The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/10/18 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Park View Estates PROJECT LOCATION: 387 Date Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,: 631-012-008 PROJECT APPLICANT: James C. Hurrell CASE NO,: IS-99-23 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: October 18, 2002 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A, Project Setting The project site consists of an approximate one-acre parcel located in an urbanized area and containing an existing single-family residence. The project is located at the end of Date Street, adjacent to the Otay River Valley (see Exhibit A - Location Map), No animal or plant species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local, State or Federal regulatory agencies are known to be present on this highly disturbed residential property, Immediately to the soutb lies habitat areas in the Otay River floodplain that have been highly disturbed by illegal dumping of debris and trash. Fencing separates the project site from adjacent properties to the south, The project site is adjacent to undeveloped City-owned land within the Otay Va11ey Regional Park. The adjacent properties to the south and southwest consist primarily of undisturbed native vegetation, the majority of which is identified as part of the 100% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve in the Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the fo11owing: North: Single-family residences South: Undeveloped City-owned land within Otay Va11ey Regional Park East: Single-family residences West: Eucalyptus trees and single-family residences B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of a five-lot subdivision to accommodate the construction of four additional single-family residences on the project site (see Exhibit B - Site Plan), The proposed lot sizes average over 5,000 sq, ft each and the proposed density of five dwe11ing units per gross acre is consistent with the low-medium residential General Plan designation of the property, The project improvements include insta11ation of Date Street with half cul-de-sac immediately to the west of the property, The estimated grading quantity includes only 50 cubic yards cut and 50 cubic yards fi11 for the proposed filtration system; no further grading is proposed, I C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The existing zoning on the project site is R 15P Zone (Single-Family Residential, minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet; Precise Plan) and the General Plan designation is low medium residentiaL The project is within the City's Southwest Redevelopment Specific Plan, The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan designation of the property. D, Public Comments On April 27, 1999, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, The public comment period ended May 7, 1999. The concern expressed in the one comment letter received dealt with traffic circulation and is addressed below in Section E. K Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmcntal Checklist fOnTI) determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required, This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Geophysical The project site has been previously graded and is partially developed, containing one single-family residence, Single-family residential development exists to the north, east and west of the project site, According to the Engineering Division, further grading to accommodate the proposed development would require a grading permit The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading penTIit as a standard engineering requirement There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site, The project site lies L2 miles to the west of the La Nacion Fault Zone, The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone, Therefore, project compliance with applicable UnifonTI Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns. The potential exists for significant project-related erosion or siltation impacts, which may affect the Otay River, if not mitigated. 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 water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with NPDES Order No, 2001-0L All portions of the development area disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the City Municipal Code, Sections 1936,090 and 1936, I 10, Compliance with BMPs and NPDES Order No, 2001-0 I would be required and would be monitored by the Engineering Division, Therefore, potentially significant erosion and siltation impacts would be reduced to a level ofless than significance, Water/Drainage The project site was previously graded; drainage presently sheet flows directly to the south towards the Otay RiveL The proposed addition of four new structures on the site would not significantly affect drainage /low. According to the Engineering Division, the preparation and submittal of a drainage 2 study will be required in conjunction with final grading and improvement plans; properly designed drainage facilities wou1d be required to be instal1ed at the time of site development. Due to the size of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a stonn water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would not be required, However, compliance with provisions of the California Regiona1 Water Quality Contr01 Board, San Diego Region Order No, 2001-01 with respect to construction- related water quality BMPs would be required. Based upon project design, conditions of the tentative map and mitigation measures any potential adverse impacts would be lowered to a level of less than significance, The project has been designed so that runoff would not drain direcny into the Preserve