The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/10/21 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: MJK Chula Vista PROJECT LOCATION: 201 Broadway ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 567 -041-1600 PROJECT APPLICANT: MJK Real Estate Holding Co., LLC CASE NO,: IS-03-035 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: October 21, 2003 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERV AnON COMMISSION MEETING: November 17, 2003 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Proi ect Setting The 0.32-acre project site, comprised of one parcel located in the urbanized central western portion of the City of Chula Vista, is located at the southeast comer of Broadway and "E" Street at 201 Broadway (see Exhibit A - Location Map). The project site is a relatively flat square-shaped site with access off of Broadway and "E" Street and alley access off of "E" Street The project site currently contains an unoccupied gas station consisting of a service station building with one bay, two metal canopies over previously located fuel islands and an accessory building that once was used for storage. The project site is identified in the General Plan within the Chula Vista Urban Core and "E" Street is identified as an existing Urban Core Gateway, The land uses surrounding the site of the proposed retail and restaurant complex are as follows: North: Auto Service Center Northwest: Gasoline Service Station South: Automobile Parts and Supply Store East: Alley and Medical Office Southeast: Single-Family Residential West: Commercial Center B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of a vacant gasoline service station and the construction of a new one-story 3,048 square-foot commercial building to accommodate a restaurant and retail use. Proposed on-site improvements include an 18-space parking lot, sheltered outside patio area attached to the restaurant facing Broadway, enhanced landscaped and site improvements creating a strong corner identity, new lighting and trash enclosure (See Exhibit B - Site Plan), Off-site improvements include the removal, replacement and realignment of driveways as well as curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along I VACANT LOT FEASTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WOODLAWN COLONIAL APAR1MENTS VISTA VILLAGE APARTMENTS C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ø APPUCAtrr:MJK CHULA VISTA INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ADDRESS: 201 BROADWAY Request: Proposing to demolish existing building and SCALE: FILE NUMBER: replace with one-story restaurant and retail space. NORTH No Scale 15-03-035 Related Case(s): DRC-03-85 Exhibit A -,..--.-. -<.._---------. ",-, ,0.' ,0-,' I ,,-. I ;'" I .,-. I ,,-. I "',,' I .,'. i "-"f" I "Z~ ~ I "I w ~~u :. ~ ~ I U¡,",~ 11ft 4 ~ 2. IQ~ ~..~~ J a~ "::¡ ..~ I ~ ~~; I I 8~~!¡; _ II< J!i<.;.. ~ ~a:1I I ¡:Q ~ g 1 ~'"' ~..'"' ~f¡..~ 3:( õ "9 J.;:i11'1 1'1"-' )I'¡"" '~ 2"~~ I .-:: olO!"ü J ,- - ,.Q :!...J n !.- ~, ",1.'>1 "--.,.....".' .--- ÐNI<I".=:J90,NIt"!""'" .' t.I~ I.J~ '.' .~:z', . ~ . , . .~~. j' . . 0- ~ -,),,1.>3'" ~ ~ 5 !! ' , . ." , ~;b t " . ·1· . - . Gr' . '. .' - >ftt>9 î W ~' , ~~ 1 ,,¡hI. .!hi ~ " iî I ,0-,8 \ .0',8 \..--.0:..- ,=- -·":;ö:¡-.-::..þ-:::;õ.:;¡-k::¡;¡¡.;¡-,~-t .0·,8 .,t .,,·,01 :;:2. - -...... ~5 ~ ; ---....--- ~~ ;> ' II ¡?b¡; ~IJ { :ig~ ~ ...0 .. (1"-" , - "" ..,--.--'-~ I ~B ...... ~:~ ~---....... ~~~ '", ,.o-.a ,0-,1 I .0-.11 ! .0-,1 <IIF:! b . ~. I \ I Z.' OJ j \ r- ¡ I-- ,]-., \ I ::5}t 0': .. -"'\ \' '" ;¡., 'it: Þ--... ~ \ a.. ;::- .. 8 ~~ð't&~2 \ \ W 0- oJjf ~ OJ \ JI:I"qB~ t- ~i ~ \ -.0-,0\\ Cñ ..n!! !! \ \ 0 '" ~ \ \ W ;~;"';;}~"!" ~ 1\ I (f¡ ...~. ~ \ I 0 , ., I 11. <1[ U2 I -. 0 '" æc. ~2 , .-. I I "" I g ..II: ¡..: c::: ""m \:or:. .. a.. "" q I ÈI .~ " t- ~ 0{ L~ 8 ' ,[ g Em f., ~ J(~ I .... "" . ~. I ",.,"''' <II> .. <I I ~~;~ ~~ " / I'" II ~~~~ ~~. ¡!~ I I' iI~œ'" :J:!O ~L ' t)"'-..t I-...~'" I š:'" : '". '~ t I ~,ì ~Ë'; - / J I '-'<;>" .,u ' i If .. I , . ' . ' > ' . ' , . ) '9 I, '\. '~¡' ~'\~rt\";"!".. b " ,....;¡,,~.. \nl~.-J ~ -~:...----:-~-~7.-', .. , fJN!~'I':J~ClN,Vl. , ., '~I ~"':I;;~ "-"a)'" "'.....;>\:1 Ô ~!8~U ;;, l¡L ",J: 5 ~''''''''';IOH¡ (;;II ~ ~~~~g , ~ '~-,õ'-~ô¡'- -,;oc;:¡¡ -~~--- ~-.'õ"¡' ~:: .......;0. ;~~ ;"",,,,,,"O>l'i! ;<:~ ~~g. ÇYII ~~ ~-'::8 ~~ "" ¡o¡t:;:: ~~ i::3 ~:: oj <(:1m 1-.(1-00 "- g<!l >- :J ~ ,J 5<¡) 1 ,".. ::..!:, t ~,,~ ~ ~ o "- 3""> OJ ~ - >;> J !!l ~f~ - u ~ L W'd 99~6-è6Z::'9Ç;9 spe:¡'IL.OJ'if J olpn:¡.s lfIIV L9:9 £OOl 'lG Jaqopo ''-\epsaUpaM Broadway and "E" Street In addition, a 4-foot dedication along the site frontage of "E" Street required by the City Engineer will be provided. The proposed project is subject to Design Review approval by the Design Review Committee. C Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Zone and CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) General Plan designation. The CT Zone allows for the proposed retail and restaurant land use. The project has been reviewed preliminarily by the Design Review Committee and design modifications have been incorporated into the development plans that include building articulations, separate identifications for each store, building mass breakup, site plan redesign, strong corner identification, and creation of a signature Gateway project D. Public Comments On October 1, 2003, a Notice ofInitial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended October 10,2003, No written comments were received, K Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City ofChula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist fonn) detennined that although the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect, there would not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Air Quality The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), The proposed project will result in an increase in air pollutants