Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Staff Report - PCZ13-01C H 11 L Al 01/g/S201114 Item: Meeting Date: 10/08/14 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCZ -13 -01 Consideration of a Rezone to change the zoning from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3) for a 4.68 acre site located at 3875 Main Street. Applicant: Stone Creek Casitas, LLC. Resolution of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone PCZ -13 -01 for 4.68 acres located at 3875 Main Street. SUBMITTED BY: Caroline Young, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, Director of Development Services INTRODUCTION The Applicant submitted a Rezone application to change the zoning designation on a parcel from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3). The R -3 zone would allow a 97 unit apartment complex through the issuance of a separate Design Review Permit. The requested rezone will require City Council approval following a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The 4.68 -acre project site located at 3875 Main Street is west of Otay Valley Road and the 805 Freeway. The project site is comprised of one parcel located in the urbanized southwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista (see Locator Map, Attachment 1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS -13 -006. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects, or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS -13 -006 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ- 13 -01, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the zone change, based on the findings and subject to the requirements contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolution and City Council Ordinance. 2 -1 10/3/2014 PCZ -13 -01 Page No. 2 DISCUSSION Project Site Characteristics: The project is comprised of one parcel located in the urbanized southwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista (Attachment 1- Location Map). The project site is relatively flat and is bisected by a natural drainage channel running northeast to southwest. However, adjacent to Main Street the site has a gradual slope difference of approximately 10 -ft. Vehicular access is currently provided from a driveway located on Main Street that is shared with the property south of the site. The project site is currently vacant. The parcel is surrounded by residential, commercial, and industrial uses. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The project site is zoned as Limited Industrial (ILP) and has an RH (Residential High) General Plan land use designation. The following table specifies the existing land uses surrounding the parcel: ANALYSIS Rezone: The proposed use is located in a Limited Industrial (ILP) zone with a General Plan designation of Residential High. The Limited Industrial (ILP) zone does not allow for a 97 unit apartment complex, however, the Apartment Residential (R3) zone would allow a 97 unit apartment complex to be approved through a Design Review Permit. The approval of the Design Review Permit to allow a 97 unit apartment complex will be a subsequent City Council action through a consolidated hearing (see Attachment 6, Project Plans). In addition to the Rezone and Design Review permit, the City Council will also be reviewing a Planned Sign Program, and Variance application associated with this project. hi the 2005 General Plan Update, the City Council approved the general plan designation change from Limited Industrial (IL) to Residential High (RH), in expectation of the property owners pursuing a future rezone and building a multi - family product on this site. The General Plan designation of Residential High allows 18 -27 dwelling units per acre, for which the R3 zone is appropriate for this type of use. Therefore, the proposed zoning designation of R3 is consistent with the General Plan. 2 -2 General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: Residential High Limited Industrial (ILP)* Vacant North: Limited Industrial Limited Industrial (IL) Industrial South: Limited Industrial Limited Industrial (ILP) Self Storage East: Residential Low Medium Single- Family Residential (R15P) Single - Family Homes West: Limited Industrial Limited Industrial (ILP) Industrial * City Council approval required for zone change from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3). ANALYSIS Rezone: The proposed use is located in a Limited Industrial (ILP) zone with a General Plan designation of Residential High. The Limited Industrial (ILP) zone does not allow for a 97 unit apartment complex, however, the Apartment Residential (R3) zone would allow a 97 unit apartment complex to be approved through a Design Review Permit. The approval of the Design Review Permit to allow a 97 unit apartment complex will be a subsequent City Council action through a consolidated hearing (see Attachment 6, Project Plans). In addition to the Rezone and Design Review permit, the City Council will also be reviewing a Planned Sign Program, and Variance application associated with this project. hi the 2005 General Plan Update, the City Council approved the general plan designation change from Limited Industrial (IL) to Residential High (RH), in expectation of the property owners pursuing a future rezone and building a multi - family product on this site. The General Plan designation of Residential High allows 18 -27 dwelling units per acre, for which the R3 zone is appropriate for this type of use. Therefore, the proposed zoning designation of R3 is consistent with the General Plan. 2 -2 10/3/2014 PCZ -13 -01 Page No. 3 Conformance with Chapter 19.80 (Controlled Residential Development) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.80 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that the following be analyzed when a property is rezoned: 19.80.070 Chula Vista Zoning Code Modification A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density category in any two year period according to the following schedule: A Agricultural Zone RE. Residential Estates Zones R -1 Single Family Residential R -2 One and Two - Family Residential Zone R -3 Apartment Residential Zone The property is being rezoned from an industrial zone to a residential zone. The above provision addresses property that is being rezoned from residential to residential; therefore, this provision is not applicable. B. Any annexation of lands within the City's sphere of influence shall conform to the purposes, intent and requirements of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. C. After property is annexed by the City, the prezoning approved for the subject property cannot be amended or changed in any way for a two year period. The provision shall apply only to prezones approved after the effective date of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. D. Rezoning commercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is rezoned from residential to commercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a residential category of higher density than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. The subject properties are currently designated ILP. The first sentence of the above language is what applies to this proposed rezone from an industrial to a residential category. The rezone of the property will only be rezoned to the maximum residential density, which is R -3, which complies with the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.80.070D. Pursuant to the SANDAG Trip Generation Guidelines, the 4.68 acre site could generate up to 936 average daily trips (ADT's) under the existing Limited Industrial (IL) zoning. A total of 758 trips could be generated under the Apartment Residential (R3) zoning. Therefore, the multi- family residential use will generate fewer trips than an industrial or commercial use, and the rezone is thereby consistent with Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.80. 