HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/08/28
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church
Multipurpose Building
PROJECT LOCATION: 1603 and 1611 Fresno Avenue
337 Tremont Street
341 Anita Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 623-132-01,623-132-02,623-132-03, and 623-131-14
PROJECT APPLICANT: Reverend Mario Vesga
Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church
CASE NÜ: IS-03-004
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: August 28. 2003
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
k Proiect Setting
The L61-acre project site, comprised of four parcels located in the urbanized central
southwestern portion of the City ofChu]a Vista, is located at 1603 and 1611 Fresno Avenue,
347 Tremont Street and 345 Anita Street (see Exhibit A - Location Map). The proposed site
of the new multipurpose building is comprised of three parcels totaling 22,484 square feet;
one parcel containing the existing multipurpose building (1603 Fresno A venue), one vacant
parcel (1611 Fresno A venue), and one parcel that contains the church rectory and garage
(347 Tremont Street). The Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church is located at 341 Anita
Street, at the southeast corner of Anita Street and Fresno A venue, immediately north of the
existing and proposed multipurpose building site, The land uses surrounding the site of the
proposed expanded church complex are as follows:
North: Mobilehome park
South: Single- and multi-family residences
East: Single-family residences
West: Montgomery Elementary School
B. Proiect Description
The existing Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church multipurpose building, which is
accessible via Fresno A venue and the alley off Tremont Street to the south, contains 4,000
square feet of floor area; 14 off-street parking spaces exist on the site of the existing
multipurpose building. The existing Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church site, located
immediately north of the existing and proposed multipurpose building site, contains a so-
1
llJULJ
OJoc1IlJ]
DO rn
EEffiHfEB 88 m
fT~:,= M~][~ R 8 ~a
~ PARK MOBILE HOME DO;
~ PARK DO
ffi[] ~ªR 8§
ANITA ST
PROJECT [
MONTGOMERY lOCITION
ELEMENTARY i:i II n
I SCHOOL ~ U
> w
« æ
i ITÏTIÌÏÌÏÌJ 0IlII[TJ]] 0IIIIJJIill;[
ITIJ]]] EŒIIIIJJ i:i U~~~~ rrrm [
ZENITH ST rr---=rD!DIlIIIIJ]]J [
=rnIIJJ DIIJ ffiI]D [[[[]I[] t
MAIN ST
I (MAIN SQUAREJ- ,-- [
AUTO
STRAWBERRY \--CEbtIEJL
FIELD
SELF
J____ '" S<~~RAGE
I , ~CILlTY
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT REV. MARlOVESGA, PASTOR INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT, 1603/1611 FRESNO sT. Request: Our Lady of Guadalupe Church is proposing
ADDRESS, 337 TREMONT ST and 341 ANITA ST construction of a new multipurpose building. DRC,
SCAlE FILE NUMBER: CUP,Variance and IS for environmental is required
NORTH No Scale IS-03-004(rev) for the proposed use.
Exhibit A
space parking lot. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the ex!stmg
multipurpose building, rectory and garage and the construction of a new 12,051 square-foot
multipurpose building (8,840 square-foot ground floor level and 3,231 square-foot basement
level) with 24 off-street parking spaces on the consolidated 22,484 square-foot site (see
Exhibit B - Site Plan). For activities occurring at the multipurpose building, the 50-space
parking lot on the church site immediately to the north will be available for use, totaling 74
off-street parking spaces to serve the proposed new facility.
The proposed multipurpose building would contain an auditorium, an office, four classrooms,
a kitchen, restrooms, storage rooms on the ground level and basement storage area, which
would allow for the expansion of programs to meet the needs of the Our Lady of Guadalupe
parish. Additional proposed on-site improvements include a new six-foot masonry wall
along the eastern property line, landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, and curb, gutter and
sidewalk improvements along Tremont Street and Fresno Avenue. In accordance with City
standards, a 4-foot widening of the alley along the southern boundary of the project site is
required,
The following deviations from the development regulations ofthe R2 Zone are proposed: (1)
an increase in the maximum allowable height of 28 feet to 32.5 feet; and (2) a reduction in
the minimum front yard setback of 15 feet to 5 feet. A height deviation within the R2 Zone
requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, which will be considered by the P]anning
Commission, The proposed setback rcduction requires the granting of a Variance by the
Planning Commission. Furthennore, the proposal requires Design Review approval by the
Design Review Committee and the consolidation of the three lots comprising the
multipurpose building site.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The project site is zoned R2P (One and Two Family Residential/Precise Plan) and is
designated RLM (Rcsidential/Low-Medium Density) under the adopted General Plan, The
R2P Zone allows for the proposed height deviation to be considered through a Conditional
Use Penn it, whereas the proposed front yard setback deviation requires the granting of a
Variance; based upon staffs evaluation, no aesthetic impacts or impacts to the character of
the neighborhood would result from the approval of the proposed height deviation and front
yard setback Variance. The project has been reviewed preliminarily by the Design Review
Committee and design modifications have been incorporated into the development plans that
include bui]ding articulations, building height adjustment, and the blending and matching of
architecturc, materia]s and color to the existing church.