during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during demolition, grading and construction activities, Although air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are potentially significant, they are considered short-tenn in duration since construction-related activities are a relatively short-tenn activity. Dust control measures required to be implemented during grading operations would be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-tenn construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. The proposed project is consistent with the Thoroughfare Commercial designation of the project site under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan. Therefore, the proposed change of land use and its intensity of development have been included in regional air quality projections and plans. The project would not conflict with or violate any applicable air quality plans or standards. No objectionable odors affecting substantial number of people would result from the proposed restaurant use, as compliance with APCD and County Public 2 Health regulations are required. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts and no mitigation measures are required. Geology and Soils According to the Phase I Environmental Assessment Study, prepared by Ninyo and Moore, dated May 23, 2003, the site is underlain by late Plestocene-age Bay Point Formation with marine sandstone deposits. Based upon preliminary review, the project would not be located on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code, (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. A formal soils study will be required by the Building Division during the building permit process. According to the Engineering Department, a formal geological study is required during the preparation of the final grading plans. Due to the previous development and minimal grading required for the proposed project, no significant geological impacts are anticipated, A formal soils report is also required by the City Engineering Department with the preparation of the final grading plans to determine existing soil conditions and provide foundation and pavement recommendations as well as any soil remediation that may have been required, The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts downstream, Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The implementation of appropriate water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). All portions of the development area disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with SUSMP requirements would be ensured by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage system would be less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Due to the period of inactivity of the service station, in order to assess the potential hazards associated with the project and potential impacts ITom previous gasoline station use, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Phase II ESA were prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated May 23, 2003, and October 13, 2003, respectively. The results of these ESAs are summarized below, The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site identified the following results: a) hazardous substances, petroleum products and unknown substance containers were not observed; however, based upon historical data, previous environmental reports and prior use of the facility, hazardous substances, hazardous waste and petroleum products were previously used at the project site; b) roof mounted product piping was observed and it was unknown if residual oil products still remained; c) evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) were not observed during the site visit; however, the nine USTs known to be previously located on the project site are discussed below; d) superficial staining observed on the concrete floor of 3 the service area of the building during the site visit appeared to be from past battery storage; e) superficial staining was observed in the soil/gravel area north ofthe existing building near the fonner USTs site; f) evidence of previous hydraulic lift equipment and clarifiers or sumps were observed in the service bay area of the existing building; however, according to Conoco Philips, the equipment removal was completed prior to 2001; f) infonnation indicating whether or not soil sampling was conducted at the time of the hydraulic lift and clarifier removal was not available; g) wells, such as water supply and groundwater monitoring wells, were not observed during the site reconnaisance. Previous Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) As noted above, the site previously contained nine USTs; environmental site assessments, remediation plans and activities conducted in the past pertaining to these USTS are summarized below: Two 4,000-gallon fuel USTs and one 2,000-gallon UST were installed at the site in the mid- 1940's and removed from the site in 1967. Due to the inactivity of the vacant UnocallUnion 76 service station and because records were not found indicating sampling conducted in the vicinity of the original USTs removal of 1967, Phase I and Phase II ESAs were conducted on the site by Bryant Geoenvironmental Inc., (BGI). The Phase 1 ESA concluded that there were no significant adverse environmental conditions noted on the property. The Phase II ESA found no evidence of soils impacted by fuel-related hydrocarbons. One 550-gallon waste oil tank and two 9,950-gallon fuel tanks were excavated and removed from the site on August 6, 1990. Soil samplings were collected and analyzed. A December 1995 letter from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) stated that based upon reviewed documents associated with site investigation and remediation programs and associated activities with the related USTs, no further action was required. The letter further stated that if a change in land use is proposed, the owner of the site must notifY the DEH for application review and approval prior to any development (see "Change of Land Use" below). One 500-gallon waste oil UST was removed from the site on June 25, 1996. The tank closure and site clearance was completed and no further action was required by the County of San Diego DEH. Two 12,OOO-gallon fuel USTs and product piping were removed from the site on December 15, 2000, No odors or leakage were discovered at the time of the excavation. The tank closure was completed and no further action was required by the County of San Diego DEH. Hydraulic Hoists/Clarifiers Based upon the findings and recommendations of the Phase I ESA (Ninyo and Moore, 2003), a Phase II ESA was requested by the City ofChula Vista Environmental Section to detennine whether or not contamination associated with the fonner hydraulic hoists and clarifiers exists. 