2 -3 10/3/2014 PCZ -13 -01 DECISION - MAILER CONFLICTS: Page No. 4 Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any Planning Commissioner, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. CONCLUSION: The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and associated documents. Based on the preceding information in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the rezone from Limited Industrial to Apartment Residential. FISCAL IMPACT The application fees and processing costs are paid for by the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution, PCZ -13 -01 3. Draft City Council Ordinance 4. Draft Mitigation Negative Declaration 5. Disclosure Statement 6. Project Plans Prepared by: Caroline Young, Associate Planner, Planning Division J:\Planning\Caroline\DescretionaiyPetinits\3875 Main Street \PC Reports \PCZ -13 -01 PC Staff Report.doc 2 -4 Attachment 1 10/3/2014 RESOLUTION NO. PCZ -13 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE PCZ -13 -01 FOR 4.68 ACRES LOCATED AT 3875 MAIN STREET WHEREAS, on December 12, 2013, a duly verified application for a Rezone was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Stone Creels Casitas, LLC_(Applicant); and WHEREAS, the application requests approval of an amendment to the adopted zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in order to rezone the project site from a Limited Industrial (ILP) Zone to Apartment Residential (R3) zone on 4.68 acres (Project); and WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is an existing parcel located at 3875 Main Street (Project Site); and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS -13- 006. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS -13 -006 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing on the Conditional Use Permit application, and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on, as set forth in the record of its proceedings therein, and having made certain findings, as set forth in the attached draft City Council Ordinance PCZ- 13 -01, recommends that the City Council approve the Project, based on certain terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine as follows: Attachment 2 W 10/3/2014 I. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS -13 -062) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that all documents are on file in the Chula Vista Development Services Department and with the Secretary therefore, said documents constituting the record of these proceedings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Ordinance approving PCZ- 13 -01, rezoning the Project Site from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of October, 2014, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Pat Laughlin, Secretary Presented by: Kelly Broughton Director of Development Services 2 -7 Yolanda Calvo, Chair Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney 10/3/2014 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE A 4.68 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 3875 MAIN STREET FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (ILP) ZONE TO APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL (R3)ZONE I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the subject matter of this Ordinance is the Zoning Map established by Chapter 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and the area of the Zoning Map to be used as the project area is identified as Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, an application was made by Stone Creel, Casitas, LLC (Applicant) to amend the Zoning Map to rezone a parcel consisting of 4.68 acres located at 3875 Main Street from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3) (the "Project') and was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on December 12, 2013; and C. Environmental Review WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS -13- 006. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS -13 -006 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on October 8, 2014, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the rezone in accordance with the Findings listed below; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on October 8, 2014, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and Attachment 3 ME 10/3/2014 Ordinance No. Page 2 E. City Council Record on Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 2014 on the Project to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. II. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine as follows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of its independent review and judgment and in consideration of any comments received during the public review process, and finding on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS -13 -006) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that all documents are on file in the Chula Vista Planning Department and with the Secretary therefore, said documents constituting the record of these proceedings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS -13 -006) in the form presented. B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on said ordinance was held on October 8, 2014 and the minutes and resolution there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any CEQA claims. C. APPROVAL OF ZONING REGULATIONS That the City Council does hereby approve the proposed rezone from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Residential (R3) for a 4.68 acre parcel located at 3875 Main Street. III. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared MW 10/3/2014 Ordinance No. Page 3 invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. IV. CONSTRUCTION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. V. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. VI. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by Kelly Broughton Development Services Director 2 -10 Glen R. Googins City Attorney 10/3/2014 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: Stone Creek Casitas 3875 Main Street APN 629 - 130 -22 -00 Stone Creek Casitas, LLC IS -13 -006 August 28, 2014 September 26, 2014 Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the draft Negative Declaration are denoted by underline. A. Project Setting The 4.68 -acre project site located at 3875 Main Street is west of Otay Valley Road and the 805 Freeway. The project site is comprised of one parcel located in the urbanized southwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista (see Exhibit A- Location Map). The project site is relatively flat and is bisected by a natural drainage channel running northeast to southwest. However, adjacent to Main Street the site has a gradual slope difference of approximately 10 -ft. Vehicular access is currently provided from a driveway located on Main Street that is shared with the property south of the site. The project site is currently vacant. The project site is within the Limited Industrial (ILP) Zone and RH (Residential High) General Plan designation. The land uses surrounding the site are as follows: North: Industrial South: Commercial East: Single - Family Homes West: Industrial B. Project Description The project proposal consists of a 97 unit apartment complex comprised of one and two bedroom units with attached carports within six buildings. Additionally, proposed on -site improvements for the parcel include a recreation building, 181 -space parking lot, new landscaping and children's play area, and four trash enclosures. Off -site improvements include street improvements to Main Street with a 24 -ft. street dedication. The proposal consists of Design Review, Rezone, and Planned Sign Program applications. The Rezone of the property proposes to change the zone from Limited Industrial (ILP) to Apartment Residential (R3) zone (see Exhibit B - Site Plan), which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential High (RH). The project is identified as developable area within the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Attachment 4 2 -11 10/3/2014 C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the Limited Industrial (ILP) zone and RH (Residential High) General Plan designation. The project includes a Rezone of the property from Limited Industrial (ILP) zone to Apartment Residential (R3) zone. The Apartment Residential (R3) Zone allows for the proposed apartment complex with a Design Review permit. The proposed 181 off - street parking spaces meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. D. Public Comments On August 1, 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 August 10, 2014. No comments were received. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checldist 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 Quality To assess potential air quality impacts an Air Quality Assessment dated July 8, 2014 and a Greenhouse Gas Study dated May 13, 2014 was prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc. 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 apartment 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 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. W 2 -12 10/3/2014 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. 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 apartments 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 Title 24 of the City's Municipal Code, which requires that new residential construction, additions, remodels and alteration projects that fall within Climate Zone 7 be at .least 20 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 20 percent reduction in emissions generated by in- building energy use. The proposed project would reduce GHG emissions by 24.15 percent beyond business as usual. The project would therefore, exceed the target of 20 percent 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 A1332. 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 assessment report and greenhouse gas study, and implementation of said measures is required mitigation as outlined in Section F. 3 2 -13 10/3/2014 Noise A Noise Study was prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc., dated, February 17, 2014, to assess the potential noise impacts of the project. The Noise Study is suminarized below. Existing Conditions The primary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site is from roadway traffic from Main Street. The site topography drops below Main Street nearly ten feet then gradually levels out. The existing noise levels were approximately 67dBA based on the proximity of Main Street. Project Impact According to the Acoustical Analysis Report, the noise created by the additional traffic generated by the proposed use and on -site noise sources typical of urban neighborhood related activities is considered not significant after mitigation. For interior noise levels, prior to issuance of building permit, an interior noise assessment report shall be submitted identifying the interior noise requirements based upon architectural and building plans to meet the City's established interior noise limit of 45 dBA CNEL, since the building facades closest to and having direct line of site to Main Street are above 60 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL can easily be obtained with conventional building construction methods and providing a closed window condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation. To determine off -site noise level increases associated with the project, the existing and proposed traffic volumes were examined. The project is estimated to generate 776 daily trips. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the area roadways are more than several thousand ADT according to SANDAG's 2008 Traffic Data. Typically, it requires a project to double or add 100% of the traffic volumes to have a direct impact of 3 dBA CNEL or be a major contributor to the cumulative traffic volumes. The project will add less than a 100% increase to the exiting roadway volumes, so therefore no impacts are anticipated. The project proposes several outdoor areas including a recreational facility with an outdoor area facing Main Street. Since this outdoor area has an elevation difference of approximately 10 -ft. below Main Street, it is outside the 66 dBA CNEL contour. All other outdoor uses are located either behind the proposed building or interior to the site. Therefore, the Project's outdoor use areas comply with the City standards and no exterior noise mitigation is required. The residents of the site would generate and be exposed to on -site noise sources typical of urban neighborhood related activities including; air conditioning units, lawn care equipment, animals, etc. As a condition of approval, the air conditioning, cooling and ventilating equipment and any other noise generating equipment shall be screened, shielded and/or buffered from surrounding streets and land uses. An acoustical analysis shall be performed 4 2 -14 10/3/2014 a by a qualified acoustical consultant to verify the specific details of this mitigation measure including; source levels, locations and construction materials. 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 Alden Environmental, Inc., dated July 22 2014, to .assess the potential biological resource impacts of the project. A site visit was conducted on October 29, 2013 in addition to two field surveys on April 19, 2014 and July 8, 2014 to identify existing vegetation on the site. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted on February 11, 2014 to determine the presence of features that would be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS), California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the City. The biological resource analysis is summarized below. Existing Conditions The Project site is bisected by a narrow natural drainage channel running northeast to southwest. The majority of the site is covered by several feet of disturbed and likely imported material. The site primarily consists of non - native grassland. In various areas of the site, there is Riparian Scrub, Eucalyptus, disturbed and developed land, and the natural drainage channel. Water enters the site through a pipe under Main Street and then flows through the channel in a southwesterly direction. After leaving the site, water is conveyed through a north/south runner channel that passes between developed areas before reaching the Otay River Valley approximately 800 feet from the southwest corner of the site. Corps J urisdictional features on site include 0.17 acre of non - wetland (unvegetated) waters of the U.S. (WUS) and 0.02 acre of wetlands (riparian scrub) located within the limits of the drainage channel on site. 