The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/2001/12/05 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING and JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION and RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m Wednesday, December 5, 2001 Conference Rooms 2 & 3 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CAWMOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 01-88; Conditional Use Permit to establish a child development center/preschool in an existing church building and surrounding grounds. Applicant: Episcopal Community Services. Project Planner: Kim Vander Bie 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-13; Conditional Use PenniUo pennit an existing second dwelling unit as an accessory second dwelling unit behind the primary single- family residence at 736 Church Avenue~ Applicant: Daniel Contreras. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to December 12,2001. Project Planner: Kim Vander Bie ADJOURNMENT OF REGULAR MEET/NG TO A WORKSHOP 1. Transit First Program. 2. Water Conservation. ADJOURNMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 12/5/01 ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing: PCC-01-88, Conditional Use Permit to establish a child development center/preschool for up to toO children in the existing Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints church building and surrounding grounds at 1320 Fourth Avenue. Applicant: Episcopal Community Services The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a child development center/preschool in an existing church facility and surrounding grounds at 1320 Fourth Avenue, where the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is located. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), city staff conducted an Initial Study (IS-Ol-059) of possible environmental impacts associated with this project, and the city's environmental review coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared by city staff and will be considered by the Planning Commission, prior to consideration of the project. This project was originally on the canceled November 28,2001 Planning Commission agenda. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 5, 2001, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the Initial Study was adequate and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. Final adoption of the Negative Declaration is subject to review at the Planning Commission public hearing, with final approval by City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC-01-88 (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration (Attachment 4) that has been prepared for this project (IS-Ol- 59), and approving the CUP establishing a child development center/preschool for up to toO children. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The 2.27-acre project site is a flat, flag-shaped lot on the west side of Fourth Avenue, just south of Palomar Street. A church sanctuary faces Fourth Avenue. Behind it are a classroom building, a fellowship hall, and missionary dormitory. Beyond the buildings to the west is a large, grassy recreation area that currently has no play equipment on it. An asphalt parking lot south of the buildings accommodates 76 vehicles. Wood fencing runs along the west and south property lines; wood and chain link (on the portion abutting Palomar Street) fencing run along the north property line. The site is adjacent to single-family developments in an directions, with Chula Vista Elementary School northeast of the project at Fourth and Palomar. Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 12/5/01 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: Residential, Low-Medium (3/6 du/gross acre) Residential, Low-Medium (3-6 du/gross acre) Residential, Low-Medium (3-6 du/gross acre) Residential, Low-Medium (3-6 du/gross acre) Residential, Low-Medium (3-6 du/gross acre) R-l Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Single Family Residential North: R-l South: R-l Single Family Residential East: R-l Single Family Residential Northeast: R-l Chula Vista Elementary School 3. Proposal The project consists of establishing a child development center/preschool in the existing church buildings at 1320 Fourth Avenue, accommodating a maximum of I 00 students (aged 3-5 years old), with an opening day enrollment of68 students. The hours of operation would be 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, with only staff being present on Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. No additional buildings are proposed. However, a 5,000-square-foot play area (including a bike loop, sandbox with shade structure and playground equipment) is proposed in the vacant recreation area behind the missionary dormitory, and would be a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines. At capacity (100 children), there will not be more than 25 children on the playground at a time, as outdoor play will be staggered in four 45-minute intervals 4. Analysis Private schools, such as the child development center/preschool proposed, are categorized as "Unclassified Uses" in the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Section 19.54.020 states that Conditional Use Permit applications for unclassified uses "shall be considered by the City Council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the Planning Commission." The proposed preschool at the existing church facility would be a compatible use in the residential neighborhood during the weekday hours proposed. There is another school, Chula Vista Elementary, across the street at Fourth Avenue and Palomar Street. Currently, the project site is utilized for Sunday worship services from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; weekday church activities from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; occasional weekend retreats; and a homeless shelter during the months of October, November and December from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 12/5/01 5. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Pennit in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-Ol-88, to allow establishment of the proposed child development center/preschool. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-Ol-88 3. Draft City Council Resolution 4. Negative Declaration \= LAUD ERBACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL /' PROJECT ( LOCATION \ -- c:: III C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 1320 Fourth Avenue ADDRESS: Request: Proposal for addition to existing church building for licensed child development center SCALE: FILE NUMBER: and preschool. NORTH No Scale PCC-01-88 Related Case: 15-01-059 j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\pcc0188.cdr 7.10.01 / ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 01-88 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-01-88, TO ESTABLISH A CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER/PRESCHOOL FOR UP TO 100 CHILDREN AT 1320 FOURTH A VENUE. