HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/24 RDA Item 1
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FILED
BY NAHUM MENDOZA, ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, AND ROGER
CAO-ROMERO, FOR 1.92 ACRES KNOWN AS MARSELLA VILLAS:
(1) PCZ 06-05; Rezone from R-2-P, One and Two Family
Residence, Precise Plan to R-3-P, Apartment Residential,
Precise Plan zone, and amending the adopted Precise
Plan Modifying District to include Precise Plan
Development Standards; and
(2) PCM-07-15; Establishment of a Precise Plan for the site;
and
(3) DRC-06-027 and DRC-06-028; Approval of a Design
Review Permit to build 40 attached townhouse units on a
1.65 acre portion of the site;
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-
06-005, AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS ESTABLISHED BY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 BY REZONING THREE
PARCELS LOCATED AT 778, 780, 790, 792, 794, 808 AND 812
ADA STREET FROM R-2-P (ONE AND TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, PRECISE PLAN) TO R-3-P (APARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL, PRECISE PLAN), ADOPTING PRECISE PLAN
STANDARDS, AND ESTABLISHING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE
PARCELS;
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE .
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IS-06-005, AND APPROVING
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRC-06-27 & 28 TO CONSTRUCT 40
TOWNHOMES ON TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 778, 780, 790,
808 AND 812 ADA STREET WITHIN THE MERGED CHULA
VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SOUTHWEST AREA).
1-1
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
SUBMlnED BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECT
REVIEWED BY:
ACTING CITY MANAGER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
j!
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO 0
BACKGROUND
The Project requests approval of three applications for the 1.92 acre site, located at 778-812 Ada
Street (the "Project Site") including a rezone, precise plan and design review permit. The site is
located within the Palomar Gateway Planning area, which was formerly a part of the
Montgomery Specific Plan. An existing "P"- Precise Plan Modifying District, covers the site. Both
were adopted in January of 1990, and pre-date the most recent amendment of the General Plan.
The original intent of the Precise Plan Modifying District was to enable discretionary review of
development to implement the requirements of the Montgomery Specific Plan, however, detailed
development standards were not established at the time. The Specific Plan was repealed by the
City Council in December 2005, but the P-Modifying District remains.
In May of 2004, the Merged Chula Yista Redevelopment Area was created, which included the
Project Site in the expanded the City Redevelopment Areo (Southwest Area). As of January 2006,
all Redevelopment quasi-judicial applications are required to go through a new process involving
the newly created Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) and ultimately the Chula Yista
Redevelopment Corporation (CYRC) for final review and approval. However, applications for this
Project were submitted prior to the creation and operation of the RAC and CYRC, and hove been
presented to the DRC to obtain input and direction. Based on City policy to smoothly transition
Projects from the former system to the new RAC/CYRC process, this Project is being processed
under the old plonning / environmental process. The Rezoning and Precise Plan applications
require a legislative action, and therefore, must follow the standard Planning Commission and
City Council process. The Design Review application is quasi-judicial i.e., a permit, and is subject
to final Redevelopment Agency approval. The recommendations of the Planning Commission,
the Design Review Committee, and the Resource Conservation Commission are being transmitted
to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for their consideration.
In December 2005, the General Plan designation for the Project site was amended from
Residential-Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed-Use Transit Focus Area, and the
site included in the future Palomar Gateway District, which anticipates preparation of a future
Specific Plan or Master Plan for the orea. The preparation of this Specific Plan/Master Plan has
not commenced yet.
1-2
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
The General Plan also prescribes the adoption of a Specific Plan to guide the development of this
planning area. However, the Proiect was submitted prior to the adoption of the General plan
update, which at that time contained draft goals and obiectives for this area, including a vision
plan. Based on the draft policies of the draft General Plan Update, staff agreed to process the
application with the caveat that an urban designer be retained by the City, as an extension of
staff, and paid by the applicant to translate the then draft general plan goals and objectives for
this area into an urbon design strategy. The urban design strategy was necessary to insure that
development proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Staff and the property owners hired the land use consultant Downtown Solutions to prepare the
urban design strategy, entitled "Palomar Gateway TaD District Conceptual Development
Strategy". This document, while not formally adopted by the City, provides an expert analysis of
how transit-oriented design guidelines can be applied to the Palomar Gateway District. The urban
design strategy seeks to:
(1) Strengthen the Palomar Gateway's role as the southern entrance into the City by
enhancing the Palomar Street 1-5 freeway overpass and Palomar Street between 1-5 and
its intersection with Industrial Boulevard;
(2) Cluster housing, neighborhood retail and services, and parks around the Palomar Trolley
Station; and
(3) Develop the Palomar Gateway as an activity carridor by improving pedestrian
connections; and
(4) Identify a number of urban design features to achieve the transit and pedestrian oriented
goals of the General Plan. The features that apply to the development proposal include;
a mid-block pedestrian passage way from Ada to Palomar Street, higher densities, open
space and multi-family housing design recommendations to promote the use of the
public transportation and a pedestrian friendly neighborhood.
Although a specific plan has not been prepared for the planning area, as prescribed in the
General Plan, the development proposal observes the urban design strategy that provides the
initial components to build a very cohesive neighborhood. In staff's opinion, the Project sets a
positive precedent for implementation of the new General Plan goals ond objectives and for the
revitalization of the neighborhood.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-06-005, in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial
Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project could result in
significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the Proiect made by or agreed to by
the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
1-3
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, IS-06-005 (see Attachment 4).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that:
(1) The City Council adopt the attached ordinance adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-06-005, and approving Rezone
PCI-06-005, and Precise Plan PCM-07-15, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained in the ordinance; and
(2) The Redevelopment Agency adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-005, and approve Design Review Permit DRC.
06-027 & 28, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the
attached Redevelopment Agency Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
On April 16, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 7-0-0-0 to find that Initial
Study IS.06-005 was adequately prepared, and recommended that the City Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06.005,
and
On March 21, 2007, the Planning Commission considered the Rezone and Precise Plan
applications, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program IS-06-005, and voted 7-0-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS.06-005, Rezone, and
Precise Plan; and
On February 5, 2007, the Design Review Committee considered the Design Review application
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-06-
005, and voted 5-0-0 to recommend approval to the Redevelopment Agency.
Additional comments were received from the public subsequent to the 30-day Mitigated Negative
Declaration review period. These comments have been addressed in the Public Comments and
Staff Reponses attachment (see Public Comments and Staff Responses, Attachment 7).
DISCUSSION
PROJECT SITE CHARATERISTICS
1-4
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
The Project Site consists of three contiguous parcels totaling 1.92-acres on the north side of Ada
Street between Frontage Rood and Industrial Boulevard (see Locotor, Attachment 1). The Project
Site is level and presently contains nine occupied and vacant single-family detached homes on
three separate parcels. The immediate neighborhood includes a mixture of older single -family
homes and multi-family development, including duplexes and townhomes. Surrounding uses are
as follows:
Current land Use
General Plan
Zani no
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family homes
Vacant / Mobile Homes
Single and Multi family homes
Multi-family homes
Single-family homes
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area
R-2-P (proposed R-3-P)
C-T-P
R-2-P
R-2-P
R-3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project requests approval of three applications for the site, including a rezone, precise plan
and design review permit, as follows:
(1) The rezone requests a change from R-2-P, One and Two Family Residence with a Precise
Plan Modifying District, to R-3-P, Apartment Residential with a Precise Plan Modifying
District; for the Project Site;
(2) Amendment to the Precise Plan Modifying District to establish development standards for
the Project site, including maximum floor area, building height, front and rear yard
building setbacks, building type, open space, vehicular and pedestrian access, fencing
and parking;
(3) Approval of a Precise Plan for a 1.65 acre portion of the Project site known as Marsella
Villas;
(4) Approval of a Design Review Permit to build 40 attached townhouse units on the 1.65 acre
portion of the site.
REZONE
In recommending approval of the requested Rezone, staff relies on the following points:
The Generol Plan designation for the site is Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, which permits mixed-
use residential/commercial development. The Mixed Use T ronsit Focus Area allows rezoning of
the site from R-2-P to R-3P. The General Plan includes policies that direct the future Specific Plan
or Master Plan to include design guidelines or zoning to establish the following uses and
standards for the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, including:
1-5
PAGE 6, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
. High-density residential within walking distance of regional transit facilities (trolley and
bus service). A district-wide gross residential density of 40 dulacre is envisioned;
. Mixed uses with residential above cammercial and office;
. Building heights in the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area are anticipated to be low to mid rise;
· Establish pedestrian connections and support services for residents and transit station
users (see Attachment 6, General Plan Goals and Objectives).
The property to the north of the Project site is the 5.3-acre "Pumpkin Patch" property. This site is
also designated Mixed-Use Transit Focus Area. It is envisioned by the City to be one of the key
properties in implementing the Palomar Gateway District's vision for transit-oriented
development. To achieve the goals of the General Plan, as suggested by the Urban Design
Strategy, it is important that pedestrian access connections be preserved from the Project to this
site, thus, staff recommends easements to ensure future vehicular and pedestrian access
between the Pumpkin Patch site and Site B of the Project site.
The trolley station is located less than V. of a mile (approximately 900 feet) east of the Project site,
within easy walking distance. Since research has shown that high-density housing and
appropriate office and commercial uses adiacent to transit lines will generate ridership that
supports transit and eliminates vehicle trips, the Proiect site is ideal site for higher residential
densities.
Although the overall density of the Proiect at 25 dulacre is less than the 40 dwelling unit per acre
density targeted by the Transit Foucus Area designation, it is still consistent with the General Plan
policies because the 40 dwelling unit per acre density is an overall target density for the Palomar
Gateway District. It is envisioned that some properties such as Marsella Villas will develop at
slightly lower densities while others such as the Pumpkin Patch will develop at higher densities, to
attempt achieve an overall density of 40 du/acre. Also, a gradual lowering of density is
envisioned southerly from the Pumpkin Patch and Trolley Station areas.
The City has not adopted a high-density residential or mixed-use zone that can accommodate 40
dwelling units per acre at this time; therefore, the R-3 -P zone is most appropriate. The maximum
theoretical density achievable using the R-3-P zone and 3 bedroom units proposed for this site is
26 units per acre. The rezone is necessary to come as close as possible to the 40 dwelling unit
per acre density envisioned by the General Plan Goals and Obiectives.
After considering all of the above factors, staff has concluded that proceeding with a rezone to R-
3-P prior to the adoption of the future Specific Plan, is the most effective way to establish higher
density residential development standards in a manner that complies with the City's updated
General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, application of the amended Precise
Plan guidelines is appropriate because the underlying R-2-P zone regulation does not allow multi-
family development standards needed to achieve higher -density residential Project design.
PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING DISTRICT
1-6
PAGE 7, ITEM NO.: I
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
The existing Precise Plan - "P" Modifying District was adapted with the rezoning of the area in
1990, and did not include development standards. Therefore, staff recommends establishment of
the proposed precise plan guidelines to permit modified R-3 development standards more typical
of higher density, pedestrian-oriented residential development. These development standards will
permit reduced setback areas in exchange for a centralized common open space area, increased
building heights, and vehicle and pedestrian connections to off-site properties. The precise plan
standards will apply to the entire 1.92 acre site, and will facilitate not only the development of
Sites A and B, for which the Design Review opplicotion is proposed, but also the future re-
development of Site C. The proposed precise plan guidelines, which will act as the modified R-3-
P Zoning Standards for the Project area, are listed inthe following table:
Precise Plan Development Standards
Maximum Floor Area Per Unit: 2,400 sq. ft.
(includin>l >lara>le)
Minimum Building Setbacks: Front: 5 feet (public street)
Side: 10 feet (east/west property line)
Rear: 7 feet (north property line)
Building to Building:
Side: 1 0 feet
Driveway: 28 feet
Building Height: 35 feet / 3 stories
(Measured to mean height level between eave and
rid>le - per CVMC 19.04.0381
Building Type: Dwellings, Townhouses
Open Space 400 square-feet of common useable open space
per 2-bedroom unit, with a 20% Increase In
common useable open space for each additional
bedroom.
60 square feet of private open space per unit.
Pedestrian Access: Min. 20 foot wide pedestrian access easement
including a 5-foot wide public sidewalk at the
common boundary of Site B (778-780 Ada) & Site
C (792-794 Ada) connecting the northerly property
to Ada Street.
Vehicular Access: A 24 ft. wide reciprocal private street easement
from 778-780 Ada St. to the northerly property.
1-7
PAGE 8, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
A 24 ft. wide reciprocal private street easement I
from Ado St. to the rear of 792-794 Ada Street.
Fencing: Decorative stucco or wood fencing is required.
Maximum height is 5 feet, except 3-1/2 ft in setback
areas adjacent ta a street.
Parking Standards: Residential:
2.0 garage spaces per unit
2-car garage:
Min. area: 400 sq. ft.
Min. width (exteriorl: 20 ft.
Access:
To encourage a logical development pattern for Site C, vehicular access will be provided by the
driveway on Site A to the west, and pedestrian access via the north-south public pedestrian
connection on Site B to the east (see Precise Plan, Attachment 2). Therefore, a 24 foot wide
reciprocal vehicular access/utility easement across Site A, and a 20-foot wide pedestrian access
easement, including a 5 ft. wide sidewalk, on the common boundary of Sites Band C will be
required. This easement will narrow to 10 feet on the west side of Site B north of Site C. This will
provide the future pedestrian connection from Ada Street to the Pumpkin Patch property,
envisioned by the Urban Design Strategy. These easement will be included on the Precise Plan.
After development of the Pumpkin Patch property, a through street is envisioned to connect the
two sites. This will provide convenient access to services for the neighborhood residents, and an
additional full access for police and fire department response. However, it is not presently
designed to comply with public road standards, and therefore would have to comply with private
street standards. To accomplish this connection, staff recommends including a standard in the
Precise Plan guidelines requiring granting of a reciprocal access easement for a future private
street connecting the two sites.
Reasons for Recommendation:
The Precise Plan standards will have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood because
the proposed standards allow the applicant to design a Project that implements the Transit Focus
Area of the General Plan by providing multi-family development standards that are consistent
with higher density residential and transit-oriented mixed-use development planned for the area.
Such standards will allow the flexibility in establishing new building height and setback
regulations that will permit construction of attached town-home dwelling units with garages,
private balconies, and common open space. Also, the required pedestrian connections to
adjacent properties are necessary to encourage the transitions from existing duplex and single-
family development to higher density, transit-oriented residential and mixed-use development.
Common open space will be transferred from traditional front and rear yard setback areas, to be
clustered in the'central areas of the site for use as tot lots and recreation oreas. The Project as a
1-8
PAGE 9, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
whole will olso include design features such as walls, fencing, architecture and landscaping that
will be designed to support the pedestrion-oriented design, so that the units will address the
streets and sidewalks where appropriate. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
amendment of the Precise Plan Modifying District.
PRECISE PLAN
The Precise Plan is a plan regulating the future development of the site, which implements the
Precise Plan Development Standards via approval of the Design Review Permit. The plan includes
site improvements such as the building architecture, vehicle and pedestrian access, landscape
and recreation areas. It also shows the public pedestrian and private street easements necessary
to facilitate future access. The Project proposes approval of a Precise Plan for the 1.65 acre sites
A and B, and is consistent with the Design Review Plans. The Precise Plan designates site C as a
future development area. An amendment of the Precise Plan Map and filing of a Design Review
Application showing the ultimate development of Site C is required prior to development of this
property. The applicants envision Site C to be developed in a way that can be physically
integrated into the design of sites A and C, using similar multi-family unit design, sharing access,
open space and recreational facilities.
To approve the Precise Plan, the City Council must make the necessary findings pursuant to
CVMC Section 19.14.576, including (1) That such plan satisfies the principles for amendment of
the "P" modifying district, (2) That such plan will not under the circumstances of the particular
case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; (3) That any exceptions granted
which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when
necessary to meet the purpose and application of the Precise Plan; and (4) That the approval of
this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of the City Of Chula Vista.
Staff has reviewed the Precise Plan and the required findings, and recommends that the City
Council approve the Precise Plan, as described in detail in the attached City Council Ordinance.
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
The Project's Design Review application proposes 16 town home dwelling units at 790-812 Ada
St. (Site "A") and 24 units at 778-780 Ada Street (Site "B"). Each town home unit includes 3
bedrooms, 3 baths, and a 2-car garage, and ranges in size from 2,163 - 2,228 square-feet,
including garages (see Site Plan, Attachment 3). Site C (792-794 Ada Street) is owned by Mr.
Coo-Romero, who has not submitted a Design Review application yet. The Design Review plans
have been designed to permit the Site C to be redeveloped in the future with town homes, in a
way that will enable Site C to be integrated into the approved design for Sites A and B.