4 Ninyo and Moore conducted four soil borings and collected four soil samples on August 21, 2003, drilling to a maximum depth of 10 feet below ground surface on the project site; two borings were drilled at the approximate locations of the fOTI11er clarifiers and two additional borings were drilled at the approximate locations ofthe fOTI11er hydraulic hoists, The soil samples from the fOTI11er clarifier and hydraulic hoist areas were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel and other fuels using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) test method of the Department of Health Services (DHS) for Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT). Concentrations ofTPH-E were detected above their method detection limits in the four samples at concentrations not exceeding 41 milligrams per kilogram. However, Ninyo and Moore states that these concentrations are below action levels, which City staff confiTI11ed with the County of San Diego DEH (personal communication with Laurie Apecechea on October 9,2003). The concentrations of TPH-G, TPH-D, VOCs, and PCBs were not detected above their reporting limits. Concentrations of metals detected did not exceed their respective Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) as set forth by the 2002 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals document. (PRGs) are conservative screening values used to assess whether additional assessment or remediation may be warranted to protect public health. Therefore, no further soil investigation, remediation or mitigation for petroleum hydrocarbons related to the fOTI11er clarifiers and hydraulic hoists are necessary. Change of Land Use On July 29, 2003, Ninyo and Moore submitted a change ofland use application to the County of San Diego DEH, Voluntary Assistance Program Section, In response, a letter !Tom the County of San Diego DEH/Land and Water Quality Division dated September 10, 2003, was received by the applicant. Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, the County DEH deemed that the proposed change ofland use is acceptable and site clearance was given. Lead and Asbestos Removal Demolition of any structure may create potential asbestos and lead-based paint hazards. Prior to any demolition activities, asbestos and lead-based paint abatement shall be perfoTI11ed by a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation, The mitigation measure contained in Section F below would mitigate potential impacts associated with the release of asbestos and lead to below a level of significance. 5 Hydrology and Water Quality Based on the City of Chula Vista Standard Urban Stonn Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), post-construction pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include trash, debris, oil and grease. Per the requirements set forth in the SUSMP, best management practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated into the project to treat runoff generated by the Water Quality Design Stonn having a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The City Engineer will ensure that the requirements of the SUSMP will be met prior to the issuance of gradinglimprovement or construction pennits for the proposed project. Based upon the requirements of the SUSMP and the City's adopted Stonn Water Management Standards Requirements Manual, construction and post-construction project-related water quality impacts would be less than significant, due to the requirement to incorporate appropriate BMPs into the project, as described below. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Construction BMPs According to the Engineering Department, due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and and the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board will not be required. However, the applicant shall be required to complete Fonn 5504 "Construction Stonn Water Management Plan" (CSWMP) prior to issuance of grading, improvement and construction pennits. During construction, BMPs from the California Best Management Practices Handbook will be used, which have been frequently used on job sites and have been proven effective, Examples of construction BMPs include silt fences, sandbags, and hay bales, which are strategically placed around curb inlets, catch basins, and driveways in order to prevent silt and sediment from entering the stonn drain system. Post-Construction BMPs Proposed post-construction BMPs include reducing the imperviousness of the site by utilizing landscaping throughout the site to allow for increased infiltration. Landscaping is proposed around the perimeters of the project site, within the interior parking area and borders along the building elevations. Landscaping improvements to meet the City requirements is needed thus increasing the proposed nine percent ofthe project site. All trash container areas shall be designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas and be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. Required post-construction BMPs will be subject to the approval of a project-specific water quality study by the City Engineer and may, therefore, vary to some degree from the proposed BMPs described above. However, the overall result must be the same regardless of the specific BMPs approved. The City Engineer will take all necessary steps to ensure that the approved BMPs will be implemented and will be sufficient to treat site runoff prior to exiting the site and entering the public stonn drain system in accordance with the applicable established water quality standards, Transportati on/Circulati on/Parking The proposal is projected to generate 335 average daily one-way trips, Based upon the projected volume of traffic generation, the preparation of a traffic study was not required. 