HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/04/02
-,,'\ ,
Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Seniors On Broadway
PROJECT LOCATION: 825-841 Broadway
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,: 572-270-0500
PROJECT APPLICANT: Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC)
CASE NO.: IS-03-008
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: April 2, 2003
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: I
A. Proi ect Setting
The approximately I.O-acre project site, located within the City of Chula Vista at 825 - 841
Broadway, is a vacant and undeveloped parcel, adjacent to an existing charter school (see
Exhibit A-Location Map). The Chula Vista Elementary School District currently owns both
the project site and the school parcel. The land uses that surround the project site consist of
the following:
North: Furniture Store
South: Mortuary
East: Charter School
West: Across Broadway, miscellaneous retail and auto-related businesses
B, Project Description
The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project requires a zone change rrom CTP
(Thoroughfare Commercial) to CCP (Central Commercial), to allow mixed-use development
(see Exhibit B - site plan). The project consists of 41 one-bedroom units affordable to very-
low income seniors, and one two-bedroom manager's unit within a three-story building.
Proposed community area for the residents and retail portions of the project's ground floor
comprises 8,300 square feet of the building's total 40,000 square feet; 2,219 square feet of
commerciaVretail space is proposed on the ground floor facing Broadway and 6,092 square
feet of ground floor community common area is proposed for the residents including
lounge/waiting area, community room with service kitchen, library, restrooms, manager's
office, and maintenance room. A 560 square foot kiosk is proposed at the northwest comer
of the parking lot; its purpose is to accommodate MAAC social service staff offering
program assistance to seniors. An underlying theme of the proposed project is the linking of
senior citizens and charter school students: "Generations Together". The "Generations
Together Community Center" will bring the senior residents and the youth together in the
I
community space located on the first floor for exchange of intergenerational education and
expenence, Proposed on-site parking is 45 spaces, On-site improvements include
landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking lot, retaining walls and 6-foot
wooden decorative fence, The proposal requires Design Review by the Design Review
Committee and approval of a Precise Plan, rezone and Special Use Permit by the City
CounciL
C Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The project site is zoned CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial Zone) under the City's Municipal
Code and is designated "Commercial - Retail" under the City's adopted General Plan. The
proposed mixed-use commerciallresidential project requires a zone change rrom CTP
(Thoroughfare Commercial) to CCP (Central Commercial) to allow mixed-use development
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan CR (Commercial/Retail) land use
designation.
D, Public Comments
On February 4, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a
500-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period closed on February 14, 2003.
Staff received one verbal contact and one written communication from the public, The issues
of.concern dealt with traffic circulation issues associated with the adjacent charter school
along Sierra Way.
K Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required, This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
Transportation/Circulation
The project site is currently accessible from Broadway, which operates at level of service
(LOS) A between K Street and Sierra Way. The two existing driveways on Broadway will
be relocated off of "K" Street According to the Traffic Engineering Section, upon
completion of the proposed project this segment of Broadway will continue to operate at
LOSA.
The MAAC social services and intergenerational activities between the seniors at the housing
project and the students of the charter school would occur mainly at the designated
community space located on the first floor of the senior project site and within the proposed
social services kiosk, Any MAAC social services activities will be facilitated by their own
15-person van to shuttle seniors off-site, These activities will not create any significant
traffic impacts to the surrounding area,
2
The proposal is projected to generate 600 average daily vehicle trips. Based upon the
projected level of traffic generation and the level of service of the segment of Broadway
adjacent to the site, it was determined that the proposal does not have the potential to result in
any significant traffic impacts; therefore, the preparation of a traffic study was not required,
Noise
The project site is a comer lot with frontages along Broadway and Sierra Way within a
developed urban area. Immediate surrounding land uses consist of commercial/retail and
auto-related businesses to the west across Broadway, an established charter school to the east
continue (north/south), The closest single-family and multi-family residential properties are
to the south and east of the charter school site; the project site is not directly adjacent to
residential land uses. There is an existing charter elementary school located to the east of the
proposed project site. The closest existing school building is located 242 feet from the
property line. Between the project site and the nearest school building is school playground
area.
The proposed interior courtyard would provide an important outdoor amenity for tenants and
visitors alike as well as act as a noise buffer to offset traffic noise from Broadway. The
courtyard is partially screened on three sides by the senior residential building with opening
facing the school playground area,
The proposed residential units shall be constructed in accordance with the interior noise
insulation standards of Title 24, California Administrative Code. As a result, interior noise
would be reduced to an insignificant level.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
No Mitigation Measures are required.