D. Public Comments
On November 2,2002, a Notice ofIni!ial Study was circulated to property owners within a
500-foot radius of the proposed project sitc, The public review period ended November 12,
2002, No written comments were received.
2
Community Meetinz
A Community Meeting was held on July 21,2003 at the existing multipurpose building to
present the proposed project and to solicit input regarding the proposal from residents in the
area. No environmental issues were identified by members of the public during the meeting.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist form) 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.
TransportationlCircu lationlParking
Based upon the proposed increase in the size of new multipurpose building compared to the
existing, the proposal is projected to generate 245 average daily vehicle trips beyond the
volume of traffic generated by the current facility. Based upon the projected level of traffic
generation and the level of service of the surrounding street network, the City's Engineering
Department has detennined that the proposal does not have the potential to result in any
significant traffic impacts; therefore, the prcparation of a traffic study was not necessary,
Anita Avenue (Class II Collector) in the vicinity of the project site currently operates at level
of scrvice (LOS) A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project
development. Third Avenue (Class I Collector) in the vicinity of the project site currently
operates at LOS B and is projected to continue to operate at LOS B after project
development. Frcsno Avenue and Tremont Street are residential streets; no operational
problems are known to exist on these streets and none are anticipated after project
development.
Based upon the proposed maximum occupancy of the new multipurpose building of260
persons, required off-street parking is 74 spaces pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code
requirement of one parking space per 35 persons for assembly uses, Proposed off-street
parking consists of74 spaces, comprised of24 spaces on the multipurpose building site and
the existing 50 spaces on the church site immediately to the north, In the event that the
occupancy ofthe multipurpose building were to excced the proposed maximum level, the
projcct would potentially impact on-street parking in the surrounding residential
neighborhood; therefore, the maximum occupancy of the facility will be limited through a
condition of approval, as outlined below in Section F, Similarly, if activities at the church
and multipurpose building were to occur simultaneously or with little or no gap bctween
them, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood could result; therefore, the project would be
conditioned to prohibit the concurrcnt scheduling of activities at the two facilities and
requiring a minimum 45-minute gap betwccn activities, as outlined below in Section F.
3
Noise
The new multipurpose building is proposed to be situated within the northwestern portion of
the site, fronting Fresno A venue and Tremont Street, with parking provided along the eastern
boundary of the site between the building and adjacent residential development to the east
and to the south of the alley. The auditorium is proposed within the eastern portion of the
multipurpose building, buffered from adjacent residential development by space within the
building to be utilized for cJassroom, office, kitchen, and storage uses. Four non-fixed
windows are proposed along the western building elevation and the auditorium, facing
Fresno Avenue, more than 400 feet from the buildings on the Montgomery Elementary
School site to the west.
The activities to be conducted within the new auditorium are proposed to be the same as
those presently conducted in the auditorium of the existing multipurpose building.
According to City code enforcement records, no noise complaints associated with the
existing multipurpose building have been received. Due to the buffering of the auditorium
from adjacent residences by additional building area to the south and east of the auditorium
and the substantial distance between the auditorium and the buildings on the school site to
the west, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant noise impacts to
noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity. Furthennore, compliance with the noise
control ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which regulates the maximum one-
hour average sound level that can be generated at the property line, is mandatory for any
activities occurring on-site.
Aesthetics
The City's Design Review Committee provided input to the applicant during preliminary
review workshops. Based upon this input, the applicant made revisions to their proposal to
address the Committee's comments regarding building mass, height, and architectural
compatibility with the existing Church. The final revisions to the original proposal incJude a
reduction in the maximum building height from 34 feet to 325 feet, architectural features to
eliminate the "box-type" style and blend with the architectural design of the Church,
movement of the location of the multipurpose building on the site, and reduction of occupant
seating inside the multipurpose building.
The height limit within the RlP zone is 28 feet or two and one-half stories, The proposed
maximum height of the multipurpose building is 32.5 feet, compared with the maximum
heights of the Church of approximately 34 feet (excJuding the tower elements). The
surrounding single-family building heights are as follows; the one-story, single-family
residence to the east is approximately 13 feet in height and the two-story, single- family
residence immediately south of the alley is approximately 24 feet in height.