area to the south, The incorporation of post-construction BMPs would be required to minimize impacts from urban runoff into the Preserve area, The preliminary grading plan indicates that the proposed project would include bioswales or other .filtration system acceptable to the City Engineer off-site to the west, south of the future cul-de-sac, The filtration system would filter runoff prior to it passing through an energy dissipater and entering the Preserve area, The bioswale, or other filtration system, is proposed in an area that currently supports eucalyptus trees, which is not a sensitive habitat The resulting filtered runoff would not have a significant negative effect on wildlife or habitat in the Preserve area, Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section P, under "Biological Resources", would reduce this potential1y significant impact to below a 1evel of significance. Biological Resources The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive, long-tenn habitat conservation plan that addresses the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities in San Diego County, The MSCP is a subregional plan under the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1991. An MSCP Subregional Plan was prepared for the subregion, an area encompassing 12 jurisdictions and 582,243 acres, The MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented through 10cal Subarea Plans, The Draji City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (October 2000) does not identify the project site within the City's proposed MSCP Preserve Area. No sensitive species were found on site and no sensitive species are expected to occur on site, However, the project site is adjacent to properties to the south and southwest that are within the proposed 100% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve identified in the draft Subarea Plan, The site has been previous1y graded and contains one single-family residence, Non-native plants and trees are located throughout the project site. According to the biological resources study prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated October 14, 2002, no endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing were observed on the site or are expected to occur on site. Although the previously graded project site contains no sensitive biological resources, Helix identified native habitat, Diegan coastal sage scrub, immediately south and southwest of the site. Property to the west supports eucalyptus tress and residences beyond. Coastal sage scrub habitat in the project vicinity is smal1 in area and of poor quality and unlikely to support the threatened Coastal California gnatcatcher; therefore, no impacts to this species are expected to occur. Disturbed habitat on site consists primarily of areas heavily disturbed by grading and past construction/yard waste disposaL Pi1es of imported dirt have been placed over much of the area, Analysis of aerial imagery by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc" from January 1999 and January 2001 shows three mature sumac, Apart from the sumacs, little evidence of any native habit was present in 2002 or in these aerial photos that would indicate the presence of functioning habitat prior to the deposition of the dirt. 3 Direct Impacts Pursuant to the draft MSCP Subarea Plan, impacts to sensitive habitats require mitigation. The project site is located within the Tier IV (non-sensitive) area of the MSCP Subarea Plan and, therefore, does not require any habitat mitigation, Required street frontage improvements immediately west of the site would directly impact at least two eucalyptus trees, This impact could be significant if raptors were displaced from nests and failed to breed, Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance, Indirect Impacts The City's draft MSCP Subarea Plan addresses indirect impacts to designated Preserve Areas, Potential indirect impacts from the proposed project addressed in the biological resources study include drainage, lighting, noise and invasive species, Based upon the analysis contained in the study, it was determined that indirect noise and drainage impacts would be potential1y significant, unless mitigated, and that other indirect impacts would be less than significant Noise No on-site construction noise impacts would occur due to the lack of habitat and sensitive species on site, If raptors are nesting in the nearby off-site eucalyptus trees to the west and south during construction, construction noise could potential1y adversely atIect breeding success, To avoid any potential significant impacts from construction noise, avoidance of construction between February I and July 31 is recommended or, if unavoidable, surveys in the vicinity by a qualified biologist shal1 be performed to determine absence or presence of raptor nests. If raptor nests are absent in the potential1y affected area, construction may proceed; if present, the qualified biologist shal1 both determine if construction may proceed and monitor any raptor nests at the beginning of construction to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would rcduce this potential1y significant impact to below a level of significance, Drainage The project has been designed so that runoff would not drain directly into the Preserve area to the south. The incorporation of post-construction BMPs would be required to minimize impacts from urban runoff into the Preserve area, The preliminary grading plan indicates that the proposed project would include bioswales or other filtration system acceptable to the City Engineer off-site to the west, south of the future cuI-dc-sac. The filtration system would filter runotI prior to it passing through an energy dissipater and entering the Preserve area, The bioswale, or other filtration system, is proposed in an area that currently supports eucalyptus trees, which is not a sensitive habitat The resulting filtered runoff would not have a significant negative etIect on wildlife or habitat in the Preserve area, Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potential1y significant impact to below a level of significance, F. Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Impacts Geophysical L Prior to the commencement of grading, temporary erOSIOn control measures shal1 be implemcnted, These measures may include de silting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes 4 and shoring, These measures shall be reflected on the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City EngineeL WaterlDrainage 2, Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the final grading and improvement plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No, 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management practices, Biological Resources Direct Impacts 3, Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the Environmental Review Coordinator shall verify that the following condition is included as a special note on the final grading and improvement plans: To avoid impacts to raptor nests, tree removal shall either be avoided between February 1 and July 31 or, if unavoidable, surveys of affected trees sha11 be performed for active raptor nests by a qualified biologist to determine absence or presence, If raptor nests are absent in the affected trees, construction may proceed; if present, removal of trees with an active raptor nest sha11 be prohibited and the qualified biologist sha11 resurvey the trees prior to tree removaL Prior to tree removal between February 1 and July 31, a survey letter report prepared by a qualified biologist sha11 be submitted to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review CoordinatoL Indirect Impacts 4, Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the Environmental Review Coordinator sha11 verify that the following condition is included as a special note on the final !,'fading and improvement plans: To avoid impacts to raptors from construction noise, avoidance of construction between February 1 and July 31 is recommended or, if unavoidable, a survey shall be conducted for active raptor nests within the potentia11y affected area by a qualified biologist to determine absence or presence, If raptors nests are absent in the affected trees, construction may proceed; if present, the qualified biologist shall determine if construction may proceed and if so, sha11 monitor any raptor nests at the beginning of construction activities and as deemed necessary by the Environmental Review Coordinator throughout construction to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed, Prior to the commencement of construction between February 1 and July 31, a survey letter report prepared by a qualified biologist sha11 be submitted to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review CoordinatoL 5, Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the grading and improvement plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No, 2001-01 with respect to permanent, post-construction water quality best management practices (BMPs), The permanent, post-construction BMPs shall consist of bioswales immediately south of the future Date Street cul-de-sac with an energy dissipater, north of the MSCP Preserve Area, or other filtration system in this location acceptable to the City Engineer and Environmental Review CoordinatoL 5 G, Consultation l. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Marilyn RT Ponseggi, Planning and Building Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Mary Ladiana, Planning and Building Maria C Muett, Planning and Building Brad Remp, Planning and Building Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Garry Williams, Plannning and Building Clifford L. Swanson, Engineering Frank Rivera, Engineering Ralph Leyva, Engineering Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering Sohaib AI-Agha, Engineering Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Ed Thomas, Fire Marshal Rod Hastie, Fire Department Richard Preuss, Police Department - Crime Prevention Applicant: James Hurrell Others: Otay Water District Chula Vista Elementary School District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Fina] Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No, 88-2, P&D Technologies, Inc" May 1989 Draft City of Chula Vista Mu1tiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October 2000 Biological Resource Analysis for Park View Estates, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc" October 14,2002 Geotechnical Study/Limited Soils Invcstigation, East County Testing and Lab, October 17, 1998 6 3, 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 P1anning and Bui1ding Department, 276 Fourth A venue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~7~;~ÆJ,AW f Date: /pj;a/ócÀ. Marilyn K . Ponseggi ( I I Environmental Review Coordinator J:\Plannîng\MARIA\Initial Shldy\IS-99-23Draft Mitigated Negative Declaratiot1,doc 7 I _~~ ' I ¿I ! I,hl L -- - f1 H~~~r - I I t œ~~ åf¡~ø-71 _J , 1- !mŒB_~l\ \ß=j ~1 1/- ! 'Iœ- ~1 r¡J l~5lJ}-f , I I ~ j _~ar~ --'~EEæ/1 EBI I ',~ , U- 'J lEE ;; I I I: -----;~œ EBu-11 ffi ! ~ l : ! . .]~ ð __ -j~ BHfJt!:\, EE, lEEEB, ~ ' 'J 1m ~TI EE ß;;) -.--- I· _.-1 -- ( "g -- ,~~ --- 1 EB , EB '- -- \\::\0> I . , , ~ EE U EE Gill EE ff~Sí~~r- ~ cc---J' '.m' I I. --~ ~ - I -- ~ ~~- --..-' , I t- ~ _( __ _ I 1=1 -=+=1' f -,-1! ! ~- I ¡ .___ PROJECT 1--1 lOCATION ._ i , , ! ' j j j I'! ,¡ I U'I! . I ., ' " i i i I 'I .~~-- --..j.' '-., -..-,.