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on June 20, 2001 by Episcopal Community Services; and, WHEREAS, said applicant requests pennission to establish a child development center/preschool for up to 100 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years old in the existing church building and surrounding grounds at 1320 Fourth Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts associated with this project and, based on the Initial Study (IS- 01-059), prepared a Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission found the Negative Declaration for this project to be adequate; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use pennit and notice of said 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 scheduled and advertised for November 28, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, said hearing was canceled and the project was continued to December 5, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect to the conditional use pennit application, the Planning Commission voted to approve the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, from the facts presented, the Planning Commission hereby detennines that the conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the California Government Code, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice support the requests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration (IS-OI-059) and approving the conditional use pennit (PCC- 01-88) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. I 2- ATTACHMENT 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council and the Applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 5th day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kevin O'Neill, Chair Diana Vargas, Secretary 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-01-88, TO EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER! PRESCHOOL FOR UP TO 100 CHILDREN AT 1320 FOURTH AVENUE. A. RECITALS 1. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel that is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is located at 1320 Fourth Avenue ("Project Site"); and 2. Project Applicant WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001 a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-01-88) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by Episcopal Community Services (Applicant); and 3. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to establish a child development center/preschool for up to toO children between the ages of 3 and 5 years old in the existing church buildings and surrounding grounds at the Project Site; and 4. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project required the preparation of an Initial Study. Such study (IS-O 1-059) was prepared by city staff, and based on such study, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review. WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the Initial Study was adequate and recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration on November 5, 2001, in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the same Negative Declaration on November 28, 2001. v ATTACHMENT 3 5. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hearing was scheduled and advertised for November 28, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-O 1-88; and 6. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on November 28, 2001 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. C. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Negative Declaration issued for this Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. D. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration prepared for this Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council, and hereby adopts the Negative Declaration, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of ChuIa Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. ) ~ Resolution No. Page #3 The proposed child development center/preschool in the residential neighborhood will provide a centrally located child care facility for residents in and around the existing church where the facility is proposed. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will not pose a danger to the health, safety or general welfare to the general public. A Negative Declaration prepared by the city's environmental review coordinator indicates that there will be no significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. This Conditional Use Permit is conditioned to require the permittee and property owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use. The conditions of this permit are approximately in proportion to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that public facilities, such as preschools, are an anticipated use in residential areas. F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-0l-88 subject to the following conditions: I. The number of students shall not exceed 100. 2. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 3. The recreation/play area shall be no closer than 50 feet from property lines. 4. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the sunken sidewalk left of the driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with new concrete. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, a trash enclosure complying with city specifications shall be installed on the site. ~ Resolution No. Page #4 6. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, project shall comply with all Fire Department requirements, including: A. Provide a 2A-lOBC fire extinguisher every 75 feet of travel distance. B. All exit doors shall be of single action with no unapproved locking devices. C. The fire alarm system shall comply with Sections 305.9 and 305.9a. of the California Uniform Building Code. Illuminated exit signs are required and shall be on a separated emergency system installed according to the Electrical Code. D. Any areas designated for sleeping purposes shall have smoke detection. E. The business shall be licensed through Community Care Licensing. 7. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 8. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this conditional use permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy ofthis conditional use permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. G. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 2. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property. Resolution No. Page #5 3. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shan be ground for revocation or modification of permit. H. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as Document No. Signature of Representative of Episcopal Community Services Date 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the City Clerk. J. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA THIS TH DAY OF 200 . Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building John M. Kaheny City Attorney 7 r , \ ----- I I---- \.-- LAUDERBACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL /' PROJECT ( lOCATION \ -- A\7 o c:::: llTl C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 1320 Fourth Avenue ADDRESS: Request: Proposal for addition to existing church building for licensed child development center SCALE: FILE NUMBER: and preschool. NORTH No Scale PCC-01-SS Related Case: 15-01-059 j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslpcc0188.cdr 7.10.01 ? EXHmIT A Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Episcopal Community Services (ECS) Head Start PROJECT LOCA nON: 1320 Fourth Avenue ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-320-3200 PROJECT APPLICANT: Barrie Owens Expansion Coordinator/ECS Head Start CASE NO.: IS-Ol- 059 DATE: October 12. 200 J A. Project Setting The 2.27-acre project site is located to the west of Fourth Avenue and south of Palomar Avenue (Exhibit A - Locator Map). The parcel is a flag-shaped lot and relatively flat. The project site is located in a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista. A church and accessory buildings currently occupy the site. The surrounding area is fully developed with the following land uses: North South East West Northeast Land Uses Single-Family ResidentiaJ Single-Family Residentlal Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Elementary School Zoning Rl Rl Rl Rl PQ B. Project Description The Episcopal Community Services (Head Start Program) proposes utilization of an existing church building, Fellowship Hall, and surrounding grounds for a child development center. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints owns the church buildings and recreational area. There win be no exterior changes to the existing buildings except for the recreational area that will be modified to include a playground for the chiJd development center. The Head Start Program will operate 179 days per calendar year. The Episcopal Community SerYICeS is lIcensed by the State of California for a maximum of 100 children ranging in ages trom 3 years to 5 years. The current zoning is Rl (Single FamiJy Residential) and the General Plan designation is PQ (Public Quasi). The project proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning regulations and development standards. The Zoning Code allows a daycare center as an accessory to a church use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Cf ATTACHMENT 4 The existing church programs include Sunday services. weekly prayer services, choir practices, weekly youth meetings, etc. The church program schedule includes Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, weekday activities from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., occasional weekend retreats and a homeless shelter during the months of October, November and December from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans A Conditional Use Permit is required for a daycare accessory use to a church in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan designation and environmental plans or policies. D. Public Comments On October II, 2001 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public comment period ended October 22, 2001. One written public response was received. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Potential Impacts Noise The project site currently contains solid wooden fencing around its perimeter boundaries. The proposed child development center will be within an existing building and playground area placed in an existing vacant portion of the property, away from the adjacent single-family residences. The child development center and the playground area will not create a significant noise impact because the proposed project contains the following features: a) at least 50 _ 240 feet away from adjacent single-family residences, b) solid wooden fencing located along perimeter boundaries. Due to the level of ambient noise at the site from traffic On the adjacent streets, Fourth A venue and Palomar Street, the additional noise impact of the proposed child development center and playground would be less than significant. Traffic The primary access roads to the project site are Fourth Avenue and Palomar Street. Fourth Avenue is a 4-lane major street with a Level-of-Service "A" and Palomar Street is a Class 1 collector street with Level-of-Service "A". The proposed project will generate an additional 245 average daily trips (ADT) per day. According to the Engineering Department, the existing number of \'ehic!e trips on Fourth Avenue is 9,330 and total vehicle capacity is 30,000 with Level-of-Ser\ice "C". The' existing number of vehicle trips on Palomar Street is 14,204 and total vehicle capacity is 22,000 with Level-of-Service "C". The proposed project will not create a significant traffic impact on to the adjacent street segments. The ADT volumes on the primary access roads before and after the project development will not exceed the City's Level-of-Sen';ce 2 10 (L.O.S.) "c" standard. The City.s traffic threshold standards can still be met with the development of the proposed project. No signIficant transportation/circulation impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project. Comments on Notice of Initial Study Staffreceived one written response to the Notice of Initial Study from a property owner along the western boundary of the project site. According to the respondent, the existing school in the near vicinity creates traffic congestion onto the adjacent street segments, Fourth Avenue and Palomar A venue. The respondent is concerned about the additional traffic from the proposed project and the impact it could have. In addition, the respondent expressed concerns about potential noise impacts from the playground area. The respondent lives adjacent to the proposed playground area along the southwest boundary of the project site. The proposed playground is 90 feet from the respondent's home and further separated by a 6-foot wooden fence. See previous Section E regarding potential impacts from noise and traffic. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts No mitigation measures are required. G. Consultation 1. City of Chula Vista: Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Planning Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Environmental Planning Kim Vander Bie, Development Planning Gary Williams, Development PJanning Frank Herrera-A, Advanced P1anning Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineering Majed Al-Ghafry, Traffic Engineering Frank Rivera, Senior Civil Engineer Sohaib AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer JeffMoneda, Civil Engineer Gilbert Ponce, Public Works Justin Gipson, Fire Department Joe Gamble, Parks and Recreation Richard Preuss, Police Department Applicant: Barrie Owens Episcopal Community Sen.ices 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code - (I 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 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 ti-om the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chub Vista, CA 91910. Q~~~~. Ma 'lyn R. . Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator Date: /0/.3;/6)/ I I J:\Planning\MARlA \MISC\is-01-59neg,doc 4 /2. Case No.IS-OI-059 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Episcopal Community Services Barrie Owens 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3565 Seventh A venue San Diego, CA. 92103 4. Name of Proposal: Episcopal Community Services Palomar Head Start 5. Date of Checklist: October 30, 200 I PotentiaU" Signifiont Less than POleDtiaUy Unless Significant No SignUtc':lDt Mitigated Impact Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 0 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 0 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 0 established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The Episcopal Community Services (Head Start Program) proposes utilization of an existing church facility, Fellowship Hall, and surrounding grounds for a child development center. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints owns the church buildings and grounds. There will be no exterior changes to the existing buildings except for the recreational area that will Page I 13 be modified to include a playground for the child deYelopment center. The Head Start Program \\'ill operate 179 days per calendar year. The Episcopal Community Services is licensed by the State of California for a maximum of 100 children ranging in age from 3 years to 5 years. The current zoning is RI (Single Family Residential) and the General Plan designation is PQ (Public Quasi). The project proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning regulations and development standards. The Zoning Code allows a daycare center as part of a church facility with a Conditional Use Permit. The existing church programs include Sunday services, weekly prayer services, choir practices, weekly youth meetings, etc. The church program schedule includes Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, weekday activities from 5:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m., occasional weekend retreats and a homeless shelter during the months of October, November and December from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The proposed project would not conflict with existing land uses nor significantly disrupt the surrounding residential community. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? POleDliaUy Potentially SignifiC3nt Less Ihaq Signlficanl Unless Significant No IIDpaC1 Milig3ted Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o Comments: The proposed project would not contribute to local or regional population growth. The use of the existing Fellowship Hall as a child development center would not result in the inducement of substantial growth in this area or in the displacement of existing housing. No buildings would be removed to accommodate the requested facilities. No significant population or housing impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures; No mitigation measures are required. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Page 2 PolentbUy Signifk:llJt Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigatffi No Impact ussthan Signutcant hnpacl 1"1 a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 :OJ substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 0 features? d) The destruction. covering or modification of 0 0 0 0 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, u 0 0 0 either on or off the site? t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 0 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 0 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments; The project site is currently developed with a church and two auxiliary buildings. The proposed child development center will not require the construction of any new buildings or building additions. The site is relatively flat and no grading is proposed for the project development. Similar topography and ground surface features surround the site. There are no geophysical features or hazards identified on this project site. No significant geophysical impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Potentiany Potenli3lty Significant Less Ihan Signiflcanl Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? o o o o c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration o o o o Page 3 1\- of surfoce "'ater quality (e.g., temperoture. dissolved oxygen or rurbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface ",oter in any 0 0 0 t'J water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 t'J of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 0 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 0 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 0 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 0 waters? " Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 0 L otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The project is located on an improved property developed with three church buildings; fellowship hall, sanctuary, and restroom facility. The proposed project is to utilize part of the Fellowship Hall and church grounds for a child development center and playground. There will be no additional construction on the site, therefore, there will be no significant increase of surface run- off. The off-site drainage facility, an inlet, exists 200 feet northeast of the property along Fourth A venue. The inlet drains into a channel, which runs east and west. According to the Engineering Department, the off-site drainage facility is adequate to serve the project. The project site sheet flows to the eastern landscaped areas along the eastern property boundary and to the northeast property boundary along Fourth Avenue. According to the Engineering Department the on-site drainage pattern is adequate. No significant impacts to existing drainage patterns or surface runoff would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. v. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Pol~nliaD1 Signific:znl Impact POlenti;lUy Signifiunl Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Imp;U:f No IWp:;lC1 a) Violate ony air quality standard or contribute to o o o o Page 4 lfo an existing or projected air quality Yioiation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 :OJ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 0 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 0 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 0 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposed project will not alter or deteriorate ambient air quality standards. According to the Engineering Department, approximately 245 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) will be generated from the proposed project. The minimal daily trips will not create a substantial increase in sources of air emissions or create objectionable odors. The average daily trips will not create a significant impact to local or regional air quality. The proposed project is consistent with the Air Quality Element of the City's General Plan. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Si;nificant Less Ihan VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would Significant Unless Signiricant No the proposal result ill: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e. g. , 0 0 0 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 0 bicyclists? t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 0 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 0 J 7 Page 5 h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2,)00 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) o o o :OJ Comments: According to the Engineering Department, the child development center will generate an additional 245 average daily trips (ADT) per day. The primary access roads to the project site are Fourth A venue and Palomar Street. According to the Engineering Department, Fourth A venue is a 4-lane major street with a Level-of-Service "A" and Palomar Street is a Class I collector street with a Level-of-Service "A". According to the Engineering Department, the existing number of vehicle trips on Fourth Avenue is 9,330 and total vehicle capacity is 30,000 with Level-of-Service "C". The existing number of vehicle trips on Palomar Street is 14,204 and total vehicle capacity is 22,000 with Level-of-Service "C". According to the Engineering Department, the primary access roads are adequate to serve the project and maintain the City's Level-of-Service "C" standards. The addition of the estimated 245 ADTs does not create a significant impact. According to the Traffic Study prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, dated October 19, 2001, the project is estimated to generate approximately 212 ADT with 55 AM total peak hour trips and 57 PM total peak hour trips. Vehicles wishing to access the site will utilize the existing driveway off of Fourth Avenue. The existing church driveway will be able to accommodate the new project traffic entering and exiting the site. According to the traffic study, the 78 parking spaces provided are adequate to handle the vehicle traffic of the existing church use and the child development center. Thus, the internal circulation created by the existing church use and proposed child development center will continue to function adequately. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? PotentiaUy Potentially SignuJC2nt Ltss than Significant Unl~ Significant No IlDpact Mitigate-II hupact Impact 0 0 0 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? o o o o c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? o o o o d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? o o o o e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? o o o o t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning o o o o Page 6 Iv effort~'7 Comments: The project site is within a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista. The site is partially developed and the remaining undeveloped area contains ornamental plantings. There are no sensitive plants or animal species on-site. According to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not located in an area of potential biological resources. The draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (MSCP) dated October 9, 2000, designates the parcel for development. No significant biological resource impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal: Pot~ntiaUy Sij:I1uK:ant Impac1 Potentially Signific:urt Unless Mitii:3ted Lesstban Significant hDpact No Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? o o o o b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? o o o o c) If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will this project impact this protection? o o o o Comments: The child development center does not conflict with the recently adopted CO, Reduction Plan. The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform Building Code and therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource protection as addressed in the City's General Plan. No significant energy and mineral resource impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: PotentiaUy SiV'ificant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Lessth.an Significanl Impact No Imp3ct a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? o o o o Page 7 } q b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation pJan? o o o :;J c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? o o o o d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? o o o o e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass. or trees? o o o o Comments: A church and auxiliary facilities currently occupy the site. The proposed project, a child development center, would result in the continuation of a similar type land use. The proposed project would not interfere with the emergency response plan for the area as there are minimal daily trips created by the project and as such would not significantly impact existing evacuation routes. The surrounding area is developed with residential uses that typically do not include the significant use or storage of hazardous materials. No significant hazardous impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. a) Increases in existing noise levels? POlentially PolentiaUy Significant Less th.:m Significaot Unless Siguificant No IlIIp:;l(;t Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Comments: The proposed child development center would not result in a significant increase of existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. No exterior remodeling or building construction is proposed. The proponent would be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance per Title 19, Section 19.68. There are three single-family residences adjacent to the northeast property boundary, two single- family residences adjacent to the west property boundary and five single-family residences adjacent to the south property boundary. The Child Development Center is separated from the residential properties to the west and south by an existing 6-foot wooden fence with intermittent masonry pilasters. The child development center, located within the Fellowship Hall, is located 230 feet from the western property boundary and 100 feet from the southern property boundary. The proposed playground area will be located 50 feet from the western property boundary and approximately 90 feet from the southern property boundary. Separating the southern property boundary from the proposed playground is an existing parking lot servicing the existing church facility . According to City records, there are no recent noise complaints received from surrounding Page S J-U property owners regarding existing church functions. Due to the distances of the child deyelopment center and associated playground from the adjacent residences and solid perimeter fencing. it has been determined that no significant noise impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. PotatwlIy Polenti.:aUy Signifk.ant Less than XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an SignifICant UnI= Significant ~o effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Impact !