The highest element of the multipurpose building is roughly within the western-central
portion of the structure, with the roollines slopping down towards the perimeter of the
building, The eastern portion ofthe building, which is nearest the existing one-story, single-
family residence to the cast, is equivalent in height to a single-story building, Furthennore, a
new six-foot high masonry wall and landscaping, including four trees, are proposed along the
4
eastern property line (with the exception of the front yard setback area) that provides some
aesthetic buffer-
Along Tremont Street (front yard), the property line is approximately 25 feet from the face of
the curb. The Engineering Department does not anticipate the need to widen Tremont Street
in the future; therefore, project and frontage improvements, induding landscaping and
hardscape within the street right-of-way and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the same
location as existing are acceptable to the Engineering Department Therefore, despite the
proposed 5-foot front yard setback, the proposed multipurpose building would be
approximately 24 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
Based upon the site layout of the proposed building along the frontages of Fresno Avenue
and Tremont Street, the lower project site elevation in relation to the adjacent eastern and
southern single family residential areas, the architectural compatibility with the existing
Church, the new masonry wall and landscaping along the eastern property boundary, and
enhanced landscaping throughout the remainder of the site create a compatibility with the
existing surrounding single-family and multifamily residential community and would not
result in negative aesthetic impacts.
Water OualitvlDrainage
The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage study prepared by CDS Civil Engineers dated
January 3,2003, which was deemed adequate by the Engineering Department A final
drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and
improvement plans. Based upon the findings of the preliminary drainage study, the
Engineering Department has detennined that no significant impacts to the City's storm
drainage system wouId result from the proposed development Properly designed drainage
facilities will be required to be installed at the time of site development to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer-
Construction and post-construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be
required to be incorporated into the project in order to minimize discharge of pollutants into
the stonn drainage system, in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted
Standard Urban Stonn Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Stonn Water Management
Standards Requirements ManuaL During construction, BMPs from the California Best
Management Practices Handbook, which have proven to be effective, will be implemented.
ExampIes 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.
The proposed project would not rcsuIt in any significant water quality impacts or si¡''111ficant impacts
to the existing stonn drainage system serving the project site,
5
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
T raffi cl Circulation/P arkin g
The following mitigation measures shall be included in Conditional Use Pennit No, PCC-04-
014 as conditions of approval and shall not be deviated from unless approved in writing by
the City's Environmental Review Coordinator:
1. The church and multipurpose facilities shall not be used concurrently. A 45-minute gap
shall be maintained at all times between scheduled as well as non-scheduled activities
held at the church and multipurpose facility.
2. The occupancy of the multipurpose building shall not exceed 260 persons at any time.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City ofChula Vista:
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Departmcnt
Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department
John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department
Maria MueH, Planning and Building Department
Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department
Harold Phelps, Planning and Building Department
Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department
Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department
Miguel Tapia, Community Development Department
Frank Rivera, Engineering Department
Alex Al-Agha, Engineering Department
JeffMoneda, Engineering Department
Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Department
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department
Majed Al-Ghafry, Engineering Department
Jim Geering, Fire Department
Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office
Others:
Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 1989.
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General P1an Update, ElR No,
88-2, May 1989.
6
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Drainage Study for Our Lady of Guadalupe ~ Chula Vista, California, CDS Civil
Engineers, January 3, 2003.
Geotechnical Feasibility for Development - Our Lady of Guadalupe Multi-purpose
Building, 301 Tremont, Chula Vista - Geotechnical Exploration, Inc" September 10,
2002.
3, Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Chula Vista. Further information 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
7
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Our Ladv of Guadaluve Catholic Church Multivurvose Building - IS-OJ-004
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church Multipurpose
Building. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated Negative
Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-004). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that
adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative
Declarations,
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
L T raffi c/Circulati onJP arki ng
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall
be responsible to ensure that the conditions ofthe Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written form
confinuing compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-03-004 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 Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-03-004, 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.
J :\PJanning\!\.1ARJA \lnilial Sludy\IS,O] ,004 MM RPtcxt.doc
"
0
9
'"
0
ch
ø
ë
~
E
E
0
u
" ~
~ "
ø 0
C. ø
E :§
0
u :E
" O>~ ~1i
:¡; c "-
'§ ~ ï:: a>
:E '~~ §~
ct "'0>
0.. Il.c Il.c
II:: 11.11. :;, ,- :;,-
ø c:» c:»
CI ~ ro·::; ~.~
0 0: g", ,- '"
c." c."
~ II:: "-c "-c
w Do « .. «..
-' CI
m -~
Z -- x x
<i 00
>- ~ "-u
~~
0 _ c c_
Do 0.2 ï::C;
,0
W 0" cu
II:: c u
·Ë~ ~
c .-
t=~ . c
Z "-0 -
ct u
u
CI 0: on
"
Z ;:; X X "-
¡¡:: ü
0
!:: _c
z 00
-o+- Õ -
0 o ~ 0
:E =~ c_ c_
o .. 0..
~ . :;::; > :¡:¡;:.
Z :;;" ï3~ :C¡?
0 > c "- c,,-
0,,- 0,,-
¡:: u.. u..
ct -"
CI o ~ ~~
¡:: c ø >
- c 0 ~iU-c.i Õ
~ -g~8: 4>-ga>;: c
""" .!J c'3 t) "
~ c õ'(ijuJ!!
