The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/08/25 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Broadway P1aza PROJECT LOCATION: 1136-1144 Broadway ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-200-50 and 618-200-54 PROJECT APPLICANT: Kimco Realty Corporation CASE NO,: IS-03 -024 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: August 25, 2003 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A, Proiect Setting The project site consists of a deve10ped 31 A9-acre site located in an urbanized area in the central western portion of the City of ChuJa Vista located at 1136-1144 Broadway, between Oxford Street and Nap1es Street (refer to Exhibit 'A' - Location Map). The project site is occupied by the partially vacant Broadway Plaza commercial centeL Three north-south residentia1 local streets, Madison Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, and Oaklawn Avenue, tenninate at Nap1es Street a10ng the project site's northern boundary, Oxford Street tenninates in a cu1-de-sac to the west of the project site immediately east of Industrial Boulevard, Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following: North: Predominately single-family residences and some rctall commercial uses fronting on Broadway South: Retail commercial uses East: Commercial retail uses West: Harborside Elementary School and vacant City-owned property (currently being planned for future park site) B, Proiect Description The existing Broadway Plaza commercial center consists of 401 ,089 square feet of retail space, the majority of which is vacant, and 1,471 parking spaces (refer to Exhibit 'B' for the existing Site Plan). The project site is presently accessible via three driveways on Broadway, four driveways on Oxford Street, and two driveways on Naples Street I VILLA HARBORSIDE GRANADA ELEMENTARY APARTMENTS SCHOOL 0 ~~c¿ ~~~~ ~C--~ :..-\';O~:I- VISTA DEL %0 :t CORONADO '" <J> APARTMENTS TARGET SHOPPING CENTER 0 PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER l - C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT KIMCO REALTY CORPORATION INITIAL STUDY PROJECT Request: Project consists of the retention of 34,332sq It of AOORESS 1136-1144 BROADWAY an existing 401 ,089sq It shopping center and the addition SCALE FILE NUMBER of 309.691 sq It of new retail uses. for a total of 344,023sq It, NORTH No Scale 15-03-024 Related Case(s): DRC-04-01 j:\cherylc\locatorsllocators04Iis03024,cdr 08,11,03 Exhibit A - Location Map ryr;'1T'"E3" ~ i:J \q' l '() I ~\tJitJ., Iff, ¡ ~ 0 lo,j , )'1 I'lçL l-~" IO¡-¡"~ ~ ~".I -=-:'_ }~h'dC-~=.:;j' ~ifL-JO-~D' ;-'!') :]1 'Ii':hN,--~_O_~['_~J' tçJ:g cÇ. i I.-lJ I' ¡ ~j '1/1::]" I' ''&In " I'~,;,\ ~' .~~o':-(j) Q U,' r-' _ , " '-¡ ,tL, ! ~ \ ' "~! [r'h !~~()--q -~<,,! ---' i ,rT -------... t--- ",'," """, i'L- c.il(~y,,=-J.c;',;...=;: ,';c,,__,e!l~~-J. '-ie., :,,,_:-.,.' '~__:;\~~ .':c-'==cC; '='--"". ~:d L._~_ NAPLES STREET j'j' ¡~'" 8-, LIJM<t-II~~:=ÇI,:'~:~:~Œ~~~(¿~~~~i:III,~~I:~ ~111~1~~: I J.',J' ¡ oj 19 Nfl ftl11(!1) (\J:III' ,'\{I ,l1'KT1'I11íTTW ~ 1:::H+:r,~~"',-:/ unmm 1JTl'[jJ)11 ìJJ " i ! 11 \,:~i llifi'mll-mtHftdH-HII~~ :èF '<. I (}tttttB Iffitjffid~ :_' I ".': 1 t~ ' {I QI~~lij (~##HOOtJ#HtfR-Hf~ . t~ 6ttt#Htt~JH+Hmt1tHt ~ I, ~-:l ! JI If i ' -:-J1L[J1'11. 0 . ì ~ ~l..'llli I I· ~. I rO'l _ -' -~ ,~ l;. - '. .... -" I t - 9= b' 'II II WI III, I I : ß = . [ J -. tHttt#Htoo ®OOttt#\ 111{y , ¡Pi '\' r'ii, .' ì i\, ~ mlllt111i11!1 ~11~111~~liln 'r iL \ I '-IJ o~ ~~@ 0t}l:J?lY~'~ ~ ~ ~ '~ I ·7 . ",~ÿ a~l< I· ___.~ Kfttt4H.lftttttm ( " 7~ ~T~rffiiN r~,.~-C_C.'......b...~.,.,....c[.0.'..'.·....',·.·-1, ~Þt _._.__._.., '. .. ì ¡, 1.,_ ['. .'~. 1.--- ¡j~~~f~i": m r \ ) '. 1lllWlllli IILUW ,= alttttttJ H(!J; ,\5',;,· rmlllmmn¡¡111 ....,..-,,,...," I i K+H! IW+fttHtH1 . (rnttJH~\ hTri;':~.IIITV, ¡,; [I 11111Iftt++HttttH ~~HHtll ~1~~~JJH1tPrt+Trm 111 ¡r II ¡ %lllli1tttfH ill ~~ftWI) ~**H~ (I i 1\ Ii; ~ ,=,i1FI Iii II ilifíTí. \ GmI:tf{l+ftttf!f (~ : ~ ,¡, : ~ III ! ì íIDiWH1Ill1 i 1$ cj) I tHI*I+I~1 ~ t; µ,[:.r·c 1:= I.' ~ 11111; II I RllLLLUI /lilllillll!lfJ) l'1 \ I,. J F I. ' dYT.TTT1Elilllm 11JIIIITITTT1OOI : - ,- II Q- \~ F .1 =c iJallllllmlllll-A ,tItiL[ lliJI' "'I- e: I : ~ (I~TTmT!inTTTW '1111 í I I#H111 Y ,7 , ¡",u: . "~::~~IW .. ... , te " I f- ,_.u.__p \~:IIIIJJLl,!MllWll,'H)lI~J;~~~IIIIJ-IJlJ,Illll.!1D '1!JµmIIIIIL = \': !L ':"::-:""_._~~'___'~= _ _~_~__._"._,..>_ _ ._ n_ ~".,. ,~,_----:^-~cc:_~:::-_,--;'----Q~~ OXFORD STREET ÙNprr:....~)t~.·.'. )~O.C.:Jt=·CC'5è"'/0u,. ~m(~) Cc=::f'~t~+,·"t-5"'-" p, -'·r--1CJ"'}. f.o~"'iI¡? , " . 1;(/'./ ,_..-;~,~-," ! ,'~-~ I ¡- ~·11 ~ I¡r r (¡:7 f1'=~-: ~~, , I I U I II i 1\ Broadway Plaza (File No. IS-03-024) Exhibit B - Existing Site Plan Current and vacant fonner uses on the project site are as follows: EXISTING CONDITIONS Buildinl! Area (SQuare Feet) Current Uses Costco Warehouse 129,312 Costco Gasoline 3,840 AES Jewelry 3,037 Tricare (medical office) 14,480 Carl's Jr. 3,975 - Pep Boys 9,000 Sub/o/ar 163.644 Vacant Former Uses lIouse 2 Home 106,867 Levitz 59,200 Bazaar 53,278 JoAnn Fabrics 18,100 Subto/ar 237.445 Total: 401,089 The proposed project consists of the retention of Cost co Gasoline, Tricare, Pep Boys, Car]'s lL, and AES Jewelry, the demolition of the remaining on-site building area, and the construction of a 149,705 square foot Costco Warehouse, a 141,986 Wal-Mart, and two 9,000 square foot retail buildings along Broadway, as outlined below (refer to Exhibit 'C' for the proposed Site Plan). The redeveloped center would comprise a total of 344,023 squarc feet of building area, a net reduction of 57,066 square feet compared to the existing center. PROPOSED PROJECT Buildinl! Area (SQuare Feet) Uses Proposed To Remain Costco Gasoline 3,840 AES Jewelry 3,037 Tricare (medical office) 14,480 Carls Jr. 3,975 Pep Boys 9,000 Sub/o/ar 34.332 Proposed New Uses Costco Warehouse 149,705 Wal-Mart 141,986 RetaIl Building "A" 9,000 Retail Building "B" 9,000 Sub/o/ar' 309.691 Total: 344,023 The phasing of the project consists of the construction of the new Costco Warehouse and retail buildings along Broadway, fonowed by the demolition of the existing Costco Warehouse and construction of Wal-Mart, The Tricarc building shares its north wan with JoAnn Fabrics; since the JoAnn Fabrics bUllding is proposed to be demolished, an external wall would need to be constructed on the north elevation of the Tricare building, The AES Jewelry building shares two wans with the Bazaar; since the Bazaar building is proposed to be demolished, new external wans would need to be constructed on the north and west elevations of the AES Jewelry building, If the project is approved, 2 1-: ~ ':::Jr:'-ij '\l.. .~~-, L_,+: . :-.JJ ........- e . ., J , . \ I ." ¡rr- ~l L 1-' , I- I , ,. . , ~I L ~I l -"- ' "iT I '~ -': ¡I .IC"' ,I I . I i! Ili~ ~ ' ~ =2! =l ~ í <JI") \ .._f.. " ~. =. . WALMART ~ ~~ c âl . " l,:,"¡ ~ ~ -=- "'''.¡ r( fl i [~- i '~l . I \ .. ._ .---1 / . I . U-XFORU STRFE I .' L__;;= _ _ _ __ " ,.. . _ _ __C\ _ .. , -- -- "":fí-r::r-r='l '¡-'r-C--- ---~-=-----~~.'1 11 ~"""'Ic'-- Broadway Plaza (File No. 15-03-024) Exhibit C - Proposed Site Plan full buildout of the site is proposed to occur in 2004, The proposed 1,782 parking spaces for the entire ccnter exceeds the off-street parking requirements of the Municipal Code by one space. The center's main driveway and drivcway nearest Naples Street on Broadway are to be retained with minor modifications, The driveway on Broadway nearest Oxford Street will be relocated closer to the existing Costco gas station, between the gas station and the proposed new Retail Bui]ding "B." The westernmost driveway on Naples Street is proposed to be closed and a new driveway aligning with Jefferson Street is proposed, The middle two driveways along Oxford Street are proposed to be replaced with a single driveway and the most westerly and easterly driveways on Oxford Street are proposed to be retained with minor modifications, The project also includes landscape treatments, Jighting, signage, drainage facilities, a pedestrian pathway along the portion of the westerly property line adjacent to the proposed Costco Warehouse to the planned future park site to the west of the proposed Wal-Mart, and fencing (rctaining walls, noisc barrier walls, chain link fencing, and a screening wall), Proposed grading consists of 30,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill; it is anticipated that no soil would need to be imported to or exported from the site, Both Chula Vista Transit (CVT) and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) provide bus service within the site vicinity. CVT is part of MTS and provides transit to the residents of Chula Vista, whereas MTS provides transit service to the region. MTS Route 932 provides service between downtown San Diego and San Ysidro via Broadway; connections to CVT Routes 701, 702, 703, and 7]2 from MTS Route 932 are provided at the Palomar Street/Broadway intersection, Existing bus stops providing direct access to the site are located in close proximity of the intersections of BroadwaylNaples Street and Broadway/Oxford Street The nearest San Diego Trolley station to the project site is located at Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, The only proposed discretionary action associated with the project that has been applied for to date is Design Review, which will be considered by the Design Review Committee, The applicant is contemplating processing a Tentative Parcel Map to create five parcels on the project site where three presently exist C Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is zoned CC (Central Commercial) and is designated CR (Commercial Retail) under the Chu]a Vista General Plan, The project is consistent with the regulations of the CC Zone and with the CR Genera] Plan dcsignation, D. Public Comments On March 18, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a SOO-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on March 28, 2003; staff received one written comment lctter and one verbal response to the nobcc. The issues of concern expressed pertained to traffic circulation along Naples (including school-related impacts), noise (loading docks and traffic), pedestrian safety and air quality impacts associated with construction activity, E Identification of Environmenta] Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) detcrmincd that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental elfect because of mitigation measures incorporated into the project, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report WIll not be required, This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section IS070 of thc State CEQA Guidelines, 3 Noise To assess the potential noise impacts of the project, an acoustical impact analysis was prepared by RBF Consulting, entitled Acoustical Impact Assessment for the Broadway Plaza Shopping Center, dated July 15,2003, a copy of which is available for review at the Planning and Building Department The results of this analysis are summarized below, Noise Standards The acoustical analysis assessed the project with respect to the regulations contained in Chapter 19.68, Perfonnance Standards and Noise Control, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (noise control ordinance), Pursuant to the noise control ordinance, no person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person which exceeds the established noise level limits (CV.M,C § 19,68,030(A)(4)), The noise level limits of the noise control ordinance vary by receiving land use category and time of day (daytime versus nighttime). Per Section 19.68,030(B)(4) of the noise control ordinance, if the ambient noise level exceeds the established noise level limit, then the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient noise level. The existing and potential future noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the project site potentially affected by project-generated noise consist of single-family residences to the north and Harborside Elementary School and the planned future park site to the west Existing ambient noise levels exceed the applicable standards during both daytime and nighttime hours, Therefore, project generated noise levels attributable to rooftop air conditioners, trash compactors and loading dock activities would not be pennitted to exceed ambient noise levels, Ambient noise levels were measured during nighttime hours to be 59, I