6 Broadway (4 Lane Major) adjacent to the project site currently operates at level of service (LOS) A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. "E" Street (Class I Collector) adjacent to the project site currently operates at LOS A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development Required off-street parking for the project is 18 spaces pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code; 12 spaces for the restaurant use (based upon a maximum of30 non-fixed seats) and 6 spaces for the retail space. Proposed off-street parking is 18 spaces to be provided on-site. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality The following air quality m¡tlgation requirements shall be shown on all applicable demolition, grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. 1. During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such materiaL Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt and debris. 2. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides, front, and back of th,~ cargo container area, and the load shall not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. This measure shall also apply to the transport of any materials associated with demolition, grading, or building activities that can potentially become airborne, 3, Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working order and shall be periodically tuned in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pollutant- emitting construction equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, shall be used as practicaL 4, Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. 5. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-generating activities as neeessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum extent practicable, Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible. Hazards and Hazardous Waste 7 The following hazards mitigation requirement shall be shown on all demolition plans as a note. 6. Asbestos and lead-based paint abatement shall be perfonned by a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 36LI45 - Standards for Demolition and Renovation. G. Consultation L Individuals and Organizations City ofChula Vista: Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Department Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department Gary Williams, Planning and Building Department Xavier Del Valle, Community Development Department Frank Rivera, Engineering Department Alex AI-Agha, Engineering Department JeffMoneda, Engineering Department Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department Ben Herrera, Engineering Department Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering Department Jim Geering, Fire Department Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District Laurie Apecechea, County of San Diego Department of Enviromnental Health 2. Documents City ofChula Vista General Plan, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report, City ofChula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No, 88-2, May 1989, 8 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Fonner Unocal 76 Service Station, 201 Broadway - Chula Vista, California, Ninyo & Moore, May 23,2003. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 201 Broadway - Chula Vista, California, Ninyo & Moore, October 13, 2003. 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 and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator 9 E co ~ ... .... I::. w. ",> ~ ~!",," E > E .. b.· 8 L· c: .. .§ 12> 1§ " o :::: k " .2 .. m Ó··· - ...., " -·.i ro ::".s 8 ;::':: E t :2 E -æ o '-..jj h (.) ~ ;':::;: > .. w ..... _ - ...... 0) 0) en a. "" ,8'.. C C com "'" '" >- ... ~'~ 'c"'" '.'~.".'." ct:: ", Q) Q) (I) ,- c» ...' 0 I'G ~ ~ ~ ü c .. Con. :;:,._ '+:;.,_ ~._ :;:'ï:: 'I'll I/) r:::: 0) r:::: OJ C 0) C Q) '" w ~c: ~~ ~"~m o '" >.... = w.. = w.. = w.. = ,5 " §:.~g. §:£ar §:~g- §:g> 0... «00 «00 «00 «W ø ......¡;¡ z J!FIII .¡:;:: ",8 fX' 0,.;.) '0 .... c =<0 "a, 0 ,2 '§..g >< X >< >< w CD 1ôco ]1:: .5 ~ "C""" '.. E·- ,....,;.1 Q'-G:1~! >< >< >< Q) 2 I- > ø:.<o ..... :c... 0 m ~ ~ I- C) :! '" Z ~ ~ æ o ... c () Q) Q) Q) - .... 0 :!:::!:;: .~:!:: Z 0._ I> en en (.f) (.f) o H i!" i!~ i!c i!c :e =!E 1?g 1?g 1?2 1?g z ~G:1 ü¡fi u~ ()~ u~ 0'· ><.: Co. Co. Co. Co. rn ~ ro ø rn ~ rn 00 ¡:: ã: c: ([.s õ:.s ä:.s ,<C c C VI Q)"U VJ . ø Q) 0)-0'-. 3: I (ij a. C (ij tI) (ij (1) :s -- ..... .0,5 c~.9.g Q) § .:: a.~ ctI.õ ï::Æ .5 c .5:?~ 0 ... 15grn.crn (1)£:0= .æ :Jõrn-e $5 -0.- õëõ.c ~ ~E.srn~ i ~sg §rnEQ)Æ~~rn ctlti ê¡~~~~~ -=:: .... v ro > u .c: (1) ..c. L.. '-.c :;¡::;¡ 8 Ct:I a. If) E rn ,_ C -.- a. a. .. 2~~¡Š ~.c~~i ~2-E Q)~~~O) ß2õ~VJ~VJ ~roo~u 3:;~58 cnrn~e(ij£rn~~S .5~Q)~rnrn~ Eci~u vODe Q)~~~~SQ)~-~ ~~~£itE Q) '~~:ê'~ ~¥~M~ 8~§~~8~~~~ lr8ê~~~~ ~ o-i.:fI Q).c: "0'- co --c'o -'¡:;OE 0)'0 ...,..:1 O)o>'s:2ta:: tJ).s~....{g Æõõ'-O) 0).:,i0) II) .a> roO)rña.::>O) :; .... ¿c: ('IJ- ,~~.... 2:" .!:? C/J c.~£ rn co.E æ O>E .s::: a.,~·3(ij ~B G) 5 0 ~ C/J.Œ 15.a 0) « 0) -f. -c:'!::: C/J 0) () O).Œ -=.~ 0 ~ ~ E cr..r=. c: ~ ~ ,~~IJ)C: ro~ c ~rtI....c....O)a.c -C.a -~O)O)IJ)~~ ;~õ~O)E ~,!:?rtI~ro >20('IJ~.s:::$8~~~ ~=_CJclJ) C ,2> IJ)C 'OüE.~~ ,!!;!o>"':£~':::;: _o>ro -~COCo'O :.S! :=:E('IJ~c C('IJO)....