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 six (6) vegetation communities occupy the site. Of these, only the riparian scrub is a native vegetation community. The natural drainage channel is a mostly unvegetated area along a natural stream course. The remaining habitats are non - native and heavily disturbed. No sensitive species were identified or observed on the site during the site visits during the spring and summer. Project Impact The project has been designed specifically to avoid impacts to jurisdictional features by providing a spanned bridge and a development avoidance buffer. As a project feature, a 5 2 -15 10/3/2014 railroad car will be installed as a free span bridge across the drainage that bisects the site. Footings for the bridge would be located within upland habitat and outside of the drainage channel and associated jurisdictional features. The buffer around the drainage channel varies from approximately 10 to 25 feet from the development pads (top of adjacent slopes) to the edge of the mapped jurisdictional features. The only permanent development within the buffer would be the spanned bridge across the channel. The slopes have rip -rW protection for a 100 -year storm event and won't be reve etated v 4th t1fle buf-Fer would be re- eget° °a with non invasave species to prevent ° na :..elusion of noxious species. A fence would be installed along the top of the slope to preclude entry into the wetland buffer area. Additionally, the spanned bridge would be enclosed and preclude access to the drainage channel. The location of the spanned bridge was selected such that it would cross over the unvegetated natural drainage channel and would not shade out jurisdictional wetland habitat. With no fill in the drainage or direct impacts to jurisdictional features the proposed project would not require agency permits. The project would impact approximately 3.77 acres on the site. Of this, approximately 3.59 acres would be sensitive non - native grassland habitat. The remaining approximately 0.18 acre of impact would be to eucalyptus and disturbed lands. The Applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts to 3.59 acres of non - native grasslands pursuant to the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance. In compliance with the City's Subarea Plan, the applicant shall secure mitigation credits within an established conservation bank located within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area as approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies. With implementation of mitigation discussed below, impacts to Tier III habitats as a result of project development will be less than significant. The project would result in the removal of vegetation with the potential to support nesting migratory birds (including the burrowing owl) if conducted during the avian nesting season (February 1 through September 1). Impacts to such species are prohibited under the MBTA and would be considered significant. To avoid any direct impacts to nesting 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 determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. Therefore, the proposed project may result in impacts to sensitive biological resources and mitigation measures are required. Further mitigation measures include clearing, grubbing or grading permits, the Applicant shall install fencing in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well - installed fencing and signage shall be in place along the limits of the drainage channel on -site. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans for areas adjacent to the preserve and for all off -site facilities constructed within the preserve. Prior to release of grading and /or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approval land development permit and associated plans. C 2 -16 10/3/2014 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. 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, a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by AGS, dated September 19, 2013. The site is currently covered with a light to moderate growth of grasses with scattered bushes and isolated mature trees along the flanks of the drainage. An active southwesterly to westerly flowing drainage bisects the northern portion of the site and appears to be primarily fed from a culvert located in the northeast corner of the site. No groundwater was encountered on the site. No natural groundwater condition is known to exist at the site that would impact the proposed site development. No significant geological or soil impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project as conditioned. Fill Materials The onsite materials that are significantly compressible include topsoil, undocumented fill and highly weathered older alluvium. As recommended in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, these materials will require complete removal and compaction to project specifications if encountered where settlement sensitive structures or improvements are planned. 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. 7 2 -17 10/3/2014 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 Drainage Study, dated May 6, 2014, a Storm Water Management Plan, dated June 30, 2014, and a Hydromodification Screening SCCWRP Analysis, dated June 27, 2014, prepared by Lundstrom Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 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 drainage channel bisecting the site was analyzed for the 100 -year flood event. The results of these studies are summarized below. Existing The existing on -site condition consists of a vacant parcel. An active southwesterly to westerly flowing drainage bisects the northern portion of the site and appears to be primarily fed from a culvert located in the northeast corner of the site. The site has no impervious cover. 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 the following runoff management facilities: 1) appropriate grading of pads to direct runoff away from structures on the site; 2) street section and storm drain system to convey runoff to the existing storm drain system; 3) bio- retention areas to treat runoff from the 2 -year storm event; 4) underground detention to mitigate peak runoff rates; and 5) directing roof runoff to landscaped areas before discharge to storm drains. The proposed project will not significantly alter drainage patterns on the site. 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. The project will add approximately 3.1 acres of impervious area (65 percent of the project site) in the form of rooftops and streets. A proposed underground detention basin will mitigate peak flow back to existing flow rates. The building pads will be built 1 -foot minimum above the 100 year water surface elevation of the channel. No adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. 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 2 -18 10/3/2014 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 a 10 inch PVC sewer line that runs parallel to Main Street and another 15 inch PVC sewer line located south of the project site. Most likely, they will connect to the sewer line south of the project site due to the grade difference of Main Street. 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. Cultural Resources In order to assess potential cultural resources impacts, a Cultural Resources Survey, dated February 7, 2014, prepared by Affinis Environmental Services, was submitted for the project. The results of the study are surrunarized below. Existing The project area is within lands that have traditionally been inhabited by the I- umeyaay people, also known as Diegueno. The plant species found in the area were used by the Native people for food, medicine, tools, shelter, ceremonial and other uses. Many of the animal species found in these vegetation communities would have been used by Native populations as well. During the survey, no cultural resources were identified on the site. The Native American, Heritage Commission was contacted in November 2013 for a Sacred Lands File check and list of Native American contacts. The Sacred Lands File search did not indicate the presence of Native American traditional cultural places in the project site. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. However, the surrounding area is known to be sensitive in terms of cultural resources, and the project is in an alluvial setting. Based on this, it is recommended that grading and other ground disturbing activity be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the monitors will have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading while the resources are documented and assessed. If significant. cultural resources are encountered during monitoring, appropriate mitigation measure would be developed and implemented. Mitigation measures would be developed in consolation among the archaeological consultant, Native American representative, City staff, and the project developer. 