Compliance with Development Standards
I Lot Area:
I 71,874 sq. ft. /1.65 acres
1-9
PAGE 10, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
REQUIRED PROPOSED:
(after Rezone to R-3-P/Precise Plan):
Buildinq setbqcks: Buildinq setbacks
- Front: 5 ft. - Front: 5 ft.
-Side: 10 ft. -Interior Side: 14 ft.
-Exterior Side: N/A -Exterior Side: N/A
-Reqr: 7 ft. -Reqr: 7 ft.
Building Height: 35 feet/ 3 stories; Building Height: 32-1/2 ft high /3-stories
45 feet /3.5 stories subject to DRC qpprovol
pqrkinq stondards Proposed parkinq
Parkinq Space Dimensions Parkinq Space Dimensions
Garage Exterior Dimension: 2-car = 20'x20' Garage Exterior Dimension: 2-car - 20' x 20'
Residential Parkinq standards
2.0 spaces per unit @ Parkinq Provided
40 - 3 & 4 bedroom units = 80
2-Car Garaqe: 80
Total required = 80 spaces
Total Proposed = 80
Required Open Space Proposed Open Space
Common Useable Open Space = 19,200 sq. ft Common Useable Open Space =23,410 sq. ft
Private Open Space = 60 sq. ft Private Open Space = 78 sq. ft.
5. STAFF ANALYSIS
Site Plan
Site A will include 2, 6-unit buildings and 2, 2-unit buildings centered on a 43' x 43' tot lot. Site B
will also include 4 buildings, with an 8-unit and 7-unit building on the east side of the site, and a
5-unit and 6 unit building on the west side. These buildings will also be centered around a 50' x
50' tot lot, also on the west side (See Site Plan, Attachment 3). Both sites are level, with sight
elevation gain of approximately 2-4 feet towards the center of the property.
1-10
PAGE 11, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
J
04/24/07
Buildings on both sites are oriented with entries facing east, west, with one unit entry in each
building facing Ada Street. Pedestrian entry to the units from Ada Street are by the 5 foot public
sidewalk or 4-foot private sidewalks located along the front elevations. The garages and
driveways are located on the opposite elevation. Each unit entry will include a stoop '/2 story
above ground level. The front yards will be a landscaped common area ranging from 10-15 feet
wide. The building-to-building setback along the driveways is 28 feet, although the buildings will
overhang the driveway, while maintaining a 20-foot minimum clear width. Parking for residents is
provided by one 2-car garage for each unit, for a total of 80 parking spaces.
The Project proposes 0.53 acres (23,367 sq. ft.) of common useable open space, including
common landscaped areas, 2 tot lots (1,710 sq. ft. for site A and 1,944 sq. ft. for site B) and 40
private second -story decks (78 sq. ft. each), which complies with the R-3 zone and Design
Manual standards.
The proposed fencing consists of a five-foot high stucco fence along the northerly property line
facing the northerly property, and solid wood privacy fencing proposed for the perimeter of the
site, which will match the building architecture. The Design Review Committee recommends a
five-foot solid masonry wall between the tot lot on Site B and the existing home on Site C, which
will be taken out when Site C re-develops. Staff recommends that the applicant prepare a
conceptual lighting plan to enhance safely for the public and residents, prior to issuance of the
first building permit.
Access and Circulation
The site is located on the north side of Ada Street, which is designated as a local residential
street. T wenly-four feet wide, dead-end private driveways providing primary vehicular access.
There are twa driveways serving site A and ane serving site B. At the request of the Fire
Department, the Design Review Committee recommended a condition of approval of the DRC
permit requiring that an improved emergency access road and gate be provided prior to issuance
of the building permit for Marsella Villas Site B (see Attachment 2). Prior to development of the
Pumpkin Patch property, this road would serve as emergency access only, and connect Marsella
Villas Site B through the Pumpkin Patch property to Palomar Street.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access to the units will be provided via internal pedestrian paths connected to the
public sidewalk on Ada Street (see Site Plan, Attachment 2). To provide the off-site pedestrian
connections envisioned by the General Plan, a 5-ft. wide public sidewalk and easement will be
provided through the west side of site B, connecting the future Project to the north with Ada Street
to the south. Pedestrian access will be provided via internal pedestrian paths connected to the
public sidewalk on Ada Street. In conjunction with proposed street improvements for the Palomar
Gateway area, future access to public transit will be made available across Industrial Boulevard
to the Palomar Trolley Station to the east.
1-11
PAGE 12, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
Traffic Study
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the development of the Project, a traffic impact
Assessment was prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates on November 2005. The traffic
assessment Projected that the Project will generate 246 daily trips, with 20 trips occurring in the
AM peak hour and 22 trips occurring in the PM Peak hour.
Based on the location of the Proiect sites and a Proiect trip analysis, it was estimated that 40% (98
vehicular trips) of the daily traffic would use Industrial Boulevard as a secondary access to exit
onto Palomar Street. Accordingly, about 60% (148 vehicular trips) of the daily traffic would use
Frontage Road to access Palomar Street.
Short-Term Impacts (Year 0 to 4): Based on the traffic impact assessment results and the Project
trip generation, it is anticipated that the Proiect will not result in any significant Project specific
impacts.
Long-Term Impacts (Horizon Year 2010): Based on the traffic study prepared by KOA associates
for the development of the northerly Project (Olson Bayvista Walk Project), the intersections of
Frontage Road and Walnut Avenue with Palomar Street would operate at Level of Service (LOS)
"F" under all conditions and for the Horizon Year (2010). Since the Project trips comprise less
than 5% of the total intersection entering volume for each of the intersections listed above, the
intersection impacts would be deemed as cumulative impacts. The construction of a partial
median along the centerline of Palomar Street that would restrict left turns and through traffic at
the intersection of Frontage Road and Walnut Street onto Palomar would result in a LOS "C"
under the worst PM peak hour conditions. Therefore, the Project Applicant/Developer will be
required to construct the median to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to mitigate the
cumulative traffic impact to a level of less than significance (see Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Attachment 4).
Landscapina:
Landscaping constitutes approximately 29% of the site. The common areas and tot lots are well
landscaped. Front yard areas adjacent to the stoops will incorporate turf areas to allow active
use by residents. Storm Water management features, pedestrian walkways, and proposed unit
entries will be included in the detailed landscape plan. Planters located between the garages
along the driveways will be enhanced and enlarged to the extent feasible, to ensure that they can
support small trees and large shrubs to help soften the views of the long rows of garage doors.
Also, placing larger trees in the tot lots adjacent to the driveways will help to break up views of
the buildings. Enhanced paving will be provided at each driveway entry. Also, staff recommends
that a screening program be included to soften the views of the trash enclosure from the tot lots.
Staff recommends a revised planting plan and elevation study for the streetscape along Ada
Street. The privacy of the adjacent residents will be protected by using walls and landscaping to
buffer the Project's active areas from the adiacent uses. The Design Review Committee
recommended conditions of approval requiring that a detailed landscape plan be prepared
addressing the above concerns.
1-12
PAGE 13, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
{
04/24/07
Architecture
The Project proposes an urban, single row-house architectural design theme. The building's front
fa<;ade is broken up into multiple planes using single-story roof elements, gabled windows and
entries with stoops. The design will incorporate multiple stucco finish colors, including olive, off-
white, buff, warm ochre, and warm sienna. Proposed roofing materials include mission barrel
tiles using a variety of earth tone colors. Decorative metal roilings for certain windows and
balconies are also proposed. The side and rear elevations are well articulated. The applicant has
prepared enhanced elevations (see Site Plan/Elevations, Attachment 3), which in staff's opinion
have incorporated the suggestions of the Design Review Committee. These elevations will be
required for the elevations facing Ada Street and the tot lots.
Driveway elevations will include long rows of garages, which would benefit from additional
architectural relief and landscaping to soften these views for the residents. Staff recommends a
condition of approval requiring a variable color scheme, garage door windows, as well as
enhanced landscaping with tree planters.
Palomar Gatewav Public Improvements
The Palomar Street / Interstate -5 area is the subject of a public improvement Project proposing
street improvements and landscaping to enhance the area, which is envisioned as the southerly
gateway to the City. The Project will improve Palomar Street between Interstate 5, to
approximately 200 feet beyond the intersection of Palomar and Industrial Boulevard.
Improvements are also proposed to extend south along Industrial Boulevard between Palomar
and Ada Streets. The proposed improvements include: (1) gateway monumentation signage; (2)
landscaped parkways between the sidewalks and travel way along the Palomar Street corridor;
(3) six-foot bikeways in each direction and pedestrian level lighting along Palomar Street; and (4)
landscaped medians from along the Palomar Street corridor. These improvements will be
funded by an approved grant, and are expected to commence within a year.
Public Utilities
In conjunction with the review of the Project, the applicant has prepared technical reports
analyzing the condition of public utilities such as sewer, water, drainage, and water quality/storm
water runoff systems. The findings of these reports are summarized in the attached Mitigated
Negotive Declaration (see Attachment 4).
The sewer technical report found that no new construction or expansion of existing public sewer
improvements is needed to serve the Project, and that the Project would not impact existing sewer
facilities. The Sweetwater Authority Water District provides water service to the Project area. They
will provide service to the Project, contingent upon approval of improvement plans by the District.
The hydrology report concluded that the increase in runoff will not alter or effect any downstream
drainage facilities, and is therefore considered insignificant. The water quality report found that
water quality impacts typical of a residential development could occur, such as erosion,
1-13
PAGE 14, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
household pesticides, hydrocarbons, and fertilizers. However, these impacts would be mitigated
by installation of improvements such as construction best management practices, including silt
fencing, and post- construction best management practices, such as detention basins. These
improvements are required in conjunction with approval of grading plans by the Project's
Mitigation Measures.
Schools
The Project site is located in the attendance area of Harborside Elementary School at 691 Naples
Street, within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The Project is also
within the attendance area of Castle Park Junior High School located at 160 Quintard Street, and
Castle Park High School at 1395 Hilltop Drive, within the Sweetwater Union High School District.
Staff contacted each schaol district, to determine if the additional dwelling units proposed by the
Praject would cause these schools to be adversely impacted. Both School Districts provided
updated student generation rates for new development. Harborside Elementary is presently just
below its capacity, and both Castle Park Junior High and Castle Park High Schools were both
above their capacity. Applying these rates resulted in generation of approximately 19 elementary
school students, 5 junior high school students, and 10 high school students, as described below:
School (Gradel Dwellina Units Generation Rate Students Generated
Harborside Elementary 47 X 040 = 18.8
School (K-6)
Castle Park Jr. High School 47 X .104 = 4.9
(7-8\
Castle Park High School 47 X .216 = 10.2
(9-12\
TOTAL 33.9
Both school districts responded that even though their schools were nearly at or above their
capacity, they would be able to accommodate the additional students generated by the Proiect,
and that the schools would not be adversely impacted by the approval of the Praject.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends:
That the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-06-005, and approving Rezone PCI-06-
005 and Precise Plan PCM-07 -15, based on the findings ,and subiect to the conditions contained
in the attached Draft City Council Ordinance; and r
1-14
PAGE 15, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/07
That the Redevelopment Agency adopt Mitigated Negative Declarotion and Mitigation Monitoring
ond Reporting Program, 15-06-005, and adopt the ottached Resolution approving Design Review
Permit DRC-06-27 & 28.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts from the preparation of this report and the processing af the Rezone,
Precise Plan and Design Review Permit. All costs are covered by the deposit accounts.
DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and Redevelapment Agency
Members and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property
that is subject to this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1 Locator Map
2 Precise Plan
3 Site Plan /Elevations
4 Finol Mitigated Negative Declaration
5 General Plan Goals and Objectives
6 Response to Theresa Acerro's comment letter on the Marsella Villas MND 15-06-005
7 Ownership Disclosure Form
J:\Planning\Case Files\-07(FY 06-07)\Rezone\PCZ-06-05-PCM07-015 joint agenda statement
1-15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Attachment 1
PROJECT
lOCATION
~ \
It \
m\
III1\
:J~
Jill
TID
I
Vacant 0
MF
SF MF Ada St
J:' SF SF
SF
0 SF SF
2.- SF SF SF MF
0
<0
(1) SF
Al
0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dorofh Sf
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT . PROJECT DESCRIP1l0N:
C) APPLICANT: Alejandro Sanchez PRECISE PLAN I REZONE
PROJECT S Proposed Precise Plan and zone change from R2P to R3P for a
ADDRESS: 778, 780, 790 & 808-812 Ada t new multy-family project.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCM-07-15 Related cases: DRC-O&-28, PCM-ll7-15
J:lplanninglcarlosllocatorslpcm0715.cdr 03.12.07
1-16
Ordioance#
ExhibilC
PCI-06-005JPCM.Ol.015
2,400sq.t1.
PedeslliaoAi:;cess:
Maximum FloorNea Per Uoit
~ndudiog gilfage)
Minimwn BuUding Selbacks'
Building Height
BuilangType:
OpeoSpace
Front 5'eel~ublicslIeell
Side: 101llllteastlwestprop~Uoel
Rear. Ifeet IlOI1hpropenyine)
~uJ~ng 10 B~~dl~lt
Driveway: 28feel
35leet/3stoties
~~:';j~~~~r~~1W~~mn
Dwellings, Townhouses
~~~q;:~!!:~~~~wi~:~8ren
~::~~~~~~~Jr:~open spare
VehicularAccess:
Fencing:
PiI"kirl{lStandards:Residenlial:
Min.20footwidepedeslrlallaa:esseasemeol
indudiflgaS-foolwide_publicsidewalkalttle
rotf((';,lnboundilfY of SUe BI718-780Adal &
SileCj792.7S4Aila)connedingtheoortheny
properfyloAdaSlreel.
A24ftwide~ipcQcalprivaleslreeteasemeol
fromn8-780AdaSlwlhellOl1bedyproperty.
fr~~~gr~~i~l:f~.~~A:~I~tt
Decoranvestuc:roor wood feocingis requirell.
Maximum height!s 5 leet, except J.112 fI In
selbackareasadjacenlloaslreel
2.0garagespacespllfuoit
2-cargarage:
LIilllI]. ,. .. .. ,..
::::::::::: RECIPROCAL
::::::::::: ACCESS EASEMENT
~ PEDESTRIAN
~ ACCESS EASEMENT
. PROPOSED
ACCESSIBLE UNIT
IO'_~'
SITE A
,~
~=
C~~
~
.~
<Nl.Jo.rF.
~-
typ.",T
~
-
-
~rr
~
-
,,~
~
-.
o
W~~
~rr
cw
,,~
$
IU-a
~~"
-
f..... .
~~.IoJ'I'.
~-
~
SITEC
10'PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS EASEMENT
-
~rr
U~
24'RECIPROCAl
ACCESS EASEMENT
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
AREA
-- ----:.._~.....
==--
MARSELLA VILLAS
Precise Plan
..~
EMUGElICVACCIiU
aOAol.GAn
y
i
j
i
i
i
~.
j
i
i
i
i
-I
,'fPQrI_
~.-
Ion "'curl>
~~
~
n~
I ~6.00'
'- J
ADA STREET
Z-J,"".
J 7'
N~'
J
)>
-
...
Q)
n
:r
3
I'D
::lI
...
'"
ATTACHMENT 3 - SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
1-18
I:I'.lUlt '"'
~z ;
1:-- i
:!.n;1
UCll::,~
o~-I
\ll\Z I
~:S .
<o...E
N.rtI--~
wU"lo:~
:)~'!
Qh1',
~~ i ~
OU'
""I
""<!
g.
~ h p ~
~u!!~ ~~~
i5"!~q~f~ ~,[f-i
i.\ I,+t,."..,~
~ ~Qc:r;.q"itl~
; !lli'!~ili'
""~ ~H~;B~,H!
I- ,,~::. ..lB.'; ~i':t<~
........,..
"~ I
g ~ ~ ~:J ! "<
: , i"I' a" ~ ' II,
.~ ~ ~ l-~r~~~ ~ l-H
d '!. ... - ~ ~. r- ~ <: ", -
,. ~l!!! I !HIH · IH
5 ~!~H :'l!!!i! :,~"
."" ~L,,:-.. !t~~~
\ lZ.~;' t"
'"V -''5
I'''':-::''~
\_If'--;?'''7f~
-,~;:"-"':"( ,.._~~~ ~
-~~P;~1, ~~-~
\ /If.
1 1'./' ,-"-..
<\\" -"-;co)
.' ,,\'
--~ ....:1..
_'-'_,fr ~ .:- ~ ~
~. , /., .;=> 'c.....
, "f\\''-'<c,--. -'I"
." -~"'" ~."::')
"~
,
1-19
'r!=ii
I1illI
~
=
~
<<J
11M
~
'>c.
