Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/12/20 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: SOUTH BAY DISTRIBUTION CENTER PROJECT LOCATION: North of Anita Street, East of MTDB Trolley Tracks ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,: 622-081-23, 24 PROJECT APPLICANT: SBDC, LLC CASE NO,: IS-OI-012 DATE: December 20, 2000 A. Project Setting The project site is a 2.41-acre property, consisting of two lots, located in an industrial area on the north side of Anita Street and east of Industrial Boulevard and the MTDB trolley tracks (Figure 1), Access to the project site is rrom Anita Street. The site is developed with two metal buildings at the north portion of the lot. The site is currently occupied by a building supply company and that includes outdoor storage of cargo containers and lumber. The adjacent property to the east is also owned by the project proponent, SBDC, LLC. It contains three warehouse buildings occupied by the Lasco Distribution Center housing the La Salle Trucking Company and Discount World. This parcel also contains an existing railroad spur line separating the project site ITom the Lasco Distribution Center, The Southrail Business Park is located to the east and north of the Lasco Distribution Center and project site, The Brittanica Business Center is located across Anita Street to the south, The nearest residences are located approximately l56-feet west of the project site and are separated by Industrial Boulevard and the MIDB trolley tracks, The site is gently sloping and contains non-native plant material. No listed plant or animal species is known to occupy the site or surrounding area, The site has been previously filled and no cultural or paleontological resources are known to be present. B, Proiect Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of two metal buildings and the construction of a 39,800 square foot tilt-up concrete building for a produce distribution business, The height of the proposed building would be 34 feet. Loading docks would be located on the north, east, and south sides of the building. An eight-foot six-inch high prefabricated concrete screening wall would block westerly views of the northern and southern loading docks, The northern, western, and southern exterior walls are proposed to include decorative panels. Forty automobile parking spaces are proposed in addition to the truck loading docks, A common fire lane would serve the project site as well as the adjacent warehouse complex located on the adjacent property to the east (Figure 2), 1 12/20/00 ~." .. :z 0..... '" c::: oeo ~ !!? ''<t W ~ "'0 0, 0:: " 90 ~ ¡j! ~ci NZ C) a- u: ,c: 0" zE _:J ~o VJ ,~o Æ 00 ~ :2 t:L '" 0 . W I- - WY tJ) Q. <I: :æ Z 0 < IIÎDUSTRIÁL BLVO l700 ~ ;:3 u ~ 0 ù.J IXL ...J W ¡...; !::: ~ I/) Z -< - "" < ) ..... ~ '" ..... U 0 ._ 0.. t:: ..... ,.t::O u u < ) t:: .....- <" ~ . ¡ I,Ù 111 IlL 'I" ~¡I!!' +Z~ ..! II! I!h~~~ - \1- ¡ , I , ONltlSI 13njc==J ! !¡¡~ i!I" :JNI1SIX3 ¡'!!" '11 'I !!~ 1111 !, ,¡ I ! m~, Imlih I I \ ! r---- I , £,;<;-;;;;';;; _ - - - - î L..-_--------o _---)-1 T I \ " ~ " co 0 0 " Iii; z ':í I¡ 0 ~ LOADING OOCK """ I 1 ~ ,! It I .- ihi!i . ....,' I w \ 0 0 ". ~ - _------=iM -"" ~ (' -- '".-- z -------------------- ----- - --= - ----- - ----- - ----- - ~-- m()lltY iJAcKS ¡ ------ - ¡ _____ _ ~VI) ----- - ------ - ------ - ----------- 11 " Ii ú - - " A 25-foot wide landscape area along the Anita Street frontage is proposed to be planted with weeping Chinese banyan trees. screening shrubs, and ground cover. Brisbane box trees and groundcover are proposed along the northwestern and northeastern property boundaries, C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The proposed use is consistent with the IL (Light Industrial) zone and General Plan IL Light Industrial designation, and the City's environmental plans and policies, The project is located in Montgomery Specific Planning Area, which designates the site as Light Industrial D, Public Comments , On November 17, 2000 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public comment period ended November 27,2000, No 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 Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines, HAZARDS The proposed proj ect includes the demolition of two metal buildings measunng approximately 1,300 and 7,827 square feet. 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 two existing metal structures will be examined for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition, The applicant will be required to contact 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 protocols followed in the removal of asbestos, F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment "A"). HAZARDS Asbestos Related Impacts 1. Prior to demolition of the eXlstmg buildings, the applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the 2 12/20/00 fC 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 rrom 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 permit. G, Consultation 1. Citv of Chula Vista: Marilyn R.F, Ponseggi, Planning Division Philip Hinshaw, A.D, Hinshaw Associates Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Planning Division Doug Perry, Fire Marshall Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department Beverly Blessent, Planning Division Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department M.J, Donnelly, Engineering Department Applicant's Agent: Jeff Wissler, Ken Smith, Ken D, Smith Architect & Associates 2, Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997 3, Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available rrom the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, ~~¿~~~ Date: /tfl/o?b!íJÒ / I Environmental Review Coordinator 3 12/20100 r Case No.IS-Ol-012 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: SBDC, LLC 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 380 Stevens Avenue, Suite 313, Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858) 350-0200 4. Name of Proposal: South Bay Distribution Center 5. Date of Checklist: December 20, 2000 PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impad Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ! zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ! policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 ! (e,g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 ! an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The project site is a 2,41-acre property, consisting of two lots, located in an industrial area on the north side of Anita Street and east of Industrial Boulevard and the MTDB trolley tracks, Access to the project site is from Anita Street, The site is developed with two metal buildings at the north portion of the lot. The site is currently occupied by a building supply company and also includes outdoor storage of cargo containers and lumber. The adjacent property to the east is also owned by SBDC, LLC and contains three warehouse buildings occupied by the Lasco Distribution Center housing the La Salle Trucking Company and Discount World, The existing railroad spur line separating the project site from the Lasco Distribution Center