dBA Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) at the residences along Naples Street, the planned future park site, and Harborside Elementary School, and were measured during daytime hours to be 64,9 dBA Leq at the residences along Naples Street and 62, 1 dBA Leq at the planned future park site and Harborside Elementary School. Proposed Noise Walls In order for a noise barrier to achieve a significant reduction in the noise level that a particular noise- sensitive use will be exposed to, the barrier must block the line of sight between the noise source and the use. Based upon this principle, noise barriers of sufficient height to block the line of sight between the proposed on-site stationary noise sources and adjacent noise-sensitive uses have been incorporated into the project Twelve-foot high block walls are proposed along the northern portion of the Costco Warehouse loading dock and along the western portion of the Wal-Mart loading dock, which would block the line of sight from an II ,5-foot high truck stack to a 5.5-foot high receptor situated on neighboring properties, Eight-foot block walls are proposed to the north of the Costco Warehouse trash compactor and to the west of the Wal-Mart trash compactoL Three-foot high parapet walls are proposed along the roof edge of both the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart, Traffic Noise The City's exterior noise level threshold for noise-sensitive uses, which include residences, parks, playgrounds, and schools, is 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The exterior noise level threshold for office and retail uses is 70 dBA CNEL Project-generated traffic noise impacts along Broadway, Naples Street, Oxford Street, Palomar Street, and Madison A venue were estimated, The maximum estimated project-generated traffic noise increase along Broadway, Naples Street, and Oxford Street under both existing plus project and future plus project noise scenarios is I A I dBA, which is estimated to occur along Oxford Street under the 4 existing plus project scenario; noise level increases of less than 3,0 decibels are general1y considered to be imperceptible to the human eaL Furthennore, traffic noise levels are not estimated to exceed the exterior noisc level thresholds defined above under the existing plus project or future plus project scenanos. Delivery truek ingress and egress to and ¡¡-om the shopping center is proposed from Oxford Street, which is a commercial street along the project site frontage, Due to the proposed nighttime deliveries to the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart, delivery truck traffic on Naples Street would potential1y adversely impact residents immediately north of Naples Street To avoid this potential1y significant traffic noise impact, delivery trucks will not be pennitted to enter or exit the shopping center via Nap1es Street, as outlined in Section F below. Stationary Noise Sources Potential1y significant stationary noise sources associated with the project consist of loading dock activities, trash compactors, and rooftop air conditioners at the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart as wel1 as Costco Tire Center operations, A summary of the analysis of estimated noise generated by these stationary sources is as fol1ows: Loading Doeh Noise sources at typical loading docks include idling truck engines, truck refrigeration units, fork lifts, banging of hand carts and rol1-up doors, noise ¡¡-om public address systems and employee V01ces. The projected worst-case delivery rate for the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart are two deliveries per hour at each facility, At present, delivery hours are anticipated to be between 4:00 a,m. and 12:00 p.m.; however, these hours are subject to change, Because the nighttime noise level limits, between 10:00 P,M, and 7:00 A.M. weekdays and between 10:00 P,M. and 8:00 A.M, weekends, are the most stringent standards under the noise control ordinance, the analysis of the anticipated delivery hours in the acoustical impact analysis adequately addresses al1 potential future nighttime delivery hours, Baseline noise readings were taken at a similar Costco loading doek at 4:00 A.M. for the purpose of estimating loading dock noise generated by the project; during a one-hour period, two heavy trucks made deliveries to the loading dock and departed. To provide a realistic worst-case analysis, the source noise level of 58,0 dBA Leq for the loading dock analysis includes two heavy truck delivery pass by trips, Additional1y, a source noise level of 56,7 dBA was used for the refrigeration units, Twelve-foot high bloek wal1s are proposed along the northern portion of the Costeo Warehouse loading dock and along the western portion of the Wal-Mart loading dock, whieh would block the line of sight from an 11.5-foot high truck stack to a 5.5-foot high receptor situated on neighboring properties; estimated noise 1evels prior to mitigation do not take into account these proposed wal1s. Trash Compactors Trash compactors are proposed in closc proximity to the loading docks at both the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart Reference noise level data for the louder of the two proposed trash compactor units was utilized to estimate project-generated trash compactor noise in order to minimize the risk of underestimating noise levels. Eight-foot block wal1s are proposed to the north of the Costco Warehouse trash compactor and to the west of the Wal-Mart trash compactor; cstimated noise levels prior to mitigation do not take into account these wal1s, Rooftop Air Conditioners Actual air conditioner activity levels vary considerably throughout the course of the year and can vary considerably throughout the course of a given day, However, to present a worst-case scenario 5 daytime noise levels were used for estimated noise levels during nighttime periods, Thee-foot high parapet walls are proposed along the roof edge of both the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart; estimated noise levels prior to mitigation do not take into account these parapet walls. Costco Tire Center The Costco Tire Center is proposed to be located along the southern edge of the Costco Warehouse, immediately north of Wal-Mart. Noise levels emanating from the proposed Costco Tire Center are expected to be the same as existing Costco Tire Centers. Based upon a noise survey of a similar Costco Tire Center, operating noise levels are 60.4 dBA (Leq) hourly at 50 feet trom the Tire Center entrance, Typical sources of noise include pneumatic impact wrenches, pneumatic car lifts, tire dismounter and balancers, and loudspeakers, Due to the proposed orientation of the tire center, noise levels would be fully blocked at the receptors along Naples Street and partially blocked at the planned future park site and elementary school. Based upon the standard decrease in noise levels of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise levels at these receptors are expected to be negligible due to predominant traffic noise levels in the area, Combined Stationary Noise Sources Estimated total combined noise levels prior to mitigation generated by loading dock activitics, trash compactors, and rooftop air conditioners exceed the nighttime noise level limits of the noise control ordinance at the residences to the north, Harborside Elementary School and the planned future park site and exceed the daytime noise level limits at Harborside Elementary School and the planned future park site, As stated above, daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels are the noise level limits applicable to the project pursuant to the noise control ordinance. Estimated unmitigated daytime noise levels at Harborside Elementary School and the planned future park site exceed ambient noise levels by 1.8 dBA. Prior to mitigation, estimated nighttime noise levels at Harborside Elementary School and the planned future park site exceed ambient noise levels by 4,7 dBA and at the residences to the north exceed ambient noise levels by 0.9 dBA. As stated above, l2-foot high block walls are proposed along the loading docks, 8-foot high block walls are proposed along the trash compactors, and 3-foot high parapet walls are proposed along the rooftops of Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart With the provision of these barriers as well as the inclusion of mechanical silencers on all rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners as outlined in Section F below, estimated daytime and nighttime noise levels would be reduced to below ambient noise levels, thereby complying with the noise control ordinance and mitigating the total combined noise levels to below a level of significance. Subsequent to the preparation of the acoustical impact analysis, the applicant modified the project to add an 8-foot high combined berm/wall between the sidewalk and drive aisle along Naples Street adjacent to the north side of the Costco Warehouse building and loading dock Although this benn/wall is not required to mitigate noise generated by Costco Warehouse operations, it would reduce noise levels generated by delivery trucks as they enter the loading dock to some degree as well as provide partial visual screening of the Costco Warehouse building and associated activities in this portion of the site, Construction Noise Construction activities have the potential to cause short-tcnn noise impacts to noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the project site (i,e" single-family residences, elementary school, planned future park). Noise produced by construction equipment varies substantially depending upon the type of equipment being used and its operation and maintenance, Noise impacts associated with construction activities typically occurs in several distinct phases, each with its own noise characteristics, including 6 demolition, site preparation, and construction, With respect to the project, the demolition of existing buildings and site improvements would be phased as would the construction of new buildings and site improvements; the existing Costco Warchouse would not be demolished until after the new Costco Warehouse opcns, and the proposed Wal-Mart would not be constructed until after the existing Costco Warehouse has been demolished, Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the ChuJa Vista Municipal Code, construction work in residential zones that generates noise disturbing to persons residing or working in the vicinity is not permitted betwecn 10:00 p,m. and 7:00 a,m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p,m, and 8:00 a,m. Saturday and Sunday, except when necessary for emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member of the community. Due to the presence of residential development immediately north of the project sitc, this provision of the Municipal Code applies to the project, which would ensure that residents would not be disturbed by construction noise during the most noise sensitive periods of the day, Temporary classroom buildings are situated within the northeast portion of the Harborside Elementary School property, immediately west of the proposed Costco Warehouse. The creation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels advcrsely affecting noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity is considered by the City to be a significant impact pursuant to CEQA. The windows ofthese temporary classroom buildings do not directly face the project site and these buildings are air conditioned, which wi1l a1low for the closure of windows in close proximity to construction activities when desired by school staff Regardless, due to the close proximity of these buildings to the project site and the fact that a significant degree of construction activities on-site would occur during school hours, it is anticipated that construction noise generated within approximately 400 feet of the portable classroom buildings would potentia1ly disturb normal classroom activities to some deb 'Tee, Because substantial construction noise associated with the project would not be generated in close proximity to these classroom buildings on a continuous basis throughout the demolition, grading, site preparation, and building phases of construction and due to the temporary nature of this impact, it has been determined that this impact would be reduced to below a level of significance by erecting an 8-foot