- , . , , ~----- -~ ~ ~~. Lli£íT - "\~-¡- .. / ! JTlill'l: I ITrTTTí I -'\ 7-'--v//1l1fl CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Park View Estates PROJECT DESCRIPTION, ø APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 387 Date Street ADDRESS, Request: Proposal for a tentative subdivision map S single family dwellings in the R1~SP (Single Family Zone-SOOO SCALE: FILE NUMBER: sq. ft. min, lots size Precise Plan). NORTH No Scale IS~99-23 Related Case: PCS-99-0S h:\home\planning\carlos\locators\is9923,cdr 4/20/99 EX HI B I r A o - o 0 '" N N ~ M .... - '" - ,,_ 8 (/VJ'<:t ," ~ '"w. ". ~ - " " .~ ~ ¡ ..<" ,!!2 _ " "" c..f-<C) "' . .- "0 g~ " EW~"" , . .. -. ~ u ~ ~,__ g w '" æ _"8 õ - '" . . "0" - U > t: . < ,<0' em '" u -'" '" - - .~ _ " ,,'0-8'" '" 0; 0 ~ '" " 0 0 '" ~~ . 1;; < ... , ' !!."" , 0 6:' ... o E ",,,,1!,=-"§áJ Z "'0 ~ E 22,,~nc. õ "," ~c."c..",E ~ ' '" £; ,"2:>-eOE~::; p- Q)::J ro :J - <I).... U o 0 (fJ ::J::J.~ Q) nlll /5' ._ w UJ 0 0 C ~ ~ 0" "," 8 "- Z ~ .~ ~~,= 2 Eª .g OJ ,Q1 Q; ~ ,,1' ' ~ _ OJ" 0 ?_~~¡::, ~O r- 6'~~~/(~- __/ '~"\,'. ... j ,,- 1}....ö~¡:;¡ . /. ... ~~i: J ,~" ;%:> ¡ ¡~ ('SOOÓM2B'E'''O¥ . /'~~. ',,:~;"" ...\-,O:~'j".,,>.'.óti 14~."¡;;' )-'. <T". ..'/ j....... :e:-.."'. "'_>..,..- _~.____'__.' '.......,...,..j.. .""".v,," .'I..'.:-?-.··- < .. :.:.'.-. .' ...... ...'"' ,.--.. ...::.:-.... . ....:.:.. :~. :':".....'. . ...... '.' 'Àf!!;*7~ . ." ...../.','..10' J. <f!j!H¡(!{':i¡!~.., :,-0-:1:, H" ,1 I.' ..",_+.Jh'.; '" ' "i~" . .. ,., !. · >.' / , """I,,···,,-,·a.-"· ,co,' ,1>" ,._..' ..";")f.(~.~\rk .IÞ.t,.,,:,~~..<..;d.:..~'~..~' _"¡...~ ~1!] ;' "Jtl"r.:0f~--X":ir.. .1, if! ~ l~~" il' íÐ·o\".':\·""~~"'·¡·.' .... /: ¡,.~ j ¡¡it ", ,/¡1"'ti'¡, j!"! ...æ.1 J".~.¡':--r· ..¡. .¡.:Ii,.!'J.!! "g, i ¡.'" ,s.,..j~~-'.i, '. ¡ ., , ,~H I ' ,,,,. "f-$.1~' ",.--\.,.., . ..~, '1'ji~\~hr.';0J~jr¡;¡,F ~, " !III ,.,...c........¡.~;,ì'I'i11. . ¡.":"""""'" ..' '. 'N . ,,,, "'<"'¡')¡~" ,.;;:;./ r,~" .'", g ~,.z "x' 1"' I g ". [".. " I' 0, ,. ¢k+ t:.~ :~"- ··1"¡'1¡='·>i"':,;: \,: ]:'! ,,,"" ~~¡K"'~""" " "~I, .... ¡,', JI 'I ~ " "'.' :~"?I _ ,'. I'" r.1 ~.Jt:!, ~!:--< ~ >;c'c-. ' ¡ ,¡ U ........, '''''I.j.,./. ~,_ I ~ d··o .~.:,'-'/'_'A".\::¿I~~ Ii. " 'A' '~'~: ~. , . ,~1.' A~."~'" w - '/' c.,,;"II': '.. ~ ~."'.r '.~, , ~ ,.. . ...,i..1 ,.q.""" . o. :::;: /cr('¡~~"'i'I.,!".."h ,'0' . . ib" iIJi" n ','.' ,.!, , ,~, . ~ '" :..-/'.rtl¡-·-~i¡~)J /~.~.~~. ~ ;<"":f;¡~ ¡ Ii L ~ ,ai, .' ,I "." ._. ... , . . 0:", ,..., ""ili""I' "",,, , ¡, '~. ,'I ' ' . ,. . I 0", '-' <' ,,' , . ." __ ., . t", ' '" W Y,' . ~.if~Ù;' :'·l.~é. ,ß" , . ~t; ~.~.~\._I,"~I__"'''. < 'e(> , '0 11'.'~ì '~¡Jo", ,"'.'.- 'è;:" ~ If)' '1E. ._. .. ~ c enl- r:x: £L '\IM,~b:li··:·· --_: º~ 0 ..' ~, ~~~' c_-'-.'" 1m", >-0 '>' """-. " ~::,;o" ", < 0>- ¡¡:w ;W1ii r . ,. " ,~;,' , ,;. ~;¡¡ ¡;; g; .r<t, _,~.:"",,<]';:-":<~'·¿'I; .j o!!,!!2ð ,., ';;':~=~O_"~,~~~~;;.::H¡;:: ~~ j; "-c''''''' ,~~., J..::33èi-.LS =ij..'\f~ >< - ...... ...... == ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Park View Estates - IS-99-23 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista m conjunction with the proposed Park View Estates five-lot single-family residential subdivision. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-99-23) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines, The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations, AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts, The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts: L Geophysical 2, Water/Drainage 3, Biologica1 Resources 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 Engineer. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-23 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished, Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration lS-99-23, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine 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 co1umn. J :\Planning\M ^ R!A \lnitial S tuòy\IS-99-23MM Rptext.doc ( E ~ '" 1: ~ E E 0 () CO 9 'C' 0 ::¡ co ,Q ro " ~ '" ;; ~ ã. E 0 () t- en 0> 0> c: c: ::::¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ :ë 0> '5 '5 () .~~ .s '" '" Q¡ ¡,-" ¡,-" W '" Gee: ~~ :I: o ~ a. a. ~ .5 ",ro", () '" C 0> C æ i? E c:0> ~ 1] t.TI.Q :3,S :E 0: u'- t ,- c ro ._ c:.... ::: (j) ö..cQ. (ice. ~ 0. >..- a.:=: .~ a.~ Q) a.~ Q) «00 «0..0 «0..0 C) ~.~ 0 ~ c..8 II. C) 'S:i:W tn;,;.: _ c CFth c. Z o .2 1:;j,,~ X X ~;:: c X ::s;o 00 ¡:: 0>0; Q;<.:J 00 c u ... ~ 'ë ~ .",..... " 0 «kill ~. Q) ¡::~ L..,C X X "C X II. Q;:O Q. 0 - :3 w ""U 0 ~ '" ~ bQ t- '" ro C >' a. Z ~ C) _c Z c c: >. '@ ~ ->---' 00 0 "" 0 "" i'ï:: .,+:: ts ß ().ê ë ....- 'D C o ~ c: '" c: '" è..... OJ o· C Q) 0 '" ro E '" ro E ::I 0 E rn ~ ro E £:E a. 0>'" a. 0>'" UJ~C~5iij ~~ !::: '" '" ~ " E c: > E c: > ~o.g~'E!:2 :.oell) :E ~ .- 0 {f) .- 0 (/ Z > '" ""c: '" ""c: :::::: a. > > 0 C'i ro a. c 0 ro a. ro ro a. ro ~~t.TI~8 g- 055: :E èi'i ðÉõ: ¡¡; ðÉã: Z uQ) ~ '- "'0 Q) C >- U Q) Q) C Q)..a c 0 1) ~ e fu-ë .- £ E '§ Q) 0 ::c ;>;;: Q) (l) ~~:;::> ¡:: ô.jg~ë ~ ~ 5..~ ~ 02£.J £Q)ro~ ~ '-.......... 0 -c Q) '- C'D ro_~Q).5:ñQ)iD'.co.'t:¡ 0.ç£ü:,= en o Oc .c.·-a.'O.....(/-Oè-v:;:¡ C) =õ ï= .~ -þ 5: ro -- :o;;;ro I/'i + Oc()- mo.ro E C Q) ._.,... c -g ~ 'g OJ ro 0 ~:::: ~ a.:ê ~ ð L (f) ro> >'roo ro ro's;:o,!: >..--(/..a_(f)Q)EoQ) .....-O':J·E :!::Q)u-c Ol'?(ij6:lro'-.....'-Q)O'£. :E ËroEOC;..... E~cn~ ffi~~QQ)~~ro'-~oo ~ ....J:: 0""0 VJ ~_.5cn ....::1 g~æcJ::æ'-.....~ 5 ~~u2Njg a.~5:rn ID'(/)..o 0"" (/)...2"'Oc OIIDêroo-è COe Q)uQ) 2100-...........$.- '" ~Q)=~ ~c!~(/)L..~·~B~~'E ro .r:êroS:z= ~ 'C ·Œ!5.(ij '- ~ ·-E.E(l) .m <.=WQ.roOJ...>.EO :E "c £ (/)..-"'O=C>,L..QOQ).aO ~cëc~o- ~e~- ~ $~~roœg~~~O ~ OIW œ 0 \... \... OI.__e w~Uo--E>D~~W~ ,2 >, >, E ·50.$! >,>_0 eroœ ~eD~ wœœ '¡¡¡ e:,= Q) (\) e ro e~~w ~2~ro~orow~roD.~ 0> roO>O:::o~ ro -õ -D_>--=e<+=> _=w "' Õ w e.