would to be retained, The Southrail Business Park is located to the east and north of the Lasco Distribution Center and project site, The Brittanica Business Center is located across Anita Street to the south, Single-family residences and commercial activities are located west of Industrial Boulevard and the MTDB trolley tracks, I 12/20/00 ~" Potentially PotentiaUy Significant Less than Significant U""" Significant No Impa" Mitigated Impact Impact The proposed project consists of the demolition of two metal buildings and the construction of a 39,800 square foot tilt-up concrete building for a produce distribution business, The height of the proposed building would be 34 feet. Loading docks would be located on the north, east, and south sides of the building, An eight-foot six-inch high prefabricated concrete screening wall would block westerly views of the northern and southern loading docks, The northern, western, and southern exterior walls are proposed to include decorative panels, Forty automobile parking spaces are proposed in addition to the truck loading docks, A common fire lane would serve the project site as well as the adjacent warehouse complex located on the adjacent property to the east. A 25-foot wide landscape area along the Anita Street frontage is proposed to be planted with weepIng Chinese banyan trees, screening shrubs, and ground cover. Brisbane box trees and groundcover are proposed along the northwestern and northeastern property boundaries, The proposed use is consistent with the IL (Light Industrial) zone and General Plan IL Light Industrial designation, There are no agricultural uses in the area, The building addition would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 I1J population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 I1J 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 I1J housing? Comments: The produce distribution center would employ 40 employees, The new employees would not significantly impact the population of Chula Vista or exceed adopted population projections, Construction of the distribution warehouse would not displace any existing housing units, No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 I1J geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 I1J 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 I1J features? 2 1:;/20100 ... Potentially PotentiaUy Significant Less than Significant UoI", Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ~ any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 ~ either on or off the site? t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 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 ~ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: Geotechnics, Inc, conducted a geotechnical evaluation of the site to determine if the existing geologic formation and soils would support the proposed building, The evaluation concludes that the construction of the project is geotechnically feasible provided the report design recommendations are implemented, The site is underlain with 11/2 feet of fill and Bay Point Formation, Grading for the project would involve 1,000 cubic yards of cut and 750 cubic yards of fill; 250 cubic yards of earth would be exported, The maximum depth of cut would be 4 feet and the maximum depth of fill would be 1,3 feet. No significant impacts have been i.dentified. The Engineering Department, as a standard requirement of grading permit approval, will require a soils report and compliance with the applicable recommendations, As reported by the City Engineering Department, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is required if any of the industrial materials, equipment or activities associated with the facilities operation is exposed to storm water. Given that the proposed facility is for produce, a NPDES is not anticipated to be required, A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required for the project. The project proponent is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems during and after construction, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. 0 0 ~ 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 ~ related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 ~ alteration of surface water quality (e.g" temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 ~ water body? e) Changes in currents. or the course of direction 0 0 0 ~ 3 12/20100 «".. PotentiaUy Potentially SignifiCRDt Less tbaD SignifiCRDt Unl", SigniftcaDt No 1m..'" Mitigated Impact Impact of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 CiII 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 CiII groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 CiII i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 CiII waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 CiII otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The geotechnical report states that groundwater was not observed in the 16-foot deep on-site borings, The proposed building and paved area would result in an increase in the rate of surface runoff from the project site, The City Engineer reports that a natural swale discharges into the site at the northwest corner and that there is no proper drainage outlet. Existing storm drains are located west of the trolley tracks and north of the site, The installation of storm drains is a standard improvement requirement. The City Engineering Division will require a hydrology/hydraulic study to be submitted with the first submittal of improvement and grading plans that demonstrates that the proposed and existing storm drain facilities are adequate to convey runoff from the project site, No significant impacts to water resources have been identified. Wastewater from the proposed produce warehouse may not be discharged or allowed to enter the storm drainage system, The project proponent is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution associated with the loading or unloading and storage of materials from entering the storm drainage systems, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 CiII an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 CiII c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. 0 0 0 I; or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 CiII e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 CiII non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? 4 12/20/00 r Potentially PotentiaDy Significant "'" than Significant U..... Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Comments: The proposed produce distribution center is consistent with the General Plan designation that was used as the development intensity for the Regional Air Quality Model. Thus, traffic emissions are consistent with the assumptions of the air quality model and emission projections, No sensitive receptors are located in the adjacent areas, No significant impacts are expected to result and no mitigation measures are required, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 IiII 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" 0 0 0 IiII sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 IiII nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity. on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 IiII e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 IiII bicyclists? í) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 IiII alternative transportation (e,g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 IiII h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 IiII Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Comments: The existing access from Anita Street would be used for the new facility, The City Traffic Engineer reports that the 36.400 square foot warehouse and 3,400 square foot office space would generate an additional 250 average daily trips (ADT) , The reported traffic level is 4,806 ADT on Anita Street, 7,070 ADT on Industrial Boulevard, and 16.390 ADT on Broadway. The additional trips generated by the project would not exceed the City's Level-of-Service (LOS) "C" design volume, No additional roadway facilities are required to serve the site, The project is consistent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan and General Plan Traffic Element, Short-term effects would consist of construction trucks required to construct the facility, No significant transportation impacts would result. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 5 12/20/00 r." Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant U"'"" Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Im.." VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered. sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 r¡; concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage 0 0 0 r¡; trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g" 0 0 0 r¡; ' oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)? d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 r¡; vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 r¡; t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 r¡; efforts? Comments: The site has been completely graded and no native vegetation or sensitive species are present on-site or surrounding properties, No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 r¡; plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 r¡; inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 r¡; protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The new facility would be constructed in accord the energy requirements of the Uniform Building Code provisions for industrial operations, The power requirements can be supplied by the local utility with existing gas and electric transmission lines, The site does not contain any known mineral resources, No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 r¡; hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, 6 12/20/00 ~' Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 181 0 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 181 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed produce warehouse would not involve operations involving hazardous substances, nor would it interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans, No known health or fire hazards would result from the distribution center. No impacts are anticipated from construction and operation of the facility. No significant impacts are expected to occur. The proposed project includes the demolition of two metal buildings measuring approximately 1,300 and 7,827 square feet. 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 two existing metal structures will be examined for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition, The applicant will be required to contact 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 protocols followed in the removal of asbestos, Mitigation: Prior to demolition of the eXlstlllg 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. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 181 0 Comments: The proposed hours of operation are 3:00 A,M, to 2:00 P,M" Monday through Friday, The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (§ 19,68,030) establishes industrial land use noise standards ono dB during the hours of 7:00 A,M, and 10:00 P,M, on weekdays (8:00 A,M, to 10:00 P,M, on weekends) and 70 dB during the hours of 10:00 P,M, and 7:00 A,M, on weekdays (10:00 P,M, to 8:00 A,M,) on weekends), The proposed distribution center project will be required to comply with the adopted noise standards, Truck noise associated with the distribution center would be shielded by the proposed warehouse building and the existing warehouse buildings on the adjacent parcel to the east. Existing industrial activities surround the project site, The nearest residences are located approximately 156-feet west of the project site and are separated by Industrial Boulevard and the MTDB trolley tracks, No significant noise impacts are expected to result from the operation of the distribution center, 7 12/20/00 ~. PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Uo1~ Significant No Im..ct Mitigated Impact Impact Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or 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: No new or altered governmental services will be required to serve the project. Fire and police protection can be adequately provided to the site, No significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 0 [;¡ the City's Threshold Standards? As described below. the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the Threshold Standards, 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 the cases, The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is one-half mile away and would be associated with a two - minute response time, Comments: The firelEMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department. b) Police 0 0 0 [;¡ The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 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 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less, Comments: The police threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department. c) Traffic 0 0 0 [;¡ 8 12/20/00 f"" Potentially Potentially Significant Lessthao Signit1caDI Urness SigniflcaDt No Impact Mitigated 1m.." 1m.." 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 of "0" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day, 2, West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen, Comments: The traffic threshold would be met because the project generated traffic (250 ADT) would not exceed the LOS "c" design standard on the primary access road (Anita Street), d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 E!! The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/l,OOO population east of 1- 805, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: No additional park and recreation facilities would be required by the construction of the produce distribution center, e) Drainage 0 0 0 E!! 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, Comments: The Engineering Division requires that a drainage study be submitted with the first set of improvement plans to demonstrate that post-development flow rates do not exceed pre-development flow rates, Runoff from the site shall be properly conveyed and connected to existing drainage systems in accord with City Engineering Standards, t) Sewer 0 0 0 E!! 