The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2001/05/08 Mitigated Negative Declaration Jck- WL 1 PROJECT NAME: CEDAR PARK SUBDIVISION PROJECT LOCATION: Tenninus of Cedar Avenue, South of"L" Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,: 618-061-23 PROJECT APPLICANT: J efftey Bender CASE NO,: IS-O 1-040 DATE: May 8, 2001 A, Project Setting The 2,43-acre project site is a rectangular shaped parcel located at the tenninus of Cedar Avenue, South of "L" Street, between 5th Avenue and Broadway (see Exhibit A -Locator Map), The site is currently unoccupied and contains one wood-ftamed storage shed, and a wood-ftamed greenhouse, Chain link and wooden fencing surrounds the property. The surrounding area is fully developed with the following uses: North Single-family residential; East Single-family residential; West Single-family residential; and South Single-family residential. 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 graded and no cultural or paleontological resources are known to be present. B, Project Description The proposed project is a 12-lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq,ft, (Exhibit B - Tentative Map); however, the Zoning Ordinance allows for 20% of the lots to have a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq,ft, The proposed lot sizes range ftom a minimum of 6,000 sq.ft. to a maximum of 8,992 sq,ft, The average lot size is 7,198 sq,ft, and the proposed density is 4,94 du/gross acre, Six 3-bedroom and six 4-bedroom single-family residences, ranging in size ftom 2,000 to 3,000 sq,ft, are proposed, The size of the dwelling units wou1d exceed code requirements and a maximum height of27 feet is proposed, Development of the site requires the importation 2,920 cu,yds, of fill material to create level building pads, Streets, sewer, stonn drainage, water, and other public utilities would be provided to each lot. I 05/08/01 -0 CHULA VISTA "" .-\ HIGH :s:- SCHOOL L STREET ~ COMMUNITY ~ CENTER ~ - /~ ~\ CHULA VISTA CHURCH OF CHRIST \:ss ALOHA VISTA APARTMENTS SOUTH BAY BAPTIST CHURCH í CAMELOT \ APARTMENTS ~ ç ~OSS CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT TNT S ' I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ø APPLICANT: ervlces nc, INITIAL STUDY PROJECT Cedar Avenue and L Street Request Proposal for a 12 lot single family detached ADDRESS: subdivision with 2 car garages in the R1 zone, SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale IS - 01 - 040 Related Case: PCS-01-0? h:lhomelplanninglcarlosllocatorslis01040,cdr 03"01,01 eX"'"tr A C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The proposed subdivision is consistent with the R-I-7 (Single-family Residential) zoning designation, which requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq.ft, The proposed project is also consistent with the LM (Low Medium Residential) General Plan designation (3-6 dulgross ac,), and the City's environmental plans and policies, The project is located in the Montgomery Specific Planning Area, which designates the site as Low-Medium Residential (3-6 dulac), The proposed dwelling units are in compliance with the Municipal Code and are subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee, D, Public Comments On March 13,2001 a Notice ofInitial Study was circulated to property owners with a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site, The public review period ended March 23,2001. No written 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 although the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required, This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines, 1. Air Quality Construction-Related Impacts The proposed project could generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction- related activities to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality . During the construction phase of the project, short-term emissions of several types of air pollutants could occur. Dust could be generated by grading, and the combustion of fossil fuels by construction equipment could create emissions, Fugitive dust could also be created due to clearing. earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces, Although air quality impacts resulting from construction related emissions are potentially significant, they are considered short-term in duration since construction is a relatively short-term, on-time 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), During construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined below in Section F. 2 05/08/01 2. Water Drainage Patterns and Surface Runoff The proposed project will be constructed on fill with a maximum slope height of three feet; thus the building pads will be higher than the existing topography, The proposed grading of the site would result in runoff from the basin discharging into the stonn drain at the intersection of Cedar Avenue and "L" Street (identified as PT #1 in the Drainage Study). As a result of the proposed development, the runoff at PT #1 will increase by l.57-cfs (20%), 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. The mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A"), AIR QUALITY Construction Related Impacts 1, All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions, Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible, 2, Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills, 3, A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall be enforced, 4, On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather. s, On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered, 6, Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation, 7, Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities, Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used, Also, construction equipment shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible, 3 05/08/01 WATER Drainage Patterns and Surface Runoff 1. On-site and off-site drainage facilities and improvements to Cedar A venue shall be constructed as required by the City approved grading/improvement plans, measures required as stated in this Section (F) of this S~~I DIe G, 1. City