(} ccro.... OroOO.O) ~Vl19~O)_O) - Em E a .... - 0) .., ..... 'C 0) ro 0>_ C E _ <.> Em m co -Co ,!:: ctla.ro-row oEO)....O)'ð ~....>.o IJ)'O=;:J >a. .!? ~ ~ iii e ~ !; 11)"3 E ~, ::= 8. ~ m æ rtI -g ~ o..ª 8 ë ffi g, -t; ,~ ~ ~ ~ =~O)-W -cro,W rolJ) roIJ)EC.....aO)O)D.OO) 0).... ccr- ~ ~~Õ~IJ) ¿ct::'5.s::::.§ uCQ)oO)"X£ctlE.c EO),=oO)'O,~ cr·-c-~ o8ro~lJ)Q) .s:::~.s:::c.~cQ)_OO)>, a.-crtlü"ffi> ....0.. ..!!;!£::' :.:= IJ)~IJ) ro-c ~-- O)jg roõ 0!!l-c16 'S 0 Q) o>~ C l{) 'ffiD.$lã)u glJ)oQ;~-C ~IDa..ce...;cO)ctI.s:::~ gOJ.~,C:O)B~ C") >- 0) ro "it; -c 0) .... ro c > ro e 0) - ~ - 8 c: = 0= :os; e e E E 3: c ".. o ~ e=~ .s::: ~ aOero ü£~1J) 0ro"ro>2 C'-~EOro> I - ,_ ro 0) 0) _ c: 0.,_ _ a _ c..r=..... ~ Q).:: .s::: 0) .s::: -c a 0 ~ ,- a..a '0 C") --J ~e-C.c>. 8~lJ)e'--= roQ)O)E.s::: -IJ)....IJ)Q)D. :;:::;OE<f>,....Q) 9« .QOIJ)Õ.c ã.a5O)õ-c 'E>ð-'::~"Q)~-e ü~aëTI.a'O if) ðÕC:roco> 0>0)0.E2-c R'<:j-'ü,~o-crog~,~~ .s....-ro,:::.!!:!fi5: - -~ê=,5 ,~~~~~B ö~~Q)O)~g~=o 1J)~Q;~õ-cD. ro Çf.2?,g.!E~:¡:: 5~lJ)oe8~ rtlM:;)-ro.gO)Q)Q)Q)¡Z-ro ðe'E~~o~ û) <t-tJ)a.IJ)~ Oo~E ~ ENEEQ)£-5£Ero-5 Üa.OD.Q)Cf.)1J) :> ' ro c~ - 0 :J :Web ~ rtI~ . .. o 0):1 ~ N M "1' ~ E:g --, ::Em :::: ::E E ¡\) C 'C -2 '¡;: 0 ::; c 0 ~ ., ;:¡ ë. 0> ¡,-O õ~ :;0,'.0 Co> ~O> ,_ .0 Õ. 'OJ 0..0 <!w X .... CD X N :c ~ '" 00 I- '" p. 2 Uj 1;.0 .0 0> 0 Bi5 .0 0> .!!!5r a. .0 ..l. _ ~ 0> ~ ê '0 :0 -£ '0 g ~õ urJg> . '~g>.....'õ1::: s: c::= ,- Q) C ,_ fJ)"O :J Q) ~ ~ ~~"5 g "'C5:J«'O.... _ 0 ro 00::: ro ~--c'O -00::1 rn t)=·£õ ð '2$~Æ~~ iii ~ ~ rñE æ '§.c'E.o§:,Q fJ) ~ï= r3 fO ~ ë 1/)"" ð'!!!O::: Q)ro¡g:¡:,0-c Q) ro'Ë t5 Q) 'Ë EjcE!oc ~õo~~Q) Q)...ro:J.þCO u ro-E- C.m(;; ro$'Eg'ÕÕ 0 ~ 8 ~-.c::J -0(/)0.... "0 (I) roæfJ)-o ro'ÕJ~-cü;E £ 1/)_00_$- ë~rocCÕ ~ (I)(J)CI)>(c:g -¡ô-ocrogE ~-5~Ë&:J c. c'- fJ) ::I Q) :;: c~ C:J ro ~ -croo~=D :;: Q)'C..... ro 0... ~ g~ (/.~o~ (/)W~:æ~.2 M 0"'" ro x.Þ ro fJ) ... ,-.- f/) " 2~IDro8-ð' :¿~ë~«'E M ..... u,_ E c:: 0 (/ o:!:: Q) -- ro.- 8 Q) ~ro iJ <I)-..........c"O '" 8ro~..c:t?3: - ro c"O ::I C >, "" ... 0"'" :J C -0 >. Q) C 8.!9 "0 0 (1) roo'O 0 c~Ero (/) " -o.J:: _... M ~õg>II)OO ro"O a>$ 0 I '^ 0 ro "':p § OJ ... ¡g Q) ro .s g>1.O :g ch g-::~'¡¡j'§~.22 .... E.o f/'- "<t - ~*ê'!!!~æ~ ID 2) ctI__O","": ] .D't:-C~c,- co <:(~&~33'> ~ ~m o~~ ;;: 1;; ë2 :> <! co ~ "3 '" <Ò cD " () 'õ 0 '" " --, §:; ::; " ~'f? --- ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CflYOF CHULA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: MJK Real Estate Holding Co" LLC 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent: 4913 Convoy Street 858-268-3500 4. Name of Proposal: MJK Chula Vista 5. Date of Checklist: October 15, 2003 6, Case No. IS-03-035 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS, Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 · b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 0 0 0 · but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 · quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, 0 0 0 · which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site. b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, the project area is within the Chula Vista Urban Core and "E" Street is identified as an existing Urban Core Gateway. The project proposes access via unsignalized driveways along Broadway and "E" Street. Landscape treatments along Broadway and "E" Street are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to the Broadway and "E" Street corridor are positive, The project site contains no scenic resources and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway. c) The project site is located within an established urbanized area of Central Chula Vista. Surrounding land uses consist of commercial/retail uses to the north, south and west, and a medical office and single-and multi-family uses to the east and southeast. The proposed project consists of a change of land use from a vacant gas station to restaurant and retail uses that would not result in a change in the retail commercial character of the project site nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic impact to the neighborhood. Proposed improvements along the site's street frontages include sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, realignment of driveway accesses along Broadway and "E" Street, and landscaped pedestrian pathway from Broadway to "E" Street along the west and north comers of the site, On-site improvements include parking lot improvements, new landscaping and decorative hardscape throughout the project site, building at the comer of Broadway and "E" Street with outside dining areas facing Broadway are anticipated to have a positive aesthetic effect. Therefore, the project wou1d not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, d) Compliance with the glare regulations (Section 19,66-100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is ensured through the building pennit process. These regulations dictate that no substantial glare, direct or sky-reflected glare, would effect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area nor shall be visible at the lot line of an establishment or use, Miti(ation: No mitigation measures are required, II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 . Farmland of Statewide hnportance (Fannland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the F annland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 0 0 0 . a Williamson Act contract? 2 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact C) Involve other changes in the existing environment, 0 0 0 . which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFmrnland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a-c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources or designated fannland. m, AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 0 · applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 . 