high tcmporary noise barrier between the construction activities and the portable classroom buildings, A properly designed and constructed temporary 8-foot barrier would provide an average reduction in construction noise levels at the classrooms of approximately 5 decibels, A temporary noise barrier wi1l be required generally along the northernmost 250 feet of the western property boundary prior to the commencement of demolition, grading, or building work within 400 feet of any tcmporary classroom building, which wi1l include the demolition of the fonner House 2 Home building, and construction activities associated with the proposed Costco Warehouse immediately cast of the classrooms, This mitigation measure is contained in Section F beJow, Traffic/Circulation To assess the potential traffic/circulation impacts of the project, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, entitled Transportation Impact Analysis, Broadway Plaza Shopping Center Redevelopment, dated July 2003, a copy of which is available for review at the Planning and Building Department. The results ofthis analysis are summarized below, Existing Conditions The project site is adjacent to Broadway, Naplcs Street, and Oxford Street Broadway is classified as a Four-Lane Major Street with left-turn center lane, Naples Street and Oxford Street are classified as Class II Co1lectors with left-turn center lanes. Palomar Street, a major east-west roadway to the south providing access to Interstate 5, is classified as a Six-Lane Major Street with left-turn center lane, 7 Street Segments At present, the fol1owing study area street segments operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) B or better: Broadway: North of Naples Street Naples Street to Oxford Street Oxford Street to Palomar Street South of Palomar Street PaJomar Street: West of Broadway East of Broadway Naples Street: West of Broadway Signalized Intersections The study area contains the fol1owing three existing signalized intersections, al1 of which presently operate at acceptable LOS C or better: BroadwaylNaples Strect Broadway/Oxford Street Broadway/Palomar Street Unsignalized Intersections The study area contains nine existing unsignalized intersections, consisting of existing site driveways on Broadway, Nap1es Street, and Oxford Street, al1 of which presently operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the P,M, peak hour based on the critical movement operations, with the exception of the Broadway/Main Access intersection, The Broadway/Main Access intersection critical movement is eastbound left turns, which presently operates at LOS F during the P,M, peak hour; overal1, this intersection operates at acceptable LOS A dunng the P.M. peak hOUL Trip Generationffrip Distribution Trip Generation Several sources for trip generation data were utilized to detennine the data that would result in the most accurate and conservative estimate of site-generated trips, including the San Diego Association of Governments, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and trip generation data col1ected at comparable Costco Warehouses, The proposed additional development is estimated to generate an additional 10,995 Average Daily TraffIc (ADT), or 24-hour weekday vehicle trips, beyond the number of trips presently generated by the existing partial1y vacant shopping center, comprised of 6,090 primary trips, 1,940 pass-by trips, 1,865 diverted trips, and 1,100 internal trips, During the weekday P,M, peak hour, the proposed project is estimated to generate an additional 880 trips, comprised of 425 primary trips, 200 diverted trips, 170 pass-by trips, and 85 internal trips beyond the number of trips presently generated by the partial1y vacant shopping centeL 8 Trip Distribution An estimate of the distribution of site-generated trips was developed from the turning movement counts collected at the existing shopping center driveways, Empirical data collected at the driveways is the most accurate method to use to estimate trip distribution. Approximately 40 percent of the primary trips are expected to head north on Broadway, while approximately 30 percent are expected to head south to the PalomarlBroadway intersection. Taking into account all trip types, approximately 65 percent of the site-generated trips would come from and go to the south. The eastbound left-turn movement out of the site's main driveway on Broadway has limited capacity during peak time periods, When this movement approaches capacity, motorists are expected to utilize the other site driveways. For the purposes of conducting a worst case analysis of the remaining driveways, it was assumed that existing trips making this left-turn movement would utilize the other driveways in the future total traffic scenario to ensure that all of the site driveways will operate acceptably. Significance Criteria The criteria utilized to detennine if a traffic impact at an intersection or street segment is considered significant is based on City of Chula Vista standards, Both project specific and cumulative impacts can be significant impacts, The applicable significance criteria utilized in the project traffic impact analysis are as follows: Signalized/Unsignalized Intersections A project specific impact to a signalized or unsignalized intersection would result if both of the following criteria are met: 1. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F, 2. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. Cumulative impact if only condition #1 is met. Street Segments A project specific impact to a street segment would result if the following criteria are met: 1. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF for 1 houL L Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume, 3, Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. Cumulative impact if only condition #1 is met. 2004 Traffic ConditionslWith and Without Proposed Proiect Future traffic conditions both with and without the proposed project were estimated for 2004, the anticipated year of completion of the proposed project. Street Segments In 2004 without the proposed project, all study area street segments are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS C or betleL The segment of Broadway between Naples Street and Oxford Street is estimated to operate at LOS C; all other study area street segments are estimated to operate at LOS B or betleL 9 In 2004 with the proposed project, all study area street segments are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS C or betteL The segments of Broadway between Naples Street and Oxford Street and between Oxford Street and Palomar Street are estimated to operate at LOS C; all other study area street segments are estimated to operate at LOS B or betteL Based upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, no significant project specific or cumulative impacts to study area street segments are estimated to result from the development of the proposed project Signalized Intersections In 2004 without the proposed project, the three study area signalized intersections are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS D or betteL The intersection of Broadway/Palomar Street is estimated to operate at LOS D; the other two study area signalized intersections are estimated to operate at LOS B- In 2004 with the proposed project, the three study area signalized intersections are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS D or betteL The intersection of Broadway/Palomar Street is estimated to operate at LOS D; the other two study area signalized intersections are estimated to operate at LOS C. Based upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, no significant project specific or cumulative impacts to study area-signalized intersections are estimated to result from the development of the proposed project Unsignalized Intersections In 2004 without the proposed project, thc nine study area unsignalizcd intersections are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS C or bettcr based on the critical movement operations, with the exception of the Broadway/Main Access intersection. The BroadwaylMain Access intersection critical movement is eastbound left turns, which is estimated to continue to operate at LOS F during the P,M, peak hour; overall, this intersection is estimated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS A during the P,M. peak hour. In 2004 with the proposed project, the nine study area unsignalized intersections are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better based on the critical movement operations, with the exception of the Broadway/Main Access intersection, The Broadway/Main Access intersection critical movement is eastbound left turns, which is estimated to continue to operate at LOS F during the P,M, peak hour; overall, this intersection is estimated to operate at acceptable LOS B during the P,M, peak houL Consistent with existing conditions and estimated 2004 conditions without the proposed project, motorists making left-turns out of the site at the Broadway/Costco Main Access intersection will experience congestion during peak time periods. Therefore, it is expected that most motorists will not attempt to make a left-out during peak time periods, but instead will use the other driveways, The eastbound left-turn movement that does experience congestion during peak time periods is on site and will not impact the surrounding transportation system Therefore, project impacts to this intersection are not considered significant and no mitigation is reqmred, Based upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, no significant project specific or cumulative impacts to study area-unsignalized intersections are estimated to result from the development of the proposed project Truck Access and Circulation Delivery truck ingress and egress to the site is proposed via the westernmost and easternmost driveways on Oxford Street, respectively, with no trucks using Naples Street Delivery trucks coming from and/or going to Interstate 5 would utilize the Interstate 5/Palomar Street interchange and access Oxford Street via Broadway, 10 Naples Street The project site tronts Nap1es Street, a Class II con ector, to the north, The majority of the north side of Nap1es Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard is developed with single-family residences, a number of which have driveway access on Naples Street Traffic volumes on Naples Street were counted in May 2003 to detennine the current average daily traffic on the roadway, The average daily traffic during a mid-week day was 8,100 vehicles, The Saturday and Sunday traffic volumes were 6,260 and 4,740, respectively. The maximum LOS C volume for a Class II Conector is 12,000 vehicles per day, With project-added traffic, Naples Street is estimated to operate at LOS B with 9,110 mid-week day trips west of the eastern driveway. Consistent with the existing trip distribution to and tram the shopping center, the analysis assumes that the proposed project will result in 15 percent of the primary trips, or nine percent of all site trips, traveling to and from the center via Naples Street To verify the operations on Naples Street, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the estimated trip distribution, If 25 percent of the primary trips were assumed to use Naples Street instead of the 15 percent estimated in the analysis, the north driveways to the site would continue to operate well at LOS C. The traffic volume on Naples Street would increase with the redistribution, but the segmcnt would continue to operate at LOS B, The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that with even a higher trip distribution, Naples Street will continue to operate well, consistent with its classification as a Class II Collector, and well within City standards, Harborside Elementary School Harborside Elementary School is located immediately west of the project site, abutting the approximate northern half ofthe western site boundary, The school was constructed in 1953 and does not have on-site parking or loading areas for student drop-off or pick-up. Therefore, loading OCCUTS directly on Naples Street In addition, a number of persons dropping off and picking up students currently park in the northwest portion of the shopping centeL Due to the lack of drop-off/pick-up areas on the school grounds, activity occurs on Naples Street in tront of the school during drop-off and pick-up periods. To address this, the school has an organized system of crossing guards, desib'11ated parking and loading locations, newsletters that are sent to parents and guardians, and a mid-block crosswalk exists on Naples Street adjacent to the main entrance to the school. The proposed project would reduce the ability of persons dropping off and picking up students to park at the shopping center; they will need to drop off and pick up students along Naples and the residential streets to the north. Aside tram reduced use of the shopping center for school parking, the proposed project is expected to have minimal impact on school operations. The existing traffic volume along Nap1es Street during the afternoon school peak hOUT is 535 trips, The proposed project is forecast to add approximately 65 trips to Naples Street during the afternoon school peak hour, which is not anticipated to significantly effect traffic operations and pcdestrian safety on Naples Street Geophvsical To assess the potential for geophysical impacts associated with the project, a geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc" entitled Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. Broadway Plaza Redevelopment Project, dated April 2003, a copy of which is available for review at the Planning and Building Department The results of this investigation are summarized below. 