ofChula Vista: Marilyn R,F, Ponseggi, Planning Division Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Planning Division Doug Perry, Fire Marshall Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department Beverly Blessent, Planning Division Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department M,], Donnelly, Engineering Department Applicant's Agent: Jeffery Bender 2, Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997 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 negative declaration, The report reflects the independent judgement of the City ofChula Vista, Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available /Tom the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, ~±o~!tp~~· Date: .5/7/0/ , I Environmental Review Coordinator 4 05/08/0 I ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGA TION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Cedar Park Subdivision, IS-OI-040 This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Cedar Park Subdivision project (IS-OI-040), The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) 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-OI-040, AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality, 2, Water. 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. Evidence in written fonn confinning compliance with the mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-OI-040 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished, Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, 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, (H:\home\planning\edaJia\IS-OI-08 MMRP text.doc) <C .... I: () E .r: 0 .. CII ë .... .... .. <C E E 0 0 '0 .. .. ã. E 0 0 .... I/) ::::¡ 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> C C C C C ~ :§ j2 :§ :Q :§ C) "S "S "S "S "S W "' "' "' "' "' ::J: oð oð oð oð oð C) .c Eo "Eo "Eo ëè5 ë <5 ::!! iJ13 iJ13 iJ13 iJ13 iJ13 "- " "- " "- " :.:: () 'ã.~ ~.. ã.g- ã.g. Ci" "" ~.E ~.s ".. ".. ".. «~ «~ «~ C) ,,,'jiS ;o¡¡Y+.I 0 ~Ü! II'- ,,;;L~ Q. '"'!!Ii C) ~.. z ;:5 x x x x x x ¡:: qi~ ... II'- 0 W Q. - ...I W IC II'- v ¡:5 OD ~ 0 p,. z <t C) c ¿ c c ¿ ¿ z 0 0 0 0 0 0 t5 t5 13 t5 ~ t5 12 u " " " " " " 0 " " " " " " .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 a; a; a; a; a; a; 0 ü: ü: ü: ü: ü: ü: ::;¡ 00 .¿ z E " '" u " " 0 0V:õ V"""" v "'C;::j .D 0.. . ~ ~=t:I-<:Õ~cñ .D ~"'O>- :::: ~ ¡:::: "'0 ¡::; 0..... 0.......... "'0 ........ cI:S ~.D ~ <,I; ,9 o 0 I-<.~ 0 ~ () '"æ 0.. "'0 '+-< .d § V) ~ C) g~~~~~~~ 92~ 0.'" _~~ E "oU'I¡;ojOcu"'OO"..... =;>.=.9.E:>~]! ]t:: ().gO¡::,D§d~ o"i)~CI)·~.sI-o'¿ ~ ::;¡ ....... I-< ~ 11.1 ........ :::1.~ "0 ~ u B "'0 ~ ~ 0 .. oool-<;>.~~-=e d)·_I-<;::j'"00~ '"O~= I: 5 ~;0l-< .d~oo.. a~~oo~8. 8~= ,S! .. () bJ)"d V) V1 "'C ...... 01) 0.. ê ~ I-< æ 1,1} V) "'0 .. ~~.5M§.~¡::·g~ 00 8~o~~ e!o If .. .D ..... I-< =..... I-< ~ V) ........ "'C..... "'0 0.. u ::;¡ ~>o._V).D ~~ ·_·-o~u ~ ;>. = ':; +-' ,¡:: ....... I-< 00 0 0 1-0....... 0 ¡::;> VI '"0 c: o..u~=·ê"'C-'"O·- .Do..~I-<O·_~ .cœo "C "2 v~~"'O ,.Dä$~ ~="3o...Dt~ 0>,1-< 10 8~-'"OO]]o..c ~u~~·-o .0-0 ..0 01 ~S~u~ . U'lo '"Oo~ ~'"O'+-< -~- ~ ~ I-< .~ § ~ ;:j 1:: ~ 3"¡:: ~ ~ ~ . ~ "'C o.-d ~ "5 è- en <U 1-0 .;:: Po "'0 ._ 0,) u ..... V) 0.."'" ~ <ZI 0 ...c ry''''' ~o~~='"Ou]~ .~o'+-<5~~~tVJ U ..\I: o 5 "'C 0 ~ t¡j)..§ ~ "0 .D 0 s·<;::: ~ 's.. ~ ~ ~ Q) ... c>~~~::S:Ë~&8 r.i~§~~~~~~"'C.s CII Q. 1-0 t; ~ V);::I' >'..r::'- 0 0 0 g I-< t'; V ;;.-. ~~~~~s~"s '~~~a~~~o~~~ ... ~=~~~~._~~ ~v uu ~v_~ CII gf"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 8 B è 8 ~ ~ b b "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "C "_~=~uuo~o~~~"_~~~u_ u () I-< "ê use > M 't:: '+-< = 't:: 'f..c = = ~ > ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~"~~o<~=o~UUOOOO~I-<"- '"c:Iu~ U ~u VlI-<>UU U O'"c:l 0 V 0 . '" .... ~ N '" .. '" 0 . en <1: - c C) E .r: CJ ra - - <1: '" c :2 "5 '" "" - ~ c 0 ~õ "- w ,,<> <>'" «£ x x N " "" '" 0.. c c g ,Q Õ õ w w <> <> '" " E £ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ <1) 0 ,.c Q) ~ ~ ~ 0 > ~ § t; <.s .8 ...... e o .... <H .- ~ <1) ëtI p.. c~--cc·~ "-'-5 .de. 0; ,'" c: 0 '" ~" '" .st::~'~~""2~o...8 VI ._VMU~o..OO b ~t;.S~<1).~~~¿ 0 t:1 '- --g ~ ~ g...... ~ "R Il) VJ 1-0 Q......... Q) g. <1) 0 (1) C S S OJ) '':; ,g " " g c: -5 o e..9OJJ;;""<;I'J,.c¡..."i:ddi .- ::sv:)s.........................o=blJ· >. (/) 0" ~'I-o ~ c ëtI -- Q) 0 ~ 1-0 ,.c o;¡o:j -- <1) ::s~Q).d¡f.ð1-<,.c ~ c > ¡:: C "d U E VI do) .;::¡ :::: ..... "C "0 Cd ~ .s~"d ..~t:1.5~~~ ð~~ _ ....... u <1) VJ ::s 11.) OJ:) t:; 0 ~ ..... ..... - ü <1) .~ <1) 0" d C 1-0 ::s c ::J e '9"""::; :E <1) ¡::¡ ~ cu ~ "'0 0 ff <1) U) V;' ::s > "'0 .S< <1) go 0 @ ..... 1-< E C V <1)'~ ~ ::s ~ I-o'~ <1) ~ ~ 8,z.o ~ <1) g'~ o..V):õ ~ ~ 0 ~ è§~§~§~:E~~ ß-oê- ::s ..... ~'.o 'i'"'"¡j .0 ;;>- <1) ~ s ~ .5 '- "9V)_ü~u~~gCl; ~ubQ CO >. ß 8 g ;.: Ë ..r:: .s "0 ...... 0 .5 .5 "C ~s.....V)oVJuuQ)E 1-0 VI "'0 Q) <1)o§§~§~bl)I-o><: E"§~ u ~uuuOJJuo..SSu ._ublJ o .., o , ..... ... o , (J Case No.IS-Ol-040 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: TNT Services, Inc, 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 830 11th Street Imperial Beach. CA 91932 (619) 429-5651 4. Name of Proposal: Cedar Park Subdivision (PCS-OI-07) 5. Date of Checklist: May 8, 2001 Potentially PolentiaHy Slgnifwmt Less than Significant Un"" Significant Nn Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 J8 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 J8 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g" 0 0 0 J8 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 J8 established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed 12-lot subdivision is consistent with the R-I (Single-family Residential) zoning designation, LM (Low Medium Residential) General Plan designation, and the City's environmental plans and policies, The project is also located in the Montgomery Specific Planning Area, which designates the site as Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac), The site is an irregular-shaped parcel (APN 618-061-23) encompassing 2.43 acres, The site is currently unoccupied and contains one wood- framed storage shed, and a wood- rramed greenhouse. Chain Jink and wooden fencing surrounds the property, The site was previously graded and used for agricultural purposes and as a plant nursery, The surrounding area is fully developed with urban uses, The proposed subdivision would not change the physical arrangement of the community, Mitigation: No mitigation is required, II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 J8 population projections? 