æ·5'D õ~£e ~æoD~groroo~~o::: :¡¡ ~£o..E&2 '" _\..._ \... w~œ\...£~EMw_ ¡'¡ ~~œ'~"oc~wu~~crw~_g ;'= E 0 ro c 'E > U ê - Q) W wee ~ (\) \... ~ W c ~E~~&~ ~ ro =(\) wID~CIDO £ID~'5œ '" " ¡¡; ¡g, æ 0 ,9l C 0 -~wroo..~üz~\...wu~-ID~oE N 0> '" D~~~~2roQ)~£~~æ'DZcoc m ro '~cCJ)'õ°,g '" c: 0: ro'-e\...~c~D~~~IDZæBroBe (J) '~ ~ ,Q .S w æ g . ~moorom 'DD\...O~- \...~~'~ rh 0 -ü-g§U)z~ B §£ß~'D~~~~~ô;~j~~~c - " 52 È Œti'i ~- ~.~ '6> _ 0 ~._ ID > 0 0'-'- m ro._ ~ro._W "' '" o~ro-~ro8ü 0 ~:~~'De»~ü~õ~~w2roID ro (5 \...oco2o..rorororn~IDE£IDD~£ '" it 8 ¿ ~~ 52 ~ ~it88~.~~ß§~~~~~~Æ~'õ ro ~ iñ 1;5 ~ ó w " OZ '" :.¡:¡ Q) ro " '> O>~ ~ N '" c< :2~ ~ :E ~ D- :E E '" c: E 'ë 0 ¿ c: ,Q 1;; ~ '" '" c c c ~ '6 .Q '5 := U) ~ ,- en CD ,;:: þ" >-" 0 ~~~ ~ c:;:, 0> ~ ro ij3.!: ~ g E c g> E (p ü ,-1::: ~.- t () .- c: ro = ê ro.!: a.co. a..!!! () §:~ á} ~ <:0.0 <iCLOW >< >< ~ ~ X X N .!J ~ nI '" I- ~ 0. >. ro 't::: c "C 0 "C Q)~ë '-- :g è:"'" Cl) .9 a) c" c " '" E " '" E ~.8ê ~:o "''' 0. ",,, '" (p"§J~~"E~ c > E c > .- 0 U) ,- 0 U) "~c "~c -::;0.»00. '" 0. '" 2 '" 0.", Q)IDCWOa. ð§ã: üj ðEõ: ...JD::::wa::::Uro ~~Q)~Q)Q)Q)>'Q)~oQ)õ>'Q)~ u,ê ~ %>- g ~~~~5££~£æ~~ ~~,m =..... -a. ,-21 ~ 0 ~~§c:~ .....Q).5U)-~=~ .0..... 2t1) (¡)!:!!ø ~.~ C:~£SS~ccroQ)EEiU)~~ :Jro .....Q.) o-OC:: .?;- '- c:-o croU)oQ)c~BnuoBEroU)_ 0.:5 §'-.....0.0)0)....0 -2 E@ gT"""~a.-o~~õ¡ßU)0o>¡:g ......2 '-è u£U) ·EcQ) '- u~·- u!:::Q) .oa.2crouc T"""~C -.!?cW·§ID"CEro£1?£ c "00> :J(:> .c0ro..... __1::(")0>$ "gQ):5g.......D2?;:;;:50.... ê ro.~cc '-ro:J.....- ~U)o ~(¡)Q)>-oE ro >..c. roo£ro Il)'§ .....9.- .....>8:a û):JOZI _~.-§.....uQ)Q)E-oc .....=~:JI-E- 01:1 .-() ro C'-roCU)ro"O a.c'-cE:J·-o 'Ero~a""'ro,-roü -Æo EO::: ~t:» g.g .£·ÕJ æ ü ~ ro 5)_ o·.o,~ .c o:JQ)~roro..co Q)~'i- ~Q)·ionü~~U)~rouuuc (¡)~.?-<D°~a.(f)~~l!!u CLEoê Ec~ ~¡ß2Q)c.m_:5 ~&w a. Q) a...... N Q) OJ.Q (l) <:( a. QHD E~ orn.c..o'O Il) Ô ~ u gQ)=~ 2Q)~2.oca..5ro~5~Q)..--=Q) .5,58 z ~I-Õ--5 è: us: 0 DEE() -~o~ ~>'EO~c:J£ ~£ " 2~e~£ ~W~cªBËID~ME~ ~crõ -g~(I)ëüQ5c.-:.û)o~r¡w :õ (I)~.__C o~c~,_~ ~o cwB~roc ~ mW ii5,º'Egcr'¿;)~ ~,º~ ~ ~~~~~ ac~B~~§~E§eo ~~.Q >-Þa.o>O g~ 8 ~0...~!9 '" c ,- w - c :E ~roW£a ~2·~icr~~==~'~-~æ~u '" ro ü ë 0::: § -t5!:9..= (/') 0... 0 ID O_ID~ -~~ roro cc._ ro c ....IDID '-c(l)roQ)ü-E :E aOL_C ogoQ)ro~2~£2w~~ci~ 'ro o£ E.~ 0>0 Q).cro(/').~ c M is N ro~~Q5~,.-~~> (:;)(I)(I)û) U Q)~~ ID-_IDE~yu(l)O~£O J, 0::: ~>ü(l)(I)(I)Q)~~CC_ÖCID~ Q)roro g'E ¿g oû)'t5cf Q)õ-;;'5; '" ~E=~ii5u§~~~~B·~(I)B£~ ~~(I) w g; Q5 o.ro fJ>~[¿3£ï~tTI ~ '" ~~ro -roo Q) ~ c .Q)~Q) 1:3 N l1(1)¡Ji.c(l)~a. ~~ro'-(I)-O;!:: >-o~.o~£ '" ~ O',S~õ--_CD2ð2'O >- d, U(I) (l)ro-E- OQ)~IDO õ~uw " ro'-C~ C_OE-~ ,_~ .oc~o~ 0. ·;¡;§~Oca5a5§IDC~~ " '" ~IDOO(l)W ro'-~.oC -'-00-0 S .ys 0 EL~-roE--oIDB'O 0_ ro~~:J.2:¡::;~'O"'" .s::~c(l)rocE:;::£'--(I) -~g.ê~ID~gQ)*'O~~¡~Em2Æg~2ê 1:3 -UroC(/')roIDU_ID Q5 g o :J o>.Q _ E 0>:J 0 ro § Q) u-,-~ »ro'-~Q)cID._IDC(l)O>U'- ~~ i" :: ~ ~'5 1:: ID ê -t5 £ .Q-~.!: '" ID~û)'-~ero~(I)'OuQ)U~~.5ID:J û)~E'- :§ " ~·g§g~Qog;§&B~g;e~ge~§!~g '6 ·g§~e~Qro§5.~~g> c :< 1;; 80"'oü.5_S~roMUrororocrO''Oc£cu~(I)ü -- 0... U ~ ~OJ B E 0 (I) D <¡::: W 1;; õ2 w « ~ :;; '" Q) c '> " "' ë '" c -" ro ? a. Case No,IS-99-23 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Name of Proponent: James C Hurrell 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 125 Dahlia Avenue Imperial Beach, CA 91932 (619) 423-5386 4. Name of Proposal: Park View Estates 5. Date of Checklist: October 18, 2002 Potentially Potentially Significant I"essthan Significant Unless Significant No Impact !\-litigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal' a) Connict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ., zoning? b) Conniet with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ., policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g" 0 0 0 ., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 ., established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed five-lot single-family residential subdivision is consistent with the existing R-I-5P zoning designation and the low-medium residential General Plan designation of the property. No agricultural resources are present on-site or in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Miti¡::ated Impact Impact Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 10cal 0 0 0 II population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 II directly or indirect1y (e,g" through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major inrrastructure )'1 c) Displace existing housing, cspecially affordable 0 0 0 II housing? Comments: The proposed project would induce minimal population growth and would not displace housing, The project would retain an existing residence and provide four additional single-family residences, The project wou1d not require the extension of major infrastructure since there are adequate water and sewer lines and access to the project site, 1\litigation: No mitigation measures arc required. Potentiall}' Significant I~ess than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving' a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 II substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 II 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or b'fOund surface relief 0 0 " 0 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 II unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 II 0 0 either on or off the site? 2 f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 " 0 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 " hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in,' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 " 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 " hazards such as /looding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 " 