G. Consultation
L Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Frank Rivera, Engineering Dept
JeffMoneda, Engineering Dept
Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Dept
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Dept
Majed Al-Ghafry, Engineering Dept
Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office
John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department
Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department
Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department
Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department
Others:
3
Lowell Billings, Chula Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 1989
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No.
88-2, May 1989
Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October
2002
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update-Undeveloped Lot-825-841 Broadway,
Chula Vista, California, P&D Environmental, May 30, 2002.
Broadway Mixed-Use Project Traffic Noise Assessment for 760 Broadway prepared by
Dudek and Associates, Inc., dated February 24, 2003.
3. Initial Study
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City
ofChula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Date:
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
4
CHULA VISTA
HIGH
SCHOOL
SOlAR
TURBINES
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: MAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT Request: Proposal for a three-story mixed commercial
ADDRESS: 825-841 BROADWAY -residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: units, a manager's unit and 9,010sq.ft of ground floor
NORTH No Scale IS-03-008 retail and office space.
j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslis03008,cdr 1 0,09,02 ,ðJI,err A
..
=..:.~.::::...~ 7;::"~_: ~..:-___-.:";';";. :-..::~ ....- ~:~ .~~..:..~;.o;::-::;""';,;.:.-:-....-:¡ -=-:..;.-:..,:,~-:..::.~_:;-":,,.;;:::;..:-,=':";:. ";-::.~- -=4 ~=.:: ,.-.... .....'''':. =.- -". ~..;:. ~'~:~-~~;;::b~~~'t
I -
.! '
z _~ ~9" ~:a:. ~a ." .. . ..... ..' 1.
au ;\ ~ ¡ \;¡g' 0 H ::. . II t ! II!'\ º~ t;¡ ~ 'C!'ir.r;¡\ t:f":?;\
'2: z .' ::¡ I I" ¡ I II I I ' ,I "OJ'" ....J V)
~0 :1." I '¡; ¡ !I! I jj ¡ ,I ~ W \Ii I ~ ~ ó!g ~ I i-«
a I ~ I. 'I-! '" 0'" I II ~ dlll\!;' "'~ ¡¡;;'¡ ¡;; !
[;j~:! 'ž I 1,1 ,'m'''.... II ..! 0 J',I) ¡¡I~I' ~QP.¡I ~' ~.~~~
:) < <I ~ ¡ 0 "\ h t,n II Õ I ~ i OJ ,"',.....
~G:!. @~ 'I ¡~ì '¡I Íil H'" 00 ,- ..-.., §. !¡¡hUB i I ~¡g ~t!i § , I j
§~~1 ~~dl~~¡ II~¡I!HllhJ~1! qll!l¡JJu!I ¡P!!m J¡¡ln '~~~i;¡ ~. D
ii:ri;¡ h! el¡·HI! ~¡ hd¡'I~!ii! ~~¡ d I f~¡)IIIIII' s·lhl!!.I!;!U ~~ ' ~
~:j. h ~ .h!J!8!!!llijbmh~¡du! ~¡ !! ~ª~..." .~.~ ,:¡:¡<:.....
...-I ,. .. ....4 "" . " ~
w I:::
ill
.!- M.
.11' ""
œ" , !,J So
. ~ J !¡~'!I! ni ~
I n II j ¡ ¡ it':
1 §.,,!, ~
I I 'I'
'a I' 1. ~ ~ ;
, I i3..~!~t ;¡i~
,,<oj' _"" .
,,", i' ~' 4.
I' I~H¡¡, 1¡
I=:: , ~
I I' . - . I "
I < 'I
I i â !'
, ~ '
I . ;.¡ :z!
, ~ ;1:
L-L ))~ ."
I -------_......_/,/ i I
____""H__ ___~~~___"~~:.~;v~~'~=-=----~,-~ ,¡ ¡
L .! ~¡i' 1 'il.
........... _ ~ . " ' 'iì~!
nu..__l_-i-+_nn ~ ~j¡'1 '
~ ~~.- ' '
W . --- -1 . - r'''ji: U;a'; , .::'1
,I "",-"" 'In' I .,.