N '
~N<
ti- 'fJJJ
C'l ra
, ~U.
I'" '-'. Zl~"
~'\J <i,
7' 1 V1 ..
~IJ ~o~
..J ...l!l:.
Il. ",0;
,"~Z:l.
0~r
~
=
=
N
""
o
co
'"'
"-
z
0
I-
-<
>
LU
-'
LU
LU
~
0
J:
$:
z 0
0 "'"
I-
<t ....J
> -<
W
..J ::)
W I-
a..
I- LU
Z U
0 Z
0:
U. 0
U
~, I~ t3 I
l.U ~ "
i !..~~~ll
g,..n
[l~ ~ ~
...-!
-< ~.
u~'~l
02:'
lAzl
~:s .
<..I
N.~~
w~i
Oti'
_wI
Ot:!:::!
err" ...
Qui
~~J
It
. . , :;.:~::', ~ "; _';::'_;'."~. _::w,~,.. ,
'C;",'~_,_ u
.~
r~:t ::
~ _ ~~ H 1
~ ~!iill l: I
02 '~}:'lh,l 'It
~ -UhHH ~
;.hI1;;'I! i
'0 "1~!1l:$~jtl ~
~ -'ll",."
~ . ~:~::!:! l!
~ I
g" _ i!: II> ,.'t
o ~ $ ~ i>;
~ I "1" ..ll."t-...
~ 'ill Il'"
o ~~f!l, .. ..".... f
'i"n; I Hili
8 11m ;!l!l~!
. .. . . .1.. . . .
,
10.
1: :q;~
! ~~~,
I "!
~~~!~
~~~~~
1-20
z
0
f-
-<
>
I..U
--'
I..U
I..U
~
0
I
:?;
z 0
0 c.::
>-
<
> --'
"" -<
-' =:l
""
f-
>- D...
< u.J
s: u
""
> z
'" 0
Q U
~Ni
ll.l;
:r.~
dU~
~>' ~~
U'Ii:
~Q~
,0:.
"'0'
.~z!
~r
0: I~ B i
t;;, ..
~ L..~nnn
~t ~~~~
~'n.
uIL. . .
~
I
N
~
INltKIOR
fACINC
51 D [
5 II f
CONCEPTUAL
ROWHOME
5lRftl fACING
ElEVAIION
,.~<-
:; ..
"">l' :-;IP-~
-<",
.,~~~
I.'
.,
ElEVAIIONS
ELEVATIONS
IN! RODRIGUEZ A550CIAlES
.j 1~~~~CJ~~~~~~;;~~
n't1(AllXllJ::KjoX IlN!)IIC,
. .'.,...~ ......-;.......'....
.,,~..~...., -,. _.,.""..~
. ".,,- ox. ,~..........~ .~..,.,
..,....""'...,,...*<0'._.
',-.~"""""""""
. --. .........,- '~"''''. ~~~, ,-.'._,
. ..'.. ....""'.....~.... .~.~<
. -t'.. ..... ...~..v. .....""
. ....~ ..,...........'" "'.- .....~,
r:mRIOI( COlr>>;~
,.....,..,........-.
.---,..-...",
''''''''''.
-""...~_...,""
_,..._c........
.......".... .-,~~....
"...AWO.'_'>'<M
^,-,..._~~
.,...........'"...""
-."",."...__..,a
......,...''''''''-'''...
.................",...
. .
MARSELLA. VILLAS
NAHUM MENDOZA
~fl.'n:...llJX<I."-rr,JI.lJr$l.. ~"P<:<;t.~
CHARACTER SKETCH
,
,~------
(53
,
r:~-=---==--=:!
~~=."':"'......,:~.::.w::..""'':;:~:II''=:''~~.:~.~.::.=,:,:;,~~,=,=~:''''"':."':'"'""-=.'':::==~,==~=~==-_~-=--:;,,..:==:r==--:.~
M I
II! I I! Id
2!( !
, !
II!
~
ill
I
V>u,
Wz I
f-_
~vl'f
u""l
0'2'
v>z I
~~I
NOl'
w'" i
:It:;,
5:2l.Ur
""t::!
O:I: l
OUI
"'~ I
g
1'1
'.
j,
!
I' !!" "" '''' ,...~"" 1 l!j ~l! ~"'I
>- '1 II !;~! ;::: :::' "Ii .1.. !!.: !~~_. !:l!:~ !::::.: N
$ II, i, ; II I, .!l1 m! Il'l In .... ..... ...... ...... .. o.
~ ~~ 5;\ 01 ~A.:I.:I .:I.:I.:IJI o!l
~ III II I Ii... '" ! I (''' ~~ m~ !!!!! m!! ~ I I z I
iz Ii! ll~l~-li II !ll !II!! I 11iii' i ill m~ mil HIll ~.. II -< ~ I
nlill!~l L -I -I il il .... ~ 111 m~ "--...! n_.. .. 8 ::l I
g~;!l~ll;l~l! ,,~Ull!lilihu I .~'hmHmdm~' I'! ~~~
~~lllsi'}i,,~ll!,lf-i'lj.lf-IHI,U.}!il!!IIJfpmj~ym ym ~ f~lI ~II
loll II Illi II I I II-! I I ~h",. 1m.. " <
~,II ~..II_ u:ll. fllll!l!l!ll .llll!l~llb .llilllUlh :mm.lmll. ~ ! ~~ z!
,
I
I!
1_________
III
1"
,ll
,
" ,
"
, ,
J iii l-
.: ~ tti
~
f/'~
I-<C
J
E8-!
il. I 11,
11' II.M sli
ll'h; lie !ll
m'll ~ll "I
~ i~l ~~11 ~~ lJ
. ! 'II, I'll il
Ii lJ ~!~~ H~~!! ~.. i
~ ~ hJ1111 ii"!!. . '!'1
~ ~ "I!,I.. "- ~ ~l'
;; ~ i!!il,ll' ;~~ ~ hili I
~. ,,'" I 10.>,! . I'll
l I;
EB
I;
III
III
~
III
I
!'
Ii!
" ,
,
0: / Ill;
, :
,
,
,
,
,,'
I!/~
~
V)
d
-<C
ill
Id
1-22
H
,
,---,
in
'"
'<!
'"
'"
. z
~o
;:s'"
~2
w:l
!::'"
"'~
BtH
~.. rn
<01' v).
~, i <(
~ L~nnn
~; ~~~u
i! D
~ ,...
if]
""
U
-<
'"
'"
loZ
o 0
;:s'"
~2
w:l
t::.,.
"'N
Eo
~
:<:
z
:s
c..
w
f-
Vi ~
~~
--l ai:""
<( ja. 11.1
e<: '''''is
=> :<5N
I- ....N~
U 5i~el
~ ~~~
J: :;;~6
U I::~'"
_.I zj::2
I.IIi. ::;)"'0
<( ~iSf
~~
" ~
::Ii w~ '"
~o!~o <3iJJ
~~~~~ ~:si3
..,.! lc~
,!~". ,8,
"o~1 I'. ,"
wE~8 wiil[3 w m~
11111 m iU II! II
1~[]rnJ[B
ffi ~
~i I~ II' Ii
g!! hi J ,ii!l
l~~ Hi gl I!l! II
,i~I~HI
,
!:! I!!
ii,
Ii
il
I i
I III ! ; 1!l III
,! I l i ,!~ l.i'l ! ~ It ,I j'l I ,
i h : i ! 1 i!ll! iilll ! II! Il~ ; !lil!1i
: Il H !! ! J ~I,h i ilg ;IlIiIlL
A- 1 '" ~I
~, . i.l ! ~ I II i' . i!
.q ~ I i 1'-' . i! . 'I I ~ I, h
;! hI: l;i1h!hl! ill Uii ~ liil!!i
It I! ~ I i I ~ill ~!Ii!IIJ!1111! I! 1111111
~.*~ EO @ " 0 @
l
P .1
,I '11!d
idl; hi jll
,!ild ill il! ii
Illllll Iii! 1:1 II
111,1 llll!h !.
iI,llil,,' ~ IJIIl: ,I
l! , ~ ~1O! :1;
lllll'" !
111.1' ,;l!'h II
I 11I1mh!!!, Ii
i I .Iii
I i!llllllllll i I
~ illilhlll!lll!
~..! []
l!! ........". ~~
"' I ,~ ::
i ! j t::;: r1U~ ~
. . -.- e VI ~ ~
~ ~ ~
5 c ~
il.
I.'
E,,~ ;
mQ1!!
!I!
1-23
C
al
ill D- ~ Ii U
Q. . ..
co +-' :; ~~
o Q.l' Ii
U)(})'"
1)0.
c c !
al 0
-.J()
I
,
,
I
., ,
w '
5 I
< ,
'" '
."1 ~
!"Z
<0
~~
<z
w=>
55~
,
,
I
"
i"
,
,
,
1
,
,
1
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
I- i
UJ '
UJ '
0::: 1
I- '
~ ,J
o ,
-< '
[
,
i
,
,
1
,
,
ffl l
a: ,
o ,
: 1
. '" ,
<. ,
. Z I
<0
w., ,
~!:: I'
wZ
}-=> ,
Cij~ I
~
". l'
~li:: I
mlii~ ['
~zo
. aN I
$N~ I
~~. I
1Ea::ll:
...Jll:o I
~ i:51i! If I'
'I gc..fil
~ [g~~ :
~ ~~~ I
~~i;':ig:
m
i:l I
.,>>,
i~ih
Ii;;!
,,;;!
~;:]
~ '
:;>]
~.o
, 0
I
~ ;
Q ~
~ 5
g.
i ~
~ i
o
~
~
~
i;S I!
r
Ii
~i
i i:
!
,
,
,
---:',,=-,:=.~--::.:-..:..m:,:-""=:":~""'..:i~"'!=",,==;'~"'~~-==';::'::<"~":':"''"';'.':'''"X'''=::.''=='::=..:::=,,~=:.=-_~-=--:'''a:==:-==--:.":';
I ._~. 11-- fr=-r
II IIII II1I !II
li !iil !iil Iii
i il ii i
I ii Ii I
I ii ii i
i ii ii i
i ii Ii i
i ii ii '
i if.. ~ '
i "
i i
i
! ; i
i
i 0000
!
U'HJ! . ~; EID ~a
i:;~ I l I Ii 1;. il 1'1'11 I
.:>vi", " h < < II I Ii
u~ I q Il ~11'1 i. i"j II, !'I'I,!I
~~, !Il' !j! I' I I ill III hi
~i I' I i II I!! Ii;: i I :1 ~ ~i , Ii Ii Ii ,I
t::l~ i ~! ,l,' ~ ! II Illl l Il! ~ . %> ~<a><3>.
db: ~'l'll!t I!, Ii'! II'" G'J
~~ I . i h! l' i . jl Ii II . III i 111111 II I l ! ',pI liP' lilll .
i U Ill! H 1!11!! In HII ill!ll! III HIi! !il lllllnll IIIHllil
, "'-+-'" <" ." <8> 1900<6>0 <2> 0 <6> ~ <6> 0 ~<$<a>
1 ._~ f1 .~- fr=l
~ I~ I~ ~I
!i llil lill Ii!
i Ii ii i
I Ii ii i
I Ii ii i
I I i .~" ,
, .~ 'i
ii ii
if !i
2
l
I
i
i
i
I
i
I
il
i i .. i
ii .~ i
l~ ~ L-J
.....c-... ......,..,'" ....."..
....
z
o :E
I-~
~~
~~
1-24
'~(I ! rn
N ~ .
01 8 I ~:;;::
, ~l ~! ~~~~
~~I~I""
i -, 11, I
.1J;l ~~ ~' !.
.n! ~ L.D
2
l
I
I
i
;i
I
J I
!
l
i
I
N .
6J
- ~i
~ ~!
~ ~!
-' ~.
u.J ili!
~~=.,.:,;,;,.;..-::--=-~-..;,::;::."!,:.~:..~""'-=-~::.."::,::,,z,;:.":::'-::~:''':'"'~-=W~~~=-:H-:;:=:''=''''''"".:''~~=='~-;:':'~
"'0 I . ., EI!J .,
~2:; I l j Ii II '!,'l'll
:$:Q' I l ! I, 11 h I l~ 'II. Ii dlt,
~~ Ill! ~ l! d I il 11 fj 1"1 fill
"'ZI '! ! ! . ',. , " I ,
~~ !. q il !!! ii" i lihd' , lh! li!:
~~ i ~ I '1,1 g d. Ilqll pi ~ . ~%~~~
ll~: ~! Ill! z H!' Ii I . I, " -! ~
~l= I . ~ llll' ~ ' II 'i '! _ ~ Ii i Ill' Ill! I l "1 '! II! ,I Illll .
i i I iUU Ii !1111!! Ill! 1i1!ll 1111 i III II !111!illll!1 !!IHI i II
. -9--+-9- ""' ." 0> 0<5>0<5>0 <& 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0~0
1 -~ f1
I ,II
" "',
,I ill,
Ii liii
i ii
i ii
i ii
i ii
i ii
i ii
i ii
.~<! ; W
N ~ .
01 ~! ~:;;::
. ~l ~!
~~i ~:...~i~~~
! -. I'. I I
. ~~ ~ ~ ~;
.Ui~LD
I~
III I
iiil Iii
!iii Iii
ii i
ii i
ii i
ii i
ii i
ii i
ii i
ii !
1 ._~. rl-~. Ir=-'l
I III III I
Ii iiil liil !il
ii !iil !iii Iii
i i ii i
i i ii i
i i ii i
i i ii i
i i ii i
i i ii i
i ' ii i
mEI
Ij
i IEHEI I
i i
i IEHEI J i
I
,
I
i
""' .
{SJ
- ~f
i;( ~!
> ~.
u.J 9'
L:d ~i
1-25
I
,
I
i
.... -
z I
o ~.
- ~I
i;( el
~ ~I
..J 9.
w ~i
==-...':.-:=...-=-..:..-:;-"'-~-~::"!,:,,,=:,,~~~,,:,:,,:,=,"':":.';:,::-"':..,:"","~.=::~,=-:,=-~...:~=:,=-_-;:--=--:,,,:---=:=,=-~':"'i:
:il\;!" ")1l1.1' II Ill!!!!!! I!I il:! CD l ,! !l, · li . -(I -, rn
~~! IWI II !li. Ii II ! dIll m!ll i~! ill! I! II II II I III! I!! !! II PI! III d I, j~ ~ i ~: "~
"'~, !II ili ililo" . .. "'!l'!.~l: I II d ~!lill!'iil,!'," I' 0 ~ I .
~~i' III ,[.~Il!jl Ii Il!lllllill Illlll".!!ll;l'!!!.!! I Zl "'g' ~~~~
[:j""i I ~il'I,II'" ,. ~~,g,~.g,~<8>~<S>~<S>~~ ~~I ,....
:liS, 0 3 li! i I 11' ! 11 I g . 'I -I .<;! ~. ~'l'
S:2w r ifi !rl ~ ~ ! e i Ii i 'II 7. ; J !,. I '!"~; ~i ~ i' ..,.., ~ ~. Ii
C5~l'!!llln!ll~ '>"~-ql.!'l~I,:lll"11 j'!Hlllll,!' 5' ~
~~ Iii i I I! IIII ~ ! li:i Ii I! ~ II II I! l~ I! i I! II Ii !I ill; II Ii i! i ~ II! II ~ ~! ?5 I D
g ~ III ~ ;1 ~I ~ II l! I, !, II 11 ~ Ii II !Ill I, ~ In,l; ;1 Ii 1111 !( II I Ij I ii II ~ Z ~ :...
. ~~a ~ !!"" ~,... 0<e><&000000~0~~0' -
_ .~._~ M_ .._ ~.,:. ~ II'
I
,
, l
1 I
t. l' !
,I _ ,
I
l I
i 3 !
I \ ~ I
. ,
~ I
l ~ !
~ I
\ l
, .
~
I
I
1
~
,
l '
nITl"
lJl
,
I
~~ i/III I ~
,
~ Jd ~
i
. . , ii
. , III
,
I"
------ i
l
~-
.~
""'_ ...c.1Q-"
o.
II ~c; ,. II
~'i
~i i ~~~!
!. 1/1
~" ~..
I _____ ""
. ~
I , , II
I i Dr~
<SJ
,
:iI ~
o
~ ~i
J
...... ..",.....'"
~ -
~,
..~
..,...... .1:11"1
l
I 0 . . II
I ~!I!: ':I'\~J r !II
I~i ISJ .. I )1
o . _. __..- ""--I~
~n ,.. ~ ~';;;;i: ~~
rC) Q Q
,
I " ,
i I · ,
I --- ----t-------:, i
, l
~ :
~ 1L _ _~!
! III -,
l
I l
,
" ~
....... ....... .r-.. ~.....
