The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2001/04/09 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Moss Street Tentative Parcel Map PROJECT LOCATION: 498 Moss Street N, E. Comer of Moss Street and Fifth Avenue ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-073-1100 PROJECT APPLICANT: Victor M, Garcia CASE NO,: 1S-0 1-034 DATE: April 9, 2001 A, Project Setting The subject O,75-acre site is located at the Northeast comer of Moss Street and Fifth Avenue (Exhibit A - Location Map), The proposed intill project is located in a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista, The site is relatively flat and contains one single-family residence and two small accessory structures. The site contains ornamental vegetation including two trees. Surrounding land uses are as follows: Zoning General Plan Land Use Site RI RLM (Low-Medium) SFR& Accessory Structures North " " SFR South " " " East " " " West R3 RMH (Medium-High) Condos/ Apts, B, Proiect Description The Tentative Parcel Map is for the subdivision of a O,75-acre single-family residential parcel into three legal parcels (Exhibit B - Parcel Map). The proposal includes an Administrative Variance to allow a reduction in lot width from 60 feet to 58 feet on Parcell and 57 feet on Parcel 2, Parcel 3 will meet all Municipal Code requirements, Several surrounding lots average less than the 60-foot width requirement, therefore, the proposed variance would not create precedence in this area. The existing single-family residence will be relocated to Parcel 1 in order to comply with setback requirements and accessory structures will be demolished, The two trees will be retained on the site. All three proposed parcels front on dedicated streets, Moss Street and Fifth Street. Both Moss and Fifth Streets are dedicated streets built to City Standards, No additional right-of- I 04/1 % I way is required, However, the applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk on Moss Street. Parcels I and 2 will be accessed from Moss Street and Parcel 3 will be accessed from Fifth Street. C, Compliance with Zoning and Plans The subject property is in the RI (Single Family Residential) Zone and within the RLM (Low-Medium Residential) General Plan Designation, The proposed Parcel Map will not conflict with the general plan designation. However, a Variance is required to allow the reduction of the minimum lot width on Parcels I and 2, The minimum lot size requirement is 7,000 square feet and the proposed Parcels I, 2, and 3 will meet the Municipal Code requirement. The current Zoning and General Plan designations would allow the development of single family residential units on Parcels 2 and 3, upon approval of the Final Parcel Map by the City Engineer. D, Public Comments On January 26, 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 February 6, 2001. No written public comments were 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines, 1. Air Quality & Hazards Potential Impacts Associated with Asbestos The proposed project includes the demolition of two accessory structures, The demolition of these buildings may result in the release of hazardous materials such as asbestos. In order to mitigate potential impacts to a level below significance the existing structures will be examined for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition. The applicant will be required to contract with a consultant certified by the State of California to conduct asbestos assessments and supervise the property removal of this element if it is found on-site. The applicant will adhere to all State and local regulations. These regulations require that a permit be obtained and the proper protocols followed in the removal of asbestos. F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study to a level below significance. The mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval and shall be incorporated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A"), 2 04/1 010 I Air Quality & Hazards Aesbestos Related Impacts I. Prior to demolition of the existing buildings, the applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the presence of asbestos and for the proper removal and disposal of this element, if detected. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required pennits from all affected state and local regulatory agencies including the Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to proceed with this process to the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building pennit. I agree to implement the mitigation measures required as stated in this Section (F) of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. /~~ ~-/,ç>- Ò / ~/c_ . /", ./~ Name, Title . Date G, Consultation I. City of Chula Vista: Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Environmental Planning Maria C. Muett, Environmental Planning Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineering Daniel Manfro, Engineering Muna Cuthbert, Adv. PlnglEngineering Beverly Blessent, Development Planning Scott Harris, Building Division Steve Power, Development Planning Justin Gipson, Fire Prevention Richard Preuss, Police Crime Prevention Applicant's Agent: Victor M. Garcia 2, Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 3 04/1 % 1 3, Initial Study This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration, The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista, Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, ~ Dot, Æ/I~ Marilyn R. F nseggi Environmenta Review Coordmator H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARJA \MISC\IS-O I-034.neg.doc 4 04/10/01 ~ $s~J SOUTHWESTERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SOUTH BAY BAPTIST CHURCH DEL REY HIGH SCHOOL ECT lOCATIO C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROJECT VICTOR GARCIA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 498 MOSS STREET ADDRESS: Request: Variance from the minimum lot width requirements to create a parcel that is 57-feet in width and a LOCATOR FILE NUMBER: parcel that is 58-feet in width, where SO-feet is No Scale IS - 01-034 re uired. C :\myfiles\localors\IS01 034 01/0Øí01 ; tJ õ..90 1 >.. 