~~í ,:,'- .;",\", '".",':-,,--","<,~ ~: i ' 5ti~
1~,>·~.,,,-~'.s;'·~''-·0':>~j : ! ..¡
I "~~"~"":--""~'~":-0" 1--: -' ,"¡'
; I 0~~,.,~"<~,~,,,.,~~, ~s,1 ,r }I ¡¡¡!¡
, .."" ~'S0 '~.8;."" I' 'I '!i'
" ".~0"'0~'>"'::::-":~"~',",' ''-1''''! ~i -,
¡ ,,' ," .,,-,,-'-'''''' ~',:~':. ,+, I; ~, J ~I~
h"~"~' '01 'I'
~ I ¡. .::: _ '" '- " -' I } :z:: =1 ~
~ : ! ª ~~~ <~''\ :', I; ::1 ,:=
1~! I š!¡¡! '~,,~:~, ".f= = i " ,I,
I + v,,<'::::::~'¡ f i ~ ¡,
. ,~~"''' 'I Ii· ¡
~ :::~~~~.~~~'~, ". ' l i ¡¡i·
, . g. ¡ ,,'" >0.",,,2;:~,~~, , ' ~ ,
.0."" 'c ,<-,-~.,~'.. ',\ "'
~I:b~~.!" "·"'-:"':;114-- ªo-
I ~"" · I ' ' . I ' · ,
...... ~ ,: - "
~ . ,i
,
~I e -i--"-
I' I
¡t' I' "I' ,... 'I'
_ '-a
t ; .. J r a ¡ i ~ ~-1 ¡U i H
~_ ¡t , : I -----..---. .- .a""
\2~L' ¡;!..,. ,&;. Z g:;~i
;¡; ÌI I «... -~ ;I
~¡.. Ii! -' ~¡¡I
~ ~ II '1 : I 0.... ::::> -- *
9 ¡'. II 'I UJ ~ II'
R õ ~ i . : I-- "'" . ~
~ . . ¡,' Iii '" ¡¡ ì I!, . II! ¡ ~¡¡I¡
~ ¡;, ~ At" -l ... ;I lilt L~ lt æ "'
. ! or> ~ I ! '< ::; ': U 2 ~!~ i! .. jj §
II ¡ I C;¿
b. ' ~
,!.:J _.J I-
,____~,___'~n_n_ ._._ i ! i ~ ;I~~
I-- I·S~
I I - ""Ii
,:r: .,¡¡I,
_ I I U ¡"iI-
i ~ ~:~'I!
« "¡' "
'!I!i
i!1'li
,~¡! i
:d¡¡
Case No. IS-03-008
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 22 West 35"' Street, Suite 200
National City, CA 91950
(619) 426-3595
4, Name of Proposal: Seniors on Broadway
825-841 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA
5. Date of Checklist: March 28, 2003
PotentiaUy
PotentiaUy Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 C!iI 0
zoniI¡g?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 C!iI
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 C!iI
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 C!iI
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments:
a) The project site is zoned CTP (Commercial Thoroughfare/Precise Plan) under the
City's Municipal Code and is designated "Commercial- Retail" under the City's
adopted General Plan, The proposal requires a rezone to CCP (Central Commercial) to
accommodate the mixed-use commercial-residential development.
b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or
policies. Furthennore, the proposal would not encroach into or indirectly affect the
Habitat Preserve area of the Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Program Subarea Plan,
Page - 1
c) The project site is neither in agricultural production nor adjacent to property in
agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources,
d) The proposal would neither disrupt nor divide the physical arrangement of an
established community, The project site is presently vacant and undeveloped. The
established surrounding land uses consist of a furniture store, mortuary, school, auto-
related businesses and miscellaneous retail uses,
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 11!1
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 11!1 0
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 11!1
housing?
Comments:
a) The proposed project consists of 41 senior housing units and one manager's unit. This
is not considered to be a significant increase to the regional or local population
projections.
b) See Section II, a. The proposal would not directly or indirectly induce significant
growth in the area.
c) The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, No housing displacement would
result from the proposal.
Potentially
III, GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Signific;ant No
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 '"
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 11!1
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 11!1
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 '"
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 11!1 0
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 11!1
Page - 2
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 ~ 0
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
a) A Geotechnica] Invcstigation and Geologica]/Seismic Hazards Study dated Fcbruary 7,
200], was prepared by K]einife]der, Inc. for the charter schoo] development and the
future developmcnt area (the current project site), The study did not identify any
potential seismic hazards other than potentially expansive soils, The nearest fault to
the project site is the La Nacion, 2,5 miles to the west. The geotechnical report
included appropriate recommendations to reduce potential hazards associated with
expansive soils. Because the project site is flat and inland from the closest water body,
San Diego Bay, the geotechnical report concluded that potentia] impacts from
landslides, liquefaction and flooding are considcred to be less than significant. An
updated geotechnical report for the proposed development will be required at the
grading permit submittal stage, which shall include foundation recommendations bascd
on the proposed structures and appropriate soil testing and conditions to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer-
b) See IILa. above. Proper engineering design would ensure that no such soils-related
impacts would result.