,Do ~_ .-
1-26
z
:S
"-
~
~
~
..,
~
V>
z
I ~
c..
l c.:
I 0
0
! ....J
, u..
I ::(
I
z! t-
~ I z
::>
~ I ~"" .
it ! ~ lIU!:I ~
!5 I
'< illl ~
~2!!hn
I
--:.~,:=-..i::""..ri,~~-"-:~"'=""==:"-:""':.:-.-:':~,"';':::'~~':':"''''':..'TI..~.-=,;",-=-~-==~=:.::::::,:,\:"~-:''':==~-:,~
.. li'lliil", COO; -
~~l' "11 '1;1' ,!11!,,1!, !i' il: I ! l'i !I, !' 11' '<I l rn
8~ ! !!l!l n !lli II 1:1 !ll m m iU! ill! Ii II II il ! il!!!!!!! 1111 !! !Il d II ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
"'~ , II! illi Ii i! 0 . · . .. I!l! ',": lj I Ii' I Jl ':11"1 !, ! " ' . I. 0 I ~ i
~~l' "IIII Bih!! il Ullmlll! hhllln.lll!li!~,lld Zl (5. ~~~~
tJoIiIi U . ':;:'IIII!1 ., "I!l<S><S>~~<<>'U4~'U'U ~~i 01..."
06 I 0 ~ ~Si II llll!ll'! i . I 0", ,. IIi! . ;l I ~ l }. I I
~~l'~llld I~ ""~'lllll'I~I;'llli'lPi!!HIIIIII!, ~~ ~ ..
~~ I i II IIIIIII! II il ;!:I llil! 11,11 i~,-IP:/! II:,' llll"llll!i Ii III'n! ii, 'II! lIlli, iil ~ ~ I ~! D
~ ~ III ~ ,I a ~[~ "I" hl ~, I ~ ! .., . .11 !!I ., " I ,...
, ~ lj, ~ I II , , ., .,... 000000000~0~<%><$' ~
~. ~,~ "':.. ~_ ~~ ~'. ~ ils
~ .
i ""- r
,
i ,
0 ~ 'I! I
H 1[:2;
, I I'-
0 .
,
.Q1-,n
~,
.~
i l
i
I
I I
.
i i
~
i;t
~ ~I
!
,
,
,
J
17111
, -~
I ......,...
I
IlqJ~1 ~r
I
l
.~- ~.
~
-
~.>>
~ ,.,..,..
.~ .0-
II
<$l
~i
l~~
ol.., .........0-.0..... .<>-.<ll
') II i
~ , i
l al ------- l
.
~~.
.zJI,..,.. .~Q,I
I I
l
1 l
i~ . !
"I ,
1
. I
i Z I
Ii ~ I
~ !
, :;!: !
~ i
~".
Ii
~~~ UI
~?_ \l
. .,.,,~
~/
.","
..,,""'" ....... ~,....~
.'~
~,
~.
p,.,
o . . I
I HLm' l
"~j!HI<\ llJ III
o ISJ~ ,. I )
.~-_.... ""- I1i I
i 'Vd L>-' ;'-'~:;/I~i~ I I
190QQ
..,,-. ...... ..,~. .....&-...
~,
1-27
=...... r"'l""
III U
III11
. .
_. '
- _!
,
i i r
I .
--- ----T------- I
, .
! .
""'" .......... .-
,
l
I
!
I
~ i
.. I
~ I
~
~ i
~ '
~ ;
l
,
1
;
!
Vl
z
I :S
c-
oo::
l 0
l 0
! --l
u...
,
1 ""
i <(
Zl r-
:s I Z
~ i ::>
~ ~ ~; ;;; . .
iel i a pi i
~i
~ II Ii
~H!!IS ~
:>
~"=,::':":..",::",..:..~..::.~~:.:"::.~~,==;:..~-"-::::,,,==,,::,::,~,::,,,"':..":':.-=-,:::-==~~..~=:.;:::,,,...~..::.....-:,,.:==~~~
"" I'll Iii "Iii i !', " CD rQ I . - rn
iiJ~ · . <I> l 'I' I ill i_"!. ,!, jl~ ! ! j'l!' I. llj . ~ <( I . Lt")
si llillllllli IL ~ ~l!~l 1!1l!1 llllill! lhllld II! II Ii! !I iii! II d I,. 8 r ~ i ~ ~
~~I' 11111I.~Il!,1 Ii I.!llmllll dllllli'.lllIoL.ldi!h Zl "'. ~i~~~
t;j~i ;;11111' " .. <@>tt>%>~<&~<ll><U~<ll>~~ .(~I ~.....
Bg I ~ ~ .1 I I II!" I 11 i . I g . Iii ! ~ ..J i '7 I }. I
~~I.gllniJl!~~'>"~i.j! !lil~!,.hllilili!!ll!n II!! .~~~ ~ ,.1
~g~J ~! Ill! II Ii I ~!~ ii!i Iii Ii ! ill ill I! !I~ Ii! ! I! III:, !l, Ii II !I! !il;'! i!! ill !lll!l ~ ~ I 5! D
~ III ~ \1 hi ~ 'dlll"~" I I " , '''' IHIi , ill..!! !., , , ~ I ,...
. ~ '4> a ~ ! II , , ., ",.,. 0<&<6>00><i>0<S>0<@><i>~<@><$' ~
-.,,- .':. .~~. ~~. - <@> IIi
,
l
l
!
,
I
1
~ !
oj I
~ I
~ I
9 I
i ;
I
I
I
;:J
. U .~y
-lrWp:
II!}
I ';""~
I
lZll'
,
J
,
;-
.....L-"""
-"
] '} I
I\:~
-
). ! ~ I
I
~
,
II
..:11 ""a
.~. .~. ~,
.-
-
- - ~ ~- j'....
."
r
-~ I ~~f-"
I ~ l
i .
II [SJ
l o-! r , ~ i
I
~ I ~i I J j ~i ~ I
I ~
I ,
0 , 1
l
..~
.~.
;
,
D ."---LJ ~"'
..~~~ ILL-.ll
n~!w" l!J I!
is! <- II )
D .- --~~ I1i
I 'Vr ~ - >-- ~~~:I~j I
0100
.-
1-28
~~.
~~.
.<:Ilr.8 ..."..,
I Illu
.....~..ZI1_ .......8
Jl
,
!
l
I
!
,
I
i
Z I
~ I
~ I
Z I
~ !
i
I
VI
z
:s
I ~
l 0
l 0
! u:
i co"
i I- ili~
Zl Z ~
~I :)
~ !
~ ~
!5 !
~
!
i
i
1
~;;;; .
i2~ Ii :HI '" ~
~ I h!
n! 11I~ ~
"
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Marsella Villas
PROJECT LOCATION:
778-812 Ada Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
622-020-05,51,65, & 68
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Jorge Sanchez Pedraza
CASE NO.:
IS-06-005
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
December 20,2006
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
January 22,2007
Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of
the draft Negative Declaration are denoted by underline.
Prepared by: Benjamin Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of two separate sites on the north side of Ada Street between Frontage Road
and Industrial Boulevard. The site is in an urbanized area in the southwestern portion of the City of
Chula Vista (See Figure I - Location Map). Topography across the site is relatively flat and the
properties presently contain single-family dwelling units with non-native ornamental vegetation. The
site is surrounded by residential development and vacant land as follows:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Single-Family residences, Mobile Home Park and vacant land
Single-Family Townhomes
Single-Family residences
Single-Family residences
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes to approval of rezone and design review applications develop 40 attached
single-family townhome dwelling units on five parcels totaling l.92-acres. The project acreage is
divided into three separate sites; see Figure 2.The westerly project site proposes 16 dwelling units on
0.69 acres, while the easterly-located project site proposes 24 dwelling on 0.96 acres. The parcel
located between the two project sites is being included in the rezone application however, no
development is proposed for this site at this time. The townhomes are proposed as three-story
structures with attached garages. The appropriate number of parking spaces required by the City's
Zoning Code will be provided. Each of the project sites proposes open court areas with tot lots.
Both development sites will access directly from Ada Street.
.4rr4C#/l1.8t!r 'l
1-29
;~, 'f-'
"', 3"
:.:,'~,
-t:.\ -
':::<
, .\
Lr\
_ ., ,'c
i\ :='0;,,_<7"-'
..?, , '\ \0' ~
. ,p,' <.
,,'r C"?;l.?:..~i ~
~) 1 ~ J r~.~~\'t I
::~;I.'lihI cum '
;~.
" ~".
;. ::;- <'.- '\-:.
~~.? '\\
...."-:.<,\.'-\~
-~~:~,,~'<;-;;' ~~~
~ "" 'A~'- "
i"'~'~%~'\;;-'~~~~_
"". ~-\ ~-~~
~, \~~:~.~ ~
j
G--~A--',
i~,;:;;
l' ~.;'
"
., ...,
\'i,' ,'--~' ,;
" \~r;'~ ~
'.:. .~
;<....,
':.
'\
,',
~,$~;'\.~
'~ 7-
~.
!?'j
.t>~fl ':
\"
I SN/!l1fGli
~\.',:<..*
~~!
"'"
~~
~ ~I~ ~
c _ ~,:.~,
<<;..;e< ;,.~-OO'~ -,---
. ,'=. ." '."'" ~3 . ".E" .",. ~ '!'.,;,,"".
~--=- ~-~ - ~1j~~ ~<-_..;;.;.~->--_.-..-~ '--'i--~
.".~ ''!''-~~ ~/ ..- --::-:.f=~:::~:':.::-:>-'":<::--~~\<: . f il, --~%~~'t,,;CI~1.'.',~/,::;~.
~'~_' ,.."1~;~_ _,
w, -1 __ - ~.;. DrA}' \' -." . <.,1, ,
='b),J r,!~~"1 ~.. YALL.t~:r.:5J~ i -.J~t- '-' ' ~ (
. , ~ [ \ ~ <.. ~~.t:L~ "...~_'....:,~.,~,,_.;;~..'.~._=~:-.~..,._,,-_:..':.,;-'._~:c:, -'. 'J~'~ _ .. '"
t~.:t~ _ .'~I..-;-! .'t7</;y~ru ..':... ~ _ _ ~ ,~.m.~~~:~.;-.'~,.j.......~:t__.'.-~,.,f.~_:,_._,~,.~-,_,::-,,",,_:,-_ ...l.,__...,r._..~,~,,',,'_','.,rr./..-.:_.:_<f'_.,'.i..',.....~:......j.'".-4..:.".-:_....._
.~.'~-"~,_,l.~}p'A.'ll"?-,~.:.,~e,.!:vl~I~~..~.-,:I,];: ~t)._:.rfE~; >J!~c;,:~~,. c.:=:.' -::-~ .">_.-
_, f '" _~ """",,""" ,\" ."'::>'."1;>1_, .. \_-~ ~ ;'~"['IlW
,..t:;, ~I'~' '~&"l. I '~:: -:: --:'" . ~ =: :-.,:""'~ ~ i i:-= ~,..:.:::;-.;: ~ -. ;",--:.~...':'..'''':.~.~.~..',:i= -,~_= '~___ "~,::.~ ~.fi~_'.c:~.~ l~~,'...~,;~.~...-- ,.'/ ..'
, . "-o;:<;',,)~~~c::~_O";"="'" -- - - -", -
~.'.<.b,..."""".'V~~':o~~,=_~~".:.,.,~,..ffi\.c.','::~.-;',,:,~"~.,t.~'.~.'I.;.:.~~",~,'" '", ~ ,,- .,~:~~ -';~~~~~! i $';, f.< 81~~::~;_~~~".'.: -~!~'--'--,
::~~:< ;\~~i:~1;~:7"'" ~;;:k:,:,~~,jiS;\ ;12;.' :l";;;)~~_G~:"~i; fr"
~~
5:
~i5ll"'_~
~ \
h" ~ rf,%~t;,
'!::. " ,.,
"t',,:;' .,,~ {';
-;., -01<(1
. ,~,;"t;~r .f \
._."..",,::."';':~ :;. :atl'~'<'--;:
':;;~1 :~-;. ~ ->! ~_
t,..~. ~J=:~: ':~~f(~~?of~~.~
l4t~~~~~'J~!t\~:\~?,
?i.: ",,:-= - ""7';/t~i~:;~ ~ ,
~--~'- ~ II:~ *n~ '2 t,~ 1.' ST:~ 11 ?' - 'i
~
:~
T ,jj""
".- ''''
'J., -:_
-,,= ffi
"0
"',!
...~+! ;t:!
-'!1!1~
,,~..~
1
;
~---...;--.
"
:n?~ .~
l,'~~~
\''ii
--'~.!'~
~;:,~:J, -
-,-'i -
~..~ 'i
;;;: .~
- - '"
i~'.
REFERENCE: 2005 THOMAS GUIDE FOR SAN DIEGO COUNl'(, STREET GUIDE AND DIRECTORY,
o
2400 4800
,
L
~
l
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
<: NOTE; ALl DIMENSIONS. DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE.
,
"
o
o
,
"
o
"
,
SrIl"lE lOCAl!"nO~ MAfP'
FIGURE
11/06
778-812 ADA STREET
CHllLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
1
PROJECT NO.
DATE
-
"
III ~
!~~ e
i 9
~
!~
:IPI,!
j' ,
~ !
, .
"'!
"i
;~ ~ii
,
!j!li!
~ a ~~~
~ i
;ll!:l~ )>
O~k ;:::0
oz~ (')
6~~ I
;::o~ -I
~~~ iT1
~~~ (")
=<IN;:;:l ~
N~>' C
~roill' ;;::0
l1" ~ )>
':"~ r-
~~ V1
~
m
-0
r-
)>
Z
~
f/l'
oa
~BB
iil
~~
"'=<
em
z:>
-,.,
;;1<;:
~~
N~
...=<
em
z:>
~~
20;
'"
'"
~
,.,
m
~
III
>1
0'
~I
S/'"
"
I
I' !
, ,
,
I ~
I !t
;1
,., ;
I" '--
. J __ ----~-----_
-'.
>/! ~ ! ~--t!'---lid-_m-I --
o I: '"
>
_I~ to:
~t' ~, ,
m ,
q' ! j i~ i
[. ~ ---i--t--t--i'm
, . , ,
,
II!
I!
'"
'"
:>
n
,.,
m
~
il'
Ii
I
F
III
'I
'l
~~
H
Iii
11'
1,1
hi
1"
,-
t..!
ill
!
,
.<-01
D"">
,'"
n
. :c
I=<
1m
q
~!UU'~: I ~
j"; ... ~ ~
I . m
~ i~
~. ,Z
1--4iJ'Q ,;.
= '
"'--.., ,'"
~ ~ ~ ~
h ~ W~ i ~ 'immiiim~ ill"!III'~li!li'I'll'~ ilmlillli'~'II;"~ 1~1I~ li'~
i> "~l ~ '''''!i'''''!~!. !If !Cii!I~!.!l.!~iifIJ!iifIJ!~ ~!!~ '!!"illUo
II l!~ mjj~mii~~!h.jJ~II'I~liIH!i.hll--i~!!' ~I! ~ill;;~
I C~... l ( '",,, ~"'" . h t,II'" I RIIII ~,!llli -'lli~" "~I'!!./;~ 5
l; liJ ;>;olln p';a..;:!;> .....J>: ..8 {-U Q I J U ~I ~1l~IO" I'~ ~
· t"' G.. . ~ ~~~ m ~ Ii ii,!,! ':~.-r M~
!~ > I! "Ii Hi!! J!m! ; fi m ~!!!!~i in;, n;! H !!.!~!: Ii! ~
~ z:< ! II ;un ~nn .;;; ;,;,; ~;o;l!;l! , j H~ lit: ~l I, ~~ ~~~ ~
18 ~p ;;~ '::::~ :::: :::: HHl,llli 1m !il! II i! : II II! ~
iN if mil mil illl'!J ....! Ii 'I "" "" ,;; :.!,-<
). & oJ I .f ~ ~i ~~ "".",;ll ;0";0" ;0;' *1 H ~~
"'...... g ~ 11 ~.~
,
'"I
!:,
'I'
'l~
,I
fi
'o:;r.
! :>,.,
I ~o
;:co
i=l?:l
,m-
lOG
J ln~
,l>N
'"">
S;:'"
IZ~
IZO
~!1
;Y'S;
1_-;
Zm
i('lVl
_........-._.....-...........-.......____..,.""_ff"_._~._"".....__.__..,_.... ""........ ~..,_ . _"....__ .... -...."""._,""-_
.....-"'--."'-................ --.........-..............-...........- ...."""""'-...--'...-.......-.............""-..---..-"'....---...-.--..--
1-31
SITE VICINITY MAP
778-812 ADA STREET
CHULA Y-C8ll\, CALIFORNIA
~~glUJi[re
2
778-812 ADA STREET
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
1-33
~~g;~w~
2a
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
",.~""".,.~.,~,~ MITIGATION ON BALCONIES REQUIRED I
,
~
~
it
~
~
.g
3
2.