:g8~~ ~
c .š~ ~ ø
~ ~ §.~ mcu~~ 0>
c
=~E~ .c:Eé,- ~
'" ~ "'00 :~ g.Q ~
'5 ~ CJ ~.¢.::::§ ~~~~ D u
:E ~ ~ 0
.. Z <l)O-ce: ø ~
~ '" <I.J I Q) Q) o ' :D
J:: :;; .u-E <t\<I)w-o "-~
0 OC ::JO,~ c: -Q.~c ~.~ or
~ c « ~ 0.. ã; e 11) rn UJ ro '"
~ 0 11. !/) 0) en ..c "-- ¿
J:: '" ID6""O;; g,2 'D ~ :;:;>.
Z EZIDc - c 2
u '" ~ '"
'" 0 c__.DW ~.~"* È E_ ~
,~ ¡:: ,g'~ g-~ ~ '" 0
"õ ~ :;:; E'D Ü ~ ø 'i'
:'i ~(I)_.~ :; ,11) (]) - c .0
J:: ElO.J::-c 0
:::> :;::;Q.C¡:¡u ~u- - 0 ~
- o ø
'" U 'E ~ ~~ -g«~ro ",.
ü 0:: u ~ >,
CJ)~ 'D...... .. (t :>. w:2 c"- ~
" õ C_c>-'- -5~~~ "'0 3
Õ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "-<0 ~
:J :s ¡gË:ß ~N
ñi ¡¡: Eol'IJc:c U" "
:E:§e:.g'E ~ ,- g ~ '00
1:J U. u 13 (1)'-5 ë
'" ~ Q) c: a. S: 0 Q) c: Q).- ~ ~ ;:¡
:J .c 0 c. 0 £oEõ ~ x
t'J f- 1-0 (t ,!:,O I- u:;::; ro f- ~ õ2
- c Ó «
0 2
oZ
1:J :;:;Q) Ô¡,
.. ~ c
'" o~ - N ë
-' :e~ §
~
:J :;;~ ~
0 :;;
-
Case No.IS-03-004
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Reverend Mario Vesga
Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church
2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 341 Anita Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911-4198
(619) 422-3977
4. Name of Proposal: Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church
Multipurpose Building
5. Date of Checklist: August 28, 2003
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant UIÙeSS Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposar
a) Conflict with general plan designation or D D D "
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or D D D "
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the proj ect?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g., D D D "
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an D D D "
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)'!
Comments: The proposed 12,071 square-foot church multipurpose building is consistent with the
existing R-2P zoning designation and the Low-Medium Residential General Plan desIgnation of the
property. The established surrounding land uses are the church and auxiliary uses, single- and multi-
family residential uses and a public elementary schooL The proposed project wi]] not disrupt or divide
the physical arrangement of the established community, No agricultural resources are present on-site
or in the immediate vicinity,
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
Potentially
Significant Lessth.an
Potentially Dnress Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Im",ct
Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal'
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 "
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 "
directly or indirectly (e,g" through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
inrrastructure )?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 "
housing?
Comments: The proposed project would not create local or regional population growth, The proposal
includes the demolition of the rectory; the loss of the existing rectory is not considered a significant
loss of housing, The project would not require the extension of major inrrastructure since there are
adequate water and sewer lines and access to the project site according to the Engineering Department.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
Pott'utially
Significant ussthan
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
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 "
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 " 0
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 " 0
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 "
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 " 0
2
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 " 0
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion, which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of peop1e or property to geologic 0 0 0 "
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
a) A geotechnical investigation of the project site was conducted by Geotechnical Exploration,
Inc., the results of which are contained in their report entitled "Geotechnical Feasibility for
Development - Our Lady of Guadalupe Multi-purpose Building, 30 I Tremont, Chula Vista,
California," dated September 10,2002. The purpose of the investigation was to observc and
sample prevailing soil conditions underlying the site and to provide recommendations relative
to geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The scope of the investigation included
a site reconnaissance, field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses,
The field investigation was perfonned on August 30, 2002, and consisted of the advancement
of 7 exploratory excavations across the site. The excavations were advanced to a maximum
depth of 7'6" below adjacent grade, The soils encountered during the field investigation
consisted of undocumented fill and fonnational soils ofthe Bay Point Fonnation,
Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation and is not anticipated to
significantly impact the proposed development. The report recommends that existing
undocumented fill soils be removed from the site and replaced with imported, compacted,
clean fill soils,
According to the Engineering Department, the proposed project will require a grading pennit
due to the anticipated 500 cubic yards of earth to be excavated and approximately 290 cubic
yards of filL Based upon the results of the geotechnical investigation, the proposed project is
considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering point of view provided the structure is
designed in accordance with the applicable building regulations and provided the engineering
recommendations contained in the report are followed,
b - g) See IILa. above,
Mitigation: No mitigijtion measures required,
Potentially
Significant Less than
PotenHaUy Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Im~cl
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in,'
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 " 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
3
b) Exposure of people or property to water re1ated D D D "
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration D D " D
of surface water quality (e.g" temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any D D " D
waler body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction D D D "
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either D D " D
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of D D D "
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? D D D "
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood D D D "
waters?