1 5/8/01 PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Im.." Impact b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 II!I 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 II!I housing? Comments: The project is an infill development surrounded by existing residential development and does not involve an extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. No existing housing units would be displaced, Development of 12 single-family units is consistent with the General Plan and wou]d not exceed the regional or local population projections, Mitigation: No mitigation is required III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 II!I substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements. compaction or 0 0 II!I 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 II!I 0 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 II!I unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 II!I either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 II!I 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: The site is essentially level, ranging from 66,7 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the eastern property boundary to 61,2 feet AMSL at the western property boundary, The site was previously graded and would be regraded by importing 2,920 cu,yds, of earth to elevate the western portion ofthe site so as to provide adequate drainage to the extension of Cedar A venue, No erosion or sedimentation impacts are anticipated to result from grading of the site because: (I) Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to be implemented during and after construction; and (2) the maximum height of the fill slope is three feet. Best Management Practices include benns, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring, and protective devices at every stonn drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the stonn drain system, Finish grading and planting will be accomplished prior to October], or immediately upon completion of any slopes graded between October I and April I, 2 5/8/01 PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Lesstban Significant UnI", Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact The Engineering Department, as a standard requirement of grading permit approval, requires that a geotechnical/soils study be prepared and that the report's recommendations be incorporated into the final grading plan, All grading operations will be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended), Potential long-term erosion impacts would be avoided through the planting and irrigation of slopes as required by the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797, as amended by Ordinance 1877, Landscaping will be installed as shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan as approved by the City Landscape Architect. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone; the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is approximately 21 miles to the north, and the La Nacion earthquake fault is approximately three miles to the east. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code requirements would reduce potential geologic impacts to a less than significant level. No significant geophysical effects would result from construction of the subdivision. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 181 0 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 of surface water quality (e,g" temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents. or the course of direction of 0 0 0 181 water movements. in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 181 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 0 181 j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The project site is not located within a mapped floodplain, Currently, Cedar Avenue between "L" Street and the project site is not fully improved, Existing surface run-off from the site includes drainage from areas to the south and east. The site is ]ower than the surrounding properties and has no outlet for drainage, A "Drainage Study" prepared by DGB Survey & Mapping (1/9/01) for the proposed 3 5/8/0] Potentially Potentially Signiftcanl Lesslhan Signif"tcant Unless Signific.ant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact project reports that under existing conditions the runoff from the site during a 50-year storm is 3,17 cubic feet per second (cfs), The proposed development would increase the runoff from the site to 4,74-cfs (an increase of 1.57 cfs), Existing runoff from the entire 5,36-acre drainage basin is 8,24-cfs and the post- development runoff would be 9,81-cfs (an increase of 1.57 cfs), The proposed project will be constructed on fill with a maximum slope height of three feet; thus the building pads will be higher than the existing topography, The proposed grading of the site would result in runoff from the basin discharging into the storm drain at the intersection of Cedar Avenue and "L" Street (identified as PT #1 in the Drainage Study), The proposed development could result in a significant impact to the runoff at PT #1 that will increase by 1.57-cfs (20%), The Engineering Division reports there is an existing storm drain inlet located at the southeast comer of Cedar Avenue and "L" Street. Runoff will be adequately handled via the proposed surface drainage facilities without the need for an on-site detention facility, The Engineering Division reports that the Drainage Study has been adequately prepared for the purposes of a preliminary review, A final complete review will be completed when final grading and drainage plans for the subdivision are submitted, The Engineering Division reports that the 20% increase in runoff indicated in the Drainage Study should not affect local drainage facilities as long as the full street improvements on Cedar A venue are constructed north to "L" Street. Off-site improvements will be required to convey the site runoff from Cedar Avenue to "L" Street. The project proposes to improve the existing Cedar A venue between the site and "L" Street with curbs. gutters and sidewalks, A standard Engineering Department condition of approval requires drainage improvements to be included on the first submittal of gradinglimprovement plans that identifies the method to be used to convey on-site surface water. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit is not required for storm water discharges associated with the project because the project will result in soils disturbance ofless than five acres, A Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPP) is not required by Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 14.20); however, the code requires the implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drain facilities during and after construction, Development of the site would not impact groundwater quality or alter the quantity of ground waters. No adverse impacts to water resources have been identified, Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 iii 0 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 iii c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 iii cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 iii e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- 0 0 0 iii stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction- 4 5/8/01 Potentially Potentially SigniflCanl Less than Significant Urness Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact related activities to result in a short-tenn significant, but mitigable, impacts 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 as a result of clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces, Although air quality impacts resulting from construction related emissions are potentially significant, they are considered short-tenn in duration since construction is a relatively short- tenn, one-time 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), During construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined below in Section XIX, The proposed 12-unit subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan and Regional Air Quality forecasts and would not substantially affect regional air quality, The project would generate an additional 120 average daily trips, The project would not alter air movements, humidity, or climatic temperature, The use and occupancy of the site as single- family residential development would not create objectionable odors or expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 1;1 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" 0 0 0 1;1 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 1;1 uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 1;1 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 1;1 t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 1;1 alternative transportation (e,g, bus turnouts. bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 1;1 h) A "large project" under the Congestion -0 0 0 1;1 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Comments: The City Engineering Division estimated that an additional 120 trips per day (ADT) would result from the residential project; the trip generation rate per unit is 10 trips per day, The additional 120 ADT would not change the LOS on "L" Street. The existing and project traffic volume on "L" Street would not exceed the city's Level of Service (LOS) design volume of LOS C, The proposed 12- unit residential project would have a minimal effect on traffic patterns and volumes on the adjacent streets, The City Engineering Department review ofthe site p1an concluded that the proposed on-site circulation is adequate, The project would be required to install a curb, gutter and sidewalk along Cedar Avenue per City engineering standards, Twenty-four on-site enclosed parking spaces (two per unit) are shown on the 5 5/8/01 PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Significant Less than Signifkant Unless Signmcant N. Impa" Mitigated Impa" Impact Tentative Map as required by the Zoning Ordinance parking, No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created by the proposed single-family project. No significant traffic related impacts would result. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 0 0 C3I or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage trees)? 0 0 0 C3I c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g" 0 0 0 C3I oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)? d) Wetland habitat (e,g,. marsh. riparian and vernal 0 0 0 C3I pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 C3I t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 C3I efforts? Comments: The 2A-acre site is located in an urbanized area and has been disturbed by previous agricultural and plant nursery activities, Non-native weedy plants are scattered across the site. No listed plant or animal species are present. No significant biological impacts would result. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 C3I b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 C3I inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 C3I protection. will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed project does not conflict with the recently adopted C02 Reduction Plan, The C02 Reduction Plan encourages infill housing, The infill project will provide 12 housing opportunities for large families, The current use of the land provides no housing opportunities, The project proponent will provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Cedar A venue that will aid pedestrian circulation in the project area, The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform Building Code and therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The project is not 10cated in an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined in the City's General Plan, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 6 5/8/0 I PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Significant Less tban Significanl Unl~ Significant No Impact Mitigated 1m.." Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 iii hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 iii response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 iii health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 iii potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 iii brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The site was formerly used for agriculture and as a plant nursery. A Phase I Environmental Assessment concluded that the property has not been significantly affected by environmental contamination, Soil sample tests confirm that chemical concentrations are well below Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action levels, The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health has determined that the site does not pose a risk to human health, Hazardous materials would not be used in the residential development. There are no known potential health hazards in the vicinity of the project site, The project would not interfere with emergency response plans, The General Plan Public Safety Element designates "L" Street as an Evacuation Route, No significant hazard impacts would result from construction and occupancy of the residential project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 iii b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 I!I Comments: Noise impacts could occur during the construction period; however, these noise 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 7:00 a,m, añd 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 construction and grading would be regulated by conditions included in the approved grading permit. The l2-unit residential project and associated traffic would not result in a measurable increase in noise, There are no noise generators in the vicinity of the project. No significant long-term impacts would result from occupancy of the project. 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: 7 5/8/01 Potentially PotentiaUy Significanl Lesstban Significant Urness Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 iii b) Police protection? 0 0 0 iii c) Schools? 0 0 iii 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 iii e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 iii Comments: The City Fire Marshall reported that the project would not result in an impact to fire services. The Police Department reported that the project wou1d not impact police services, As a standard recommendation, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate "defensible space" design elements into the project to potentially minimize the need for police protection to the project site, School fees would be paid at the building permit stage in accord with provisions of state law, The Chula Vista Elementary School District recommends annexation of the project site to the District's Community Facilities District (CFD) No, lOin lieu of school fees, The Sweetwater Union High School District also recommends annexation of the project site to the District's Community Facilities District. However, under State Law the payment of school fees reduces impacts to school facilities to a level below significance, No new or altered public facilities or other governmental services would be required for the project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 iii City's Threshold Standards? As described below. the proposed project does not significantly impact any of the seven Threshold Standards, a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 iii 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 fire/EMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, b) Police 0 0 0 iii The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 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. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, c) Traffic 0 0 0 iii I. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day, 8 5/8/01 PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Signifkant Le.u than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mítigated Impact Impact 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 project would generate 120 average daily trips, The Engineering Division reports that the City LOS C standard would be met on "L" Street. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 II The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/1 ,000 population east ofI-805, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: The proposed project is located west ofl-805, therefore, the Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard does not apply, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, e) Drainage 0 0 0 II 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 Planes) and City Engineering Standards, Comments: The Engineering Division has reviewed the Drainage Study and found that it complies with city requirements, The Engineering Department will review final grading and improvement plans to insure that adequate drainage improvements are provided (see Section IV above), Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. f) Sewer 0 0 0 II The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards, Comments: The City Engineering Department has detennined that sewer facilities are adequate to serve the project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, g) Water 0 0 0 II 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, Comments: The Sweetwater Authority has detennined that adequate water services are available to serve the project. 