11 Seismic Hazards The purpose of the subsurface explorations, associated laboratory testing and geotechnica1 studies conducted and reviewed as part of the geotechnica1 investigation for the proposed project was to obtain infonnation on subsurface conditions and to provide engineering design recommendations for the proposed structures and site improvements, There are no known (mapped) "active" faults located crossing or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The closest regional faults considered capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 4 or greater are the Rose Canyon fault zone (75 miles to the north), Coronado Bank fault zone (13 miles to the west), and the Elsinore Fault - Juhan Segment (45 miles to the northeast), The La Nacion fault zone trends north-south in a band approximately 2 mi1es wide; the closest trace of this fault occurs approximate1y one-quarter mile to the east of the project site. According to the geologic literature, the La Nacion fault zone has not been active within the Jast approximately 11,000 years, and is thus considered "potential1y active." In the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer who prepared the investigation ("consulting engineers"), due to its classification as potential1y active, the La Nacion fault zone is not considered to contribute significantly to the seismic hazard at the project site. For facility planning and siting purposes, the potential for fault ground rupture is general1y considered to be significant along active faults and to a Jesser degree along potential1y active faults, Because no active or potential1y active faults are known to cross the site or near the site, it is the opinion of the consulting engineers that the potential for fault ground rupture at the site is low, The project site wil1 likely experience moderate to severe ground shaking in response to a large magnitude earthquake occurring on a local or regional active fault during the expected lifespan of the proposed development It is the opinion of the consulting engineers that the major geologic hazard affecting the project would be seismical1y induced ground shaking in response to an earthquake occurring on the nearby Rose Canyon fault zone or one of the above-mentioned active regional faulK Liquefaction Potential Based on the predominately plastic composition and/or on the high relative density of the fonnational units that underlie the project site, and on the lack of groundwater at the site to at least 3,5 feet below the existing ground surface, the hazard posed to the site by liquefaction is considered 10w, Therefore, no special measures to mitigate soiJ1iquefaction are required, Other Ge010gic Hazards Other hazards that potential1y affect project sites in the San Diego region include landslides, floods, seiches, and tsunamis. Given the relatively level topography of the site, landslides and slope instability are not considered a hazard at the site, Based on the physiographic setting of the site, the distance to the ocean, and the e1evation of the site above the Otay River and San Diego Bay, it is the opinion of the consulting engineers that the potential for flooding from the Otay River and seismical1y induced seiches and tsunamis is very low, Siltation 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 qua1ity best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Stonn Water Mitigation P1an 12 (SUSMP). An 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 pennits for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage system would be less than significant. Hydrolol!Y and Water Quality Hydrology According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board's San Diego Hydrologic Basin Planning Area Map, the project site is located in the Otay Vaney Hydrologic Area within the Otay Hydrologic Unit. Existing drainage from the project site sheet flows toward the northwest portion of the project site and is conected in curb inlets and catch basins and conveyed to an existing 54-inch stonn drain in Naples Street. Flow is conveyed in this stonn drain to the Otay River, which is the downstream receiving water body. Because the project site is not within a floodplain and no increase in runoff win occur from the proposed project, no detention of runoff is required and the project win not cause any increase in downstream erosion potential. The preparation of a drainage study win be required in conjunction with the preparation of final b'Tading plans, Post-developed flows shan not exceed pre-developed flows and shan be directed away from neighboring properties. The drainage study win be required to demonstrate the amount of flows contributed by the proposed project and the adequacy of proposed facilities to handle said flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. According to the Engineering Department, no significant impacts to the City's stonn drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. Water Ouality Based on the City of Chula Vista Standard Urban Stonn Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), post- construction ponutants of concern associated with the proposed project include trash and debris and oil and grease. Potential ponutants of concern include pesticides, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, organic compounds, sediment, and nutrients. Pcr the requirements set forth in thc SUSMP, best management practices (BMPs) shan be designed to treat runoff generated by the Water Quality Design Stonn having a rainfan intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The City Engineer win ensure that the rcquirements of the SUSMP will be met prior to the issuance of grading 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; therefore, no mitigation measures beyond established requirements are required, A discussion of the proposed construction and post- construction BMPs for the proposed project are discussed below, Construction BMPs Due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a Stonn Water Ponution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Rcgional Water Quality Control Board win be required. Construction BMPs win be funy addressed in the SWPPP, During construction, BMPs from the California Best Management Practices Handbook w¡]l 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 baJes, which are strategicany placed around curb inlets, catch basins, and driveways in ordcr to prevent slIt and sediment from entering the stonn drain system. 13 Post-Construction 8MPs Proposed site design BMPs include reducing imperviousness and utilizing landscaping throughout the site to provide some detention and infiltration, Landscaping will be provided on approximately 15 percent of the project site per City requirements, 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, Proposed source control BMPs include the application of fertilizers only when necessary and in minimal amounts, the efficient design and frequent inspection of the irrigation system to minimize irrigation runoff, and periodic parking lot sweeping using dry methods of mechanical sweeping, Proposed treatment control BMPs include a Vortechs stonn water treatment system to treat the primary pollutant for the project site, oil and grease, as well as other pollutants, Tllis treatment system is proposed to be located at the downstream end of the project sjte stonn drain system so that runoff from all areas of the project site will be treated, Filter inserts may be required in certain catch basins and curb inlets throughout the project site as well or may be required in lieu of thc single proposed V ortechs system described above. 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, Air Qualitv 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-term in duration since construction-related activities are a relatively short-term activity. Dust control measures implemented during grading operations would be regulated 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 Jevel of significance, The primary source of air pollutants associated with the proposed project would be mobile source emissions associated with project-generated traffic.However, based upon the results of the traffic impact analysis, project area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of scrvice and the project would not cause the level of service of any intersections to degrade to unacceptable levels, Therefore, no CO hotspots, or localized high concentrations of CO, are anticipated to result from the proposed project The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Retail designation of the project site under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan. Therefore, the proposed intensity of development has been included in San Diego Association of Governments' traffic projections for the region, which serve as the basis for the County of San Diego APCD's regional air quality projections and plans, For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long-tenn local or regional air quality impacts and no mitigation measures are required, 14 Hazards To assess the potential hazards associated with the project, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and soil sampling and pesticidelherbicide testing analysis were prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc" entitled Revised Report on ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Costco Wholesale Site, dated April 2003, and Soil Sampling and Pesticide/Herbicide Testing. Costco Wholesale Project, dated January 2003, copies of which are available for review at the Planning and Building Department The results of these assessments are summarized below. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site identified the fol1owing Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs): an existing on-site gasoline service station (REC #1); existing on-site hydraulic vehicle maintenance lifts (REC #2); former agricultural related structures (REC #3); and a Leaking Underground Storage Tank site approximately one-quarter mile north of the project site. REC #1 consists of the existing Costco gasoline station at the comer of Broadway and Oxford Street This gasoline station includes three 20,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) and an oil/water separator. The USTs, which are double-wal1ed fiberglass and include a leak detection system, were instal1ed in 1999, According to the manager of the station, there has been no evidence of leaks or releases from the UST system or oil/water separator, and regulatory records reviewed do not indicate the presence of a reported release ¡¡-om the UST system; therefore, a subsurface invcstigation of this REC is not warranted at this time, REC #2 consists of hydraulic vehicle lifts within the existing Costeo Tire Center, located at the southeastern comer of the Costco Wholesale building, The tire center utilizes five hydraulic vehicle maintenance lifts with underground hydraulic fluid reservoirs, According to the manager of the tire center, there has been no evidence of a release from the hydraulic fluid reservoirs associated with the lifts, and regulatory records reviewed do not indicate the presence of a reported release ¡¡-om the hydraulic fluid reservoirs; therefore, a subsurface investigation of this REC is not warranted at this time, REC #3 consists of the presence of former agricultural related structures located on the southwestern portion of the site, Historical aerial photographs dated 1953, 1963, and 1975 depict structures at the southwestern portion of the site, which appear to be associated with former agricultural activities and may have been green houses or storage sheds where organochlorine pesticides may have been stored. Typieal1y application of pesticides associated with agricultural activities does not warrant regulatory action; however, locations where concentrated pesticides may have been released warrant further investigation, The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommended sampling surface soils (at the previous grade) and chemical testing for organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT, and comparison of any detected concentrations to typical backb'Tound concentrations and to conservative health protection criteria. This sampling and testing was conducted, the results of which are summarized below under "Soil Sampling and Pesticide/Herbicide Testing," REC #4 consists of the presence of a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site approximately one-quarter mile north of the project site, This LUST site is located at Formiller Auto Sales at 1001 Broadway, Based upon information obtained rrom a file review at the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), a soil and groundwater investigation conducted at this site detected free product in wel1s located near the forn1er UST excavation area located on the property . Groundwater impacts have not yet been delineated and groundwater flow direction was reportedly to the south, However, investigations on properties directly north have reported groundwater flow direction to the north, Therefore, it appears that groundwater flow direction has not 15 been determined and may vary seasonally, Although this property is located approximately one- quarter mile from the project site, it is unknown if the contamination plume has reached the site. No subsurface investigation associated with this offsite release is recommended on the project site at this time, Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings conducted as part of the geotechnical analysis; the depths of the borings ranged from 10 to 20 feet below ground surface, Based upon the hmited extent of proposed excavation on the site, no impacts associated with this potential contamination plume are anticipated during site grading. Soil Sampling and PesticidelHerbicide Testing Haley & Aldrich advanced 12 soil borings and collected 21 soil samples on January 2,2003, in the area of the former on-site structures (Borings SB-I through SB-9) and within the former row crop area within the central portion of the site (Borings SB-lO through SB-12), Each of the shallow soil samples from Borings SB-l through SB-9 were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides. Based on these results, the deeper soj] samples from Borings SB-I through SB-9, as well as the soil samples collected from Borings SB-lO though SB-12 were also selected for analysis, Chlorinated herbicides were not detected above laboratory reporting hmits in any of the shallow soil samples collected from Borings SB-l through SB-9. Therefore, the deeper soil samples and the soil samples collected from the central portion of the site were not analyzed for organochlorinated herbicides, Organochlorine pesticides were detected above laboratory reporting hmits in only two of the shallow soil samples collected from Borings SB-l through SB-9. The soil sample collected at 4 feet below ground surface from Boring SB-2 was reported to have detectable concentrations of 4,4'- DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT Therefore, the deeper soil sample from this boring, collected at 6 feet below ground surface, was analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, which were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in this sample. The soil sample collected at 4 feet below ground surface from Boring SB-3 was reported to have detectable concentrations of chlordane, 4,4' -DDE, and heptachlor epoxide, Therefore, the deeper soil sample from this boring, collected at 6 feet below ground surface, was analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, which were not detected above laboratory reporting hmits in this sample, The remaining shallow soil samples collected from Boring SB-l and Borings SB-4 through SB-9 did not contain concentrations of organochlorine pesticides above laboratory reporting hmits, Therefore, the deeper soil samples from these borings were not analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, Three soil samples were collected from Borings SB-lO through SB-12 within the central portion of the site, Each of these samples was analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, The soil sample collected from 2,5 feet below ground surface in Boring SB-lO was reported to have detectable levels of4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT The soil sample collected from 2,5 feet below ground surface in Boring SB-ll was reported to have detectable levels of 4,4'-DDE Organochlorine pesticides were not reported in the sample collected from 2-5 feet below ground surface in Boring SB-12, Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Prehminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) are conservative screening values used to assess whether additional assessment or remediation may be warranted to protect pubhc health, A comparison of the detected pesticide concentrations to the PRGs indicates that each of the detected organochlorine pesticide concentrations at the former on-site structures is less than the PROs, Thus, the detected concentrations of organochlorine pesticides at the project site do not pose a health threat for the existing and proposed shopping centeL Therefore, no further soil investigation or remediation for organochlorine pesticides or chlorinated herbicides are recommended on the projcct site, 16 Use and Storage of Petroleum Products and Hazardous Substances Pep Boys receives relatively small quantities of used oil from their customers, stores it in two 55- gallon drums, and disposes of it off-site, Pep Boys contracts with Allphase Environmental to dispose of approximately 80 to 100 gallons of used oil every month, The 55-gallon drums are situated on a secondary containment pallet inside the back storage room at the northwestern comer of their building, away from customer contact. Evidence of a spill or release of petroleum products was not observed by Ha1ey & Aldrich during their site reconnaissance, As stated above, the Costco gasoline station utilizes three 20,000-gallon gasoJine USTs and an oil/water separator. The USTs are constructed of double-walled fiberglass and were installed in 1999, No spills or leaks have been reported in association with the UST system and no evidence of a spill or release of petroleum products was observed by Haley & Aldrich during their site reconnaissance. No evidence of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products was observed on-site during the site reconnaissance or discovered through the records search conducted by Haley & Aldrich as part of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Sigma Engineenng was retained by Haley & Aldrich to conduct an asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) survey at the project site, ACMs were identified in the Costco Warehouse building, the fonner Levitz building and the fonner JoAnn Fabrics building, all of which are proposed to be demolished. Locations where lead was detected in LBP at concentrations equal to or greater than 5,000 parts per million or 0.5 percent by weight or 0.7 mglcm2 are as follows: yellow metal guard po1e (bollard) located south and east of the fonner House 2 Home building; yellow metal fire hydrant located south and north of the fonner House 2 Home building and west of the fonner Levitz building; and yellow concrete curb located south and west of the fonner House 2 Home building, Prior to any demolition activities, asbestos and lead-based paint abatement shall be perfonned by a lieensed 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 36Ll45 - 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, F, Mitigation Necessarv to A void Significant Impacts Noise The following noise mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable demolition, grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and/or shall be made conditions of project approval where appropriate, The following mitigation requirements shall not be deviated from un1ess approved in advance in WTiting by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. L Pursuant to Section 17,24,050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p,m, and 7:00 a,ill- Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p,m, and 8:00 a,ill- Saturdays and Sundays, 2, A minimum 8-foot high temporary noise barrier shall be constructed generally along the northernmost 250 feet of the project site's western boundary prior to the commencement of any demolition, grading, or building activities within 400 feet of any temporary classroom building on 17 the Harborside Elementary School property. The barrier shall consist of one-half inch sheets of plywood on both sides of a 2-inch-by-4-inch wood frame, or other barrier materials acceptable to the Environmental Review Coordinator, shall be free of cracks and holes, and no gaps shall occur between the barrier and the ground, The barrier may be erected on either the subject property or on the school property, if authorized by the Chula Vista Elementary School District, and shall be maintained in place throughout the entire duration of outdoor construction activities within 400 feet of any temporary classroom buildings. 3, All rooftop pumps, fans and air conditioners on the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart buildings shall include mechanical silencers and be screened by a minimum 3- foot high rooftop parapet 4, Minimum 12-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls shall be constructed along the northern portion of the Costco Warehouse loading dock and along the western portion of the Wal- Mart loading dock. 5, Minimum 8-foot high CMU walls screening the Costco Warehouse and Wal-Mart trash compactors shall be constructed. 6. Directional speakers proposed to be installed and operated on-site, if any, shall be shown on the building plans, Any proposed directional speakers shall be shielded and/or oriented away from the residences to the north and the elementary school to the west If any directional speakers are proposed to be installed subsequent to the issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to their installation, 7, All delivery trucks shall turn off their engines during unloading/loading activities at the Costco Warehouse loading dock. In the event that a delivery truck is not able to immediately enter the Costco Warehouse loading dock upon arrival to the site, the truck's engine shall be turned off while waiting to enter the loading dock. The applicant shall impose these operational restrictions on the Costco Warehouse through a lease agreement or through an alternate enforceable mechanism. 8, Delivery trucks serving the proposed project shall not enter or eXIt the site via Naples Street The applicant shall impose this restriction on all businesses operating on the site through lease agreements or through alternate enforceable mechanisms, Air Quality The following air quality mitigation 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 CoordinatoL 9, 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, 1o, 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 the 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, 18 I L 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 12. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hOUL 13. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust -generating activities as necessary 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, 14. Stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne shall be covered or watered as necessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Hazards The following hazards mitigation requirement shall be shown on all demolition plans as a note, IS, 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 36L145 - Standards for Demolition and Renovation. G, Consultation L Individuals and Organizations City ofChula Vista: Marilyn RF Ponseggi, Planning and Building Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Maria C Muett, Planning and Building Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Harold Phelps, Planning and Building Stan Donn, Planning and Building Brad Remp, Planning and Building Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Garry Williams, Planning and Building Clifford Swanson, Engineering Alex Al-Agha, Engincering Frank Rivera, Engineering Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Silvester Evctovich, Engineering Dave Kaplan, Engineenng Joe Gamble, Building & Park Construction Mary Radley, Building & Park Construction G, Edmonds, Fire Department Richard Preuss, Police Department Lt. Don Hunter, Police Department 19 Karin Schmerler, Police Department ApplicantIProperty Owner: Kimco Realty Corporation, Josh Smith/Lawrence Lipp Agent: Trina Buitron, AICP, WRG Design Inc. Others: Y Todd Bartok, Costco Wholesale Christopher Stanley, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Eddie Torres, RBF Consulting John Hansell, WPIlDC, Inc, Terry Odle, Mulvanny,G2 Architecture Paul Scanlon, Mulvanny,G2 Architecture Randy Roberts, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc, Michael Birkland, Nasland Engineering Sweetwater Authority Chula Vista Elementary School District David Gottfredson, RECON 2- Documents City ofChula Vista General Plan. 1989 (as amended) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Acoustical Impact Assessment for the Broadway Plaza Shopping Center, RBF Consulting, July 15,2003, Transportation Impact Analysis, Broadway Plaza Shopping Center Redevelopment, Kittelson & Associates, July 2003, Revised Report on ASTM Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Costco Wholesale Site, Haley & Aldrich, Inc., April 2003. Soil Sampling and PesticidelHerbicide Testing, Costco Wholesale Project, Haley & Aldrich, Inc" January 2003. Gcotechnical Engineering Investigation, Broadway Plaza Redevelopment Project, Haley & Aldrich, Inc" April 2003. Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Rcport, Costco Wholesale, Sigma Engineering, Inc" November 27,2002, Asbestos StITVey for Jo-Ann Fabrics & Crafts, 640 Naples Street, Chula Vista, CA, Sigma Engineering, Inc" March 5, 2003, 20 Initial Study This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. 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 919m Date: Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator 21 ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Broadwav Plaza - IS-03-024 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Broadway Plaza/Commercial Center-renovation project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-024). 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 proj ect ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): I. Noise 2. Air Quality 3. Hazards MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City EngineeL Evidence in written fOnTI confinTIing compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-024 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City EngineeL The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished, Table 1, 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-03-024, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to detenTIine 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 :\Planning\MARIA \lnitial Study\IS~03,024MM RPtcxt.doc J!J c " E E 0 (J " " " m 1;; 0 Q. 00 E rn 0 .- (J E " "''' '" ' '" ' '" ' '" ' Co. c"- c"- c"- c"- :ë 'ê~ '2 (l) ï:: (l) 'c (l) 'c (l) :¡; ï¡¡ >. cO cO cO cO <t c~ -"1", -"1", -"1", -"1", -"1", o ~ <1.c <1.c <1. c <1. c <1.c IX: 0.<1. ~~ '" ,- '" ,- "'- '" ,- 00 c" c" c" c" C) " ~ ~ ca':; rn 'S ca':; rtI'S 0 " ,~ c:J J2 CD _~ CD .!::!m "OJ C.U C.u C.u C.u c.u IX: o.c o.c o.c o.c o.c a. « ~ «~ «~ «~ « ~ C) -.> Z . . >< >< X 00 ¡::: o.u IX: "'.> 0 _ c c. >< X a. o,Q -;::1:: X X X 00 W "'" cu IX: c u .... 0 ·Ë~ " . G> ¡::~ " c X X >< X X Z 0.0 - J5 u <t ~ CO C) M I- :; " Z >-' a. ii: 0 !:: _ c $ $ .~ $ $ Z 00 ü) ü) V) ü) ü) 0 -o+;¡ :;;, :;;, :;;, :;;, :;;, o ~ u c o c o c o c o c :¡; =:E " 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 -C:'-õJ --C:¡:¡ .c:.;::; ~- £:;:> E " " üO ü u üO üÜ (JO ~ Z ::;" " " " " " 0 > Co. Co. C 0. co. Co. ~ 00 ~ 00 ~ 00 ~ 00 ~ 00 ¡::: ã:.s Õ:E Õ:E ã:E Õ:E <t " - _aI Ü !!2 C) '" "- .S 1? ~ c5 u Q) 0 >. Q) ë (l) ", rn c ¡::: c --0 Q) 0) 1:: E Q) 1/)- EQ) u<'> ~Q)2 0 --0 3:.J:: ..... OO~O TIE :¡; Q)~ - 11) C IV ctI ~ . a ~ID SEID ~EIDID~5IDÕ~ -~ 00 2" .Q ::J Q) rn (1)'- C î;j5'Eo ca"'" --0 0 a. ..... c (5.c tI) >,--0 C "c~ :::;¡-" OOD -.Q1O>EID--Õ -co 50eouO.c-Q)--O-cro --c'- E ~õS: 0_ rn -0';:: e Q) U "- ::> t5 a.,;; ~~ .c:ñ Q.U) g'5-o~£TI~gõ ~"iij:S ürn .c:ca.a.Ecg ~rn8Q) Q).....CI>'-(I)õ"Q)S:ccro....a>(/(t) ~c Q) ,,~ (I) ~ e g.w ~ü E 2£ o.!!! 0 Q).cUJ!'II ....~,~'U ~Q) o -;¡ E _o~ ~oo ::I C .. 11) . ~ II) co ï:::.e ~ -00 Ë g ~-'3 -g s: ..cOD~(/) ttI E 0 cij 0 J:: J:: 0 (l) If),~ ~ 0 C -o..æ "," 0'-'- >. --Oc~s~~IJ).~£~~(l)£ctI~o " "'~ ~ 0 c cS Q) '6 ro :rl 0- c .!!! ü_a>n:I CCD ~a..2 - 0 c " E~~-¡~'~:;¡¡; W::Jo.o-g ~ Q; .g -g ~ ~ '5 --t .8 ~ 2 g ~ tf :¡:¡ ~ .9'0 u c E CI c ~ '§ 5 £i1~u::J ~~a.~~ctI,5~(l)~(l)-o~Eic "'!:::=Q} o III '0 . "0. . .~C)'~a.gQ)O:: õgð~U) u~c I/).L: c-'" ~ E ~ ::J - ......- >- c 0 ~ - E ë ~ -J:f::a 0 -= 2 -.C!1 Q):C cD" fU"trog 00 c " t:r5IDOrn:e.s ..-.. o.c >--g ~ C ro g III Q).c i3 m Q) c 0 ~O .c: ,",= 0100" EO.::.:::--o 00 0 0 ::; Q)._.c: VJ en a. c ::2.uQ)~ca rna>u:¡:¡.....E Icã.~Q)~Q)-::::;: o ~ ~ 2~gg !!2~ ... 0:= õ C:.;:; c.Q) 0-= § 'õ ~ ~ ~', ~ ';i; ~ Q) g. g ð IfI Q = ~ ~ :;; c ,2 E g¡ ~'Ë ~ ê ~2:5it~ m...!.. () ~:5~:¿; ~~ c 0 O!!!c m c.~oEmwONU~_Q)~£~~C u ~D :::;¡;; 0 ~ ~~ 0 -g :?~.g .¿~Q).c::-c Ec~Q)öQ)ömm=~~~~rn5~ ¡ij5:u_ c rn c: m ~ ~.,.!.. Q)~:3 2~cu~~_õlflm~~o ð~S o C·- 0 :;;~ '" :-f1~vi8'~§~ ~~Ze1ô .c::m~~Q)~·~1fI~5~mo~...~~ ~ -g ¡ij ~ U.2~t ü:;; .- ~ E-gCllQ)gEUJ c:ï5'2:5(f) ·~~~¡ij~EêQ)~~8...fis-=cE m co IfI ctI -cctlom ~-'- -TIO ~~;õg~8~~g~·ê~~ôEg ....._ Q) ID ~ QI-C-;;;2 "'~ ~ ClI.!::'! 0 m..... 0 f E å.~ ~E .c::21f12- :cs ·Õ--o.. c_ E.ê -t:."'= .000 g~lfI~vI~.c::Eêro~.c::E~~ø a.~Cc. ~U~ctI U (1)-'"'= -c ctI .E's2S -u .,. c a...'Q (I) t- -c ü ~'8~:5o ~(I)~~·~Q)~~ID~~~~~C.~1fI E,g~,g o c N O>~ ë:¡¡ ~ .& Q) roO>'æE5:51f1~·colfIQ)ow.~w~ ~~~ g '1fI Q) Q) -2 ~ 0 c-......~ 'ctI.c:: .8Ü22~ Nc....c:: ' "u M ';: ~ ~ ~ "* .~ ; 52 t5 ô';: :5.~ :5 ~ <3 g-~ 0 ~ ~ \3 ~ a.ctlco.... ..-octl..... "'~" 0 .2 0 IfI W'C -c--O ë~~E-g S ~.*- ~,~ 0> ~ '8 v 3 ~ U ~:> .~ 0 ~ 05:·52 .c:: EUS'ä E~õ en w occtl....c.Q)!: ~ <3 ~ ctI m '5o~~ ~ (I) 0 c: ~ 0 ~ c: _ Ci E ~ ,~ ~ 0 ..c: Q) c c: Q) ctI ....... ~ ª E ~ -B.2 E ~ " V) .....3w~e~c oB.c::.c:: ,,- ë5 ~'§ rn g E 'E ~ () E £ ;g w ~ Õ "5 -c ð g. 'S .~ ::g E ....WU...... ï:: rn W -e ._ .... UI .2?2~-g §:õ'E c ~ c 1Í25r:..:c. ~8-=8Mß~--o..o~~œå.BEð2 -Cwo '-.c:: 0 0 ~s8 z t-wc.mcoc3 <cüE.E ::2 UlU c. c Ó OZ rn +;:¡ø " ~ " N <'> " .,; "'~ ~ "0 ,- . rn =:cu 0 ::; " cD ::; 0>-, 0> ' 0> ' g>i~ g>~.; g>~~ C Q c15. c15. 'c 11) ï:: Q¡ ï:: Q) 'c Q) g. ï:: Q) g. ï:: Q) g. cD cD cD ~OO æOO æOO "'" "0> "0> -0>0> - '" 0> - '" 0> tL C tLc tL c g;.!: £ ~.5 c g;.5 c: :gg '" ,- '" ,- c" c" c;g Q> c;g .~ c:;g .~ "" (1)'3 (1)'5 """ "" " .. " " ,~ r:c ,~ tD .~ CO ,~c:I c .2 ca c: .2m c ä." ä." ä." ã. 'U 'õ> a.-c 'õ, Ci-o ï:;) Qc Qc Qc QCC QCC QCC «.. «.. «.. « ..w «..w «..w X X X X X X X ~ Q) X X X X N :c ~ tV "" I- .. A. j!¡ ,'! j!¡ j!¡ in - (f in in :;;, Õ 0 :;;, :;;, :;;, " C C _ C _ " C " C " C " 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 .s:::.:.;::; 0" 0" ~'- ,Cc.¡:; .s:::;:; E 0" :;::¡> :¡:;> 013 ü" ü" - 0 ,- 0 .. " u~ ,,~ " " " ~ C Q CQ C Q CQ CQ CQ "'" OQ OQ .. '" .. '" .. '" ä:c 0« ü« ä:c ä:c ä:c " ~'ð-g'E8 Q) 01'0 ,!:; , - '" ~ 0> -O.!: c IV 0 -ad) Q)c -g 1? ~ 2 0 0> - 0,)~.gE.9¡¡;c __c '-::~ C 0 oc:;;:; ~;g m_ g ro Q) -5 Q) -5 ,g '-.....::J .- m Q) C I :Q Q) -; ¡;- IV (1)111 0 0I.3ã.8 m r::: ~ ~ ~ßJM~~ ~~:§og c: Q) E <I) .2: c.u ro (ij ::J C C a. .s::::. o ê)otU Õ o...-u ~'3..c ~ mu£ '§E,~:g~ t"3 ~ ~ =.- Q) (II .s:::...... '- c.0,ª".5 ~2:g~ 2! -g'~ -g (; ~-6~:ß¡¡; "fiwu,,:::vl/ro ro.L)= C""" Q) - = -5~t5.2ro~~E Q)~õ(/E(ijO) .s,£8.:rlai 'O~~~-:ro~_"'~ (f ro <I)::J ¡¡¡ ~ e.s8 .8 ~ »"5 g (/) en c: CD ,!Q ï:::.f: " -" ~..... <I) ,i) 1ií t) E.1='-;; ~~2~~I-O:5 1:SwQ)E E ~§:~ 3= o.coo ~~~g~*~ 'Uw3=iV:¡::¡ C¡¡C~Q)Q).S(l)c3_ ,SO~611)-ðêo Q).c (/..c: ro;-g~õ ;:gc:.Q0)~ ..... 0 Q) '-:::: a. '- "QI-:ß:: .~ 'Ü ro ð.!R o g: 0'- . E.o ._::;¡_ c: ~ c: ~C:,:,::Q)(1).8cnQ),Q :?.B Q).c.S o,2ë ~ C 0 ::J (tI Q) ... > ~:DtI)~~ o (I _.~ ro >,... 2;'0:0 '¡: .- 3: rn£.r; c::£ 0.. Q) ~ ~ ~ g'u ,~ () 0...; .¡¡¡ If) 0''- (,/) c.Q) f/) ro::J o'ñj (1)_m(J)~c::o ,S; = (l).2 IJJ Q) 0 Q) .... 0,_ '"ß ~ ::J 1:: II) Q) (J)'- a.a:: ,:: ,~ ~ Ci u üO';::cromcii~ ro ro II) 0 ro 2 .a.c:a.Eo""'::gE... ,: ü Q) ro Q) OJ~ E (/);:..o<vE .... ¿ ~ CI- -g t5 .... C. 'C E·9 ::).£-0 ë o(/)~e~~'se-9 1?<v~S-(/)06:ßæE & (/) co E·~ C:o<v(/)2! -o~~c{~ E~-*J!? ;Uo.£ 0 (þ '8 iIi..... ~ 0 - Q) rn_ 0 I/)..a- rn ~£-8~:g'::Q¡.!Q .Q:;:;£ U) C ~:g E::·S 1::~.e àL~õ~,g8.õ~:6 ejõ~~ êij=OW<V 'U Q. rn . en .0';:: c: C:J :;; Oêij.21ñ~-~en~ O>E<1IcE ¡:ij~E~~ _ wen 0 .....- rn~,2Ë<v ¡g~:g~~e<1>eo a.a. 0>0 .S! 0> <V ro ë a. 0) (g c: E U) ::: 8 <V ~ .Q ~ -5 W (U § rn Q) ~ rn::)C "~,, E,~:5woê¿~ .s¡ <v.¡Z.g.~ 0 a. (/) W rn a. g a. 0 -3~~w£:::~æw £Z:;:;wE E ~ 0 E ,g t)c-2Q) 01:: a. c: Urn 0 ~ o _.:-O~<vroa.Ü <V o~ rn..c ui .oE::)(ij c.>-'U(!)ro....::)rn3: ='> > -c ,$ (!) - E O).!!!.g ~ ~ .~~ ui.g E; -6 g a E =';:: ~Orooo-=~8 ~m () ~~ C-oëët'tl(/)caJ ~ß()::.~cg.m(!) C>-w.o m.g2-oW _ (/):e -c ~.g rn g.~ c ~aJÕ () E-C ë c..... ~ ~ ro Q} () <V ~.!Q·ro'> tl)ctI()Q}I/)W .c::i5 .~ Q) (/)- ro üc;uwro.cE~ ::) U ° Q} (/) çrorog(/)--o .~~~~~~()= a.(/)rooc :;; ~:=:- ¡g'§ ~~..ê:i5 () tl)0>£E..ê2~gm ()'--= ~,¡: <V ::~ C:.'ffi z; .Q a. a. CI) m -0 '3-g~ß () (/)(/)(/)o>~ 3: U(/)-C-'Urn æ.~ g-oQ) m....~~ -0.!:EW....OIJ?eu (/)~:.c6.2 'm f¡f:¥i ¡¡;ü t5::)-.... Q) c: c-rno2.ª- " ::)....OQ)....t'tI I/) .... ::) .... >-.c :¡:¡ N a.'?å.--aJa.£(ij2! ::)-0 ~o.!:-.cO ..:.::_........c: >- g>= 19-O..ê .... a. c > fIJ .... ~~~Eõ~~~ Q) .... a......- 0 ~õ>--g=~ë~;¡¡c: -= ctI~ Q}_.--= (])__ g.--= 3:)-5 aJ f- û)aJooc:U caJ....ê9.- .2uêij(ijrn(/)O,)c ::¡ .~ ~ ~ 2 ~ C~¡:¡:j_O~ ~:.cE~aJctI'Ug Q"E -ro ° 0,) <0 ~--o~~-g~~ëE2 ê:'ô,0·_>3:0(/)aJ -= ~ o:~ ~ « o f/ c C:;::;·_ --0 Q) f/ '-- 0) ° Q) ÕOQ)U 0 ~ .!: '0 ~ 'E <V a. 6 $ 2:'.... a.(/):;:; :J OOf/.....,O U....Q)()U-o o>_(ij2-g!1roc ::) OI,N o>~ ch g 2 . Q) ro ,Q c- rn § ~ =-oC':lEm=E.crn Q) 0.£ Q) rn 0 occtlgg¡ O)oa.E2--o 8~'~EQ}~'g~ ~,!: E'!::V U ~ VI:!2.cÕ 3:Jg.:n:i Q) ctI.C -c.- Q) c ~2m£~ '§~~~ê~ 0,) Q) c () 1:: Q)..o a. >.... -oo-6Ec3:=........ '" ~ 3: ê=.!: ro -.- rn Q) a. m VI ro I: ~ ï::'~ 3: '" .: a.~:.c 0.: ::) a. I: f/ =c CI'- &.:t::~ ro~ ()c.cc=:: <ë ..c:~.!!!~·ë 8.g~E8~ E~E-5g.~~= (5 ~ 'E ~ &. N 00 Q.<1I 1:--0 VI rnW.!: c{:JE.8::)oU)5=rn Oi1)U)Octl I- III Q.(/) 3: '" ¡¡: '" 0 ;¡; <Ò '" ori ,,; ~ u ~ '" 0 m .~~ç¡ g'~~ g'~~ '" ' .S D. ~ ~ ~ 'c v ~ C v :¡r ~ ~ ~oo ~oo ~oo ~O '" "''' C:~C) - "'''' '"'" C:CC g;.s C Cl. ~ :g:g '~ ~._ C "'- C;:g .~ c;g .~ ~" '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~ (I 'S ,g II) '6 .9m c ,~ŒI c ~<D ä. "0 '(:;> 'D.-c 'ÕJ a.u §:-g c "-~~ "-~~ "-~ « "'LU «",LU «",LU « '" ~.:;¡ 0.8 co., ~ . x x X ï::: C X ,0 0" .... ., . . () x x x ~gx M :¡:¡ " u '" M I- " ~ '"' a. .') .') .') .') ûj ûj ûj ûj :;., :;., :;., :;., " ~ " ~ " ~ " ~ ~ 0 ~o ~ 0 ~ 0 E .c::¡:; .c::¡:; .c::¡:; ~- Ü" ü" ü " üÜ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "- ~"- ~ "- ~"- '" . "'. '" . '" . ä: ~ ä:~ ä: ~ ä: ~ ~ ~ <;; -iO ~ -c Z. '- g!u ~ -0 , ~ o~ -c c c 0 _0 £"0 .2 ~õ <1:1 c ..... (I::J_ ro~ .~ ~.....:i5'¡;: e -0 N .cctlcucQ)o(/) ~ ~ '~:¡; <t> -fI>-Ë(¡jO'E .~ .- (/) -c ::J Q) ."- ~.a.g«~rn veD roo.a ....ocu .c: ¡;¡ "0 2 (/) c)'U ¡>¡:ß g'E .~ flQ)VCU"":-VC cu= '2$J:~<t>Æ~ .....cê.a(lÔnJ ,,0- el/) (1)0 U5 'tE ·§.:i5·E:g §:.~ ~ _ " Ë«o'U.2e, ~'" .a ~ ~ ·N (/) C)'c u nJ fI >-","- <1:1 .'t: cu~~~ c: '0'0 v~'Eßv'E = fI.... ....(!)(!)~.c ...- É ~ ~ ::Eo~::Q) '" . ~ '3 Õ c.'U (I ~.