0 0 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result m a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 · increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project regIOn IS non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pol1utant 0 0 0 · concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantia] D D D . number of people? 3 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section K Miti2ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or D D D · through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian D D D · habitat or other sensitive natural connnunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US, Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally D D D · protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any D D D · native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances D D D · protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 0 · Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site was previously developed with a full-service gas station. Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan the project area is designated as a developable area; based upon a field inspection by City staff no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area, b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no sensitive natural conununities are present within or inunediately adjacent to the proposed development area. c) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no wetlands are present within or inunediately adjacent to the proposed development area. d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area, e) No biological resources would be affected by the proposal and no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would result. f) No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is a designated development area pursuant to the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change III the 0 0 0 · significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines § 150645? b) Cause a substantial adverse change III the 0 0 0 · significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 150645? 5 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact C) Direct]y or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 · paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0 0 0 · outside of fonna] cemeteries? Comments: a) No historic resources are known or are expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated, b) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for cultural resources in the City's General Plan EIR. Based on the low potentia] for resources, the level of previous disturbance to the site, and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the proposed project, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. c) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resources in the City's Genera] Plan EIR, Based on the low potential for resources, the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading for the proposed project, the potential for impacts to paleontological resource or is considered to be less than significant. No unique geologic features are present on the site, d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, VI, GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potentia] substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: L Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 · delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 6 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 1L Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 · 0 111, Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 · liquefaction? IV. Landslides? 0 0 0 · b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 · 0 topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 · 0 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial 0 0 · 0 risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 0 0 · use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 · environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 7 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 . 0 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0 0 · acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 . 0 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use 0 0 0 · plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 · airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere 0 0 0 · with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 · loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? 8 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, VITI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Would the project: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to 0 0 · 0 receiving waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303( d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 0 · 0 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g" the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 · 0 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 0 . site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place structures within a I DO-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 · loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would 0 0 . 