9 5/8/01 Potentially Potentially SignifiC&Dt Lt:ssthan SigniftcaDt Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 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 0 181 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The Sweetwater Authority (SW A) reports that water service is available to the site fÌ'om a 6- inch main located in "L" Street. Fire flow requirements have been detennined to be adequate by the Fire Department and SW A, The proposed residential project would not require the installation of new systems or cause alteration to existing facilities, As noted in Sections IV and XII above, stonn water and sewer facilities are adequate to serve the site, Underground electrical and telephone services would be extended to the site fÌ'om the nearest available power supply, The extension of services would not require new systems to be installed, or alterations of existing utilities, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 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 scenic 0 0 0 181 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) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No adverse aesthetics impacts are anticipated because the site would not obstruct a scenic vista or view and the project site does not front on a scenic route. Implementation of City Code standards would minimize light and glare produced by the design of the project, No adverse impacts have been identified, The project requires review and approval by the City's Design Review Committee, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 10 5/8/01 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant U""" Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 ¡¡; destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ¡¡; aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building. structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 iii physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict eXlstmg religious or 0 0 0 iii sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 iii 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 project site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential cultural resources, There are no known cultural resources in the project area and no significant impacts would result. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 iii proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element ofthe General Plan does not identifY the project site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential paleontological resources, There are no known paleontological resources on the site or in the adjacent area, Minimal cut grading is required and no significant impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 iii regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 III Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans or 0 0 0 iii programs? Comments: The l2-unit residential project is expected to have 36 residents, Park land requirements for this population would be Q,lO-acre, Park fees would be paid as required by City Ordinance, The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. No significant recreational impacts would result from the project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of II 5/8/01 PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less tban Significant Unless Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact significance, If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 II 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 vacant site is located in an urbanized area and was previously used for agricultural purposes and as a plant nursery, No sensitive plant or anima] resources or historical/archaeological resources are present. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 II short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? Comments: Constructing a single-family residential project on the site would not affect long-term environmental goals of the City ofChula Vista in that the project site is not identified for preservation in the City's recently adopted Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 II 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: The project site is in a fully developed urbanized area and development of the site would not result in cumulative environmental effects, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, d) Does the project have environmental effects that 0 0 0 II will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No adverse effects on human beings are anticipated trom developing the site as a residential project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 12 5/8/0 I 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: AIR QUALITY Construction Related Impacts 1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions, Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible, 2, Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills, 3, A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall be enforced, 4, On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re- suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shaH be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather. 5, On-site stockpiles of excavated material shaH be covered or watered, 6, Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation, 7, Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities, Catalytic reduction for gasoline- powered equipment shaH be used, A]so, construction equipment shaH be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance WATER Drainage Patterns and Surface Runoff 1. On-site and off-site drainage facilities and improvements to Cedar A venue shall be constructed as required by the City approved grading/improvement plans, ]3 5/8/0 ] 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. ~); Date Printed Name and Title of [Operator if different from Property Owner] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] 14 5/8/0 I 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, o Land 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 . Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources . Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Paleontology o Mandatory Findings of Significance IS 5/8/0 I XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 0 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 MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0 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 D (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, ~t?h~ ~/ ¿JJFMJLIJ' ;;/-Yðl Mari n R,F, onseggi " Dat Environmental Review Coordinator 16 5/8/0 I