0 2 -19 10/3/2014 F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality 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 5.3, page 18 of Greenhouse Gas Study for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc., dated May 13, 2014. Noise 3. Prior to issuance of building permit, an interior noise assessment report shall be submitted identifying the interior noise requirements based upon architectural and building plans to meet the City's established interior noise limit of 45 dBA CNEL since the building facades closest to and having direct line of site to Main Street are above 60 dBA CNEL. 10 2 -20 10/3/2014 4. Prior to the approval of the building permit, the air conditioning, cooling and ventilating equipment and any other noise generating equipment shall be screened, shielded and /or buffered from surrounding streets and land uses. An acoustical analysis shall be performed by a qualified acoustical consultant to verify the specific details of this mitigation measure including; source levels, locations and construction materials. Biological Resources Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the Applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts to 3.59 acres of non - native grasslands pursuant to the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance. In compliance with the City's Subarea Plan, the applicant shall secure mitigation credits within an established conservation bank located within the City's MSCP Subarea Plan or MSCP Planning Area as approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies consistent with the ratios specified in Table 4. Table 4: MSCP Upland Habitat Mitigation Ratio 'All project impacts occur outside of the City's MSCP Preserve. 'Pursuant to CVMC 17.35.040, mitigation ratios have been increased from those in Table 5 -3 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan to reconcile unpennitted grading violations. The applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase of credits 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, 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 Area Specific Management Directives (ASMDs)) 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 (e.g., Community Facilities District) for the management and monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity. The ASMDs shall provide management measures to be implemented to sustain the viability of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the ASMDs. The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future 11 2_21 Mitigation Required Mitigation Required Ratio Mitigation Ratio Mitigation MSCP (Inside (Inside (Outside Outside Habitat Type Tier Acresl Preserve) Preserve) Preserve) Preserve) Non -native III 3.59 1:1 3.59 2:1 7.18 grassland 'All project impacts occur outside of the City's MSCP Preserve. 'Pursuant to CVMC 17.35.040, mitigation ratios have been increased from those in Table 5 -3 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan to reconcile unpennitted grading violations. The applicant shall be required to provide verification of purchase of credits 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, 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 Area Specific Management Directives (ASMDs)) 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 (e.g., Community Facilities District) for the management and monitoring of the mitigation area in perpetuity. The ASMDs shall provide management measures to be implemented to sustain the viability of the preserved habitat and identify timing for implementing the measures prescribed in the ASMDs. The mitigation parcel shall be restricted from future 11 2_21 10/3/2014 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 maintain the biological integrity of the mitigation area and shall abide by all management and monitoring measures identified in the ASMDs 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. 6. Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing, grubbing or grading permits, construction permits), the Project Applicant shall retain a City- approved biologist to conduct focused pre - construction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 10 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the City- approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan subject to the review and . approval by the Wildlife agencies and the City, concluding any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts form construction related activities. 7. To avoid any direct impacts to nesting 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 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- construetion 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. 8. Prior to issuance of any land development permits including clearing, grubbing or grading permits, construction permits, the Project Applicant shall install fencing in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well - installed fencing and signage shall be in place along the limits of the drainage channel on -site. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans for areas adjacent to the preserve and for all off -site facilities constructed within the preserve. Prior to release of grading and /or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approval land development permit and associated plans. 12 2 -22 10/3/2014 9. 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 III habitats and wetland resources. Geoloev and Soils 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer that all the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated September 19, 2013 have been satisfied. Drainage and Water Quality 11. 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. 12. 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 peals 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. 13. 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. 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. Cultural Resources 14. Prior to initiating any construction related activities, including but not limited to grading and other ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, shall monitored the site for potential cultural resources. If cultural resources are encountered, the monitors will have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading while the resources are documented and assessed. If significant cultural resources are encountered during monitoring, appropriate mitigation measure would be developed and implemented. Mitigation measures would be developed in consolation among the archaeological consultant, Native American representative, City staff, and the project developer. 13 2 -23 10/3/2014 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 Environmental Impact Report. Printed aN me ofApph Date (or authori d representative) Signatur of Applicant Date (or aut o 'zed representative) N/A Printed Name and Title of Operator Date (if different from Applicant) N/A Signature of Operator Date (if different from Applicant) 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 David Kaplan, Land Development Division Mary Radley, Landscape Architecture Division Scott Harris, Building Division Darin Golden, Fire Department Lynn France, Conservation and Environmental Services Others: Carol School, Chula Vista Elementary School District Hector Martinez, Sweetwater Authority 14 2 -24 10/3/2014 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 2005. Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code. Air Quality Assessment for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista, Ldn Consulting, Inc., July 8, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Study for the Stone Creels Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista; Ldn Consulting, Inc., May 13,`2014. Noise Study for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista, Ldn Consulting, Inc., Februrary 17, 2014. Biological Resources Report for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street,Chula Vista, Alden Environmental, Inc., July 22 2014. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Stone Creels Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista, AGS, September 19, 2013. Drainage Study for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street,Chula Vista, Lundstrom Engineering and Surveying, Inc., May 6, 2014, Storm Water Managment Plan for the Stone Creels Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista, Lundstrom Engineering and Surveying, Inc., June 30, 2014. Hydromodification Screening SCCWRP Analysis for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista, Lundstrom Engineering and Surveying, Inc., June 27, 2014. Cultural Resources Survey for the Stone Creek Casitas Project, 3875 Main Street, Chula Vista, Affinis Environmental Services, February 7, 2014. 3. Initial Study This environmental determination 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 from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. OA��� Date: Caroline Yo Associate Planner /Project Manager CADocuments and SettingsWoungUS- 13 -006MND.doc 15 2 -25 10/3/2014 Project Site Development Plan MAIN STREET.- 1 �M r t. xr II 1.n } 'art fr l! „l .t" �IIF J`F` J ✓ S i7i r. Ji � '! 1, ,t',s�� �f�d /� r tl s J°a. s t PIII f jh. Ldn Consulting, Inc. 719114 .f Source: Lunds I �I i - rt< J Surveying, 2013 EXHIBIT B 2 -27 as a Respc t stf�te A nc and® £E tdellne uttpri y Sect�t�(t � dyer ifit6se as c #� o tref prapased pI aaec Qhat ccitste under the puNi v a the aisf ©rnl E d- Se tes Act. 10/3/2014 A State of Cadifarnta ,Natural Resources Agency st E€;,M'uSUt7 C. B,q6l�1,5t4a -GOU2rrw' it g L,)EPAR € M_EN'i OF C lsH AND - VV(LQLIFE r" south cOas f egion ` ax Sanl3iego CA9�f2 �85IIj G6�1}ZQ1 w�EdJEf ca gQV ,r C I �..� SegSt87Cib�i itk, 2i3��;: IT 1'0 20 S` d_`kbliri&YQ ERf �?9S6�ka};U= Pia�hner; .: G't� 0 €nuFa ls €a Dz,'y3 2,Z&. Fdurth/1ve�We ,. _.. w du V )4t �blit�'4fiildWQ, as a Respc t stf�te A nc and® £E tdellne uttpri y Sect�t�(t � dyer ifit6se as c #� o tref prapased pI aaec Qhat ccitste under the puNi v a the aisf ©rnl E d- Se tes Act. (page 11). it is also unclear whether the proposed project will be required to mitigate for A -2 3.46 acres of non- native grassland or 3.59 acres due to a discrepancy between Table 4 and the text in Mitigation Measure 5. Please revise as necessary. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft MND. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Kyle ®utro at (858) 467 -4267 or kyle.dutro@wildlifo.ca.gov Sincerefy; I 2_29 10/3/2014 A -1 The project avoids direct impacts to the channel and there is no City or agency requirement for a specific buffer width. The buffers provided will help protect the functions and values of the channel. Additionally, the project will incorporate fencing that will help preclude future impacts to the channel including dumping of trash, discing of soil, and erection of homeless encampments, all of which are common occurrences with the current pre - project situation on site. As such, the project design and provided buffer is anticipated to result in an improved situation along the channel. The comment also asked that the applicant revegetate the slopes adjacent to the buffer with native revegetation. After looking at the current plans, it's clear that the slopes have rip -rap protection for a 100 -year storm event and won't be revegetated. The City of Chula Vista re- examined the project and buffer to confirm that the rip -rap is limited to the slopes and is not within the actual buffer (see attached figure). Given that the rip -rap is in the developed portion of the site and is not within the buffer or used as mitigation, there is no requirement to revegetate it. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -13 -006) has been revised on page 6 to incorporate the change. Comments noted. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -13 -006) has been revised to incorporate the correct heading, (Outside Perserve) on Table 4: MSCP Upland Habitat Mitigation Ratios on page 11, as well as changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on page 3. The Project will require the Applicant to mitigate for 3.59 acres and not 3.46 acres. Updates have been made to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration on page 6 and 11, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on page 3, and the Biological Report on page 11. 2 -30 10/3/2014 ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) STONE CREEK CASITAS- IS -13 -006 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Stone Creels Casitas 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 -006). 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. Cultural Resources 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 -006 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 -006, 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. 2 -31 ro 10/3/2014 m Z d C O N y C _ N ° s e s a • e s s s s s s e s e s o. N 'o S m �. A m °m D C c m 3. p O N O (U O 3 S .N-n S'O J N G �. N O ill (D N (D N C. J. N J O C da o•m SG S^ v N .N' .o- f0» O. N J, C N O 3' N O -I C p,N N CO] d n tD m N. " °- o ^ 3 ¢ o !^ d y ° o =. -JO vi o m "' n 9 x Q m N d a J J `G N o m Q m a Q 3 °m m c° o �0 Cc m 3 m° O S o m O u N N (D p G 2 O .. o@- O fn C^ O �' 6 a O. N N N N O '� J N O J C 0- S N F 10 O .^, N 3 O N F N 5 (O * N N mw d J (O -p N l0 Q p 40. o O o m m O F ° O N OO f° p g O d N N 3 3 0 SL — m °- n m EF a 3 °: o m m n -EF 0 J 6 ° O 3 ° N ° m ° 7 m vpi nG ° N> > a J a c a o S 3 c m r°n < v n m Z m ° 3 3 d a m N G o. N D O N° �^ m m y m ° &i o Q o D gv N d O J E .p91. o. ,O m op Z `0 �S x oo "o m< s v o,. . o, ' -a YI Nco � 3 � �m J J Q N a 0 m d O a � n 0 3 3 3 N - 2 -32 m b N 10/3/2014 a m A W N Z N f p O w 0 G � O 0 O 3 N w m J° 6 6"O J m-10 z N o N C C m n 0 'o n N N 0 O A'M' O C O A OOOO °m S,o �J5'Z°'m 3a rn ° ° .. G)l W p o - J 3 � 3 a� O� 0 DC r o �mo�amom v J mv.� J m 0m 0 f o aNm- - m o - g m D 0 m m o NJ. .J..w3c JO mn� =° Q n O SJ1 n n ° G ° m N O ° N a m C. m _ J n m� 3 d Q�n wm 0 go ons -m s 3 co0m m 3 v aaw ti:a .-. �°pNOm Qa m oN 5-0 mJ0� -°00 c mo�°m6 <.°- o.r m0 o'° gwm�°n m ..cnvc3t° J m om_,v ponm J a om mJ Doy vmJ6 vOo,o m J Za3 mo m F'cn •• 3 �_ yo�y ZEG rs ^�3� W. J m nNm m n n ?n J A N tp m J 0 (n cn (n .• 0' 0 0 r �3 0; i0 m 0 0. 0 0 X X 0 o H > O 0 °n h .' ZZ Y0... 3.71. ° m o m v0 mo Y 3 3 3 m m 0 v 3 N 9 O m v fD .. a m Q 3 3 N 2t33 a m b ao 10/3/2014 a ro Ut N C d N C Z O O Rim d o A O r J N �• ya ; a n J N CI J N 3 o_o'3 tD a Q N 'a2a A g w-OOw?c°i a3"�'O O » N N t0 N O N stpi��I, m (n 91 (7"0 a d C Q N (n_ 00 Jp a m4mm c NCO ❑QNm JNN p N c � O _ 6 S Q NO > qq <d . m oto po � 0I O y 3' 3lii Z 0 m D x < Z 0 3 d= m o ,.:.:5. 5,0 -o .rte T O p x '0 Z ci N a O °o : N m o -°o m m a. ❑ N ?�: ? 0 3a G a � 3 »m A S p v o 3 <m a ad o m m m Q O 3 3 2 -34 a ro b w A 10/3/2014 ID C7 m N C d d_ � . O 0 wo. m ° -Mu d - °o m° 3 D 0 o' 0 O awmN"'m o' m1BJ do3J 0330Nm0 �a md� mm= od�dd3.om�'�° - °. dO cDii m D o 3a N W , aN �3<0 'iN O �.p j �a Ip N 7'J N J a3 N 3 3 n S m d ° 2,0 U app d J °j-. . ^ np N D N d.. 7 N ND Q 3 d o m 3 O o °JVm S�m n3 � m � ' v p � � � � d 0 w 3 m 9 •J' .Ji � �. S � N � C O 0 O m m Om o3. -m3Q coo N mom , 5 0 od N 'o :�a . ff dJ timd0o w 0 Q�o o — 3�._z n' c . 0 -3 mo< 0 M'oc 0" aD °.m � -om 0m. m �a Ohf. o o ?m�a0�m ?°a W-0 ro N �N n mm 3 �a o3m o[T . u u 0 o 0 - 3 D 3 c 9 dp �_- 3 0 o dJ�0 d p (3 D Sd < d d. _N N N < 3 OM o 0. 0,g0 fo_ -o�0a �co o aN S d ^J C N 3 n C O J N d d d o m 3 m 5o a 0 o O m 0 0 ' JD 0 0 ti N � N 'O T TV1 ry 00 3n° c � 3 d m J B. Q d 3 O .d. d d .. a m 3 3 N 2 -35 ID C7 m b V 10/3/2014 v a m s N N Z° : O n� am ^'.am °w- �oo �^ °a N m s am3 ° °So- 3 c� 2'< v ohm 6 3f< -.'m �o°�.w� oamO s owo.�o�u Ro'mm°<' 2��°o-ao - coo O_. wm ° @n Via. a .. �CO Oo O NC da S CS O S N" ( ° O�D ,f'o C O D S O d O w a 0 S°. 0 w w ^w - ° N n - ° u ti C .'. . ° mm °d= -<..Jm rwn�N `N`3mwmm mm N�o,:w� n<i�0 m w•2c. acD"i 2 dm�aN °-w <'O3mo co zj OO 3m o"°' w�- ¢t`°o'c - 3�a m0�. 