0 0 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? f) 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 /low of 0 0 0 " groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 " 3 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 " otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F Potentially PutcntiaUy Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Jrnpact J\litigated Impact Impacl V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposar- a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 " 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 " c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 " or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 " e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 " 0 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: a) Grading and construction of the proposed four single-family residences would tcmporarily create dust and emissions associated with activity fTom construction equipment and vehic1es, These short-term emissions are not considered significant impacts, Standard dust control measures would be implemented, including watering exposed soils and street sweeping. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projected to be generated by the proposed project is 40 trips, These few trips would not contribute significantly to the degradation of local air quality. b) See V,a. above, c) The proposed development of four single-fàmily residences on the project site would not alter air movement, moisture, or tempcrature, or cause any change in climate, d) Neither development nor operation of the proposed four single-family residenccs is anticipated to create any objectionable odors, e) See V,a, above, 4 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Sigøificant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in,' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 ,. 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" 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 ,. nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ,. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 ,. f) 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 Congcstion 0 0 0 ,. Management Program? (An equivalent of2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Comments: The City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards require that all street segments operate at Level of Service (LOS) "c" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day, The Engineering Division estimates that the project would generate 40 average daily trips. This is considered to be an insignificant number of vehicle trips relative to the capacity of both Date Street and Main Street, both of which would remain at an acceptable LOS C or better with the addition of project traffic, Date Street project site frontage improvements, consisting of the construction of a half cul-de-sac with a radius of 30 feet, would be required as a condition of the tentative map, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 5 Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to,' a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 " 0 0 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage trees)? 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 " c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g" oak forest, coastal habitat, etcT d) Wet1and habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 " pool)? e) WildJife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 " 0 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 " 0 0 efforts? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, Potentiall)' Significant Lesstban Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposaf' 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) I f the site is designated for minera1 resource 0 0 0 (; protection, will this project impact this protection? 6 Comments: a) The proposed project does not conflict with the recently adopted CO2 Reduction Plan. b) The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Unifoilll Building Code and, therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manneL c) The project is not located within an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined in the City's General Plan, No significant energy and mineral resource impacts would result from the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentiany Significant Ù'ssthan PoteptiallJ Unless Significant No Significant J\-litigaled Impact Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve,' a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 t! hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 t! response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 D t! health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of D D 0 t! potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable D 0 0 t! brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Project implementations would not pose a health hazard to humans, The project site is slated for residential development according to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The project involves the division ofland and eventual construction of four single-family residences, No significant hazards to human health safety would be created as a result of the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 7 Potentially Significant Less than Potc-ntiall}' Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in,' a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 ø 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ø Comments: a) The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (19,68,030) establishes residential land use noise standards at or beyond the property line during specified hours, Temporary construction would