;j.,
~
[;>-
.o;;p..
~~' PJ
~ (.I)
;;q
,~ (1l
'""
Wz
,0
~ {ii'
, "
18
9'0
=1"
~n
l~
- I"
:;.:<
o~
2> .....
7. Ul
,
~, I
17 UNITS ON .69 ACRES
AOA STREET
,>C"-<,
Source: Rodriguez & Simon Design Associates 2005
~.~
,
.
1.Il-lt:OIo
F'B'ES-r"'INl
'INl"HAl
/<1'_'.
,~'....
24 UNITS ON .96 ACRES
ffi
"""
CO)
I
,....
NORTH
,.''''
.''''_0'
Figure 3
Noise Barrier Locations
~;1 .~' '4iIi!i;bll'F'f~~!':H ~_;"~- 'r;h:'lI''<ll~'WI\lW~'f~~i?,~.'0'tlJf~~~.i':~:~;;S2~:"'~-,,
A~3-0.5
Pn!lcldes(ugJ\lg)
4,4'.000.79
4,4'-0010.630
4'4'-00T-110
elpha-Chlord~n...130
Chlotdam,..j200
DI"'Id~n-51
Endor;ulfellsulfBla-4.1
gllmme-Chlon:lBne.13
HeplachlorepoKit:le-
A-3-1.0
4,4'-00E-370
4,4'-oOT-59
alpha-Clorden...aO
Gl11otdane..540
01eldtln-l0
gemma-Chlordane.n
'l-leplachIOlepoxlde.l1
A.3-3.0.4.0
4,~'.ODE..5.2
A-3-4.0-5.0
NO
legend
A..1O
4~. Apprmtimate sample location (Nlnyo & Moore 2006)
N
.F.., A
o 15 30 60
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FIGURE
AREA A
778..812 ADA STREET 3 A
CHULA VISTA, CAUFOANIA
Site Boundary
NOTES:
A-l-0.5 - Sample number and depth In feel below ground surface
uglkg-mlcrograms per kilogram
ND-Noldelected
Only detected constituents are listed
PROJECT NO. DATE
105694003 11106
Jl(ln9o&Jy\oore
\.0
(Y)
:1
~
Legend
8-9
..;!7 Approximate soil sample location (Ninyo & Moore 2006)
NOTES:
8-1-0.5 - Sample number and depth in uglkg - micrograms per kilogram
feet below ground surface NO - Not detected
E - value above quantilation range Only detected cOl'1stiluents are listed
Jlfil1!10"/(Ic;"""
'Feet
o 15 30 60
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AAEAB
778-S'2ADA STREET
CHUL4, VISTA, CALIFORNIA
N
A
Site Boundary
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
105694003
DATe
11/06
4
1-36
C. COIIIPliance with Zoning and Plans
The existing zoning of the project sites is R-2-P (One-and-Two-Family Residence Zone with Precise
Plan Overlay). The applicant proposes a change of zone from the existing R-2-P (One-and-Two-
Family Residence Zone with Precise Plan Overlay) to R-3-P Zone (Apartment Residential Zoning
District with Precise Plan Overlay) and the General Plan designation is Transit Focus Area. The
proposed project will be consistent with the regulations of the R-3-P Zone and with the goals,
policies and density requirements of the Palomar Gateway Transit Area identified in the City's
General Plan.
D. Public Comments
On May 6, 2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius
of the project site. The public comment period ended on May 16, 2005. No written comments were
received from the public.
On December 21. 2006 a Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to properlY owners within
a 500-foot radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on January 22.
2007. No written public comments were received during the public review period.
E. 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 would not have a significant environmental
effect because of mitigation measures incorporated into the proj ect, 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.
Air Ouality
Short-Term Impacts
The proposed project will result in a minor increase in air pollutants during the demolition and
construction phases of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during demolition, grading and
construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are
considered short-term in duration since construction-related activities are temporary. Dust control
measures required during construction operations would be implemented in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California
Air Resources Board. Mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term
construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Impacts
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Based on the Traffic Impact
Study prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates (September 2005), the project would generate
approximately 246 new daily trips. The morning peak hour traffic resulting from the project would
be equivalent to 20 driveway trips and the evening peak hour would result in 22 driveway trips being
generated. Therefore, project generated traffic would not be significant or result in adverse air
quality impacts. The project design and its proximity to the Palomar Trolley station will encourage
2
1-37
the use of alternative modes of transportation. For these reasons, the proposed project would not
result in any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts.
The information provided in Table I shows the current South coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) CEQA significance thresholds. The City has traditionally used the significance
emissions thresholds of the SCAQMD, which is responsible for air quality in the urbanized areas of
Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The air quality in the SCAQMD is
much worse than the San Diego Air Basin; therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds are very conservative
for the San Diego area.
Table I
SCAOMD Air Qualitv Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (pounds per dav) Oneration- (';ounds per davY
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
Sox (oxides of sulfur) 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead !Pb) 3 3
Source: SCAQMD 2005
Construction
Table 2
Construction Emissions - Marsella Villas Development nroiect
Year and Activity Pollutant Emissions ounds per dav)
VOC NOx CO PMto
Belrinninl! in 2007
Demolition Phase 7 71 48 12
Gradinl! Phase 5 38 32 2
Buildinl! Phase 7 50 55 2
Maximum dav 7 71 55 12
Midwav throul!h 2007
Buildinl! Phase 77 73 91 3
Maximum day 77 73 91 3
Simificance Threshold (from Table I) 75 100 550 150
Building - with VOC limit of 200 grams per liter 64 73 91 3
coatings,
Demolition, grading, and building phases are sequential and do not overlap. Maximum day is the
maximum from any phase. Bold value = exceeds threshold
As shown on Table 2 above, there is a potential for exceeding the volatile organic compounds (VOC)
threshold during the final months of building. The principal source of these VOC emissions is
derived from the architectural coatings that are applied to the buildings. The project is planned to be
built in phases. The calculation is based on URBEMIS default factors for VOC content of paint,
paint coverage per square foot of surface, paint thickness, and surface area to building area ration.
The URBEMIS default emission rate is based upon architectural coatings with 250 grams per liter
(g/L) VOC content. SDAPCD Rule 67 limits the VOC content of coatings applied in San Diego
County. General flat coatings are limited to 100 g/L and general non-flat coatings are limited 150
g/L. As most coatings to be used on this project would be general flat and non-flat coatings, it would
1-38
be feasible to use coatings on the project that averaged less than 200 g/L. With this limitation, the
VOC significance threshold would not be exceeded, as shown in Table 2.
Overations
The estimated operational emissions for this project are shown in Table 3 below. As shown on this
table, none of the CEQA significance thresholds would be exceeded during operation of the project.
The URBEMIS model was used to calculate the input and output data.
o
11
Table 3
11 D I Pr .
)uerations EmiSSIOns - Marse a Vi as eve oument 01 ect
YEAR AND ACTIVITY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (LBS. Per Day)
2007- 41 units occuuied VOC NOx CO PMlo
Area emissions 3 <I I 0
Vehicle emissions 3 3 32 3
Total ouerations emissions 6 4 33 3
CEQASignificance Thresholds 55 55 550 150
(Table I)
Values are rounded to the whole pound per day; < I is a value greater than 0 and less than 0.5.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Health Risk Assessment
BACKGROUND
A health risk assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of placement of six residential
units of the proposed 40 units within 500 feet of Interstate 5 in accordance with Policy EE 6.10 of the
General Plan. The policy approved by the City of Chula Vista in December 2005 is as follows:
"The siting of new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of highways resulting from development or
redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a health risk assessment as part of the CEQA
review of the project. Attendant health risks identified in the HRA shall be feasibly mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure that applicable
federal and state standards are not exceeded."
The project proposes to develop residential units on two separate lots for a total of 40 attached town
homes. However, only six of the total number of units is proposed to be located within the 500-foot
corridor of the 1-5 freeway. These units will be located on the most westerly lot to be developed.
Only 60 to 80 feet of the most outer area of the westerly lot lies within the 500-foot buffer.
THRESHOLD
The evaluation of toxic air contaminants (T AC) was based on assumptions regarding emissions from
on-road vehicles, including truck traffic and diesel and gasoline-fueled vehicular traffic on 1-5. It
must be stated that there is presently no officially approved methodology to study T AC from
vehicular emissions. The local Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the State California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) have not
developed or provided a standard methodology approach for studying these highway related air
contaminants. The analysis was prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (July 2006) in
accordance with City methodology. There is no state or federally recognized threshold for assessing
these potential impacts.
1-~9
The State Office of Environmental Health Hazard (OEHHA) indicates that diesel noncancer risks are
a difficult issue to address. The OEHHA state they have a Reference Exposure Level for noncancer
health impacts from diesel exhaust but that it doesn't incorporate more recent scientific findings on
noncancer health impacts. The OEHHA further states that there is a procedure in OEHHA's
Particulate Matter Health Effects and Standard Recommendations that could be used to calculate
effects on mortality, however, the applicability to other than very large sources with regional impacts
has not been resolved (OEHHA September 2006). These procedures have not been adopted into
OEHHA risk assessment guidance for the Hot Spots Program. Hence, the regulatory agencies have
not identified a CEQA threshold for noncancer risks.
METHODOLOGY
The HRA evaluated toxic air contaminants (TAC) on the 1-5 segment near the Ada Street Residential
Development. Data on emissions from traffic traveling on 1-5 was estimated utilizing traffic
projections obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Growth in traffic
was extrapolated to the year 2080 based on CAL TRANS and SANDAG traffic projections for the
period from 2005 through 2030. Mobile source emission factors were obtained by using the
Emission Factors model (EMFAC2002) used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Pursuant to the CARB, the ten (10) TAC compounds that pose the greatest statewide health risk are
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavlent chromium, para-
dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride perchlorothylene, and diesel particulate matter
(DPM). According to the Air Resources Board, approximately 70 per cent of the cancer risk can be
attributed to long-term exposure to DPM. The HRA focused on potential risks associated with DPM
from trucks traveling along the segment of 1-5 nearest to the Ada Street residential development.
Additionally, the report also included emission analysis of benzene and 1,3-butadiene from gasoline-
powered vehicles.
The Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) used by the State Office of Environmental
Health Hazard (OEHHA) was used to estimate the high-end excess canCer risks associated with
exposure to TACs from Freeway vehicles.
CANCER RISK
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Air Pollution Control District have
provided basic guidelines (SDAPCD 2005) for preparing HRA's for stationery sources but not
mobile sources (i.e. highway traffic). The guidelines have developed very conservative exposure
assumptions. These models assume that an individual resident living within the 500 foot corridor of
a freeway would remain in the same location for 70 years, 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
without leaving the residence site. A more realistic scenario may be a duration of nine years and an
upper time limit of thirty years in a residential setting.
Therefore, the HRA report prepared for this project used three exposure assumptions (9 years, 30
years and 70 years) in the HARP model. As it could be expected, the comparative analysis done by
this model showed that less exposure translates to a lower cancer risk. Experience by City staff has
shown that results will vary depending on the models used. It is possible that in the future the
California Air Resources Board will eventually develop a standard air contaminant-testing model for
mobile sources.
1-~O
Another source of uncertainty in calculating exposures is the assumption that all individuals will be
subject to the same ambient air conditions and air intake at all times. There is presently no
accounting for such things as body weight, breathing rates and frequency and length of exposure.
Without the certainty and consistency in this area, the analytical results will tend to overestimate the
risk.
Table 1
Comnarison of Risks Based on EP A Exnosure Scenarios
EXDosure Scenario Maximum Predicted Excess Cancer Risk
70-vear 58.7 in a million
30-vear 32.7 in a million
9-vear Adult 9.82 in a million
9-vear Child 14.5 in a miIlion
The HRA Study provided a conservative risk analysis showing that the maximum predicted excess
70-year lifetime cancer risk at any point of the Ada Street project is 58.7 in a million. Using EPA
average and upper bound assumptions of residence duration the study estimated a 30-year cancer risk
of 32.7 in a million and a 9-year cancer risk of 9.82 in a miIlion. The study also estimated a 9-year
cancer risk for a child as 14.5 in a million.
CONCLUSION
Based on the HRA report, there could be potential health risks associated with locating sensitive
receptors within 500 feet of major highways. However, at the present time the regulatory agencies
have neither adopted specific guidelines for the preparation of mobile air toxic Health Risk
Assessments nor have they established appropriate thresholds for determining significance of
potential impacts to health. The proposed project is in compliance with all currently adopted state
and federal standards and therefore the potential impact is not considered significant.
Biological
EDA W, INC. Environmental Consultants conducted a biological assessment on September 2005 of
the subject site. Subsequent city staff site visits were conducted on October 2006. The project site
primarily consists of residential homes and yards (Figure 3). Each residential lot is developed with
houses, accessory structures, decks, paved areas, front lawns and ornamental trees. The project site
is characterized as being totaIly urban developed land with no potential biological value. However,
several trees occur within the project development site. Birds using the on-site or adjacent trees for
roosting or nesting could be impacted by construction noise or lighting through the course of the
project. Nesting birds using trees within the project boundary could be impacted if trees are downed
in the course of construction. These impacts could be potentially significant. Mitigation measures
have been formulated in accordance with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan (Section 5.2.2) regarding
the HUT Ordinance that would avoid and minimize potentiaIly significant direct and indirect
impacts to sensitive biological resources.
Paleontological
A paleontological record search and resource assessment was completed for the project site by Brian
F. Smith & Associates on May 2, 2005. The report identified the project site as forming part of an
area considered by experts in the field of paleontology as having a "high paleontological resource
sensitivity". This rating would require a paleontological monitoring and mitigation program.
1-$1
Compliance with the mitigation measure contained below in Section F would avoid significant
impacts to paleontological resources.
HazardslHazardous Materials
Soil Contaminants
Ninyo & Moore Environmental Consultants prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
report on October 6, 2005 for the project site. Historical research conducted as part of the Phase I
report identified the project site as an area formerly dedicated to agricultural uses. The Phase I
recommended a shallow subsurface investigation to evaluate the presence of residual pesticides,
herbicides, and metals. The Limited Soil Sampling Report prepared by Ninyo & Moore on March
24, 2006 detected pesticide samples at above the State of California hazardous waste level of 1.0
mg/kg. Herbicides were not detected on surficial soils and heavy metals in soil were generally found
to be consistent with background concentrations. The Limited Soil Sampling report recommended
that a site-specific health screening assessment be conducted to evaluate human health risk to future
site receptors from pesticides at the site. Additionally, the report recommended that the site
investigation join the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Voluntary
Assistance Program (V AP) and that a soil management plan be prepared prior to the initiation of any
soil disturbance activities. The application for the V AP to the DEH was accepted on July 11, 2006.
Ninyo and Moore subsequently prepared a Human Health Screening Evaluation (HHSE) for the
subject project site. The purpose of the HHSE was to evaluate if further site characterization and risk
assessment, or site remediation, in regards to residual pesticide contamination in surface soil would
be appropriate. On July 31, 2006, twenty-two additional soil samples were collected from 11
locations on the site. The samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) test method 8081 A.
The following information summarized on Table A is based on CaIlEPA, Department of Toxics
Substances (DTSC), 1996 standards used to measure potential carcinogenic risks to humans. The
risk to receptors for a particular parcel is considered significant if the cancer risk is equal to or
greater than 1 in I million, or if the non-cancer hazard index is equal to or greater than 1. The sum of
the cumulative cancer risks for chemicals of potential concern for all identified pathways ("the
course a chemical or pollutant takes from the source to the organism exposed" (USEP A 1989) was
quantified as approximately 1 in 700,000 for an adult receptor in Area A. Since there is a
conservative bias to the quantified values, the I in 700,000 cancer risk values is considered to
approximate 1 in 1 million, and therefore is not considered a potentially significant risk to an adult.
The cancer and non-cancer risks to a child receptor in Area A were well below the respective
threshold values. The cancer and non-cancer risk for an adult and child receptor in Area B were also
significantly below the respective threshold values. (See Figure 2)
ReceDtor Cancer Risk Non-Cancer Hazard Index
Area A (westerly parcel)
Adult 1 in 704,225 0.026
Child I in 1,364,256 0.0153
Area B (easterly Darcel)
Adult I in 1,686,341 0.007
Child I in 3,257,329 0.0041
Table A
Cumulative Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk
1-42
The County DEH Voluntary Assistance Program reviewed the HHSE report on September 27, 2006
and concurred with Ninyo & Moore's recommendation that a soil management plan needed to be
developed. The DEH also required that additional vertical (deeper) soil delineation be accomplished.