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, Comments: An 8-inch sewer line is located in Anita Street that flows to a 12-inch sewer main in Industrial Boulevard, The City Engineering Department has concluded, based on data submitted by the applicant, that sewage generated by the proposed project is the equivalent of four dwelling units (1,060 gl/day), No conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated, g) Water 0 0 0 E!! The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance, 9 12/20/00 ~, PotentiaHy PotentiaHy SignirJCaßI Less thaD Significant Un"'" Signif"tc:mC Nn Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Comments: The Sweetwater Authority reports that a lO-inch water main is located adjacent to the parcel. The water requirements of the proposed project are not anticipated to conflict with the City's threshold. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 [8 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 [8 ' c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 [8 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 [8 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 [8 t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 [8 Comments: Underground utilities and services are available to the site and new services would not be extended to the site, The project would not require new systems to be installed and no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 [8 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 [8 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 [8 0 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 [8 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 [8 Comments: The proposed project is a 34- foot high produce distribution building on the north side of Anita Street and adjacent to the MTDB trolley track along the western property boundary, The Anita Street frontage includes a 25-foot wide landscape area proposed to be planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover. This planting area would screen the loading dock area from public views on Anita Street. The northwestern and northeastern property boundaries would also be planted to screen views from the northwest and the industrial park located north of the project site, IO 12/20/00 r"" PotendaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant U.... Significant No hopact Mitigated Impact Impact The western building elevation would be visible to trolley passengers and motorists on Industrial Boulevard. Decorative tilt-up concrete panels are proposed for this wall, as well as the south and north walls, Matching concrete panel fences are proposed to be extended along the western property line to block views of the north and south loading docks, Views of the major portion of the loading dock area, located in the interior of the site. would be blocked from off-site views by the landscaping and screening walls described above, Views from the east would be blocked by the warehouse buildings on the adjacent parcel to the east. The proposed building would not result in a significant visual impact. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 ti'J the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ti'J aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 ti'J physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ti'J sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 ti'J EIR as an area of high potential for archeological 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 cultural resources, Grading for the project would involve 1,000 cubic yards of cut and 750 cubic yards of fill, The maximum depth of cut would be 4 feet and the maximum depth of fill would be 1,3 feet. The potential for encountering cultural resources at 4 feet below the surface is highly unlikely, Cultural resources are typically encountered at 10 feet of excavation. There would be no significant impacts because of the limited depth of excavation and because there are no known cultural resources on the project site, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 ti'J proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological 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, There would be no significant impacts because there are no known paleontological resources on the project site, 11 12/20/00 ~. Potentially PotentiaUy Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XVII. RECREATION. Would rhe proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ¡; regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ¡; c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ¡; plans or programs? Comments: The project would not result in significant impacts to the recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor mandatory findings of significance, If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 ¡; 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: Construction of the project would not result in the removal of native vegetation nor impacts to sensitive wildlife species or cultural resources. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 ¡; short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Construction of the produce distribution building would not significantly impact the long-term environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 12 12/20100 r Potentially Potentially Significant Le.ssthan Significant Unku Significant No Impact Mitigated IDlpact Impact C) Does the project have impacts that are D D D 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, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, d) Does the project have enviromnental effects D D D 181 that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No significant impacts to human beings would result from the construction of the produce distribution building, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 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 and operation of the project: 1. 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 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 ta the Planning and Building Department priar ta abtaining a building permit. I3 12/20/00 .,-7 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 posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report, ~TF wí~{f3Z- ifo:ttr- /!! (j tL. Date Sig at r of Authorized Representative of Date [Pro rty Owner's Name] Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of Date [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 . Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Paleontology o Mandatory Findings of Significance 14 ------~-- .~ r ..--... XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the . environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D 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 D an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but D 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 D 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, lj~/VJ~~, /.2µO/OO , l Slgnatu J Date Marilyn R.F, Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista . 15 12/20/00 r