j) Substantia1 reduction in thc amount of water D D D "
otherwise availab1e for public water supplies?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E
Mitigation: No mitigation measures required,
Pot{'otiaUy
Putentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposur
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to D 0 "
0
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pol1utants? 0 0 D
"
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0
"
or cause any change in c1imate, either 10cal1y or
regional1y?
4
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 ø
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 ø
0
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
a) Grading and construction of the proposed multipurpose building would temporarily create dust
and construction cquipmcnt emissions, Bascd upon the limitcd extent of site grading, short-
tenn construction-related dust and emissions are not considered to be a significant impact.
Standard dust control measures would be implemented, including watering exposed soils and
street sweeping and required as construction notes on the grading and improvement plans.
According to the Traffic Engineering Section, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes
projected to be generated by the proposed project is 280 one-way trips; this volume is not
considered to be significant and would not contribute significantly to the degradation of local
air quality.
b) See V,a, above.
c) The proposed devclopment of the new multipurpose building on the project site would not alter
air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate.
d) Neither development nor operation of the proposed multipurpose building is anticipated to
create any objectionable odors, The kitchen area within the building is separated rrom
residential development to the south by on-site parking and an alley, Compliance with the Fire
Department and the County San Diego Department of Environmental Health standards
regarding ventilation and installation of safety features is required,
e) See V,a, above.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
PotentiaUy
Significant Less than
PutentiaUy Unless Significant No
Significant l\-litigated Im~ct Impact
Impact
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would
the proposal result in,'
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 ø 0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g" 0 0 0 ø
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g" fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ø
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ø
5
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 "
f) Conflicts with adopted poJicies supporting 0 0 0 "
alternative transportation (e,g, bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 "
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 "
Management Program? (An equiva1ent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips)
Comments: Sec Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F,
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to,'
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 "
conccrn or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally dcsignated species (e,g" heritage trees)? 0 0 0 "
0 0 0 "
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g"
oak forest, coastal habitat, etcT
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 "
pool)?
c) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 "
f) AlIect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 "
efforts')
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urbanized area. The majority of the site is developed; the
remainder of the site was previously developed, but is presently vacant. No habitat for
endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing
exists on or immediately adjacent to the project site,
6
b) See VILa, above, No locally designated species are present on or immediately adjacent to the
project site.
c) See VIta. above. No locally designated natural communities are present on or immediately
adjacent to the project site.
d) See VILa, above, No wetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the project site,
e) See VILa, above, The proposal would have no effect upon any wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors.
/) See VILa, above. The proposal would not affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant Less than
PotentiaUy Unless Significant No
Signifkant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposar
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ø
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 ø
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ø
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments:
a) The proposed project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans,
b) The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Unifoffil
Building Code and, therefore, is not anticipated to result in the use of non-renewable resources
in a wasteful or inefficient manneL
c) The project is not located wIthin an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined
in the City's General Plan, No si,b'1l1fîcant energy and mineral resource impacts would result
from the proposed project
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
7
Potentially
Signifkant I..essthan
Potentially Unless Signifiçant No
Signifiçant Mitigated Impact Impact
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: Project implementation would not pose a health hazard to humans, No significant hazards
to human health and safety would be created as a result of the proposal and no known hazards exist in
the immediate vicinity of the project site that would pose a potential health hazard to occupants of the
proposed facility.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
Potentially
Signifkant Lcssthan
Potentially Unless Signific.ant N"
Significant Mitigated Impaçt Impaçt
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in,'
a) Increases in existing noise 1evels? 0 0 ¡¡;¡ 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 III
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E
Mitigation: No mitigation mcasures are required.
8
Potentially
Significant Less tban
PotentiaUy Unles.'i Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas.'
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 0
c) Schools? 0 0 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 ø
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ø
Comments: Both the Police and Fire Departments indicate that current levels of service would not be
impacted by the proposed project The Sweetwater Authority issued an availability letter for this
project on August 15,2002, and indicated that the fire f10w requirements would be met The Chula
Vista Elementary School District has indicated that any facility used exclusively for
religious/educational purposes is exempt from the statutory school facility impact fees, The project
would not have an adverse effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
PotentiaUy
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant N"
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 ø
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not result in significant impacts to any of the
Threshold Standards.
a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 ø
111e Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
cal1s 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 indicatcd that this threshold standard wil1 be met
The proposed project would_comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: According to the Fire Department, the current level of service to the project site can be
maintained provided the proposed development complies with the requirements of the California Fire
Code.