Ninyo and Moore consultants perforrned the additionally required soil sampling and reported the
findings in a Soil Management Plan prepared November 2006. A subsequent Addendum (December
2006) was prepared by Ninyo & Moore at the request of the County DEH. Based on these and
previous soil sampling results, the concentrations of pesticides above the laboratory reporting limits
are found present in surface soils up to depths of about four feet below ground surface. In Area A,
the 80% upper confidence limit (DCL) for detected pesticides indicate that soil excavated from the
top four feet may be characterized as non-hazardous waste if exported off-site for disposal.
However, elevated concentrations of dichlorodiphenyldiccloroethylene and total chlordane in
isolated portions of Area A may result in a state or federal hazardous waste classification if this
particular soil content were exported off-site. In Area B, the 80% DCL for detected pesticides
indicate that soil excavated from the top approximate four feet will likely be classified as non-
hazardous waste. However, based on data from the Soil Management Plan, the grids that represent
the soil sample locations for B-8 and B-9 (See Figure 4) also need to be removed and verified in the
same manner as Area A. The rest of the soils found in Area B may be reused on site.
The County DEH recommended a removal action be perforrned for site soil contammg
concentrations of pesticide that meet or exceed hazardous waste criteria. The Soil Management Plan
and Soil Management Plan Addendum (December 2006) delineate the pre-removal action sampling,
proposed excavation plans and procedures, and post-removal action sampling for the site referred to
as Area A (See Figure 3A) and those portions cited above (B-8 and B-9) for Area B (See Figure 4).
Soil materials to be exported will need to be stockpiled on site and characterized in accordance with
EP A standard SW -846 requirements. Stockpile samples will be analyzed for organochlorine
pesticides by EPA test method 8081 A. A Project Environmental Professional's Field
Engineer/Geologist/Scientist shall observe all soil disturbance activities (including grading and
excavation) and appropriately supervise the excavation and handling of all soils. For purposes of
excavation and handling, material excavated from the top four feet will be considered a contaminated
substance unless detennined otherwise by analytical testing,
Prior to the initiation of removal action activities, Health Safety Plan (HSP) and a Community Health
and Safety Plan (CHSP), and a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by
the applicant/developer. These plans shall be submitted the City of Chula Vista for review and
approval prior to soil removal activities initiate.
The handling and management of all soils shall require the implementation of Best Management
Practices to protect temporary stockpiles from erosion and storrnwater run-on and run-off, as
specified in a site-specific SWPPP that will be prepared by the Developer/Contractor. The BMPs
include, but are not limited to the following:
. Erosion control,
. Storrnwater drainage control,
. Secondary containment ( as applicable)
. Fugitive emission control of dust and/or vapors,
. Wind dispersion control, and
. Spill prevention
1-~3
During activities where dust could potentially be generated (e.g., site grading, trenching, excavating,
drilling, maintaining stockpiles, loading, and transportation) the Developer/Contractor shall employ
dust suppression techniques including use of water applied by trucks, to mitigate impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors (e.g., adjacent residents).
With the implementation of all mitigation measures described herein, the potential adverse impacts
from contaminated soils will result in a less than significant impact.
Lead Containing Swfaces and Asbestos Containing Materials
Based on the Asbestos and Lead-Containing Surface Survey prepared by Ninyo and Moore on March
24, 2006, it was found that the existing single-family structures and accessory buildings proposed to
be demolished contain asbestos materials and lead based paint. The presence of asbestos and lead
materials in a building does not necessarily mean that the health of the occupants is endangered. If
these materials are in good condition and have not been disturbed, exposures are expected to be
negligible. However, abatement of these materials will need to be performed by a licensed and
registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor. The abatement procedure during demolition must
abide with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including the San Diego
County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145, Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The
mitigation measure contained in Section F below will mitigate potential hazardous materials impacts
associated with the release of asbestos and lead to a level below significance.
Hvdrology and Water Oualitv
Hydrology
The subject properties are fully developed with residential units. The westerly project area consists
of one drainage area that discharges 0.69 acres southerly into Ada Street. The easterly project area
consists of two drainage areas; Basin A, drains 0.34 acres northerly and Basin B drains .62 acres
southerly towards Ada Street. Based on the hydrology and drainage report prepared by CJ and
Associates on July 2006, the increase in runoff from the proposed project is considered insignificant
and will not alter or affect any of the downstream drainage facilities. The difference from
predevelopment to post development is only 1.45 cfs for the westerly site and 1.4 cfs for the easterly
project site.
Water Quality
The project sites are located within the Otay River Watershed, Hydrologic Unit Basin number 10.20.
The project would eventually drain towards the south end of San Diego Bay. The project sites are
located about one half mile from the San Diego Bay. Overall, the project area represents a very
insignificant percent of the watershed area.
The proposed project will not significantly alter drainage patterns on the existing developed site.
The stormwater discharge points will not divert runoff from existing conditions. There will also not
be a substantial increase in runoff. Post construction runoff will be directed into existing City storm
drain facilities. There are no sampling data available for the existing developed site condition.
Additionally, the project is not expected to generate significant amounts of non-visible pollutants.
The following constituents are commonly found on similar developments and could affect water
quality:
. Sediment discharge due to construction activities and post-construction areas left bare
1-44
. Nutrients from fertilizers
. Trash and debris deposited in drain inlets
. Hydrocarbons from paved areas
. Pesticides from landscaping and home use
.
In order to reduce potential water quality impacts to a level of less than significance Best
Management Practices (BMPs) including detention facilities, if necessary will be implemented to
minimize potential erosion and habitat integrity impacts downstream during construction and post-
construction.
Construction BMPs
. Silt Fence
. Street sweeping and vacuuming
. Storm drain inlet protection
. Stockpile Management
. Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit
. Dewatering operations
. Erosion control mats and spray-on applications
. Gravel bag berm
. Spill prevention and control
Post Construction BMPs
Pollutants of concern as noted above, will be addressed through three types of BMPs. These are site
design, source control and treatment control. The project is designed to minimize the use of
impervious areas. The landscaping will consist of both native and non-native plants. The rapid
establishment of plant materials will reduce erosion. Riprap will be placed at storm drain outfalls to
reduce velocities as applicable. Source control BMPs will consist of educating the homeowners in
measures to prevent polluted runoff. Bio filters will be used to control water quality contamination.
The Engineering Department states that the project will be subject to the requirements of the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
With the implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage
systems during construction and after construction the potential impacts to water resources will be
reduced to less than significant.
Noise
Environmental Consultant EDA W, Inc., prepared an acoustical analysis (November 2005; Revised
January 20, 2006) for the proposed project. Noise level measurements were conducted on October
10, 2005 and on January 13,2006. The study identified the primary noise source generator as traffic
noise from 1-5, west of the project site. Other sources of noise include vehicles on .Palomar Street
and Industrial Boulevard, the trolley on Industrial Boulevard, and the warning signals at the trolley
grade crossing at Palomar Street.
The Environmental Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan contains applicable noise/land
use compatibility guidelines, which indicate that residential uses are compatible with noise levels
less than or equal to 65 dBA CNEL. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code requires that
residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be designed to prevent the
1_~05
intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior CNEL with windows closed, attributable to exterior
sources, shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room.
Construction Noise
Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, noisy construction work (unless
associated with emergency repairs or health and safety matters) is not permitted in residential zoning
districts between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during weekdays and between 10:00 a.m. and
8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. Project construction work is anticipated to occur between the hours
of7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays only. This provision of the Municipal Code would ensure that
surrounding residents would not be disturbed by construction related noise during the most sensitive
periods of the day.
Traffic Noise
Existing Traffic Noise
The existing and projected noise impacts are associated with increased traffic volumes along Palomar
Street and the 1-5 freeway. Based on actual noise monitoring at the project site, the acoustical report
states that the predominant noise generator is traffic on Palomar Street to the north and 1-5 freeway to
the west of the project site. The measured equivalent noise level (LEQ) for the north building line
was 62. dBA Leq. The measured equivalent noise level (LEQ) for the most westerly building line
was 60 dBA Leq. On main roadways, where nighttime traffic is greater than average, such as 1-5 and
Palomar Street, CNEL is conservatively assumed to be 2 dBA greater than the average daytime noise
level. Therefore, the existing CNEL at the project site at 5 feet above the ground or in other words
the first floor elevation is estimated at 63 dBA.
Data collected on January 13, 2006, indicated that noise levels at 2nd floor elevations is 2 dBA higher
than at the first floor elevation because there is greater exposure to 1-5. While third floor
measurements were not feasible, it is the judgment of the noise engineer that exposure to freeway
noise would not increase with an additional ten feet in elevation, and that the noise level on the third
floor would also be 2 dBA higher than at the first floor elevation.
Projected Traffic Noise
Noise levels are anticipated to increase in the future as traffic volumes increase on 1-5 and Palomar
Street. Future traffic volumes were obtained from the project traffic report (KOA 2005) and Caltrans
(2005) and from the SANDAG transportation forecast for the City of Chula Vista General Plan,
which is a 2030 study (SANDAG 2004). It was conservatively assumed that average traffic speeds
would not decrease with the increased volumes. The maximum exterior and first floor noise levels
would occur at those areas of the site with exposure to 1-5 and Palomar Street. Noise levels would be
less for those units that would have some or all exposure blocked by project buildings.
With these data and assumptions, the maximum future exterior ground floor noise level at the site is
forecast to be 65 dBA CNEL, which equals, but does not exceed the City standard for compatible
noise levels for residential use. The data are shown in Table 1 below. As future noise levels would
not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, no noise abatement or mitigation measures are required for exterior or
first floor noise.
1-1J6
Table 1
Existing and Future Exterior and 1" Floor Noise Levels at the Project Site
Contribution to Coutribution to
Noise Level at Average Daily Noise Level at
site dBA CNEL Traffic Volumes Site dBA CNEL
Roadwav EXISTING FUTURE
1-5 61 162000 229000 62.5
Palomar Street 58 37500 52500 59.5
Industrial Blvd. 55 7400 11400 56.8
Noise Level 63 65
Noise levels at the second and third floor levels of those areas of the project that have exposure to 1-5
would be greater than at the first floor. The difference between the noise level at the first floor and
the noise level at the second floor would be 2 dBA. Therefore, noise levels of 67 dBA CNEL are
forecast for those areas of the site with exposure to 1-5 and the other principal noise sources, similar
to the existing exposure. The second floor balconies that face north, south and west not having an
intermittent building blocking noise, would be required to incorporate mitigation to reduce potential
noise impacts to less than significant (See Figure 3).
San Diego Trolley Rail Line
Pursuant to the Acoustical Analysis prepared by EDA W, Inc., noise measurements were taken at the
east building line during San Diego Trolley pass-bys. The noise levels did not exceed 62 dBA Leq.
The trolley and rail tracks are located on the east side of Industrial Boulevard and are more than 550
feet from the closest point of the project site. While the noise from passing trains and trolley may be
audible, the fact is that the noise is attenuated by the distance that separates the noise source from the
location of the proposed residential units. In the future noise from these sources will be attenuated
even more by intervening buildings presently being constructed.
Traffic
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the development of the project, a traffic impact
Assessment was prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates on November 2005. The traffic assessment
projected that the project will generate 246 daily trips, with 20 trips occurring in the AM peak hour
and 22 trips occurring in the Pm Peak hour.
The proposed westerly project site will take access from two driveways. Whereas the easterly project
site will take access from one driveway. All access will be from Ada Street, a local residential street.
Based on the location of the project sites and a project trip analysis, it was estimated that 40% (98
vehicular trips) of the daily traffic would use Industrial Boulevard as a secondary access to exit onto
Palomar Street. Accordingly, about 60% (148 vehicular trips) of the daily traffic would use Frontage
Road to access Palomar Street. The proposed project will provide 80 parking spaces pursuant to the
City's zoning ordinance.
1-n
Short-Term Impacts (Year 0 to 4)
Based on the traffic impact assessment results and the project trip generation, it is anticipated that the
project will not result in any significant project specific impacts.
Long-Term Impacts !Horizon Year 2010)
Based on the traffic impact results recorded in the Olson Bayvista Walk Project (See Figure 2A)
Traffic Impact Study prepared by KOA (September 2005), the intersections of Frontage Road and
Walnut Avenue with Palomar Street would operate a deficient Level of Service (LOS) "F" under all
conditions and for the Horizon Year (2010). Since the project trips comprise less than 5% of the
total intersection entering volume for each of the intersections listed above, the intersection impacts
would be deemed as cumulative impacts. The construction of a partial median along the centerline of
Palomar Street that would restrict left turns and through traffic at the intersection of Frontage Road
and Walnut Street onto Palomar would result in a LOS "C" under the worst PM peak hour
conditions. Therefore, the project Applicant/Developer will be required to construct the median to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to mitigate the cumulative traffic impact to a level of
less than significance.
E. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Ouality
1. The following air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during demolition, grading
and construction activities:
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills
c) Use aqueous diesel fuel and lean NOx catalysts for all heavy diesel engine construction
equipment
d) Use electrical construction equipment as practical
e) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
1) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
g) Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust
h) Use electricity from power poles as opposed to mobile power generators
i) Pave last 100 feet of internal travel path prior to exiting onto a public street
j) Install wheel washers by a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads
k) Remove any soil/dirt from public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence
I) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
2. Prior to issuing a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall provide a list of the
architectural coatings that will be used on the project demonstrating that the average volatile
organic compounds (VOC) content would not exceed 125 g/L, extend the time of application, or
provide a plan that will show that the combination or reduced VOC and extended time of
application will result in emissions less than 55 pounds per day.
Biological
3. Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July
31, a preconstruction survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist to determine the
presence/absence of nesting raptors and migratory birds. The preconstruction survey must
encompass the construction impact area and immediate surrounding area. The pre-construction
1-~8
survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of
which must be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review prior to
initiating any construction activities. In the event that occupied nest(s) is/are found during the
survey, a mitigation plan including appropriate construction setbacks and noise reduction
measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by the Environmental Review
Coordinator.
Paleontological
4. The developer shall have a qualified paleontological monitor on the proj ect site at all times
during mass grading, excavation, and utility trenching activities in order to mitigate potential
impacts to any undiscovered nomenewable paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
5. Prior to initiating any soil remediation or demolition activity, the Applicant/Developer shall
contract with a professional environmental firm to prepare a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and a
Community Health and Safety Plan (CHSP). The Applicant/Developer shall submit these plans
to the City Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval and subsequent
compliance.
6. Prior to demolition work and as a condition to be met prior to the issuance of any building or
demolition permit, the applicant/developer shall show proof that a licensed and registered
asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall perform asbestos containing material and lead
containing surfaces abatement in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and
regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard
for Demolition and Renovation
7. Soil excavated from the project site shall be managed, characterized, and disposed of in
accordance with the procedures outlined in the approved Soil Management Plan (November
2006) and subsequent Plan Addendum (December 2006). For purposes of excavation and
handling, material excavated from the top four feet from either Area A or Area B (See figure 2)
will be considered a contaminated substance unless determined otherwise by analytical testing.
Soil materials to be exported off-site need to be stockpiled on site and characterized in
accordance with EP A standard SW -846 requirements. Stockpile samples will be analyzed for
organochlorine pesticides by EP A test method 8081 A. A Project Environmental Professional
Field Engineer/Geologist/Scientist shall observe all soil disturbance activities (including grading
and excavation) and appropriately supervise the excavation and handling of all soils. After
completion of all soil remedial actions, the soil sampling data shall be submitted to the County of
San Diego Department of Environmental Health for their review and issuance of a "No Further
Action Letter", signifying that remediation goals for residential soils have been met.
8. The handling and management of all soils shall require the implementation of Best Management
Practices to protect temporary stockpiles from erosion and stormwater run-on and run-off, as
specified in a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that shall be prepared
by the Developer/Contractor and approved by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department.
9. During activities where dust could potentially be generated including site grading, trenching,
excavating, drilling, maintaining stockpiles, loading and soil transportation, the
Developer/Contractor shall employ dust suppression techniques including use of water applied
by trucks, to mitigate impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., adjacent residents).
1Jt9
Hvdrology and Water Ouality
10. In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to
comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations
including the preparation and implementation of a Construction Storm Water Management Plan
(CSWMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The stormwater plan,
including the selection of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), shall be prepared
pursuant to the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region Order No. 2001-01 and will be subject to review and approval by the City ofChula Vista
Engineering Department.
II. The project Applicant/Developer shall be required to identifY and propose appropriate structural
and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), subject to the requirements of the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMps) and Numeric Sizing Criteria and
subject to the review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department, to
minimize to the maximum extent practicable discharge of pollutants identified in the Water
Quality Technical Report and generated at the site during the post-development phase of the
proj ect.