occur at the site; however, the short-term nature of the noise, and the fact that the proposed use will remain residential, render the potential noise factor to less than significant Construction noise would be limited to daytime hours, The project will be required to comply with the City's adopted performance noise standards, No significant adverse noise impacts to residential uses are noted with standard construction practices. The project site is in close proximity to the Otay Valley Regional Park and Preserve area of the City's Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Potential noise impacts to sensitive species off-site are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, under Biological Resources - Indirect Impacts, b) See X,a, above, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentiall)' Significant Less than Potentially Unless Sigoificant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas,' a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ø b) Police protection'! 0 0 0 ø c) Schools? 0 0 0 ø d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 ø roads? 8 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: Both the Police and Fire Departments indicate that current levels of service would not be impacted by the proposed project The applicant will need to obtain a letter of clearance from each of the affected school districts, and payment of developer fees will be required which will be made a condition of approval of the tentative map, The project would no have an adverse effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant l.essthan Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 ~ City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not result in significant impacts to any of the Threshold Standards, a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 ~ 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 eases, The City of Chula Vista has indieated that this threshold standard will be met The proposed project would_comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: The Fire Department indicates that the distance to the nearest fire station is 3 miles, The Fire Department has made a number of recommendations that will become apart of the conditions of approval of the tentative map including the requirement for a fire hydrant, a fire Jane aJong the north side of the property and a cuI-dc-sac, According to the Fire Department, the current levels of service can still be provided to the project site, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, b) Police 0 0 0 ~ The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 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, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: The Police Department indicates that current levels of service would not be impacted by the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 9 c) Traffic 0 0 0 ø 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average trave1 speed on all arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "0" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day, 2, West of 1-805: Those signa1ized intersections which do not mcet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen, Comments: The proposed project would generate a total of 40 vehicle trips dai1y, This is considered to be an insignificant number of vehic1e trips, No adverse impacts to traffic/circulation would result from the project. The traffic engineering section indicates that the LOS "C" threshold wou1d be maintained on affected arterial segments with the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Significant Lcssthan Potenlially Unless Significant No Signifiçant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 ø The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east ofInterstate 805. Comments: No park pad obligation will be required as the project site is located west of 1-805, No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities wou1d result. The parks and recreation threshold standard does not apply, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, e) Drainage 0 0 0 ø The Thresh01d Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section K Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, ) Sewer 0 0 0 ø 10 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. The proposed project would_comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: The Engineering Department calculates that the project would generate approximately I,OGO gallons of effluent per day, An 8-inch sewer line is located in a utility easement flowing westerly along the northern property line. The sewer main connects to another 8-inch main flowing northerly along Date Street No significant sewer impacts would result !Tom the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. g) Water 0 0 0 0 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard, Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City ofChula Vista has in effect at the time of building penn it issuance, Comments: No significant impacts to water storage, treatment and transmission facilities would result from the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potl'ntiallJ Signifiçant J,cssthan Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated lmpac Impact Impact XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new 'ystems. or substantial alterations to the following utilities,' a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 0 C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 0 e) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 0 11 Comments: The proposed project consists of four single-family residences and would not result in the need for new systems or substantial alterations to any of the aforementioned utilities, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant N. Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal' a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 [8 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 [8 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 [8 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 [8 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? 0 0 0 [8 Comments: No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site, According to the City's General Plan, Date Street is not designated as a scenic roadway, The proposed improvements such as continuation of Date Street and installation of a half cul-de-sac along with landscaped improvements will only enhance the area, The small residential project will not create a significant amount of spill light nor negative aesthetic effect onto the adjacent properties or roadways, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, PotentiaUJ Significaut Less than Potl'ntially Unless Significant N. Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Will the proposal rcsult in the altcration of or 0 0 0 [8 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 [8 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic 12 building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 ti physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Wil1 the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ti sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's Gencral Plan 0 0 0 ti 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 The project site has been fu]]y graded, See XYe, below, b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area ofthe proposal and no prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area, See XYe, below, c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cuHural values, d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal. e) The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for archaeological resources in the City's General Plan EIR, The project site was previously graded to create the existing level pad area for the existing single-family residence, Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that wi]] be necessary to accommodate the proposed single family residences, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significanc Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potcntially Significant Ù'ssthan Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impad Impact Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Willthe 0 0 0 ti proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan EIR, However, based upon the limited amount of additional excavation that wi]] be necessary to aecommodate the proposed single- family residences, the potential for impacts to paleontological resources is considered to be less than significanC 13 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Signilìunt No Significant l\titigated Impact Impact Impm:t XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposar· a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 t!'J regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 t!'J c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 t!'J plans or programs? Comments: The applicant would not be required to pay park fees as the project site is located west of 1-805, No significant impacts to Parks or Recreational Plans would result from the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant N" Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor mandatory findings of significanæ If an EIR is needed. this section should be completed a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 t!'J 0 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section L Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, 14 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 0 short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-tenn, environmental goals? Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short-tenn environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-tenn goals, The project is consistent with both the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan designation of the property, and the Southwest Redevelopment Specific Plan, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are requircd, c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considcrable" 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 projccts, and the effects of probable future projects,) Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, No significant cumulative impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, d) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indircctly? Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-23, t5 XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City EngineeL Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report - /o-/;? - OL Date Printed Name and Title of Operator [if different from Property Owner] Signatnre of Operator Date [if different from Propcrty Owner] 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 . Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems . Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics . Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Paleontology o Mandatory Findings of Significance 16 XII. DETERMINA nON: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0 and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the . environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially 0 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this detennination, / '/! ·1 /l/,·~ I Ó 1¡?3!,J,;z 1 '/' . /¿// ~ ? ~,"r/-.pÞ;yVGZ . Marilyn f(F, Ponseggi Date I Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista J :\Planning\MARIA \lnitial Study\IS,99+23chklstdoc 17