9 J391 m --a m mm, -o, now m , m -� oSO =am 0 > ao j n a F N $ w °M (s m m m O w.Mo' ao . m w3 m ocacD v a o 3 . . a Dngym ° �.°�.:,O 0 o mN bC°� O� SC� m 0< ° 0 S 0 o� 3 m 3 P o 0 O C FF vl o o o w n 0, 0 m 0 Nmw °o .^� N �moi.mN. woo �Ns U nm°a3wNo o2 m 0 °0 °�mpOO momo i o oNo i 3 O Op 3 o ' ow0 g o° m m m< N P m m m m o m w m 0 0 o ¢ 0 9 cJi N ^m tiN N Tm C U �. d ^w o 4wli m' a (A N N N (D 7 N° N° O w N° o ° ❑ J S O S� � J N J O N J N on 0-6 D nC� m3 0 0 toin 3, J' Coi '-'• .�.. O 5 Z °.: ¢ O O O Z I µ N Z � X x o L Z x x0 pO 0 " ^ /Z cn > w > ma ma NC p N C p N GI p p as m m O N a w N tD n O 3 3 m 3 N 2 -36 v a m s 10/3/2014 [« ;J& \ \; / } {/ \5} \( ` ° » {0 ! =£? & /JJi � ( : *a/ E\ 0 « \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \/� \� }� $ - - !!!f _ \42aI / /,)/ 0\;\ \( } \)\ }\ {)(} CD } {)3 \7 &7§ :I! 6 � !� /2 atm 7 w \} } � \ \ `( \. \� \ 7 w \} } � 10/3/2014 CITY OF ENVMONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHULA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: Stone Creek Casitas, LLC 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No.: ENV RONMENTAL 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 2 -38 City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 303 H Street Suite 103 Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 442 -8400 Stone Creek Casitas August 25, 2014 IS -13 -006 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 10/3/2014 a Comments: a -b) The proposal includes the development of an apartment complex 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 Main Street. 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 residential development project. The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent residential, commercial, or industrial surroundings. The project site is planned for residential 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. Mitiaation: 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 project: 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 2 -39 10/3/2014 Comments: (a -c) The project site is currently vacant and the surrounding properties are developed with single - family homes, commercial, and industrial uses. 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 project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact M. ArR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ Im ❑ ❑ 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) Exposd 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 2 °40 10/3/2014 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 Siguificant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IV. GREENHOUSE GAS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 residential projects to be at least 20 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. 4 2 -41 10/3/2014 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ M 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, vernal 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? 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. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ L n 0 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. Mitieation• 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 2 -42 10/3/2014 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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? 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? 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. 6 2 -43 10/3/2014 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 eaI•thquake 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? 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact I Less Than El Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ i. Rupture of a known eaI•thquake 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? 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact I ❑ 0 El Eel El ❑ 0 Comments: a) The site has been previously graded but remains vacant. There are no known active faults existing on the project site or in the immediate area. The closest known active surface fault is the Silver Strand section of the Newport - Inglewood -Rose Canyon fault zone which is approximately six miles from the subject 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. 7 2 -44 El Comments: a) The site has been previously graded but remains vacant. There are no known active faults existing on the project site or in the immediate area. The closest known active surface fault is the Silver Strand section of the Newport - Inglewood -Rose Canyon fault zone which is approximately six miles from the subject 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. 7 2 -44 10/3/2014 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 Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Signiflcant NoImpact Impact Incorporated Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ M ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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? 8 2 °45 10/3/2014 Issues: f) 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: ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ a and b) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (Hazards/Hazardous Materials). c) The proposed project includes a new apartment complex. The proposed project will not emit acutely hazardous emissions or materials, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the existing uses within the surrounding area. d) Per the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report dated December 3, 2013, 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. f) 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 2 -46 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ a and b) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (Hazards/Hazardous Materials). c) The proposed project includes a new apartment complex. The proposed project will not emit acutely hazardous emissions or materials, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the existing uses within the surrounding area. d) Per the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report dated December 3, 2013, 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. f) 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 2 -46 10/3/2014 Issues: 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 10 2 °47 ❑ ❑ 11 Less Than El M Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 a El M ❑ ❑ El IN LEI No Impact Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ El M ❑ ❑ 10/3/2014 Comments: a, c -d, and 0 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. Mitilration: 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: Potentially Issues: Significant Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ 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, commercial, and industrial uses. The proposed residential 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 Limited Industrial (ILP) Zone and RH (Residential High) General Plan land use designation. The project proposes to change the zone from Limited Industrial (IL,P) to Apartment Residential (R3) zone. Therefore, 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 2 -48 10/3/2014 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: 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: ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact ros 0 a) The project site has been previously disturbed with minimal grading on the site. 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 2 -49 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact ros 0 a) The project site has been previously disturbed with minimal grading on the site. 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 2 -49 10/3/2014 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant 1Vlitlgation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XII. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ groundbome vibration or groundborne 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 land 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? 