Noise
12. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related
construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall submit plans to the City
of Chula Vista Building Official and Environmental Review Coordinator that include noise
abatement for the patio and balcony areas on the south and north faces of each of five rows of
buildings, the west face of the western building on the west parcel, and on the east parcel, the
west face of the first row of buildings that extends beyond the northern boundary of the west
parcel (see figure 3). Noise abatement shall consist of a solid barrier on the face of the balcony
from the base of the balcony to a height of five feet. The barrier may be made of masonry, wood,
glass or plexiglass, or similar material. The material is to have a minimum weight of 1.7 pounds
per square foot. The barrier may be designed so that it can be opened to allow airflow, but it
must be able to be closed without openings.
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall submit data to the City of
Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator and the City Building Official demonstrating
that noise levels would be less than 45 dBA in habitable rooms of residence units at the south
and north faces of each of the five rows of buildings and the west faces of the western row of
buildings on each parcel.
15. If the proposed design includes exterior HVAC equipment, the applicant/developer shall submit
data to the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator to demonstrate that noise
generated by the equipment at any adj acent residential property line would not exceed 45 dBA
Leq between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and 50 dBA Leq between the hours of7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
1-5'0
Traffic
16. ill order to reduce cumulative significant impacts at the intersections of Frontage Road &
Palomar Street and Walnut Avenue & Palomar Street to an acceptable Level of Service, the
applicant/developer shall construct a partial median closure along the centerline of Palomar
Street that would prohibit left turns and through movements from Frontage Road/W alnut Avenue
onto Palomar Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
E. Consultation
I. illdividuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Richard Zumwalt, Planning and Building
Brian Catacutan, Planning and Building
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building
Steve Power, Planning and Building
Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building
Marilyn Ponseggi, Planning and Building
Garry Williams, Planning and Building
Jim Newton, Engineering
Ben Herrera, Engineering
David Kaplan, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Luis Pelayo, Engineering
Khosro Aminpour, Public Works
Richard Preuss, Police Department
Richard Gari, Fire Department
Dan Wery, Project Planner, RBF
Applicant/Property Owner: J&J Development
Agent: Jorge Sanchez Pedraza
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Air Toxics Risk Evaluation, Scientific Associated, December 2006;
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ninyo & Moore, October 2005
Limited Soil Sampling Report, Ninyo & Moore, March 2006
1-1f1
Human Health Screening Evaluation, Ninyo & Moore, August 2006
Soil Management Plan & Soils Sampling Report, Ninyo & Moore, November 2006
Soil Management Plan Addendum, Ninyo & Moore, December 2006
Asbestos & Lead Containing Survey, Ninyo & Moore, March 2006
Biological Assessment of Project Site, EDA W, May 2005; Rev. July 2006
Air Quality Impact Analysis, EDA W, Inc., January 2006
Hydrology & Drainage Calculations, CJ & Associates, May 2006; Rev. July 2006
Preliminary Geotechnical Findings, Allied Earth Technology, October & December 2005 2004
Water Quality Technical Report, CJ & Associates, July 2006
Water System Analysis, Dexter Wislon Engineering, Inc., June 2006
Sewer Study, CJ & Associates, September 2006
Archaeological Survey& Historical Resource Report, EDA W, Inc., March 2006
Paleontological Record Search and Resource Sensitivity Assessment, Thomas A Demere, San
Diego Natural istory Museum, February 2006
Traffic Impact Study for Bayvista Walk (project Site immediately north of Marsella Villas),
Katz, Okitsu & Associates, September 2005
Traffic Assessment for Marsella Villas, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, November 2005
Initial Studv
This environmental determination 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 information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
cfiL~
Environmental Projects Manager
Date:
17
1-52
~!~
~r-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
mY Of
CHUIA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
Jorge Sanchez Pedraza
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent:
Jorge Sanchez Pedraza
Alfa Group, Inc.
1030 White Alder Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91914
(619) 520-9620
4. Name of Proposal:
Marsella Villas
5. Date of Checklist:
December 19, 2006
6. Case No.
IS-06-005
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Tban
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 .
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 0 0 0 .
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 .
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day/night views in the area?
o
o
o
.
1-53
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site.
b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, Ada Street is not designated a scenic roadway.
c) The project site is within an urbanized area and contains older single family residential units.
The development of a planned residential development would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area.
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 and installed
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 residential uses.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 .
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia
Resources Agency, to non-agricultura1 use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 0 0 0 .
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, 0 0 0 .
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion ofFarrn1and, to non-agricultural use?
2
1-54
~lf?
~T-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
G1Y OF
CHUIA VISTA
I. Name of Proponent:
Jorge Sanchez Pedraza
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
3. Addresses and Phone Nnmber of Proponent:
Jorge Sanchez Pedraza
Alfa Group, Inc.
8555 Station Village Lane, Suite 3247
San Diego, CA 92108
(858) 455-5197
4. Name of Proposal:
Marsella Villas
5. Date of Checklist:
December 2006
6. Case No.
1S-06-005
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 .
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 0 0 0 .
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 .
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create new source of substantia11ight or glare, which
would adversely affect day/night views in the area?
o
o
o
.
1-~
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist tbrough the site.
b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, Ada Street is not designated a scenic roadway.
c) The project site is within an urbanized area and contains older single family residential units.
The development of a planned residential development would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area.
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 and installed
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 residential uses.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proj ect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 .
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultura1 use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 0 0 0 .
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, 0 0 0 .
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
1-Ss
Issues:
Comments:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a-c) The project site is presently located in a fully urban setting. The project site is neither in current
agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural
resources or designated farmland areas.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
III. AIR QUALTIY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contrIbute
substantially to an existing or proj ected air
quality violation?
c) Result ill a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
proj ect regIOn IS non-attaimnent under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
o
o
o
o
o
Mitil!ation: Mitigation measures are required. See MND, Section F.
1-5'7
o
.
o
.
o
.
o
.
o
o
No Impact
o
o
o
o
.
Issues:
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any speCIes
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species ill local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) mterfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 0 0 .
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 0 .
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1-548
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Tban
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is located in a fully wbanized developed area. Based upon a Biological Survey conducted on
September 2005 by EDA W, Inc., a Biological Consulting Finn, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species
are present within or immediately adj acent to the proposed development area.
b) Based upon the Cbula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by an EDA W staff biologist on September
2005, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed project site.
c) Based upon field inspection by an EDAW staffbiologist on September 2005, no wetlands are present within or
immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
d) Based upon the Cbula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by an EDA W staffbiologist on September
2005, no native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately
adjacent to the proposed development area. A vacant dirt lot subject to development is located north of the project
site. The project also proposes the removal of ornamental trees. This action has the potential to impact migratory
birds. The potential impact to nesting raptors and migratory birds can be mitigated by either performing tree
removal outside of the breeding season or by performing a presence/absence survey for breeding birds three days
in advance to the proposed removal date. If active nests are identified then the trees will not be removed until the
nests are no longer active.
e) No impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance would result from the proposed project development.
f) No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is a designated
development area pursuant to the adopted Cbula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Mitil!ation: Mitigation measure is required. See Section F of the MND.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines S 15064.5?
o
o
.
o
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines S 15064.5?
o
o
o
.
1-5'9
Issu es:
Potentially
Signillcant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
D
.
D
D
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside offormal cemeteries.
D
D
D
.
Comments:
a) An historic evaluation was conducted by EDA W, Inc. on March 2006. Based on this survey one
residential dwelling unit built in 1929 was encountered. Due to extensive alterations to windows and
exterior finish the building does not retain sufficient architectural integrity. The residential building was
not considered significant under CEQA since it did not meet the criteria for listing in the California
Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code Sec.5024.1, title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
b) An archaeological survey was conducted by EDA W, Inc. on March 2006. Based on this survey no
cultural resources were identified within the project area, and no previously recorded sites are located
within the project boundaries. Therefore, no cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed
construction, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended for this project.
c) A paleontological record search and resource assessment has been completed by Thomas A. Demere,
Ph. D. on February 13, 2006. The report states that because of the high paleontolgical resource potential
of the Bay Point Formation and the "nearshore marine sandstone," paleontological monitoring of mass
grading, excavation, and utility trenching activities in areas so mapped should be required to mitigate
impacts to any undiscovered nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
Mitigation: Mitigation measures regarding potential paleontological resources are required. See Section F ofMND.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
D
D
D
.
1-6~
Issues:
11.
Strong seismic grOlmd shaking?
Ill.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
IV.
Landslides?
b)
Result in substantial soil eroSIOn or the loss of
topsoil?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
7
1-61
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
.
o
No Impact
.
.
.
o
.
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-e) The site has been previously graded and developed with single family residential units. There are
no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies over
one mile west of the La Nacion Fault Zone (an inactive fault zone). The closest recently active
fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located about 8 miles south of the site. The site is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable
Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns.
Allied Earth Technology prepared a Geotechnical/Soils report on February 2005. The report,
approved by the City Engineering Department, states that no adverse geotechnical conditions were
encountered which would prohibit the proposed development of the site. The preparation and
submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit as a
standard engineering requirement.
In order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will required to comply with
best management practices in "accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. The appropriate
standard erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final
grading plans and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Engineering
Division. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into city drainage systems would be less
than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures are not required.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
D
.
D
D
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the D . D D
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or D D D .
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
8
1-62
Issues:
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
1-~3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
No Impact
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-d)A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report was prepared by Ninyo & Moore on October 6,
2005 for the project site. Historical research as part of the Phase I report identified the project site
as an area formerly dedicated to agricultural uses. The Phase I recommended a shallow subsurface
investigation to evaluate the presence of residual pesticides. The Limited Soil Sampling Report
prepared by Ninyo & Moore on March 24, 2006 detected pesticide samples at above the State of
California hazardous waste level of 1.0 mglkg. A Human Health Screening Evaluation (HHSE)
was subsequently prepared by Ninyo & Moore and submitted for review and approval by the City
and County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The DEH concurred with the findings of
the HHSE, which determined the estimated risk to humans to be at an acceptable level. The DEH
required the preparation of a Soil Management Plan to be available prior to the issuance of any
grading permits. The Soil Management Plan & subsequent Addendum addresses the notification,
monitoring, sampling, testing, handling, storage and disposal of contaminated soil, media or
substances that may be encountered. Mitigation measures are required.
Ninyo & Moore Consultants also conducted an asbestos and lead-containing surface survey at the
eight residential buildings located on the project site. Based on this survey ACMs were located in
each of the eight buildings. Appropriate mitigation measures will be required.
e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
g) The project as proposed and based on its location would not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan. No impacts are noted.
h) The project site is not adjacentto a wildlands area. No impacts related to significant risk ofIoss,
injury or death involving wildland fires are noted.
Mitie:ation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving 0 . 0 0
waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in
significant alteration of receiving water quality during
or following construction, or violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements?
a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 0 .
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
1-6~
Issues:
production rate of pre.existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse
impact on groundwater quality?
b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off.site?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
d) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storrnwater
drainage systerns or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
11
1-65
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
.
o
o
No Impact
.
o
.
o
Issu es:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. There is a potential for an
increase in pollutant discharges. However, standard BMP requirements will reduce any potential
impacts to water bodies to less than significant.
b) The project would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge.
c) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not result in adverse
impacts to streams or rivers that would result in substantial erosion or siltation.
d) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not result in adverse
impacts to streams or rivers that would result in substantial flooding or place structures in a flood
zone.
e) The proposal would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss or injury or death
involving flooding.
f) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not exceed the
capacity of existing stormwater drainage facilities.
Mitillation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
o
o
o
.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
o
o
.
o
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
1-~S
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a. The project site is within an established residential community. The proposal would not result in a
community being physically divided.
b. The General Plan designates the project site as a Transit Focus Area (IF A). The residential project will be
consistent with the General Plan designation subject to approval of a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) and a
zone change to the appropriate zoning.
c. The project would not conflict with the adopted City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-b) The proposal would not result in any loss of any known mineral on-site. Pursuant to the Environmental
hnpact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation
has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general
o
.
o
o
13
1-67
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive D . D D
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise D D . D
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic mcrease m D . D D
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, D D D .
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
D
D
D
.
14
1-68
Issues:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not
expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitil!ation: Mitigation measures are required. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) fuduce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
o
o
o
.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-<:) The proposal involves a minirnaI increase in population and would not induce population growth or displace
substantial housing stock or people. New housing stock would be made available through approval of this
project.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
15
1-69
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any public services:
Fire protection?
o
o
o
.
Police protection?
o
o
o
.
Schools?
o
o
o
.
Parks?
o
o
o
.
Other public facilities?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, the propositi 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
substantial new or altered police protection services.
c) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, However, since schools are presently
impacted in the area, the Chula Vista School District recommends that the project applicant set up a Mello-Roos
type of a district.
d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services and could continue to be served by existing public infrastructure.
Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
o
o
o
.
16
1-70
Issues:
occur or be accelerated?
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No Impact
.
a) Because the proposed project would not induce significant population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
17
1-71
o
o
o
o
.
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
incompanble uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate ernergency access? 0 0 0 .
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 .
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 0 0 .
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitil!ation: Mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treannent requirements of the
. applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
o
o
o
.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treannent facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
o
o
o
.
c) Require or result in the construction of new stonn water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
o
o
.
o
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
o
o
o
.
18
1-72
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a detennination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
corrnnitments?
o
o
o
.
/) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
o
o
.
o
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
o
o
.
o
Comments:
a) The project is located within an urban setting presently served by all utilities and service systems and
would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Therefore no adverse
impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project.
b) The proposal would not require new construction nor expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Development of the project will not impact existing water or wastewater treatment facilities.
c) No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary
as a result of the proposed project. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to
prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City Storm Water Management
Requirements therefore, environmental impacts would be less than significant.
d) The project site is within the Sweetwater Water District service territory. The Water District has stated that
they have the capacity to serve the proposed project.
e) The City of Chula Vista has sufficient wastewater capacity to serve this project. No impacts are noted.
/) The project will be served by a local landfill that has adequate capacity.
g) The proposed project will comply with all state and local solid waste requirements. No impacts are noted.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
19
1-73
Issues:
A. Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF)
of additionallibrnry space, over the JlIDe 30, 2000 GSF
total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The
construction of said facilities shall be phased such that
the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500
GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be
adequately equipped and staffed.
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police lIDits shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an
average response time to all "Priority One" emergency
calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all ''Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or
less.
C) Fire and Emergencv Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and
medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Signalized intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS
"E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted
from this Standard.
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres
of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate
20
1-74
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less ThaD
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
.
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
No Impact
.
.
.
o
.
Issues:
facilitiesll,OOO population east ofI-805.
F) Drainage
The 1breshold 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.
G) Sewer
The Tbreshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
H) Water
The Tbreshold 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.
21
1-75
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
o
o
No Impact
o
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not significantly induce population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would
result. No adverse impact to the City's Library 1breshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b) No adverse impact to the City's Police threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Police Department states that they can continue to provide service at current levels
c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the
project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) The surrotmding street segments and intersections continue to operate in compliance with the City's Traffic
Threshold Standards at LOS "C" or better with the exception of the intersection of Frontage Road/W aluut Avenue
& Palomar Street, which operate at an LOS "F" during AM & PM peak hours with or without the project.
However, since the project trips comprise less than 3% of the total intersection entering volume, the intersection
and segment impacts would be deemed as cumulative impacts. In order to reduce this cumulative impact,
mitigation is required. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
e) The project proposes residential development west ofl-80S; this Threshold Standard is not applicable.
f) The applicant proposes new drainage facilities on the project site in order to properly convey stonnwater from the
developed site to existing city drainage facilities. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or
City's Drainage 1breshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project.
g) Based on the Sewer study prepared by CJ & Associates on May 10, 2006 (Rev. July 2006), the Engineering
Division has determined that the existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new
sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer 1breshold standards will
occur as a result of the proposed project.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received from Sweetwater Authority, there is a IO-inch water main located on the
north side of Ada Street, a l6-inch water main located on the east side of Industrial Avenue, and a 6-inch main on
the east side of Frontage Road. Sweetwater Authority indicates that water service can be provided at the required
pressures once the owner enters into an agreement for water facility improvements. The existing domestic water
services and fire service that currently service the project site are adequate and will not need to be altered. Project
impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant.
22
1-76
Issues:
XVIll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 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 e1iminate a plant or animal
connnunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or e1iminate
important examples of the major periods of Califomia
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
a) The project site is presently developed with residential units. The project site is located within an established
residential connmmity. The site lies within the designated development area of the adopted Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site.
b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated to
below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. No cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current
projects and probable future projects have been identified.