1;':;'-' W .fi~·í~ ¡..... .'.' " .... ... . ~ ._~, ! " .". ~ I¡¡,u ~<:",' I I ~ gPì~ ~i;t;: ,~';j' J I I I I ' ~ ..~¥' ,.,g ~,I I ' I , I 0 ¡v'J:~ ~...~ ¡¡ (i¡ ,I I I ; I I ~ ,'''.. t,¡ ':,' ," I" I I I' I If I I Ii ~ ]é~~¡~ ;j.ii QiÆ~"', I ), ' I ,: " 11 I ¿:è. .~.! ,<.Eo ' ;oj I ' I · I 0 = ¡ ¡¡¡ !~1".¡.i t;£¡[ j ,f.L, I ~, I! " I~ '" .t"'," ""_ - ,,,_..I 'is' I' " ' I,'" I h"'" ...' , .' " I ' "," · " .' .,.. ._n, ' ... < ,.. ' "I" · · i !l~i;:j íl!~ ~ 'I 1; ~ ~ ~I ¡~ ¡ ,i II II ¡ I I, i ~ ¡,c...:.. ,) I~' I . . '" ,.' ,i" , ' .,' >< ,.' ,," ., ~:,!!I:"~~i~! ílig . < t.I.J" ," ",!' I '" ; .Cc. ," I" " ! õiSi....it; l~~!' í ~ '~rn & ;¡ !j1~ ! ;1"'1 ~ Ii! ~ t <:';;') . i/ "-Ii ~ ~I *,~! ~ I ¡¡¡ IP'~ .' î! ' I I" . " I· 3 ,." '" .! --- - "l ,~ ""_1;1'.<" .'J?. I I 'I' }.~ I·~ I"''' ,!ci .. ,. ~ Sz~. d ...... ."., ' " ," I , ' · ,,, " ... _I" . ,,' " . ' . I ,,' I'·" .,' 1 p, .. · i,~;;1 ,P.!I: ¡ I Jj!1 ì W ;II i I I" " ~ ¥ I" O ;:~hi6 ;.H~ I 'I' ~ ~~ ~I ~ }~I:! ~ Uf I! ~ ~~ ~ ¡ ~ í ,: ~\~ § ...">" _.'.¡, 1 . a _~, ¡ -s. : Ji - ! Z ..,,,, ¡,,¥" ' " .," :" " ,.,¡. ," ,,' 'n~ii~ ~i:h! 1 I. '1' · n' , .,' I' , II ¡ , , ," . ",_" r'" '1 , I ' '" ..,,,,,..... · o. ~d~ _iiU i ~ ¡¡it I! 5 ~~I ä Hi I! ~ ~ 1 d i · ~; I _ ".. , t ~,: .. . . ~ ;¡' < _~ ri' ".~:"g . · ... . I :2"-,' .. " ' I I . . ' It I , . · ' 0. II! ¡\ · r-- ~__ ~ /~~)- 1M' \ M~ , \ I; "\ \ ~ ,- \ \ " \ "'" ,/ / \... \ \~- \ ~_ \ <f\ \\ .. \ <f\ \ \ øo \ , \ \ \..---/ , \ ~. . ~ ~ ¡. æ . ~. ~J \ - ~- , i - . Case No.IS-Ol-034 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Victor M, Garcia 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 498 Moss Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Name of Proposal: Moss Street Tentative Parcel Map 5. Date of Checklist: March 22, 2001 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 I; 0 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 I; policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 I; (e,g" impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 I; an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The site is located in the RI Zone (Single Family Residential) and within the RLM (Low-Medium Residential) General Plan Designation, The site is surrounded to the north, west, south and east by single-family residential uses, The proposal includes a Parcel Map with an Administrative Variance to allow a reduction in lot width from 60 feet to 58 feet on Parcell and 57 feet on Parcel 2, This will allow a third parcel that meets the minimum code requirements, The proposed parcel map will not conflict with the general plan designation, It will conflict with the zoning designation, as it does not meet the required lot width of 60 feet in the RI Zone, However, the allowance of reduced lot width must meet code exception requirements or meet finding requirements for a variance in accordance with State and local regulations" The proposal meets the required findings of a Variance in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19,14, Page - 1 Mitigation Measnres: No mitigation measures are required, Poteoliany II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the PotentialJy Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 1<1 0 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 1<1 directly or indirectly (e,g" through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 1<1 housing? Comments: The proposed project for a Tentative Parcel Map will create a potential for additional housing units in the area, One single-family residence and two accessory structures currently occupy the property, Upon completion of the tentative patcel map, the existing single-family residence will be relocated entirely onto Parcell and the existing accessory structures will be demolished, The current zoning and General Plan designations would allow a single-family unit on Parcels 2 and 3 after completion of the Tentative Parcel Map, No significant population or housing impacts would result from the future construction of those single-family residential units on the two parcels, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Signifkant No expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 1<1 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or Over 0 0 1<1 0 covering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 1<1 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 1<1 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 1<1 either on or off the site? t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 1<1 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 1<1 Page - 2 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The proposal would not result in or expose people to significant impacts of changes in topography or ground surface relief. The project site is partially disturbed, The site contains one single-family residence and two accessory buildings, It is anticipated that the remaining two parcels will provide sites for future development of single-family units, As a standard Engineering Department condition of approval, a Geotechnical Soils Study is required for the relocation of the existing house onto Parcel I, Future development on Parcels 2 and 3 will be subject to compliance with Planning and Building regulations, It is anticipated that there would not be any significant impacts to the geophysical features of the area, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Significant lÆss than IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Signili¡;ant Unless Signmcant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, D D ¡¡;¡ D or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related D D D ¡¡;¡ hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other D D D ¡¡;¡ alteration of surface water quality (e,g,. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any D D D ¡¡;¡ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction D D D ¡¡;¡ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either D D D ¡¡;¡ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of D D D ¡¡;¡ groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? D D D ¡¡;¡ i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood D D D ¡¡;¡ waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water D D D ¡¡;¡ otherwise available for public water supplies? Commeuts: The existing on-site drainage facilities would not be adequate to serve the project. As standard Page - 3 Engineering conditions, proper drainage facilities need to be incorporated in the project design upon first submittal of grading/improvement plans as required by the Engineering Department. The existing off-site drainage facilities consist of the Telegraph Canyon channel to the north, storm drain inlet at the intersection of Moss Street and Fifth A venue. and one on Fifth A venue approximately 120 feet from the intersection, According to the Engineering Department, the off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, Potentially V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant u-ssthan Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 Ci!I an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 Ci!I 0 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 Ci!I or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 Ci!I e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 Ci!I non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, The complete project would generate additional 20 average daily trips, which would substantially affect regional air quality, The project would not alter air movements, humidity. or climatic temperature, The residential project would not create objectionable odors or expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, The future construction of single-family development will create minimal short-term impact to air quality, During construction, dust generated by grading and the combustion of fossil fuels by construction equipment would create emissions, Fugitive dust would also be created due to clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Air quality impacts resulting from construction related emissions are considered short-term in duration since construction is a relatively short-term. onetime activity. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD), No significant air quality impacts are anticipated, The proposed project includes the demolition of two accessory buildings, The demolition of these buildings may result in the release of hazardous materials such as asbestos, In order to mitigate potential impacts to a level below significance, the existing structures will be examined for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition, The applicant will be required to contract with a consultant certified by the State of California to conduct asbestos assessments and supervise the proper removal of this element if it is found on-site, The applicant will adhere to all State and local regulations, These regulations require that a permit be obtained and the proper procedures followed in the removal of asbestos, Page - 4 Mitigation Measure: Prior to demolition of the existing accessory buildings, the applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the presence of asbestos and for the proper removal and disposal of this element, if detected, The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required permits from all affected state and local regulatory agencies including the Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to proceed with this process of the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building permit. Potentially VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No the proposal result in: Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 181 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e,g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Comments: The proposed tentative parcel map will have a less than significant traffic impact on existing adjacent roadways, The primary access roads to the project are Fifth A venue and Moss Street. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 20 average vehicle trips, which would likely be evenly distributed on Fifth A venue and Moss Street, According to the Engineering Department, Moss Street and Fifth A venue would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service with the addition of project-related traffic, The project proponent will be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Moss Street frontage per City Engineering standards, No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created by the proposed residential project. No traffic related impacts would result. Page - 5 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, Potentially VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially SignifJcant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 Ií1 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage 0 0 0 Ií1 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g" 0 0 0 Ií1 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)? d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 Ií1 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 Ií1 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 Ií1 efforts? Comments: The project proposal is within a fully urbanized area. The project site is partially developed and the remaining undeveloped area contains ornamental plantings, 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 MSCP (Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan) designates this area for development. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 Ií1 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 Ií1 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 Ií1 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The project proposal does not conflict with the recently adopted C02 Reduction Plan, The C02 Reduction Plan encourages infill housing and increased housing density near mass transit. The infill project will provide 2 additional housing opportunities, Residents of the proposed project will be served by existing transit lines which include Route 932, one block to the west on Broadway A venue, and Route 704, one block to the east on Fourth Ave, The proponent will provide curb, gutter. and sidewalk along the Moss Street frontage, These improvements will aid pedestrian circulation in the project area, Page - 6 The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform Building Code and therefore, would not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The project is not located in an area designated for mineral resource protection according to the City's General Plan, No significant energy and mineral resources would result. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact I\litigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 IJ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 IJ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 IJ 0 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 IJ potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 IJ brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The project proposal would result in the division of one parcel into three separate parcels that would not interfere with the emergency response plan for the area, The surrounding area is developed with residential uses that do not include the use or storage of hazardous materials, The proposed project includes the demolition of accessory structures, The demolition of these buildings may result in the release of hazardous materials such as asbestos, Potential impacts and mitigation to reduce these impacts to a level below significance has been addressed in Section V - Air Quality of the Checklist. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure in Section V-Air Quality, Potentially X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 IJ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 IJ Comments: The project proposal is for a tentative parcel and future residential development. The project proposal would not result in a significant increase of existing noise levels or exposure of people to Page - 7 severe noise levels, It is foreseeable that the future development of the single family residences will result in increase of noise during the construction activity, Noise impacts would occur during the construction period; however. these noise levels are considered to be less than significant due to their short-term nature and the intermittent periods of noise generation, Grading operations would occur between 7:000 a,m, and 5:00 p,m, Monday through Friday, Construction noise is exempt from the provisions of the City noise ordinance (see Municipal Code Section 19,68,060), Consequently, noise associated with the grading operation would be regulated by conditions included in the approved grading permit. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, Potentially XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 [;! b) Police protection? 0 0 0 [;! c) Schools? 0 0 0 [;! d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 [;! roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 [;! Comments: The project site is located in western Chula Vista, a fully urbanized area, The Police and Fire Departments reported that the project would not result in an impact to services, School fees would be paid at the building permit stage in accordance with provisions of State Law, Future development on the newly created parcels will have a less than significant impact on the existing public services, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, Potentially Potentially Significant ussthan Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 0 [;! the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the Threshold Standards, Potentially Potentially Significant lkssthan Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Fire/EMS 0 0 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 Page - 8 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 area for future development of the tentative parcel map, The nearest fire station is located 3 miles away, The associated response time is 5-7 minutes, There is an existing fire hydrant located on the corner of Fifth A venue and Moss Street. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact the Fire/EMS Threshold Standard, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police D D D 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 I calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: The Police Department indicates that the current level of police services can continue to be provided to the project area, The project area is within a fully urbanized area in western Chula Vista, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. Potl.'ntiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Siguificant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Traffic D D D 0 1. 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 that do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen, Comments: The proposed project will not have a significant impact to the Traffic Threshold Standard, The primary access roads to the project site will be Fifth A venue and Moss Street. There will be approximately 20 new Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the project per day, According to the Engineering Department, the ADT volumes on the primary access roads before and upon project completion will not exceed the City's Level of Service (L.O,S,) "c" along adjacent street segments, Page - 9 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures will be required. Potentially Potentially SignifICant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 IS! 