c) No significant changes to topographical features of the site would result since the project
site is flat.
d) The project site area is identified within urbanized areas of the City of Chula General
Plan EIR. No unique geologic or physical features exist within the proposed
development area.
e) All grading operations would be performed in compliance with the City ofChula Vista
Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). Short-term erosion during
construction would be reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of
temporary erosion control devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer- These devices
may include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring, Protective
devices would be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment ITom entering the
storm drain system. Erosion control measures would be installed as required by the City
Engineer-
±) See IILe, above, Compliance with NPDES Order No, 200]-0], through the
implementation of appropriate construction and post-construction best management
practices (BMPs), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer is required,
Page - 3
g) See IIta. above, No significant geological hazards to people or property, such as
earthquakes, landslides, ground failures or similar hazards are anticipated to result
from the proposed development.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in,· Signific.ant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 ~ 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 ~
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 ~ 0
alteration of surface water quality (e,g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 ~
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 ~
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 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 ~
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 ~
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 ~
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 ~
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
a) According to the Engineering Department, the proposed construction of a mixed-use
project on the undeveloped project site would not result in a significant change to the
on-site absorption rate. There is an existing chain link fence and concrete swale
between the existing charter school and proposed project site. A previous lot line
adjustment resulted in the movement of the easterly property line of the project site 12
feet inside the chain link fence area separating the school and the project site,
According to the Engineering Department, the relocation ofthe existing fence line and
swale is required in order to complete this project and is part of the proposed MAAC
project. The conceptual grading plan proposes a 3-foot wide concrete cut-off brow
ditch replacing the existing concrete swale, in order to allow the continued capture of
Page - 4
the school playground runoff Final design specifications will be required prior to the
issuance of grading and improvements penn its, to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer-
b) The site presently sheet flows towards Broadway, where a stonn drain inlet exists in
the street. The proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address stonn drain
runoff from the project site consist of flow guard catch basin inserts. They appear to
be sufficient for the proposed project according to the Engineering Department. The
submittal of a final drainage study would be required prior to the issuance of grading
and improvement pennits to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and proposed
BMPs would be sufficient to serve the project; no significant impacts to the City's
stonn water drainage system are anticipated to result from the project.
c) The project site is not within the IOO-year or SOO-year floodplains and is not in
proximity to any bay or ocean; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water
related hazards would result from the proposed development.
d) Through construction pennit conditions of approval, the proposed project will be
required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs, where applicable, in
accordance with the City of Chula Vista Stonn Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual in order to prevent pollution of downstream water bodies.
e) Based on the size and nature of the proposed development, and the location of the
project site relative to natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes
in the amount of surface water in any water body, in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters,
f) According to the Kleinfelder, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic/Seismic
Hazards Study, no groundwater was encountered in borings to depths of2LS feet. No
changes in the quantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected
to result from the proposed development. Therefore, the project will have no impact to
groundwater quantity or quality.
g) See IV.f above,
h) See IV,f. above.
i) See IV,f. above. No alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters downstream of the
site are expected to result from the proposed development of the site.
j) The development of the proposal is not anticipated to result in a net increase in the
consumption of water otherwise available for public consumption or public water
supplies,
Page - 5
Potentially
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposaZ-' Potentially Significant 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?
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:
a) Based on the limited amount of site grading necessary to accommodate the proposed
development and because the proposal is estimated to generate 600 average daily
vehicle trips, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air quality standard
or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
b) The development of a mixed-use commercial/residential development is not
anticipated to result in an increase in the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants,
No traffic congestion exists in the vicinity ofthe project site that would result in the
exposure of tenants to significant concentrations of air pollutants.
c) The proposed development is not anticipated to significantly alter air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, as the surrounding land uses
are commercial and residential in nature.
d) The City Zoning Ordinance allows for residential and commercial land uses. Neither
development nor operation of the proposed senior housing project or retail commercial
space would create any objectionable odors.
e) The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 600 average daily vehicle trips.
The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation; the
proposal would not result in an increase in non-stationary sources of air emissions or
the deterioration of ambient air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions would
be associated with the proposed project.
Potentially
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
Page - 6
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
bicyclists?
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
alternative transportation (e,g. bus turnouts.