9
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Police 0 0 0 0
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 45
minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62, I 0% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes
or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 cal1s of 7 minutes or less,
The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: According to the Police Department, the current level of service to the project site can be
maintained with the proposed development
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
c) Traffic 0 0 0 0
L City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed
on all arterial segments exccpt that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no
more than any two hours ofthc day,
2, West ofT-80S: Those signaJized intersections which do not meet the standard above
may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Comments: The Traffic Engineering Section indicates that the LOS "C" threshold would be
maintained on affected arterial street segments adjacent to the proposed project See Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Section E, for a detailed discussion of project traffic impacts,
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
PoteotiaUy
Signmcant ~thaD
PoteotiaUy Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 0
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and
community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents cast of Interstate 805,
Comments: No park pad obligation will be required as the project site is located west of 1-805, No
adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities would result, as this project is not a residential
usc, Thcrefore, the parks and recreation threshold standard does not apply,
Mitigation: No mitIgation measures are required,
10
e) Drainage 0 0 0 ~
The Threshold Standards require that stonn 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. The
proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
1) 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 Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed
project would.comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: The Engineering Department calculates that the project would generate approximately
952 gallons of effluent per day. The proposed project is located in the Main Street Sewer Basin, There
are two 12·inch pipes running westerly on Tremont Street that connect to a l2-inch pipe running
southerly on Fresno A venue; according to the Engineering Department, existing sewer facilities are
adequate to handle the proposed project. No significant sewer impacts would result from the proposed
project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
g) Water 0 0 0 ~
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed project would
comply with this Threshold Standard,
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off·set
program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance.
Comments: No significant impacts to water storage, treatment and transmission facilities would result
from the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mItigation measures are required,
11
PotentiaUy
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Si~nmc3nt No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
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 1<1
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 1<1
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 1<1
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 1<1
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 1<1
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 1<1
Comments: The proposed multipurpose bui1ding would not result in the need for new service systems
or substantial alterations to any ofthe above utilities.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
Potentially
Sigpificant Less than
PotentiaUy Unless Si2Dific3nt No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposar
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 1<1
public or wi]] the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetica]]y offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 1<1
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 1<1
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 1<1
increase the 1evel 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 19'1
c) Produce an addit10nal amount of sp'¡l light'! 0 0 0 1<1
12
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unl~ Signiraeant No
Significant J\1j igaled Impact Impact
Impact
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposar
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or D D D ø
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or D D D ø
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a D D D ø
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or D D D ø
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's Genera] Plan D D D ø
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments:
a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present within the
impact area of the proposal. See XV,e, below,
b) The project includes the demolition of the church rectory and garage buildings, There would
be no physical historic or aesthetic effect as no prehistoric or historic objects are known or
expected to be present within the impact area, See XV,e, below,
c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnIc cultural values,
d) No sensitive rcligious or sacred uses would be impacted by the proposal.
e) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for archaeological resources in the
City's General Plan ElK The project site was previously graded to accommodate the existing
rectory, garage and multipurpose building and an on-site residence that was previously
demolished, Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the minor amount of
additional grading excavation that will be necessary to accommodate the proposed
multipurpose building, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be
less than significant
13
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 0
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for paleontological resources
in the City's General Plan EIR. However, based upon the previous disturbance to the site, the presence
of undocumented fill soils on-site, and the limited amount of excavation within previously undisturbed
fonnational material that will be necessary to accommodate the proposed multipurpose building, the
potential for impacts to paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant Lesstban
Potentially Unless Significant No
Signirl(ant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposat-
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 0
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 0
plans or programs?
Comments: The applicant would not be required to pay park fees as the project site is located west of
1-805 and is not a residential use, No impacts to parks or recreational facilities or plans would result
from the proposed project
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
Potentially
Significant h'ssthan
Poteoliall}" Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor
mandatory findings of significance, If an EIR is
needed. this section should be completed
14
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 181 0
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
Comments:
The entire project site was previously developed and is located within an urbanized area within the
City's Southwest Redevelopment Area, No known sensitive plant or animal resource impacts are
identified in the Genera] Plan EIR. No significant impacts to plant or animal species would result from
the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181
short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-tenn,
environmental goals?
Comments: The proposal would not effect the attainment of any long-tenn environmental goals and,
therefore, would not have the potential to achieve short-tenn environmental goals to the disadvantage
oflong-tenn goak
l\-fitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulative]y 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 docs not have any impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable, No si¡''11ificant cumulative impacts would be created as a result of the proposed proJect.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures arc required,
d) Docs the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 181
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
15
human beings, either direct1y or indirectly?
Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project wou1d
cause substantia1 adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required,
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Impacts, and Table l,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-004,
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate that they have 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 CoordinatoL Failure to sign the 1ine(s) provided below
prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner's and
Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operator shall
apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
Printed Name and Title of Property Owner Date
(or authorized representative)
Signature of Property Owner Date
(or authorized representative)
Printed Name and Title of Applicant/Operator Date
(if different from Property Owner)
Signature of Applicant/Operator Date
(if different from Property Owner)
XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that
is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Un1ess Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages,
D Land Use and Planning . Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
D Popu1ation and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
16
08/25/2003 13: 15 5194221055 PAGE 01
ü8.':lf,.2003 ¡\IO,\ 'J 7 : j 2 FA.X ~OoJ
X)C AGRH;"Œ~TI 0 l;\II'U:!\U;i\'l C\UI1GAlIO'\ ME,\SUŒS
l~y Slg,U1g tl'h~ ¡me¡'-) prov]ct-d hdo\":, the Pmpt.:"'tj Owner ¿¡Jìd (}ptnJlfiT'--;(l pJi1i1~c thi:ll I ."\,:y h~ì\'\' n:;;1d. \:1lCJcrslüùJ JI1J
ha\-'t: th..-:;¡r 1'e~Dect1\'c (company's 'J.urhonty t(1 :lnd do ;:lgTl'e to thl': ¡mtl:;allOlLl'Ji('J',ur':'''j ~:('lltalncd hcr!.::'!;'), al](j '.I;l!1
trI:plc.:rJ1.CJH sanK to HIt: s¿tisfacr¡(ln of It,!.: Erlvinm:nt::!1I.aJ Rev¡ew t..'o(xdm3,wr. hlilu,'(: ~(' ~"h'1ì rhe- IiHe(8j provjC(,~: bt:'!ow
prtor to þo~trng of th13 ~jHìgm'cd Ncgat~"\'€ DecJarat1ol1 with t'ht Ci"lm~y C!erK sh.an Il1dw;11t: the Ptiìr~tTY Ov"ncT':~ amI
Optn\tor''i dr-:'iIH! that the ITO¡~C\ be hf:"ld n;,::i:)ey<:mce \-"'1,:hüUt approval and ~h.:.r It(" Pr'.)~eI1y U';'Vl'.tr' and ()pE'fät(IT ~ha!¡
~n<~ r;Z'S''''''''al :7,a't.I<"ep"r. ¡J2tJ~-q-~
_VL_.~____
Pt.lIlb:I\;'¡HJt;~ ~IIHJ rllk ()f Pr )p rl)- OW!1l'r V'::Hc:
lor ¡H)d)~)n'1¡:ù rcpr',~~~nl;tli'.'c-)
<:::IZ h~ ~ '[)~#.C03
Sj~n~tu~-;;t~ P·r7\rt;t\-()~~~~~~J:'-"" " . ~._,- . D c
¡or dUlhoril,ed represclll';1ti'.¡el
C a ~'-'LL
----__,.,.--2."...... '_n'____ __ _,_,___ ___ _._..._"-~.,..- --,._,".",,~~- '.~_..'~"'-~
PdlJled N~.IITJt;; <1.nJ TitJ(: of ApplÌl:d;lUOpCra[nr D~ l'
(If J:fft':ï,;n¡ hnm Propc::11 'r' Ol,.vner)
S;a~·
,,~~..",_._., --- '_""~.'·_,,",__~_~..M._._..___ ___...._.m
SigllUluH: I)f Ap!--'!II..:anllO¡K'rattJf Datl
t d' d:fft::rent frllre PrOfltny OWnl~r)
xx. F"oVIRO'\\HSI"'L FACTOI¡, POTE"iTLHLY AFFH.TFD:
l'ht:., n:\.ln)llnltntat t!;;:lw'S :.:hc;¡:kl.;.'u b\.::ow '",',uJd fh> plHl'Ori;¡JI/ aH(,:l:!\..'d by fh;<·, ~)rü.:C(! 1f\\·'olvl\1g.:At k~:;)t úf.è ilrtpué thdt
I;; ;:¡ "POI.I:;"11.LW.l1y Si.gnltÎcnm ~mp3(:f] 01' 'IPr'h:;;l1ti;J1;y Si,~l~Jficant l'\)](:"", ;v[tt,.~~(Jh;~d." ".:- irdi~~~1lt:."d rry t,he cht':d:l1.':~llìr rhe
fOllj,...,j,".s pages
[) ] ,\I~d t·,:;\" ,u-:d l¡brl!1ln~ . Tran.s;)Ol".~ti,m'C¡rL'l: ,l.jl)): [J ¡>ul)]¡1. SCI '.J(:I,;~
LJ Fopl;!,"twn ~r:J !-lOjlc.;llj~ o Bi'¡]')¡ll,;'-l: RI:sL)Ur':l"~i [] Ltl ¡',jes ¡~'ld ~i;.'rv ¡\.'