--: 0 iô¡>¡ '¡::;Q)Q) 0- e (!) c.2·- <.D 0 mc..... c.ro¡¡¡ ~,,- ~ ~ x ~m~:§:~M ~ '1" "-x .c: 0 2:'......c: ::J - ~ ~ :ë 0 5 ~ (/)Uctl~fI-c &.I/)E §~112~g,* õ:: ::; ~ . g¡¡¡¡~><!1~ ~ '" , ~ ~~ g1ro';¿a: . '" 0'0 Q):::J (!) Q):i5 C c: ~ '" '0 E ¿ Q3~ ì;;'U:&EC)::J o ~'x 0> ctI c.c 0 cue 0 :¡:; - Q) 1/).... 0 ,- 0 ¿ ~ iô . c~e::JctI~ -~'" 'E c. E ctI Q):¡:; -t;:¡:; º~(/)Eom ~(¡jE "" zu C Q) -c 0 m._ m N "' 'U.S: u.....ctlx;-c -~~ ~:gœ~¡¡¡'SD~ 'I ~ ~ ~ 2ár:ßctI§-ð' '*0= .....::;;.a Q) -c 0>0 C M ..... U ,- E u C ~O(l..øo~;Q) a '" ~ ~ ~ '"§; Q) ¡;¡'~ c 0 (lEcC)uuca: J, ~ ~ ~u - .,- ,,~ o :¡:;..c: -~. .c: <1:1._ Q) u c 0-c ~ N ~ ~ 0"" 0..... ::J C '" ~ ~ -c CO"" co mO c 0 (!) (I 0 -c 0 E ~ Q g'= c.'U e I/) C ctI ~ -0'0 -c.c: ......... .~ ~ -g ~ .~ ~ 2 § , M - ~ ~Õ~(/)OO '00. on ü5 ~u w 0 ~ 0 0 (I '-:¡:; C 0>.... = <1:1 E a: go~-ct5=,ªª g ~ . ~ a.o(l2cQ) '6~ C"" '- (/)'¡;:.c: (!) ~.c <1:1 ;'S .E~..c¡>~~~oo ::J 2 ê·~ 2 (¡j;Q 0=..... Q)o~~ë~':~ ë = I/ ~~~~~~(~ o '" . « Cê '" o ~ -~, ¡::~~ª8~«D N on. on.u I '" ~ ä: ;; '" 00 " N ,,; " ui c u - - - 'ë '" § 0 ~ ãJ C; Case No.IS-03-024 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Kimco Realty Corporation 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 5238 Manzanita A venue Carmichael, CA 95608 (916) 349-7480 4. Name of Proposal: Broadway Plaza 5, Date of Checklist: August 25, 2003 Potentially Potentially Significant I...essthan Significant u....~ Signifitant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposaL-' a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 r8] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 r8] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 r8] (e.g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 r8] an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: a) The project site is within the CC (Central CommerciallPrecise Plan) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan designation, The project has been reviewed and has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and with the General Plan, b) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthennore, the project would not encroach into or indirectly affect the Habitat Preserve area of the adopted City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources, d) The proposed shopping center project would not disrupt or divide the established adjacent community or surrounding commercial, office, or residential environment 1 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required Potentially II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal,' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 C< population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 C< directly or indirectly (e,g" through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 C< housing? Comments: a) The proposed project would have no effects upon regional or local population projections, b) Bascd upon the relatively minor addition of occupied retail space that is proposed and the type of employment opportunities the project would generate, the inducement of substantia] growth in the area is not anticipated. c) The project site does not contain any housing; therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur as a result of the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant I.A.'sslhan Significant Unless Significant No expose people to potential impacts involving.' Impact Mitigated Imp'ct Impact a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 C< geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 C< 0 overcovering of the soiP c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 C< features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 C< any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 C< 0 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 C< sands, or changes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 C< hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2 Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section K Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Lesstban IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Signiftcanl Unless Significant No Would rhe proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 0 related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g" temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 0 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 0 of water movements. in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 0 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 0 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 0 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 0 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section K Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' Potentially Significallt Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 0 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3 d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 0 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 0 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. PotentiaUy VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No the proposal result in.' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g., 0 0 0 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 0 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 0 alternative transportation (e.g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 0 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 0 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Poteotiany VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would rhe PolentiaUy Significant l.essthan Significant Unless Significant No proposal result in impacts to,' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 0 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage 0 0 0 0 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g" 0 0 0 0 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e,g., marsh. riparian and 0 0 0 0 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 0 4 t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 [;¡ efforts? Comments: a) The project site is presently fully developed as a shopping center. Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for hsting 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 locally designated species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. c) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no locally designated natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area, d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no wetland habitat is present within or immediately adj acent to the proposed development area. e) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area, f) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will result since the project site is a designated development area pursuant to the adopted City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentiatly Potentially Significant ussthan VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 [;¡ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 [;¡ inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 [;¡ protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: a) The proposed project would not conflict with any UBC requirements or adopted energy conservation plans, b) The proposed commercial retail development would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency regulations per State Regu1ations, Uniform Building Code Title 24, There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources, c) Pursuant to the Environmental 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, S Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve,' Potentially Significant Less tban Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 t8 0 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 ø response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of auy health hazard or potential 0 0 ø 0 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 t8 0 potential health hazards? e) Iucreased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 ø brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E b) The proposed project would not result in interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, according to the Fire Department and Police Department. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E e) The project site is not situated within or immediately adjacent to an area containing dense flammable vegetation, Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, Potentially X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Less than Signific-3nt Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 ø 0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 ø 0 Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, Potentially XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Potentially Significant l,cssthan Si¡::nifkant Unless Significant No an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact altered government services in any of the following areas,' a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ø 6 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 cg c) Schools? 0 0 0 cg d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 cg roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 cg Comments: a) The project consists of the remodeling of an existing shopping center, resulting in a net decrease in building area, According to the Fire Department, through the proposed project design and installation of fire hydrants, adequate fire 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 new or altered fire protection services, 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. c) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees for thc proposed new commercial buildings, d) The proposed project would be maintained entirely by the property owner and would continue to be served by existing pubJic infrastructure, 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 inrrastructure, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially SignifiCant usslhao Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 cg 0 the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the following Threshold Standards. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Fire and Emergency Medical Service 0 0 cg 0 The Threshold Standard requires that properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases. Comments: The project consists of the remodeling of an existing shopping center, resulting in a net decrease in building area. According to the Fire Department, through the proposed project design and installation of fire hydrants, adequate fire 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 new or altered fire protection services, This Threshold Standard is not applicable to the proposed shopping center project 7 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact lmp:n;t b) Police 0 0 J8 0 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 81 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes, maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 5,5 minutes or less, must respond to 57% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes, and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7,5 minutes or less. Comments: The project consists of the remodeling of an existing shopping center, resulting in a net decrease in building area, According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon comp1etion of the proposed project The proposed commercial retail project wou1d not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant N" Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Traffic 0 0 J8 0 L City-wide: Maintain LOS "Coo or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day, 2. West of I-80S: Those signalized intersections. which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen, Comments: Based upon the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project, all roadways segments and intersections within the study area are estimated to operate at levels of service that are in compliance with the Threshold Standards. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 J8 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. Comments: Because the project site is located to the west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 8 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Drainage 0 0 [;J 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 Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards, Comments: A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the final grading and improvement plans and drainage facilities designed in accordance with City standards will be installed at the time of site deveJopment No significant impacts to tlie City's stonn drainage system are anticipated to result rrom the proposed development Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant N" Impact Mitigated Impact Impact t) Sewer 0 0 [;J 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, Comments: The proposed project lies within the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer Basin. The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of a l2-inch sewer line running along Naples Street, an 8-inch line running along Broadway and a 12-inch sewer line running along Oxford Street. The Engineering Department has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project; therefore, no new sewer facilities will be required. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Signmunt Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Water 0 0 [;J 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, Comments: The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority, Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority, dated November 27, 2002, the project may be serviced off the existing 8-inch main on the east side of Broadway, There are three existing water services to these parcels, Project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be Jess than significant Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 9 Potl'utially XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Signifkant Less than Significant Uoll'ss Significant No the proposal result in a need for new 'ystems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 [¡ 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 [¡ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 [¡ 0 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 [¡ 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 [¡ 0 t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 [¡ 0 Comments: a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and connections to such utilities and systems that are necessary in order to adequately service the proposed project would be implemented by the City, subject to the approval of the appropriate utilities and servIce providers. No significant impact to utilities and service systems would result from the proposed project b) See XlII,a, c) See XII!.a, The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence rrom the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from existing potable water mains, d) See XII!.a. City Engineering staff has detennined that existing sewer mains are adequate to serve the proposed project e) See XlII,a, There is an existing stonn drain located north of the site along Naples Street which serves the project site, The proposed conceptual drainage plan is anticipated to be sufficient according to the Engineering Department Any improvements to the on- and off-site drainage system that are deemed necessary to serve the proposed project will be required to be implemented by the applicant t) See XlILa, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potl'ntiaUy Potentially Significant Lessthau Significant Unless Significant No XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposa{' Impact Mitigatl'd Impact Impact a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 [¡ public or will the project result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 [¡ 0 scenic route? 0 0 0 [¡ 10 c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that could D D ø D increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66,100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? D D ø D 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, this portion of Broadway is not a designated scenic roadway. The project proposes access via unsignalized driveways along Broadway, Naples Street and Oxford Avenue. Landscape treatments along Broadway 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 corridor are not significant. c) The project site is located within an established urbanized area, which includes a single-family residential neighborhood to the north and a public elementary school to the west. The proposed project of the existing partially vacant shopping center 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, including a landscaped pedestrian pathway from Naples Street to the planned future park site immediately west of the site, new landscaping and decorative hardscapc throughout the center, and a screening benlliwall along the Costco Warehouse's frontage on Naples Street, are anticipated to have a positive aesthetic effect. 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 direct or sky- reflected glare shall be visible at the lot line of an establishment or use. e) See XIV ,d. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Signinc3nt l-essthan Significant Unless SignmŒnt No proposaL Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction or D D D ø a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects D D D ø to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change, D D D ø which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within D D D ø the potential impact area? 11 e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 I< Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archaeological resources? Comments: a) The project site is identified as an area oflow potential for cultural resources in the City's General Plan ErR, Based on the low potential 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. b) No buildings or structures arc present within the impact area of the project and no prehistoric or historic objects arc known or are expected to be present within the impact area. See XV ,a. above. c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values, d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the project. e) See XYa, above, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impilct XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 I< 0 proposal result in the alteration of or the destmction of paleontological resources? Comments: The project site is identified as an area oflow potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan ElK Based upon the low sensitivity of the site and the relatively minor amount of proposed excavation, the potential for impacts to paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposaL-· Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impm"t a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 I< 0 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 I< c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or 0 0 0 I< programs? Comments: a) Because the proposed retail commercial project is a commercial retail land use, it would not induee significant population growth and thus not create a demand for neighborhood or 12 regional parks or facilities, b) The proposed retail commercial project would not create a significant impact to existing recreational opportunities in the area, The project includes a pedestrian pathway on-site to provide access from Naples Street to the planned future park site to the west of the site. e) 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. Potentially Significant Less Ihan Potentially Unless Significant N. 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, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 [8 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 site is currently developed, is locatcd within an established urbanized area, and is within the designated development area of the adopted City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 [8 short-tenn, to the disadvantage ofIong-tenn, environmental goals? Comments: The project would not affect long-term environmental goals of the City because the project site is presently fully developed and the project is consistent with thc City of Chula Vista General Plan and the adopted City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, No significant short-tenn impacts would result from the proposed projeeL Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, c) Docs the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 [8 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of 13 probable future projects,) Comments: 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 cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the proposed project of the existing retail commercial shopping center have been identified and none are contemplated, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. d) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 18 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: See the "Hazards" discussion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E; potential impacts associated with the demolition of existing buildings and improvements containing asbestos- containing materials would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Based upon the analysis of potential hazards, no other potential effects on human beings are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 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 Checklist, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-024, ]4 Uð/;::b;;::UU,] l4:~.Ij FAX 650 348 9999 Josh Sm11:h ~001 08/22/2003 14:01 FAX MULVANNY G2 IRVINE 1¡1] 001/001 XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By .igning the line( s} provided below, the Property Owner and Openllor stipulate that they have read, undel1itood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to ,the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implemtm same to tho satisfaotion ofthe Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting oflhi. Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Counly Clerk shall indioate the Property Ollltler'g and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property OWn"< and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Repon. La R.Jf C'.r:k... e(~~f)3 Date rf-"Z!o~ Da h-inted Name and TWe of ApplicanVOperator Date (if different from Property Owner) Signature of ApphcanrJOperator Date (if different from Properly Owner) 15a 08/25/2003 11:51 FAX MULVANNY G2 IRVINE ¡¡¡¡ 0011001 Uð/22/2003 14:47 FAX 949 724 0322 NORTHWEST ATLANTIC IRV ~ MULVANNY r¡¡¡ 001/001 08/22/2003 14:01 FAX IULVANNY G2 IRVINE Io!I 001/001 xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate thai they have read. understood and have their æspective company's authority 10 and do agree Io.the mitigation IOeIISUreO cantain<dh«cin, and will implement same to !be BBlisfaction of!be EnviromncnIalRcview Coordinator. Failure 10 sign the linc(.) provided below prior to posting of tlris Mitigated Negative DeclaIation with the County Clerlc shall iruticale the Propaty Owner's and Operntor's desire that the Project be held in abeyance withoot approval and that the Propaty Ownec and Opcretor shall apply for an EnvironroeotaJ Impact Report. . Prln1ed Name and Title <>f Property Owner Dale (or authorized rep"",entative) Sigoatare of Property Owner Date (or au1llorized representative) 1I.1lW ~ - F/6 'etr.r /lféf?. 'bll-Zlo~ erator ate (ifd' ?XI tv/ftJ~ bI.!::-. perator e>f;,.;/iJ~ (if ' ~ Prqx:rty Owner) 15b AUG-25-2003 MON 04:51 PM FAX NO. P. 01 XX, AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MillGATlON MEASURES By signing the Jin«s) provided below, Ibe Property Owner and Operator stipclnte that they have read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein..and wiIl impJement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Rcview Coordinator. Failure to ,lgn the ¡ine(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Deelonlion with the COUIlty Clerk shall indicate the Property Own""s and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operaror shall apply for an EnvITorunenbl Impact Report. Printed NIU1\e and Title ofPrüperty Owntr Date (or authorized rcprcstntativc) Date Date ;¡ /.2. Ò/ð"3> I Date I 15c XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics o Water . Hazards o Cultural Resources . Air Quality . Noise o Recreation o Paleontological o Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the . environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and 0 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: 1) 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 ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Marilyn RT Ponseggi Date Environmental Review Coordinator 16