0 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 · b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 0 0 · regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0 0 0 · plan or natural community conservation plan? 10 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) The proposed restaurant and retail project would be consistent with the character of the stnTounding area and, therefore, would not disrupt or divide an established community. b) The project site is within the CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Zone and CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) General Plan designations, The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and the General Plan. c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmenta] plans or policies, Furthennore, the project would not encroach into or indirectly affect the Habitat Preserve area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 0 . resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 0 0 . important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of California, b) Pursuant to the Environmenta1 Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 0 · 0 in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 0 · groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise 0 0 · 0 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 0 0 · 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 · or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 0 · would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issu es: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: (a, c and d) Due to the distance between the project site and nearby single-family neighborhood to the east and buffering created by the proposed commercial building, the development of the project is not anticipated to result in any significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, compliance with the noise control ordinance of the ChuJa Vista Mlll1icipal Code, which regulates the maximum one-hour average sOlll1d level that can be generated at the property line, is mandatory for any activities occurring on-site. b) It is not anticipated that persons will be exposed to excessive grolll1dbome vibration or noise levels, as there will not be any heavy industrial equipment or machinery operated on-site beyond short-term construction activities. e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, ±) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XII, POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 0 0 0 · either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other inftastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0 0 0 · necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 · necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) No housing development is proposed that would induce substantial population growth in the area or require substantial infrastructure improvements. Based upon the size and nature of the proposal, no population growth inducement is anticipated, The project is an allowable retail use per the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the General Plan land use designation. b) Because no housing cUITently exists on the project site, no displacement of housing would occur. c) Because no housing cUITently exists on the project site, no displacement of persons would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the project: a) Result m substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, m order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: Fire protection? 0 0 0 · Police protection? 0 0 0 · Schools? 0 0 0 · Parks? 0 0 0 · Other public facilities? 0 0 0 · 14 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) According to the Fire Department, proper fire truck turning radius and circulation has been planned; therefore, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site. As of September 2003, additional fire stations such as Fire Station 4 and Fire Station 7 on the eastern side of the City have been developed and are in operation to improve fire services and response times throughout the City, The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services, The City perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result. Furthennore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building pennit school fees for the proposed new commercial building. d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not induce significant population growth and thus not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities, e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure, XN, RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of eXlstmg neighborhood and 0 0 0 . regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or 0 0 0 . require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ]S Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which would have an adverse impact on the environment. According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in D D . D relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level D D D · of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including D D D · either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design D D D · feature (e,g" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D · 16 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 . 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 0 0 · supporting alternative transportation (e,g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section R Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 0 · applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 0 · wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm 0 0 0 · water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which couId cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 0 0 · project ITom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 17 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment D D D . provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted D D . D capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and D D . D regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project b) See XVI.a, No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would be necessary, c) See XVI.a. No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary, d) The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from existing potable water mains, No new or expanded entitlements are anticipated for the proposed project e) See XVI.a, and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to met the solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law, g) The proposal would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 18 