'--~Y"'\:(~n'"
I.J Cc!)')h~':-,;i¡,;a¡ [': h,CFi;Y ;J11d .\:1JnL'r;.1J IÚ::'i(Hlr..t'", ' , ''\('-1'ìI.:'11(.''
,:=] \-\"alc:- rl I Lzertl,: CJ t \,.;l'Jr:.::J R..'.~thlr(;'('l,
r:: 1"\:r Qr.cì!tt\ i-I \o¡:;(: CJ ;'~,l\,T:;;:~.1Cn
I,) '';'ku\Hu;tl~v r:J ,\--bnJJ',(n'\, hr¡J¡ng~; ul SlL:niticaTlC:C:
1'1
o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
o Paleontology o Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis ofthis initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi1l be prepared.
I find that a1though the proposed project cou1d have a significant effect on the .
environment, there wi1l not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
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 Iegal 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 a1though the proposed project could have a sib'l1ificant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially 0
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project An
addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this deteTIllination,
Marilyn RF Ponseggi Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City ofChula Vista
J :\Planning\MARIA \]nitial Study\IS-03-004c hklsLdoc
17
SNOAY!'~Yr--.;,;;~,;,;;--- i - ~
LINE IFRE_ __ """ _
-Ç!R---,--. . ~
----- § ¡¡
------,-- ..
-- I _,
---- I þ~~~
----- --. , ,
------ , ,. --"'---
----- , .. ---
--------- I 'I' ,
---- ". -j
i I . .
. ' ... . i
- > -.- ", ",'" ." .,'" ,
o --~.- , _.,,,,, " "." '~-';1
.. 0 .__ __ " , . " , "~~" "
., -- "" " . " " " ..
Ij m " " "" " '0.__ _ ," ". .. . " , "
' = " "" ,," ",' . .. "';""-~--:,: - " . " ",','"
! '" '" ~\".. . .
' - . """". "." .". -'.". ". -"
II · .. .,','.. .,',','. ."c;.___ ,','" . " " . ".,',','"
. ". .... -~- " . " "
~ " .~-~~ ---- " '""
'''. .." ....
I' " "" ""
Z ... .
'0 , "
'j ~ '. . ..,
¡ m . .. ..
'I . ",,,
.,....' . "
¡.. , ". ,
¡ . ,·,C
'}
¡ . , . ,
· , , '.' '.'
í . . ~.~
· . , .
' . '.
'. .
· .
" · ,
,'. · .
· .
· .
. ~ : .' · ,
I'".::, ,....., " , t t t
¡¡q I I, " " "'" t t t t:. t'
V,'r, t t t t t t t t
, . " '~, t' t t. t t t I
,
¡~ I " "':1 t t t t t t t
.!~ ~ " " t t' t.. t t I
, t t' t.. t t t
, S' '" " .. t.. t t t'
jt ~ I .. t' t t t
, t t t' t...,
, t t. \\. . t
r I · t t . t t,
~i ~ t . t .. t t t
: St t... t' t
r I ,. t t tt. . t t
:' ,'. f" t t t
j iï l> t" t.. t' t
~í · t t t . t t
t t t +:.. t'
II :ij . t.' ;. t..
I' :i . t t t.. t t t
.~, t;' t t"
:5 + . t t +1 t t t
~i · t' t t t t
I " " t t t t '''t..
'(f ., .. t t t~. t .
i::¡ t t . tit. .
t t t t . t t
:m t ;. . t .~ t t I
II> ;. t. t t t t
I "'( t' t' t . t'
~ · t." t..
'i~ ~ :5: ":," t.... t.
, ., ,
!z ""'" 7 . t t ......
~I ~ , ,"': .~' t. t...;. t
I ,., ",' .. .,'...,
¡~ ~ , ,0 <'-'--"" ,C'f . .._i:. :':':'.:.:-:.;-
in ~ ,
I <q t-Œ!:!";"_-; .. .....,. "r ", ".
, ,", !.,' ': '" »"'., .,.,.
, '. i §. .. '. .
· 3' 0 I .,.. ',:. ..' ." :"',,'
. ",
"L'".. '"':'''''''
'.
I i' ~ ">':"::""'.,."",.,::-:" ":"1 ,~'
I i g: I -,.,~. L ..._, ~ """\
! ! .. .' ..." "it;,:.>¡.~ "'~L i"
! ~I
'" ,",. ",j., m, L,,,.I,::..,,,,,,.,, ""'" "
..~.., '.".. T ", '-l-. .". . '. '. " .,
! .
i I ·'!·I .iC¡~(~oL¡i;c~~IJ/i.tpd{j[F· .,
, ,'.
: .
I
,
.' ':~.:::.~ . -...-- III! ¡Iii Ii ,
. t + + + t +
!< ~ ji~;h Ii
~ 15 ~ i, ~! I
§ ~ ~a ! i i
o '1 å Ii
m ,
II ! 5~
~ -1m
I
~ ~