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 of 1-805. therefore, the Parks and Recreation Threshold does not apply, Park pad obligation will be required per City Ordinance (refer to Municipal Code Chapter 17,10), Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measureS are required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Drainage 0 0 IS! 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: The proposed project will not exceed City Engineering standards for storm water flows and volumes, According to the Engineering Department, there are no existing on-site drainage facilities, However, as a standard condition by the Engineering Department proper drainage facilities will be incorporated into the project design upon first submittal of grading and improvement plans, No significant drainage or storm water impacts would result from the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Page-lO Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unl~ Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact t) Sewer 0 0 0 c;¡ 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 main] under Fifth A venue, and the 8-inch sewer main under Moss Street are adequate to serve the future development on the parcels, No significant sewer impacts would result from the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Water 0 0 0 c;¡ 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 proposed project is in western Chula Vista and the storage. treatment and transmission facilities for this service already exist. According to the Sweetwater Authority there is a twelve-inch water main located on the north side of Moss Street and a twelve-inch main located on the east side of Fifth A venue, These existing services are adequate to serve the proposed development. No significant impacts to water facilities would result fTom the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities,' a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 c;¡ b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c;¡ c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 c;¡ Page - II distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 181 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 181 0 t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 181 0 Comments: The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the significant need for new systems or alterations to existing facility utilities, The existing 8-inch sewer main that runs southerly along Fifth A venue and 8-inch sewer that flows westerly along Moss Street are adequate to handle solid and liquid (sewer) waste that will be generated by the proposed project. No significant impacts to utilities and service systems from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially Significant Lesstban Signi8cant Unless Significant No XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 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? e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The tentative parcel map will not have a significant impact to the aesthetics of the surrounding area, This is an infill project within a fully urbanized area in the western portion of Chula Vista, The proposed project is not located along any scenic vista or view and will not modify a scenic route. No impacts aesthetic impacts are anticipated from the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Page-12 Potentially XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or D D D ¡;o the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or D D D ¡;o aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a D D D ¡;o physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or D D D ¡;o sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan D D D ¡;o EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The project site is not within an area of potential cultural resources according to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, The project will include minimal grading at time of development. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources on the project site, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the D D D ¡;o proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of pale ontological resources? 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 proposed project is located in a fully urbanized area and is relatively flat. During time of development, it is anticipated that minimal grading will be required, There would be no significant impacts because there are no known paleontological resources on the project site, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Significant Page - 13 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: PotEntially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact l\-litigated Impact a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D D 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation D D D 181 plans or programs? Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. The project review is for an infill project and does not increase the need for new parks or recreational facilities, Park pad fees would be required as per City Ordinance (refer to City Municipal Code, Chapter 17,]0), Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for Impact Mitigated Impact Impact mandatory findings of significance, If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade D D D 181 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 or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project proposal is in a fully 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 have no significant impact to 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, Potentially Potentially Significant usstban Significant UnJess Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Does the project have the potential to achieve D D D 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Page - 14 Comments: The proposed project for a tentative parcel map will not significantly impact the long- term environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista because the future development of these parcels with single family residences will be consistent with the General Plan and the City Council approved, October 9, 2000, Draft Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan (MSCP), Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially Signifkant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects,) Comments: There are no other current or foreseeable projects in the surrounding area that would contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts, This is a small infill project within a fully urbanized area of western Chu1a Vista and consistent with the goals and vision of the General Plan, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially PotpntiaUy Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Does the project have environmental effects, 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No adverse effects on human beings are anticipated from the development of this parcel map, XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: AIR QUALITY & HAZARDS Prior to demolition of the existing accessory buildings, the applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the presence of Page -15 asbestos and for the proper removal and disposal of this element, if detected, The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required permits from all affected state and local regulatory agencies including the Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to proceed with this process of the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building permit. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below. the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) 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 adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval. Victor M, Garcia Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Property Owner's Name] Printed Name and Title of [Operator if different from Property Owner] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] XXI. 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. OLand Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics o Water 181 Hazards o Cultural Resources 181 Air Quality o Noise o Recreation Page-16 o Paleontological 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0 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 0 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MA Y 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 "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, ~r ~~Ol M rilyn R,F, nseggi Date Environmental Review Coordmator City of Chula Vista Hc\HOMEIPLANNING\MARIA IMISClIS-OJ-34 .chklsl.doc Page-I? ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Moss Street Tentative Parcel Map IS-OI-034 MMRP REQUIREMENTS The Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Moss Street Tentative Parcel Map (IS-01-034) project, The proposed proj ect has been evaluated in an Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration (IS!MND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA guidelines, The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-O 1-034, AS 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts, The Mitigated Monitoring Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts: 1. Air Quality and Hazards MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. The applicant shall provide evidence in written fonn confinning compliance with the mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-01-034 to the Environmental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, lists the mitigation measures listed in Section E, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to detennine 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, 1 E ~ J!I ...... c:: " E E <3 ... c:: ß<:' g "< ::!' ... ... .§ CD .:: _ 'C - '" " " ._ ~ 0 .:: :':::: Õ. ~ E ~ o "- U E < .. " :ë ~ '~~ . ... <C 0", r:rf D..D.. ..... C) iß . ~ o '" "= œ ft II;; «: C) ........,1 Z ss ¡::: 0.0 0::: 0'1,0.) Q _ g .s! Q;; 0._ ~Q W æ1V CO 0:: .=.!:! ..... C·.§ 1: QI:m ..~ I- /II "'c X - Z > 0.0 .Q « 0 - OS t- C) :E ~ Z . " _ ""' c.. a: o " t: _c .s ~ z 0.2 "t:: 2~2 . O 'tJRj 0 C"'" r:::: "- 0u a. Q).....w 0 :¡:.J::¡¡:: IDEcEm â)ï:: o::::"'C C:S c: 3: c: Z:EQ) ã>~e:;g.!!:!'ê O > t:: 1:;:":;: ê > > 0 " " ~ 8 ~ " 0 ¡:: ...JOQ) wC:::<J « 'C ~ - ~ ' _ iii 0 L.. Q) (I)~ to- C) ~~..c:: ë mE _ c cot- ..... CQ) :æ ¥-rn8o. Q)_5-c·§D.. ::::J1: 0 Q)~£ ~ü ê..!:!! g> ..Qa>-.£;Õ=OC'-a.·- è:-Eco..../IIco-o!! J2 o c"c.gã) C)"'C:g.g~·s ~ .g .E "'C ~ .~ @ =0 0):: ~ ~ Q»=C,-,_IUQ..CO :J UC:alCO .CI:I..... ">!Jrn I/) ~(1)(jUlt::E!S!·=(UI,/)'= 'II:t ra E::_OQ>O(/)<{,Cmc M Q) cnco°1nE'-u(I,)_oëii 9 ::E c..c:Q)Q)Q),2Q)..c:oe:ë ~ c: ..;::::~êií..c(jj Q)õ.....õ 0.0 C? 0 rn·~3U5~.~:o~~e·![!o (I) ¡ ~ a>õ ID'ëi£"ii) «1::0 0.:5: en Q)~..c: _1::=2Q).J::O ._ C(..c::.....-Q)OOroü"t):t::::ï::: .... N-C»U c. c·-""D.. ro :i c;(--S...ccmf/)E--»..... :2 ::I: ~=-c~¡g~e:ß[-g~ Q.) oð.Qco.&~a.Æ':;(3=Q)E () :-=:L:._a..!!!_,,=cœut::: '- > õ~~Q)"C(ijEQ)..cern ro t: Er::::O.c"'C..c:....~(Ia.o. a.. ...J /II r3¡::::: æ (I ~ -g.8~ ~ ~ "'C:a.,S.2-æ"E-o ~co(ij rn +:: 0 -: a.S g'>.~.~~:§ ~o~ (t O:::OCOrho_o-::J::J'-'-u ë _o~~§~~§:g~~§:~ ~ .c( 0....... 0..... '- (tI '- ,-0 com 1i3 cO " oZ .þ ~() W ~~ ~ en ~rh rh .