1) 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: 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 apartment complex 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 2 -50 10/3/2014 e -l) 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). Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XIH. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the conshuction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: (a -c)No residential development is proposed that would induce substantial population growth in the area or require substantial infrastructure improvements. No permanent housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or person would occur as a result of the proposed project. Based upon the nature of the proposal no population growth inducement is anticipated. The project is an allowable residential use under the proposed Rezone and current General Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 14 2 -51 10/3/2014 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) Fire 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 performance 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. 15 2 -52 10/3/2014 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Issues: XV. RE,CREATI ®N. 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? Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ M ❑ a) Because the proposed project would not induce significant population growth, it would not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities. Neither will the proposed project impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is not planned for any fixture 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 2 -53 10/3/2014 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)? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 9 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 lei !1 No Impact 0 V 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ D Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: (a,b,d,e) According to the Land Development Division, the proposed residential infill project is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic, circulation or emergency access impacts. The project generated traffic trips are minimal, approximately 776 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) that is not considered to be a substantial increase in either number of vehicle trips, volume or capacity along Main 17 2 °54 10/3/2014 Street and surrounding street segments. 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 181 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 approximately 500 -ft. west of the project site along Main Street. The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation programs. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Issues: Significant 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? Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact LJ 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 projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 18 2 -55 ❑ ❑ 10/3/2014 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 Sweetwater Authority. 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 2 -56 10/3/2014 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 2 -57 No Impact rAl M Rol 10/3/2014 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities /1,000 population east of 1-805. F) Drainage ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ M ❑ 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. II) Water ❑ ❑ E ❑ 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 permit issuance. Comments: a) The proj ect 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 2 -58 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact E) Parks and Recreation Areas ❑ ❑ ❑ l The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities /1,000 population east of 1-805. F) Drainage ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ M ❑ 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. II) Water ❑ ❑ E ❑ 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 permit issuance. Comments: a) The proj ect 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 2 -58 10/3/2014 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 and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. The project would create a private recreation area for the residents. 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 2 -59 10/3/2014 v 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 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 minimal grading. No cumulative considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable fixture 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 2 -60 10/3/2014 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 -13 -006. 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 -13 -006, 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. Printed N Title of �A licant (or aut rized representa � Sigture of Applicant (or Authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) 24 2 -61 Z 44) J Date Date 10/3/2014 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 ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing >` Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems 21 Geology and Soils ❑ Energy and Mineral Cl Aesthetics Resources ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Lighting FS] Drainage/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous "29 Cultural Resources Materials Air Quality ON Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Paleontological ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources 25 2 -62 10/3/2014 XXH. 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. Caroline Young Date Associate Planner City of Chula Vista J:\Planning \Camline\Discmtionary Pennits\3875 Main Street /IS -13- 006 \IS- 13- 006cheeklist.doc 26 2 -63 LEI W 0 0 0 r�1 fi 10/3/2014 CITY OF CHUTA VISTA Disclosure Statement r P l a n n i n g & B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t Planning Division ( Development Processing APPLICATION APPENDIX B Pursuant to Council Policy 101 -01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 11 2. 0 CM 61 0 List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Stone Creek Casitas, LLC Chrismatt Corp, Managing Member If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation /partnership) entity. James V. Pieri Gregory Scott If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non - profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non - profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Dan Rosenberg Damian Taitano Jeff Lundstrom john Howard Kevin O'Neil Wayne Stivers Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official ** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No x If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official ** may have in this contract. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? No x Yes _ If yes, which Council member? 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista 2Caalliffornia 91910 (619) 691 -51.01 10/3/2014 P l a n n i n g CITY of CHULA VISTA Disclosure Statement - Page 2 & B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t Planning Division I Development Processing APPLICATION APPENDIX B 7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official ** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes _ No x If Yes, which official *" and what was the nature of item provided? Date: 12 -10 -2013 Sig ature of Contractor /Applicant Stone Creek Casitds,LLC /Chrismatt Corp,Managing Member Print or James V. Pieri, President type name of Contractor /Applicant * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co- partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. * Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. 2 -6�5 276 Fourth Avenue ( Chula Vista Ca ifornia 91910 (6 19) 691 -5101