of the pre - construction survey to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by the City shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City's Mitigation Monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and /or during construction. 15. Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing, grubbing and /or grading permits), the project will be required to obtain a HLIT Permit pursuant to Section 17.35 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code for impacts to MSCP Tier II habitats and wetland resources. Geology and Soils 16. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer that all the recommendations in the Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated February 23, 2009 have been satisfied. Drainage and Water Quality 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or prior to beginning of any earthwork activities on the site, the Applicant must obtain a Land Development Permit in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 15.05. The Applicant shall submit Grading Plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and the City's Development Storm Water Manual. 18. Prior to the issuance of the grading plan, the Applicant shall submit final drainage and a final soils report. The drainage study must demonstrate that the post- development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre - development flows as indicated in the Drainage Study dated August 31, 2012, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 19. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a final Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) that shall be approved by the City Engineer. The project can meet the City's Low Impact Development (LID), Source Control, Treatment Control, and Hydromodification Control BMP Requirements. N The final Water Quality Technical Report shall include design features, such as bio- retention facilities, and other high - efficiency BMPs per Low Impact Development (LID) requirements under current City Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) standards, the City's Development Storm Water Manual, and as imposed by the current NPDES Municipal Pen-nit adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. LID principles must be incorporated into the project's design. Lighting 20. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Sections 19.66.100 and 17.28) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding residential neighborhood area. G. Agreement to Implement Mitigation Measures By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environ nental Impact Report. 5 . 7 • • 1 Printed Name and Title of Applicant togij Date WE (of authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) 17 Date Date H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Power, Development Planning Division Tom Adler, Land Development Division Chester Bautista, Land Development Division Frank Rivera, Transportation and Planning Division David Kaplan, Land Development Division Mary Radley, Landscape Architecture Division Scott Harris, Building Division Kelly Briers, Fire Department Lynn France, Conservation and Environmental Services Others: Carol School, Chula Vista Elementary School District Ron Ripperger /David Charles, Otay Water District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 2005. Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code. Air Quality Impact Report for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, LSA, July 2013. Noise Impact Analysis for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, LSA, April 2014. Biological Resources Report for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, LSA, March 2014. Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, Chula Vista, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., February 23, 2009. Preliminary Drainage Study for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, Chula Vista, Cvaldo Corporation Civil Engineering, August 31, 2012. Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, Cvaldo Corporation Civil Engineering, March 25, 2014. Traffic Impact Study for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, Chula Vista, Federhart & Associates, July 11, 2013. M Sports Lighting Photometrics Study for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, 810 Buena Vista Way, Chula Vista, Musco Lighting, January 29, 2014. 3. Initial Study This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available fiom the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: �I Caroline Young Associate Planner /Project nager J:\Planning\Caroline\Discretionat-yPel-i-nits\Church of Joy /Lutherian High School \IS Info \iS -13- 002 \IS- 13- 002MND.doc 19 -- s b. %C r: yt PROTECT r LOCATION Case CHULA VISTA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT Lord Architecture Inc. INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ADDRESS: 810 Buena Vista Wy Request: Proposed Lutheran High School Master Plan. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale IS -13 -002 I Related Case: PCC -13 -004; DRC- 13 -03; ZAV -14 -01 L: /Dai File /LocatorTT /IS /IS -13- 002_02.28.2013 Exhibit A 17, y..1 n 75 ISO � • I LL,t, SOURCE: Cord Engineering (2013). JZASCZ 120AGIS1NoiselmpactAnalysis.m 9 The Lutheran High School ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) L UTHERANHIGH SCHOOL MASTER PLAN- IS -13 -002 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Lutheran High School Master Plan project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City /State CEQA Guidelines (IS -13 -002). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and /or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Noise 3. Biological Resources 4. Geology and Soil 5. Drainage and Water Quality 6. Transportation/Traffic 7. Lighting MONITORING PROGRAM The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS -13 -002 to the Environmental Projects Manager and City Engineer. The Environmental Projects Manager and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS -13 -002, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. J:\Planrring\ Caroline \DiscretionaryPermits \Church of Joy \Lutherian High School \IS Info \IS -13- 002 \IS- 13- 002.MMRPtext doc. Lutheran Hiph School Master Plan (IS -13 -002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date No. Pre During Post AIR QUALITY T.M Const. Const. Cost. 1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be Plan Check/Site X X X Applicant/Development shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as Inspection Services Department details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate: • Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. • Use low pollutant- emitting construction equipment. • Use electrical construction equipment as practical. • Use catalytic reduction for gasoline - powered equipment. • Use injection- timing retard for diesel - powered equipment. • Water the construction area minimum three times