- (tI o ::æ" ::!' ::æ April 10, 2001 DRAFT Chula Vista City Council, Re: A CHULA VISTA HISTORICAL RESOURCE: THE CORONADO RAILROAD BELT LINE AND ITS POSSIBLE LISTING ON THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC REGISTER On April 2, 2001, the Resource Conservation Commission was given a presentation by historian Alex Bevil about the Coronado Railroad Belt Line, Brian Hunter, the City's Planning and Environmental Manager for Community Development, provided an update on the City of Chula Vista's future plans for the bay front area, Mr, Bevil is writing a designation report on behalf of an organization named Save Our Heritage Organisation to have the Coronado Railroad Belt Line listed on the California Historic Register. The historian's presentation convincingly documented the fact that the Coronado Belt Line has had significant impact on Chula Vista's formative years and helped chart the coarse for the entire South Bay region. As such, the Commission voted unanimously on April 2 to support listing of the Belt Line on the State Register. A listing on the California Historic Register would recognize the importance that the Coronado Belt Line has had in the development of the South Bay, but it would not guarantee preservation of the Coronado Belt Line or impede any future development of the Chula Vista waterfront. An outline of Mr. Bevil's presentation citing the qualifying criteria under CEQA guidelines is attached, The Commissioners came to this decision with its responsibilities in mind, These responsibilities are spelled out in Chapter 2.32 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Resource Conservation Commissioners are entrusted to make recommendations to City Council under the following guidelines: "To provide citizens advice to the city council in the areas of energy conservation, resource recovery, environmental quality, historic and prehistoric site protection, and other related fields" (2.32,010 -Purpose & Intent) "Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic, social, economic, political and architectural past;" (2,32,030] - Goals and Policies) "Recommend to the city council the designation of any site which it has found to meet the criteria as a historical site" (2,]2. 070 A - Historical Protection) The recognition of the importance of this railroad by potential listing on the California Historic Register is in no way associated with the preservation of the right-of-way, These are two very separate issues, Listing the Belt Line on the State Historic Register will not impede possible and future development of the Chula Vista bay front, as outlined by Mr, Hunter's discussion of possible future plans for the area, Future bay front development plans may actually benefit by such a listing through tax break incentives available when incorporating a designated historic entity within a development project, With this in mind, we recommend the viewing ofMr. Bevil's presentation and respectfully request that the Chula Vista City Council support historic designation for the right-of- way in order to benefit the citizens of Chula Vista in every way possible, Sincerely, Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commissioners The Coronado Railroad Belt Line Alexander D, Bevil Historian specializing in historic land use studies; historic site designation at the national, state and local levels Project Scope Retained by Save Our Heritage Organisation to investigate the history, historical significance and potential for designation to the California Historic Register of the surviving remnant of the Coronado Belt Line Resource Description A 7.5-mile railroad right-of-way between National City south through Chula Vista and Imperial Beach to the base of the Silver Strand Description of CEQA Review levels of Criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources Historic Significance The surviving segment of the original 20.30-mile Coronado Belt Line is historically significant on the local level under Criteria 1 of the California Register of Historic Resources and Criteria A of the National Register of Historic Places due to the following: · One of the earliest independent interurban short steam rail lines in San Diego County, its original 20,30-mile route provided direct steam freight and limited passenger rail service between the resort community of Coronado and downtown San Diego · During its period of historic significance from 1888 to 1950 it was a major contributor to the economic development of Coronado, as well as other suburban cornmunities along its right-of-way, including National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach, · Through its various corporate lives as the Coronado railroad, the san Diego Southern, the San Diego & Southeastern, the San Diego & Arizona, and finally the SO & Arizona eastern railway, the line provided the means for the transport of bulk agricultural and industrial raw materials from the region to San Diego's harbor and transcontinental rail links throughout the United States · Besides shipping bulk agricultural and industrial raw materials, the line was also a critical hauler of strategic war materiel in and out of important local industries during both world wars · Western Salt Works at La Punta · Hercules Powder Factory at Gunpowder Point · Rohr Aircraft Plant · A section of the line between National City and Chula Vista shared service with an electric traction interurban passenger line . The forerunner of today's San Diego Trolley, the line served as part of a key electric trolley commuter route that connected the south bay to downtown San Diego's business center Coronado Belt Line is also historically significant on the local level under Criteria 3 the California Register of Historic Resources and Criteria C of the National Register of Historic Places due to the following: · The surviving 7,5-mile segment of railroad right-of-way including its roadbed, rails, ties, switches, and wooden trestles, represents a type, period and method of late 19th century and early 20th century railroad construction techniques and materials. · While these components may lack individual distinction, together they represent a significant and distinguishable entity Historical Integrity The surviving 113-year old right-of-way is still able to convey its significance and association with the original 20 ,30-mile Coronado Belt Line through the following: · Its location, design, setting, materials, and feeling · Its historic association with one of San Diego's earliest locally owned and operated interurban short lines, which served as a vital rail transportation corridor linking the South Bay with Coronado, San Diego, and transcontinental rail links throughout the United States