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A Library 0 0 0 . The City shaIl construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shaIl be phased such that the City wiIl not faIl below the city- wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed, B) Police 0 0 · 0 a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shaIl respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency caIls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency caIls of 5 5 minutes or less, b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent caIls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" caIls of 75 minutes or less, e) Fire and Emergency Medical 0 0 · 0 Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fIre and medical units shall respond to calls tlrroughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% ofthe cases (measured annuaIly). D) TraffIc 0 0 · 0 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west ofl-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS, No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with fi-eeway ramps are exempted fi-om this Standard, 19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issu es: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact E) Parks and Recreation Areas 0 0 0 . The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and comrmmity parkland with appropriate facilities/I ,000 population east ofI-80S, F) Drainage 0 0 · 0 The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer 0 0 · 0 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. H) Water 0 0 · 0 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. 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, 20 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: a) The project is not a housing development; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project The proposed commercial retail project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be provided to the site, As of September 2003, additional fire stations such as Fire Station 4 and Fire Station 7 on the eastern side of the City have been developed and are in operation to improve fire services and response times throughout the City. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, based upon the project traffic generated, all roadways segments and intersections within the study area are estimated to operate at levels of service "c" or better in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standards. e) Because the project site is located west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable. f) A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the fmal grading and improvement plans and drainage facilities designed in accordance with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering standards will be installed at the time of site development. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of a l2-inch sewer line running southerly along Broadway on the west side of the project site and an lO-inch sewer line running southerly along East Park Lane (private road) on the east side of the project site. The Engineering Department has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project h) Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority, dated June 30, 2003, there is a l2-inch water main located on the east side of Broadway, and a l6-inch water main located on the north side of "E" Street. Their records indicate that there is one existing water service to the property, The Authority and the City work together, through the Water Management Program, to ensure that the existing water facilities are adequate to meet the added demands prior to the issuance of any building permits, Project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant 21 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XVIII, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 0 0 · quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 0 · limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which 0 0 0 · will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is currently developed, is located within an established urbanized area, and is within the designated development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site, b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. No cwnulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified and none are contemplated. c) See the "Hazards" discussion in Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; potential impacts associated with the demolition of existing buildings and improvements containing asbestos-containing materials would be mitigated to below a Jevel of significance. 22 XIX, PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-035. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the !ine(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 shall indicate the Applicant's and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approvaL [)fJVID ßAt//Y} Pté'OJF;el /'1 r;æ.. Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of ~ert~ownL /D/U)tJ3 Sign~f 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] 23 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 previous pages, o Land Use and Planning DTransportationlT raffic o Public Services o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral o Aesthetics Resources o Agricultural Resources o HydrologylWater . Hazards and Hazardous o Cultural Resources Materials . Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Paleontological o Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources 24 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, 0 and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed, 0 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 ElR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this detennination. Marilyn RT Ponseggi Date Environmental Review Coordinator City ofChula Vista J :\Planning\MARJA \Initial S tudy\IS,03..Q35Checklist.doc 25