\Iitig::IIe-d Impact Impact govemmem services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 0 c) Schools? 0 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0 Comments: The project site is located within a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista. The Police and Fire Departments reported that the project would not create a significant impact to existing services. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District according to Assembly Bill No. 181, Section 53080, any private facility is exempt from school fees. No significant public service impacts would result from the development of the child center. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. Potentially Siplilkant Impact Potentially Significant Unlrss Mitigated less than Significant Impact No Impact XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? o o o o As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. Potentially Significant Impact Putentially Significant Unless ~liligatO!d ~sthan Significant Impact ~o Impact Page 9 .;;L-I a) Fire/EMS o o o 0' The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases. It is anticipated that the minor future development on this parcel map will meet the threshold standards as this project is in a fully urbanized area. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: According to the Fire Department, the current level of service can continue to be provided to the project site. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact the Fire/EMS Threshold Standard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. PotentiaU,. PotentiaU,. Significant ~(han Significant Un"" Significant No Impact Mitigatfil Impact Impact b) Police 0 0 0 0 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 cans within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The Police Department indicates that the current level of police services can continue to be provided to the project area. The Police Department reports that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the Police Threshold Standards. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. PotentiaUy Potentiany Significant Less than Sifnifiant Unless Significant No Impact J\fitigaled Impact Impact C) Traffic 0 0 0 0 I. City-wide: Maintain LOS "c" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of I-80S: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Page 10 ~ C"mments: According to the Engineering Department, the proposed project \\'ill not generate a significant increase in traffic. There will be an estimated total of 245 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the proposed project per day. The additional trips would not result in the traffic thresholds being exceeded. . Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. Polenti2U:o Potenli:lUy SigniIkant Less than Sig.ur~DI Un"" Significant No Imp3C1 Mitigalw' Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 0 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805 (1-805). Comments: The proposed project is located west ofI-805, therefore, the Parks and Recreation Threshold does not apply. Park pad obligations would be required per City Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 17 .10). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially POlenli.ally Signifiant Less than Significant Unless Siguificant ~o Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Drainage 0 0 0 0 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. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: According to the Engineering Department, the storm water flows and drainage facilities will not be significantly affected by the proposed project because no construction or paving of impervious surfaces are proposed. The project site currently sheetflows to the landscaped areas adjacent to the east property boundary and continues towards Fourth A venue. The existing off-site facility is a curb inlet which runs east and west across Fourth Avenue. No significant drainage impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Page I I cl-~ Potentially PotentiaDy Significant Lt'SS than Sil':nificant Unless Significant No hnpad Mitigall'd hnpact IIIIp.act t) Sewer 0 0 0 0 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. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The City Engineering Department has determined that the existing 8-inch sewer mains along Palomar Street and Fourth A venue are adequate to serve the proposed project. No significant sewer facility impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are: required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Imp.act g) Water 0 0 0 0 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. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 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: The Sweetwater Water District has determined that the existing water facility is adequate to serve the proposed project. The GPM fire flow at 54 p.s.i. residual pressure for a two-hour duration as required by the ChuIa Vista Fire Department is available to serve the proposed project. No significant impacts to water services are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. lhe propusui rt:suli in U llenlfur flew jYSit:lflS, ur Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unlns Mitigated Less than Significant lropact :"'0 Imp..,t XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Page 12 ::Lf the proposal result in a need for new systems. or substantial alterations to the following Wilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 :OJ b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 0 t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 0 Comments: The project site is located in an urbanized area with existing utility and service facilities. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main that flows easterly along Palomar Street and an 8- inch sewer main that flows southerly along Fourth Avenue. According to the Engineering Department, the existing sewer mains are adequate to serve the proposed project. The child development center is not anticipated to result in the need for new systems or alterations to existing facility utilities. No significant impacts to existing service utilities or create needs for new service systems would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Signil"tcant Impact POlentiaUy SignHic.ant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? o o o o b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic route? o o o o c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? o o o o d) Create added light or glare sources that could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? o o o o Page 13 ~s e) Produce an additional amount of spill light" o o o :OJ. Comments: The proposed project, a child development center, is located in a fully developed area of the western portion of the City. The existing land use is a church and community service facility located on Fourth A venue, adjacent to Palomar Street. According to the General Plan, the project site and adjacent street segments are not identified as scenic routes or scenic vistas. The project proposal does not include additional building construction on the project site. No significant aesthetic impacts would result from the proposed child development center. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. xv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building. structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? POlentiaUy Signifianl Impact PotnttiaUy Sitnificant UnJ= Mitigated usstbau Significaut No Impact Impact o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Comments; The Conservation and Open Space Element of the Genera' Plan does not identify the subject site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential cultural resources. The proposed project does not include grading activity. No significant cultural resource impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Page 1.+ PotC'ntially S1gnulClnl Impact Potentially Significant UnJ= Mitigal~ No Imp:'lCt Lcssthan Signific.ant Impact d-b XYI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ,rill the proposal result in the alteration of or the destmction of paleolltological resources? !:J Ll o co Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not identify the subject site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential paleontological resources. The project site is relatively flat with no grading proposed. No significant paleontological resource impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. PotentbUy POlenti...Uy SignifiC3J1t Less than XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Si~mc.ant Unless Signincant No Iwpac1 Milig2ted Impact Impact a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 0 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 0 plans or programs? Comments: The proposed project, a child development center, will not increase the need for parks or recreational facilities. The proposed project is not a residential development project. The project will include a recreational area for use by the students enrolled in the Head Start Program. No significant recreational impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. POltJIliaDy $igDilkanl Imp:act POlentiaUy SignirlC2nt Unless Mitigatt'd Less than Si~iJjcaJJt Impact No Impact 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 o o o o Page 15 2, 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 or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project proposal is in a ful1y urbanized area of western Chula Vista. The surrounding area is developed with residential uses. Neither sensitive plant nor animal resources, nor historical or archaelogical resources are present on the site. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the quality of the environment, reduction of habitat of wildlife species or threaten the historical preservation of the area. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Pot~ntiaUy Signinc:uzt hnpaC1 Poh:ntialIy Significant Unless Miligated Less than Significant Imp2ct ;-';0 Impact b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? o o o o Comments: Construction of a child development center and recreational area on the proposed site is consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) dated October 2000. The project site is slated for development. The proposed project \VQuld not negatively affect long-tenn environmental goals. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Signifiant Impact Pot~ntially Signific<ilot U""" Mitigated Less th.ao. Signinc:lDt hupact No Impoct c) Does the project have impacts that are individual1y 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) o o o o Page 16 c2f Comments: There are no other current or foreseeable projects in the surrounding area that would contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts. This is an accessory use to an existinG church that is located within a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista. The proposed project i~ consistent with the goals and vision of the General Plan. Mitigation Measures; No mitigation measures are required. PO!EDtiaUy Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless r.litigaled Les:stbaD Signific:lDt Impact No Impact d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o o o Comments: The proposed project, a child development center, is in compliance with the General Plan and development standards of the City. This is an auxiliary use to an existing church which is a public-quasi use. No significant adverse effects on human beings would result from the completion of the child development center. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Not applicable. XX. 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 following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 T ransporta tion/C ircula tion 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise o Recreation Page 17 02...9 o Paleontological Resources o Mandatory Findings of Significance XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the i:SJ environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 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 0 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: I) 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 "potentialIy 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 alI potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. ~~!~~~ /~~//~I Date I . Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista H:IHOME\PL...NNING\MARIA IMISC,!S-Ol-059.cnklst,doc Page - ]S 3D \/ t LAUDERBACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL /' PROJECT \': LOCATION \ -- ~rn L ITl CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION; Q) APPLICANT: EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 1320 Fourth Avenue ADDRESS: Request: Proposal for addition to existing church building for licensed child development center SCALE: F!LE NUMBER: and preschool. NORTH No Scale IS-01-059 Related Case: PCC-01-88 j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\is01059.cdr 7.10.01 :3 /