daily to minimize fugitive dust. • Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. • Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. • Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available. • Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. • Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public 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 miles per hour. Page - 1 Lutheran High School Master Plan (IS -13 -002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials No. • Date T.M Pre, During Post AIR QUALITY (Continued) Const. Const Cost. 2 Applicant shall implement the proposed project design plan Check/Site Applicant/Development features to reduce GHG Emissions outlined in Table N, Inspection Services Department page 45 of Air Quality Impact Report for the Lutheran High School Master Plan Project, prepared by LSA, dated July 2013. Pre During Post NOISE T.M Const. Const Cost. 3 Prior to the approval of the building permit, the Applicant Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development shall submit a subsequent noise study for approval by the Inspection Services De partment Project Planner demonstrating that the final mechanical ventilation such as air - conditioning systems for all buildings along East H Street and Buena Vista Way comply with the City's noise control ordinance at the property boundaries of 50 dBA Leq (one hour) during nighttime hours and 60 dBA Leq (one hour) during daytime hours or ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 4. Prior to issuance of occupancy, the Applicant shall install a Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development minimum of 23 A- weighted decibels (dBA) exterior -to- Inspection Services Department interior noise attenuation to all front -row classrooms associated with the proposed two -story modular classroom building. 5 Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Applicant Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development shall install a sound wall along the northwestern edge of the Inspection Services Department multiuse field, with a minimum height of 6 -ft. above ground. 6 The multiuse field shall be restricted to end all events at Plan Check/Site X X X Applicant/Development 10:00 p.m. to avoid noise impacts to residents to the west Inspection Services Department durinq nighttime hours. 7. The multiuse field's loudspeakers proposed at the home Plan Check/Site X X X Applicant/Development team bleachers on the east side of the field shall be directed Inspection Services Department downward and to the east toward the seating area at all times. Page - 2 Lutheran High School Master Plan (I S-1 3-002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date No. Miligatio Mitigago Mitigation Mitigatio Pre During Post n Ratio n (inside BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE n (Inside T.M Const. Const Cost. Habila $ Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the Plan Check/Site Preserve X X X Applicant/Development Applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts to 3.577 acres of Inspection. Tier Preserve) Services Department ) coastal sage scrub pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City's Cc at MSCP Subarea Plan. For the loss of 3.577 acres of coastal al ge Sa It .3.577 1:1 sage scrub and coastal sage scrub /chaparral (combined) 1.51 5A Sorb located outside of the Preserve, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits at a ratio of 1:1 if purchased within the Preserve, and a ratio of 1.5:1 if purchased outside of the Preserve. In compliance with the City's Subarea Plan, the Applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City/Wildlife Agency approved Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such credits consistent with the ratio specified in Table F, below. Table F- Noland Impacts and Associated Mitiprtion 'All project impacts occur outside of the Citys MSCP Preserve. Final approval of mitigation credits is subject to approval by City staff in consultation with the regulatory wildlife agencies. The City will require a biological assessment for any parcels considered for use as mitigation in order to ensure that the selected parcels adequately offset project impacts. The applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase to the City prior to issuance of any land development permits. Verification that mitigation credits have been obtained shall be provided to the City prior to approval of any land development permits. Page - 3 Required Required Miligatio Mitigago Mitigation Mitigatio n Ratio n (inside Ratio n (Inside Habila MSCP Acres (Inside Preserve (Outside Preserve l Type Tier Preserve) Preserve) ) Cc at al ge Sa It .3.577 1:1 3.577 1.51 5A Sorb 'All project impacts occur outside of the Citys MSCP Preserve. Final approval of mitigation credits is subject to approval by City staff in consultation with the regulatory wildlife agencies. The City will require a biological assessment for any parcels considered for use as mitigation in order to ensure that the selected parcels adequately offset project impacts. The applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase to the City prior to issuance of any land development permits. Verification that mitigation credits have been obtained shall be provided to the City prior to approval of any land development permits. Page - 3 Lutheran High School Master Plan (IS-1 3 002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date No. Pre During Post BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Continued T.M Const. Const. Cost. $ Continued from page 3 X X X In the event that a project applicant is unable to secure mitigation through an established conservation bank approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies, the project applicant shall secure the required mitigation through the conservation of an area containing in -kind habitat within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area in accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 5 -3 of the City's Subarea Plan and subject to Wildlife Agency concurrence. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, and to the satisfaction and oversight of the City's Development Services Director (or their designee), the applicant shall secure the parcel(s) that will be permanently preserved for in -kind habitat impact mitigation, prepare a long -term Management and Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the mitigation area, secure an appropriate management entity to ensure long -term biological resource management and monitoring of the mitigation area is implemented in perpetuity, and establish a long -term funding mechanism for the management and monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity. The long -term MMP shall provide management measure to be implemented to sustain the viability of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the MMP. The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future development and permanently preserved through the recordation of a conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies as being sufficient to ensure that the lands are protected in perpetuity. The conservation easement or other mechanism approved by the Wildlife Agencies shall be recorded prior to issuance of any land development permits. The project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the biological integrity of the mitigation area and shall abide by all management and monitoring measures identified in the MMP until such time as the established long -term funding mechanism has generated sufficient revenues to enable a City- approved management entity to assume the long -term maintenance and management responsibilities. Page - 4 Lutheran High School Master Plan (S -13 -002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date No. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Continued) Pre During Post T.M Const. Const. Cost. 9 Prior to initiating any construction related activities, including Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development clearing, grubbing, grading and construction, the Permittee Inspection Services Department shall install fencing in accordance with CVMC 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well - installed fencing and signage shall be in place wherever the limits of grading are adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities or other biological resources, as identified by the qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans for areas adjacent to sensitive biological resources. 10. Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development clearing, grubbing or grading permits), construction permits, Inspection Services Department and /or utilities permit, the project Applicant shall provide written confirmation that a City- approved biological monitor has been retained and shall be on -site during clearing, grubbing, and /or grading activities. The biological monitor shall attend all pre- construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches stockpiles, storage areas and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated project activities that may -be in violation of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and /or permits issued by any other agencies having juridical authority over the project. Page - 5 Lutheran High School Master Plan (IS -13 -002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date No. Pre During Post BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Continued) T.M Const. Const. Cost. 11. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the applicant shall Inspection Services Department prepare a Salvage and Translocation Plan for the San Diego barrel cactus. The Salvage and Translocation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). At a minimum, the plan shall identify and /or include 1) the areas where salvageable cacti are located, 2) number of cacti to be salvaged, 3) the methodology salvaging the cacti, 4) the location of suitable receptor sites, 5) the requirements for the preparation of receptor sites, and 6) the short- and long- term monitoring and maintenance requirements. Upon the City's approval of the Salvage and Translocation Plan, the applicant shall implement and monitor the plan subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director (or their designee). Because San Diego barrel cactus is listed as a Species Adequately Conserved in the Subarea Plan, because the proposed project site is located within a Development Area, and because all potential impacts are considered covered, direct impacts will be less than significant with implementation of the management requirements described above. 12 Before construction activities occur in areas containing Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated Inspection Services Department by a City- approved biologist to recognize and avoid these areas which have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 13. Prior to issuance of any land development permit, (including Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development clearing, grubbing or grading, and construction permits), the Inspection Services Department Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City that all required regulatory permits including, but not limited to, Section 401 Clean Water Certification from RWQCB, a Section 404 Permit from the Corps, and a Section 1600 streambed Alteration Agreement with SDFW have been obtained. Section 5.2.4 of the City's Subarea Plan provides mitigation ratios for unavoidable impacts to wetland (Table 5 -6, pages 5 -18). In compliance with the City's Wetland Protection Program, mitigation measures proposed by Federal or State agencies must be equivalent to or greater that those imposed by the City. Page - 6 Lutheran Hieh School Master Plan (IS -13 -002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date No. Pre During Post BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Continued TA Const Const. Cost. 14. To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and /or any migratory Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development birds, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the Inspection Services Department proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (January 15 to August 31). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the applicant shall retain a City- approved biologist to conduct a pre- construction surrey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre- construction survey must be conduction within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The applicant shall submit the results of the pre- construction survey to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by the City shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City's Mitigation Monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and /or during construction. 15 Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development clearing, grubbing and /or grading permits), the project will Inspection Services Department be required to obtain a HLIT Permit pursuant to Section 17.35 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code for impacts to MSCP Tier 11 habitats and wetland resources. Page - 7 Lutheran High School Master Plan (IS-1 3 002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Mitigation Measure Verification Verification Party Initials Date Measure No. Pre During Post GEOLOGY AND SOILS TA Const. Const. Cost. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development 16. provide evidence to the City Engineer that all the Inspection Services Department recommendations in the Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investi ation, dated February 23, 2009 have been satisfied. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ' 17 Prior to the issuance of a building permit or prior to Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development beginning of any earthwork activities on the site, the Inspection Services Department Applicant must obtain a Land Development Permit in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 15.05. The Applicant shall submit Grading Plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and the City's Development Storm Water Manual. Prior to the issuance of the grading plan, the Applicant shall Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development 18 submit final drainage and a final soils report. The drainage Inspection Services Department study must demonstrate that the post - development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre - development flows as indicated in the Drainage Study dated August 31, 2012, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or issuance of Plan Check/Site X Applicant/Development 19 building permits, the developer shall submit a final Water Inspection Services Department Quality Technical Report (WQTR) that shall be approved by the City Engineer. The project can meet the City's Low Impact Development (LID), Source Control, Treatment Control, and Hydromodification Control BMP Requirements. The final Water Quality Technical Report shall include design features, such as bio- retention facilities, and other high- efficiency BMPs per Low Impact Development (LID) requirements under current City Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) standards, the City's Development Storm Water Manual, and as imposed by the current NPDES Municipal Permit adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. LID principles must be incorporated into the project's design. Page - 8 Lutheran High School Master Plan QS 13 002) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure No. Verification Verification Party Initials Date Pre During Post LIGHTING T.M Const. Const. Cost. The project will be required to comply with the light and Plan Check/Site X X Applicant/Development 20 glare regulations (Sections 19.66.100 and 17.28) of the Inspection Services Department Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding residential neighborhood area. Page - 9 �ts�r ITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CNUCTA VISTA I. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No.: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Lord Architecture Inc. R. Bennett Lord, Jr. City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 11650 Iberia Place Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92128 (858) 485 -6980 Lutheran High School Master Plan May 1, 2014 IS -13 -002 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: a -b) The proposal includes the development of an existing church and school property with site improvements in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Design Review Guidelines. The proposed landscape improvements would enhance and improve the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood street, East H Street and Buena Vista Way. 'The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources, vegetation, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public. The development layout is designed not to block any private vista views from the existing and proposed residential units. c) The proposal is an infill community purpose facility development project. The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent residential surroundings. The project site is planned for community purpose facility development according to the General Plan Land Use regulations and will be consistent with City's Design Guidelines. d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proj ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 2 (a -c) The project site and the surrounding properties are developed with church facility, single - family homes, open space, and a park. These properties are consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated farmland. The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be created as a result of the proposed proj ect. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ FA applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? Comments: a, b, and e) The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposal would generate insignificant amounts of additional traffic. The proposal would not conflict with air quality plans or standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long -term local or regional air quality impacts. c and d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. 3 Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IV. GREENHOUSE GAS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. b) The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation with the City of Chula Vista or AB 32. The project will comply with City of Chula Vista Building Code, which requires new nonresidential projects to be at least 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Energy Code. The proposal would generate insignificant amounts of additional Greenhouse Gas. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long -term local or regional air quality impacts. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance. Issues: V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wildlife as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but no limited to, march, venial pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a -d, and e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. e) No impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance would result from the proposed project development. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant biological resource impacts to a level of less than significance. 5 Issues: VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? Issues: c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: a) The proposed project will not constitute a substantial, adverse change to the significance of an historical resource. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Based on the level of previous site disturbance, the potential for significant impacts or adverse changes to archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated. c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited amount of additional grading for the proposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are anticipated. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Nei Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: a) The proposed project will not constitute a substantial, adverse change to the significance of an historical resource. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Based on the level of previous site disturbance, the potential for significant impacts or adverse changes to archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated. c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited amount of additional grading for the proposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are anticipated. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Nei Issues: VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Issues: ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 7 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: a) The site has been previously graded and developed with a church and school. There are no known active faults existing on the project site or in the immediate area. The closest known active fault is a segment of the La Nacion Fault that runs approximately north -south along the eastern portion of the the project site. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety /seismic concerns. b -d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. e) No septic tanks will be used for this project, since the site will be connected to the existing City sewer system. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant geological impacts to a level of less than significance. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ In ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ; acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? E Issues: 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a and b) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (Hazards /Hazardous Materials). 7 ❑■ No Impact c) The proposed project includes a new high school and church buildings. The proposed project will not emit acutely hazardous emissions or materials, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the existing schools or other schools within the surrounding area. d) The proposed project is not located on a site included on the hazardous list pursuant to the Government Code Section 65962.5, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the public or the environment. e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to adverse safety hazards. 0 The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working in the project area to adverse safety hazards. g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency evacuation requirements. The proposed fire improvements include an emergency turning radius and fire hydrant. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is anticipated. h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fire service requirements. No exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildfires is anticipated. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Hazards/Hazardous Materials impacts to a level of less than significance. 9 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact IX. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to ❑ ❑ receiving waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ❑ or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site, or place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed ❑ ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stolmwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 10 No Impact IN El u 0 V a, c -d, and f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. b) The proposal would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or any adverse impacts on the groundwater quality. e) The proposal would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss or injury or death involving flooding. Mitigation• The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant drainage and water quality impacts to a level of less than significance. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ❑ ❑ ❑ or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site is surrounded with single family residential, open space, and a park. The proposed public - quasi infill project would be consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding residential area and would not disrupt or divide an established community; therefore, no significant land use impact would occur as a result of the project. b) The project site is located within the PC -CPF (Planned Community- Community Purpose Facility Zone and RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan land use designation. The project has been found to be consistent with the all- respective zoning regulations, General Plan guidelines and regulations, therefore; no significant land use impacts are anticipated. 11 c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Issues: XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? - b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) The project site has been previously disturbed with the existing public -quasi land use. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 12 Issues: MI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbolne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above - levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport lana use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a,b,d) It is anticipated that on -site workers and adjacent residential population may be exposed to construction noise associated with short-term construction activities. However, the project will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Impacts to surrounding residential properties related to construction noise levels are not expected to be significant. The proposed Lutheran High School Master Plan project is not located within the Health Risk Assessment Area (HRAA), within 500 feet of any adjacent freeway or highway. The project is not anticipated to potentially violate the noise limits of the City's noise control ordinance. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. 13 e -f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is it located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project development would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Noise impacts to a level of less than significance (refer to Noise Section). Potentially Issues: Significant Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proj ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated R Less Than Significant Impact n b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: No Impact 0 (a -c) The project is surrounded by existing residential development and involves the addition of a new school and church buildings. The proposed project does not involve the extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. The proposed project would not involve displacement of existing housing or individuals. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 14 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated ❑ ❑ ❑ with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: a) Fie protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: a) According to the City of Chula Vista Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site. The applicant will be required to comply with the Fire Department policies for fire hydrant placement, fire truck turnaround and new building construction. The City's Fire perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) According to the Chula Vista Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City's Police performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result. d) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a proposal for the new school and church buildings. e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 15 Issues: XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments a) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it involves the addition of a new school and church buildings and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. b) The project would create a private recreation area. The project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 16 Issues: XVI. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IM ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (a,b,d,e) .According to the Land Development Division, the proposed quasi - public infill project is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic, circulation or emergency access impacts. The project generated traffic trips are minimal, approximately 714 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) that is not considered to be a substantial increase in either number of vehicle trips, volume or capacity along Corral Canyon Road and surrounding street segments. The project-generated trips will not exceed the existing 17 level of service standard LOS `B" at the intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way and a LOS "A" at the intersection of Buena Vista Way and Serena Circle. In addition, the level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways have not been exceeded. No significant traffic impacts will be created as a result of the proposed project. c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. f) The proposed project involves the addition of a new school and church buildings with 170 parking spaces at final built -out, in accordance with the Chula Vista Zoning Code. The proposal meets ADA requirements for accessibility and parking. g) The closest bus stop is located at the corner of East H Street and Buena Vista Way, adjacent to the project site. The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation programs. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact u 1 7 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. According to the Land Development Division, no exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project. b) The project does not propose the construction of new water, wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. No significant impact to existing facility systems will occur as a result of the proposed project. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Otay Water District. No significant impacts to existing facility systems or the City's water threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. e) See XVI.a. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law. g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate identified storm water /storm drainage and wastewater impacts to a level of less than significant. 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact XVIII. THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A) Library ❑ ❑ ❑ The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B) Police ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. d) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or less. C) Fire and Emergency Medical ❑ ❑ ❑ Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) Traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of I -805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. 20 No Impact ET 12 Issues: E) Parks and Recreation Areas The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities/ 1,000 population east of I -805. F) Drainag The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. H) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off -set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building perniit issuance. Comments: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. 21 c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) According to the Traffic Engineering Division, the surrounding street segments will continue to operate in compliance with the City's traffic threshold standard with the proposed project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's traffic threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. e) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a public -quasi infill project and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. The project would create a private recreation area. f) Based upon the review of the project, the Land Development Division has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the proposed drainage improvements of the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. g) The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater services area. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. h) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Otay Water District. No significant impacts to existing facility systems or the City's water threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 22 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ In ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ E ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. b) The project site has been previously disturbed with a public -quasi land use and site improvements. No cumulative considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified. c) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as the proposed project has been mitigated to lessen any potential significant impacts to a level of less than significance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significance. 23 XX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS -08 -008. XXI. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained within the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS -08 -008, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and /or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. rg•t3, �S Printed Name and Title of Applicant J1 j,� �Lf�PF qppf (or authorize�resentative) P� 0 Signature of Applicant Date (or authorized representative) N/A Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) 24 Date XXII. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. • Land Use and Planning g � Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services • Population and Housing Biological Resources ❑Utilities and Service Systems Geology and Soils ❑ Energy and Mineral ❑ Aesthetics Resources ❑ Agricultural Resources Lighting Drainage /Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous ❑ Cultural Resources Materials Air Quality Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Paleontological ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources 25 XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. �I Caroline Young Date Associate Planner City of Chula Vista J: \Planning \Caroline\Discretionay Penn its \Church of Joy /Lutheiian High School\IS Info\ IS- 13- 002\IS- 13- 002checklist.doc 26 x ;;fir; a ■