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments:
a) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
b) See VI.a. According to the Traffic Engineering Section, no traffic safety hazards are
anticipated to result from the proposed mixed-use project
c) According to the Fire Department and Police Department, the proposed site plan
provides for adequate emergency access from Sierra Way,
d) The proposal would result in a net gain of 45 on-site parking spaces for the exclusive
use of residential and commercial tenants, customers and visitors.
e) The proposal would not result in any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
f) Existing public transit bus route 932 runs north and south along Broadway, which
serves existing businesses, schools and residential areas in the surrounding
neighborhoods, No conflicts with this bus route or with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation would result.
g) No rail, navigable waters, or aircraft facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site;
therefore, the proposal would not result in any rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts.
h) The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generated by the
mixed-use development; therefore, the project is not considered a "large project" under
the Congestion Management Program,
Potentially
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the PotentiaUy Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal result in impacts to,' Impact Mitigated IWp3d Impact
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 ¡;;¡
Page - 7
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage 0 0 0 18]
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g., 0 0 0 18]
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e,g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 18]
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 18]
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 18]
efforts?
Comments:
a) The project site is presently vacant within an urban developed area. No habitat for
endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for
listing exists on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
b) See VILa, above, No locally designated species are present on or immediately adjacent
to the project site,
c) See VILa. above. No locally designated natural communities are present on or
immediately adjacent to the project site.
d) See VILa. above. No wetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the
project site,
e) See VILa. above. The proposal would have no effect upon any wildlife dispersal or
migration corridors.
f) See VILa. above. The proposal would not affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesslban
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant No
Would the proposal.' Impact Mitigated Impact Impad
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 III
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 18]
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 18]
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Page - 8
Comments:
a) The proposal would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans,
b) The proposal would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency
regulations. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result
in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
c) According to the Environmental Impact Report for the City ofChula Vista General
Plan Update (Chula Vista, 1989), the project site does not contain significant mineral
resources.
Potentially
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve,' Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ø
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 any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 ø
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 ø
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with IIammable 0 0 0 ø
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
a) There are no proposed features or aspects of the proposal that would represent a risk of
accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances, The proposed project consists
ofresidential and commercial/retail development. The applicant is required to show
proof of compliance with the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management
Division and City Fire Department hazardous materials storage requirements and fire
safety standards prior to issuance of building pennits.
b) The proposal would not result in interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would be created as a result of the
development of mixed-use commercial/residential development on the project site.
d) No known sources of potential health hazards exist on the project site or in the
immediate vicinity.
Page - 9
e) The project site is not situated within or immediately adjacent to an area containing
dense flammable vegetation; furthennore, the proposed project is surrounded by
properties containing buildings constructed of steel and concrete and decorative
landscaping.
Potentially
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in.' Potentially Signifkant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 I; 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 I; 0
Comments:
a) See Negative Declaration, Section E
b) See Negative Declaration, Section E
Potentially
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Potentially Significant Less than
Significant 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 I;
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 I;
c) Schools? 0 0 0 I;
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 I;
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 I;
Comments:
a) The 1,500 G,P.M, fire flows at 20 p.s,i. residual pressure for a two-hour duration as
required by the Chula Vista Fire Department is available to serve the proposaL According
to the Fire Department, the proposal 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, the proposal would not have a significant effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection services.
c) Because the proposal is for 41 units assumed to be 1-2 seniors per unit and would
induce minimal population growth of an estimated 160 senior persons, no adverse
impacts to public schools would result
Page - 10
d) The proposed project would be constructed and maintained entirely by the property
owner/applicant
e) The proposal would not have a significant effect upon other governmental facilities.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
Impad Mitigated Impact Impact
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 0 0
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards,
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless SignifICant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 0
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the
cases. The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met.
Comments: The Fire threshold would continue to be met as reported by the Fire
Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire services are anticipated,
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 0
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1
calls of 4,5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of
7 minutes or less,
Comments: The Police threshold would continue to be met as reported by the Police
Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic 0 0 0 0
L City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel
speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D"
can occur for no more than any two hours of the day,
2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections, which do not meet the standard
above, may continue to operate at their 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Page - 11
Comments: According to the Engineering Department, all roadways within the project area are
projected to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of the project traffic, in compliance
with the traffic threshold.
Potentially
Potentially SignifiCant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 I!
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, the threshold
standard is not applicable. However, as a mixed-use development with a residential component
the proposal is subject to payment of park fees to be utilized to provide for future park and
recreation facilities consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan,
Potl.'ntiaUy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 I! 0
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard,
Comments: The Engineering Department indicates that the project will be required to
construct new on-site and off-site drainage facilities. The pre1iminary grading and
improvement plans include proposed drainage improvements that wi1l improve the existing
conditions as well as handle the increased flow created by the project, according to the
Engineering Division. The project design and proposed drainage improvements will be
sufficient to reduce any impacts to a level of less than significant. According to the
Engineering Division, the proposed project will comply with the drainage threshold standard.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
t) Sewer 0 0 I! 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: No new sewer service facility would be required to serve the proposed project;
however, engineering design of required sewer improvements or laterals to serve the project
Page - 12
would ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards and
Sewer Threshold Standards,
potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
g) Water 0 0 ~ 0
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction,
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
Comments:
No new water service would be required to serve the proposed projecL The project site is
an in-fill site within a developed area, The project site is within the service area of the
Sweetwater Authority Water DistricL Pursuant to correspondence received from the
Sweetwater Authority Water District, dated August 14, 2002, the project may be serviced
from the existing 8-inch water main on Broadway. As noted in the August 27, 2002 Fire-
Flow Availability Letter from the Sweetwater Authority Water District, the project may be
served. Project impacts to the District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would
be less than significanL
Potentially
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would PotentiaUy Significant ussthan
Significant Unless Significant N.
the proposal result in a need for new systems, 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
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 "
Comments:
a) The project site is located with 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 to adequately service the
proposal would be implemented by the applicant, subject to the approval of the City
and/or the appropriate utilities and service providers. Impacts of the proposal to
Page - 13
utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
b) See XIIL a.
c) See XIII.a.
d) See XIII.a.
e) See XIII.a. The adequacy of the existing stonn drainage facilities to serve the project
would be detennined prior to the issuance of construction pennits; any improvements
to the stonn drainage system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the
applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
f) See XIII.a. Pacific Waste Services provides solid waste disposal services for the
property. A new trash enclosure is proposed that would house three 4-cubic-yard bins,
one each for trash, mixed paper, and yard waste, along with two 96-gallon carts for
rigid recyclables. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project would
result in a net increase in solid waste generation; however, the applicant shall be
required to implement the City Solid Waste and Recycling Plan meeting all criteria for
convenient spacing for solid waste and recycling facilities, receptacles and common
area collection.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
XIV. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181
public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 181 0
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 ]9?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 181 0
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, Broadway is not a designated scenic
roadway. Landscape treatments within a ] O-foot wide strip along Broadway, K Street
and Sierra Way and internal landscaping are proposed in accordance with the City of
Page - 14
Chula Vista Municipal Code (Sections 1936.090 and 19.36, II 0) and the Montgomery
Specific Plan as well as landscape and site architectural requirements and design
review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts
to these roadways are not adverse.
c) Broadway is currently being studied for revitalization opportunities under the
proposed Broadway Revitalization Plan. This type of infill project is supported by the
goals of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. In terms of the project removing blight
influences and providing new structures and facilities and contributing to the
improvement of the area, directly and purposely linked to the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan and future goals of the Broadway Revitalization Plan,
d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66,100 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and
would be designed with appropriate shielding, if necessary, to ensure that light does
not spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent
roadways and surrounding properties,
e) See XIV.d.
Potentially
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Signmcanl Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal,' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 0
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 0
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 0
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 0
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 0
Plan EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments:
a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present
within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below.
b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no
prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact
area. See XV,e. below.
Page - 15
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 proposal.
e) Based on the previous level of site disturbance associated with existing site
improvements and adjacent site improvements, no impacts to archaeological resources
are anticipated.
PotentlaUy
Potentially SiguifK3nC Less than
Significant Unless SignifiCant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 i8
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments:
a) Limited excavation within undisturbed geologic fonnational material would be
required; therefore, the potential for the project to significantly impact paleontological
resources is considered to be less than significant.
Potentially
XVII, RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 i8
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 i8
b) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or 0 0 0 i8
programs?
Comments:
a) The proposed project would not induce any significant population growth and, therefore,
would not result in a significant increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational opportunities,
b) The proposal would not affect existing recreational opportunities.
c) The proposal would not interfere with parks and recreational plans or programs,
Page - 16
XVIII. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No mitigation measures are required,
XIX. 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 o Hazards o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
o Paleontological o Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
XX. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, .
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0
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
DECLARA nON will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0
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,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
Page - 17
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this determination,
Marilyn R.F, Ponseggi Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
Page -18