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
23
1-77
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, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-06-005.
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained . will implement same to the satisfaction ofthe Environmental Review Coordinator.
Fa' e to sign the line provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with
e County Clerk shall 1 dicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in
abeyance without approv and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact
Report. 10V\.cl pe>6r6X ~
.~.
Jotge Sanchez Pedra
(
l?+~~ lOb
Dat
24
1-78
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"
as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
o Land Use and Planning . TransportationfTraffic
o Population and Housing lIBiological Resources
o Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral
Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Agricultural Resources
. HydrologylWater
. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Cultural Resources
. Air Quality
. Paleontological
Resources
. Noise
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
25
1-79
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the .
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or 0
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but 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. 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 0
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
!)..'tJ <..D <:>7
1 Guerrero
ntal Project's Manager
ula Vista
J:\Planning\BenG\lnitial Study\1S.06-005.doc
26
1-80
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Marsella Villas Proiect - IS-06-005
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista-
in conjunction with the proposed Marsella Villas Townhome project. The proposed project has
been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-06-
005). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are
implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Air Quality
2. Biological Resources.
3. Paleontological
4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
6. Noise
7. TransportationlTraffic
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. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-06-005 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 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-06-005, which will be implemented as part ofthe 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 column.
1-81
1. The following air quality mitigation measures ApplicanUDeveloper
shall be implemented during grading and Environmental
construction. These requirements shall be Projects Manager to
shown on all applicable design and verify
Improvement plans as details, notes, or as
otherwise appropriate. and shall not be Notes X X
deviated from unless approved in advance in
writing by the City's Environmental Review On
Coordinator: TM
a.
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple &
construction equipment units. Environmental
b. Trucks hauling dirt & debris shall be Projects Manager to Grading & X X
. verify
properly covered to reduce windblown dust Impro.
& spills Plans
c. Use aqueous diesel fuel & lean NOx
.
catalysts for all heavy diesel engine
d. construction equipment. Environmental
Use electrical construction equipment as X X
. Projects Manager to
e. practical verify.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasolinew
powered equipment
f. Water the construction area twice daily to
.
minimize fugitive dust
g. . Pave permanent roads as quickly as
possible to minimize dust
h. . Use electricity from power poles as
I. opposed to mobile power generators Environmental Notes on
. Pave last 100 feet of Internal travel path Projects Manager to Building X X
prior to exiting onto a public street verify Permit
j. . Install wheel washers by a paved apron
prior to vehide entry on public roads
k. . Remove any soil/dirt from public streets
within 30 minutes of occurrence
I. . Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on
unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph
Page. I
2.
Prior to issuing a building permit, the
ApplicanVDeveloper shall provide a list of the
architectural coatings that will be used on the
project demonstrating that the average volatile
organic compounds (VQC) content will not
exceed 125 gIL, extend the time of application,
or provide a plan that will show the
combination or reduced vac and extended
time of application will result in emissions less
than 55 pounds per day.
Environmental
Projects Manager to
verify
Notes on
Building
Permit
x
x
3.
Prior to the removal or alteration of Environmental
landscaping during the months of January 15 Projects Manager to
through July 31, a preconstruction survey shall verify
be performed by a qualified biologist to
determine the presence/absence of nesting
raptors and migratory birds. The
preconstruction survey must encompass the
construction impact area and immediate
surrounding area. The preconstruction survey
must be conducted within 10 calendar days
prior to the start of construction, the results of
whlch must be submitted to the City's
Envlronmental Revlew Coordinator for review
prior to Initiating any construction actlvltles. In
the event that occupied nest(s) is/are found
during the survey, a mitigation plan including
appropriate construction setbacks and noise
reduction measures shall be prepared by a
qualified biologist and approved by the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
4.
The developer shall have a qualified Environmental
paleontological monitor on the project site at Projects Manager to
all times during mass grading, excavaUon, and verify
utility trenchlng activities in order to mltigate
potential impacts to any undiscovered
nonrenewable paleontological resources (Le.
fossils).
x
As a note
onTM&
grading
plans
x
ApplicanVDeveloper
x
x
As a note
onTM&
grading
plans
x
x
AppllcanVDeveloper
Page - 2
5.
Prior to initiating any soil remediation or Environmental
demolitlon activity I the Applicant/Developer Projects Manager to
shall contract with a professional verify by maintaining
environmental. firm to prepare a Health & In contact with
Safety Plan (HSP) & a Community Health & Environmental
Safety Plan (CHSP). The Applicant/Developer Consultant
shall submit these plans to the City
Environmental Review Coordinator for review
& approval & subsequent compliance.
Prior to demolition work and as a condition to Environmental
be met prior to the issuance of any building or Projects Manager to
demolition permit, the appllcanVdeveloper verify by maintaining
shall show proof that a licensed and registered In contact with
asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall Environmental
perform asbestos containing material and lead Consultant & County
containing surfaces abatement in accordance DEH
with all applicable local, state and federal laws
and regulations, including San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 -
Standard for Demolition and Renovation.
Soil excavated from the project site shall be Environmental
managed, characterized, and disposed of in Projects Manager to
accordance with the procedures outlined in the verify by maintaining
approved Soil Management Plan (11/06) & contact with
subsequent Plan Addendum (12/06). For Environmental
purposes of excavation & handling, malerial Consultant & County
excavated from the top four feet from either DEH
Area A or Area B (See FIgure 2) will be
considered a contaminated substance unless
determined othelWise by analytical testing.
Soil materials to be exported off-site need to
be stockpiled on site and characterized In
accordance with EPA standard SW.846
requirements. Stockpile samples will be
analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by EPA
test method 8081 A. A Project Environmental
Professional Field Engineer/GeologisUScientist
shall observe all soil disturbance activities
(Including grading & excavatlon) &
appropriately supervise the excavation &
handling of all salls. After completion of all soil
remedial actions, the soil sampling data shall
be submitted to the County of San Diego
Department of Envionremental Health for their
review & issuance of a ~No further Action
Letter~, signifying that remediation goals for
residential soils have been met.
6.
7.
X
As a note
on TM &
grading
pians &
prior to
Issuance
any
demolition
armlt
X
As a note
on TM &
grading
plans
X
X
ApplicanVDeveloper
X
X
ApplicanUDeveloper
As a note
onTM&
grading
plans &
Building
Permits
X
ApplicanUDeveloper
X
Page - 3
The handling & management of all soils shall Building/Engineering
require the implementation of Best Inspectors to verify
Management Practices to protect temporary
stockpiles from erosion & stormwater run-on &
run~off, as specified in a slte=speciflc
Stormwater Prevention Plan (SWPP) that shall
be prepared by the Developer/Contractor &
approved by the City of Chula Vista
En ineerin De artment.
During activities where dust could potentially Building/Engineering
be generated including site grading, trenching, Inspectors to verify
excavating, drilling, maintaining stockpiles,
loading & soil transportation, the
Developer/Contractor shall employ dust
suppression techniques including use of water
applied by trucks, to mitigate impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors {e.g., adjacent
residents .
8.
9.
As a note
onTM&
grading
plans
x
x
Developer/Contractor
As a note
onTM&
grading
plans
x
Developer/Contractor
x
10.
ApplicanUDeveloper
In order to reduce potential water quality Environmental
Impacts, the ApplicanVDeveloper shall be Projects Manager to
required to comply with the National Pollution verify w/Clty Building
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Engineering
regulations including the preparation and staff
implementation of a Construction Storm Water
Management Plan (CSWMP) and a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The stormwater plan, Including the selection of
appropriate Best Management Practices
(BMPs), shall be prepared pursuant to the
provisions of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
Order No. 2001-01 & will be subject to review
& approval by the City of Chula Vista
En ineer!n De artment.
11.
The Project AppllcanVDeveloper shall be
required to Identify & propose appropriate
structural & non-structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs), subject to review &
approval by the City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department, to minimize to the
maximum extent practicable discharge of
pollutants identified in the Water Quality
Technical Report & generated at the site
during the post~development phase of the
ro'ect.
Environmental
Projects Manager to
verify w/City Building
and Engineering
staff
As a note
onTM&
grading
plans
x
x
As a note
on TM &
grading
plans
x
x
Page - 4
12.
Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Code
Vista Municipal Code, project-related Enforcement
construction activities shall be prohibited Officers to
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 respond to any
a.m. Monday through Friday and between flagrant violations
10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and
Sunda s.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Environmental
appJicanUdeveloper shall submit plans to the Projects Manager
City of Chula Vista Building Official and to verify by
Environmental Review Coordinator that reviewing final
Include noise abatement for the patio & noise report
balcony areas on the south & north faces of
each of five rows of buildings, the west face of
the western building on the west parcel. and
on the east parcel, the west face of the first
row of buildings that extends beyond the
northern boundary of the west parcel (see
figure 3). Noise abatement shall consist of a
solid barrier on the face of the patio or balcony
from the base to a height of five feet. The
barrier may be made of masonry, wood, glass
or plexiglass, or similar material. The material
is to have a minimum weight of 1.7 pounds
per square foot. The barrier may be designed
so that it can be opened to allow airflow, but it
must be able to be closed without 0 enin s.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Environmental
AppllcanlJDeveloper shall submit data to the Projects Manager
City of Chula Vista Building Official & to verify by
Environmental Review Coordinator coordinating
demonstrating that noise levels would be less review of Building
than 45 dBA in habitable rooms of residence Plans
units at the south and north faces of each of
the five rows of buildings and the west faces
of the western row of buildings on each
arcel.
If the proposed design includes exterior HV AC Environmental
equipment, the applicanVdeve!loper shall Projects Manager
submit data to the City of Chula Vista to verify by
Environmental Review Coordinator to coordinating
demonstrate that noise generated by the review of Building
equipment at any adjacent residential property Plans
line would not exceed 45 dBA Leq between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a,m., and 50
dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 .m.
13.
~
I
00
m
14.
15.
As a note
on TM &
grading
plans
As a note
on TM &
grading
plans
x
As a note
on Building
Plans
x
As a note
on Building
Plans
x
x
AppilcanU
Developer
x
AppilcanU
Developer
x
x
x
AppUcanUDevelop
er
x
x
ApplicanVDevelop
er
Page - 5
16.
In order to reduce cumulative significant Environmental
impacts at the Intersections of Frontage Road Projects Manager
& Palomar Street and Walnut Avenue & to verify with City
Palomar Street, the ApplicanVDeveloper shall Engineering staff
construct a partial median closure along the & Public Works
centerline of Palomar Street that would Inspectors
prohibit left turns and through movements
from Frontage RoadlWalnut Avenue onto
Palomar Street to the satisfaction of the City
En jneef.
~
I
00
'-J
X
As a note
on TM &
lmprov,
Plans
x
x
ApplicanU
Developer
Page .6
Arr-4C ft AI ErlT ~--
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
8.4.3
Palomar Gateway District
Description of District
The Palomar Gateway District (Figure 5-23) is located at the interchange of Palomar Street and
Interstate 5, and is characterized by the Paiomar Trolley Station, located at the southeast quadrant
of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
Existing Conditions
North of Palomar Street are light industrial businesses and multi-family housing. South of
Palomar Street is a mix of single-family and multi-family housing extending south to Anita Street
Vision for District
The Palomar Gateway District is the major southern gateway into the City and functions as one of
the activity corridors in the City. The District provides housing and support uses near a regional
transit route. Higher density residential development within walking distance of the Palomar
Trolley Station provides additional affordable housing opportunities.
Local retail and services are along Palomar Street and more retail
and services are in mixed use developments south of Palomar
Street
In addition to nearby community-serving retaii uses on Broadway
and Palomar Street a new five-acre neighborhood park is located
in the area north of Oxford Street within walking distance of new
residential housing.
1-88
Page LUT-147
~\{f?.
--
""'"
G1UlA VISt4.
~J~Chula
f3~~) Vista
~i5IVision
. 2020
Southwest Planning Area
Palomar Gateway &
West Fairfield Districts
-g
iii
:.,
..
'"
.
"is.
~-o
~~
"Ill
-0
So
P'ARK&
RECRSA ilON
it
. ,j
IIN~~;:AL
.j!
r
'Iii!
~
~~.".;.".
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· MIXED USE
: COMMERCIAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
++
.+
.+
.
.
-"\"1
RES.
MED.
RE~AIL
o,dcrd
st.
RETAIL
Palomar
St
RETAIL
T5 ·
'S ...
~,~. ^
i.~1
i/I'gj
.,'gj
i~
1!i E2 LIMITED
· E2 INDUSTRIAL
i.t=
.1=-
.e
NC;,-"
~lsl
liS
'il<=
-111j~.
· . F1
@
. f2 SAN DIEGO
I ~ <S-. TROLLEY LINE
,~,.-
SAN DIEGO
WfLDLlFE
REFUGE
HIGH
e
.
liMITED
iNDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Main St
EI
EXISTING TRANSIT STATION
~
WEST FAIRFiELD
DISTRiCT
.
e
I
. FUTURE TRANSIT ROUTE
PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC
(POTENTIAl EDUCATIONAl FACILITY)
POTENTIAl NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
NOT TO SCAlE
AREAS OF CHANGE
EXISTING lAND USE
.I
Figure 5.23
Page LlJT-148 City of Chula Vista General Plan
1-89
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
Establish a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area surrounding the Palomar
Trolley Station.
Policies
LUT 43.1
The City shall prepare, or cause to have prepared, a specific plan, master plan,
or other regulatOlY document to guide the coordinated establishment of a
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway District on
properties north and south of Palomar Street within walkable distance of the
Palomar Trolley Station. The specific plan or other regulatory document shall
include guidelines and zoning-level standards for the arrangement of iand
uses that include pians for adequate pedestrian connections and support
. services for residents, as well as those using the transit station.
The City will prepare an Impiementation Program to assure establishment of
the above plan/regulations. The Program will include interim provisions for the
consideration of any projects within this areas, prior to completion and
adoption of the according plan/regulations.
LUT 43.2
Provide for a five-acre neighborhood park within the Palomar Gateway District
Uses
LUT 43.3
Strive for a distribution of uses within the areas designated as Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area along Palomar Street to include retail. offices, and
residential, as generally shown on the following chart:
~'fr
:,::,-"
.-
D Residential
i!i.IRetail
. Offices
I
1-90
~l/?-
-r
Page LUT-149 OiU~~A
~~Ch~a
-:i.~tf.l V 18 ta
~V'Vision
2020
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
LUT 43.4
Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and some office uses along Palomar
Street in the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or
behind the retaii and offices uses.
LUT 43.5
Provide a mix of local-serving retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley
Station and at the Gateways into the Palomar Gateway District
Intensity/Height
LUT 43.6 In the Palomar Gateway District residential densities within the Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area designation are intended to have a district-wide gross
densiiy of 40 dwelling units per acre.
LUT 43.7 In the Palomar Gateway District the commercial (retail and office) portion of
the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation is intended to have a focus
area-wide aggregate FAR of 1.0. Subsequent specific plans or zoning
ordinance regulations will establish parcel-specific FARs that may vary from
the district-wide aggregate (refer to Section 4.8.1, Interpreting the Land Use
Diagram, for a discussion of district-wide versus parcel-specific FAR).
LUT 43.8 Buiiding heights in the Palomar Gateway District Mixed Use Transit Focus
Area shall be low-rise, with some mid-rise buildings.
LUT 43.9 Building heights in the Residential High designated area shall be low-rise
buiidings.
LUT 43.:1..0 In the Palomar Gateway District permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5
and low-rise buildings in the Retaii Commercial designated area on Industrial
Boulevard adjacent to the area designated as Residential High.
Design
LUT 43.:1..:1.. The specific pian or other regulatory document for the Palomar Gateway
District shall establish design and landscape guidelines for the improvement
of Palomar Street as a gateway to the Ciiy.
LUT 43.:1..2 Provide for safe: effective, and aesthetic pedestrian crossings and
improvements to Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
Page LUT-150 City ofChula Vista General Plan
1-91
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
Amenities
LUT 43.13 Community amenities to be considered for the Palomar Gateway District as
part of any incentive program should include, but not be limited to those listed
in Policy LLJT 27.1. -
LUT 43.14 Provide for the development of one Neighborhood Park within or near the
Palomar Gateway District
LUT 43.15 Establish a community/cultural center near Palomar Street and Third Avenue.
8.4.4
West Fairfield District
Description of District
The West Fairfeld District (see Figure 5-23), originally part of the Fairfeld neighborhood that was
severed by the construction of Interstate 5, is located on the west side of Interstate 5, between
Palomar Street and Main Street and is flanked by San Diego Bay on the west
Existing Conditions
The West Fairfield Distrtct has a mix of light industrial and office uses interspersed with older,
single-family homes and vacant lots West Fairfield is somewhat isolated from the rest of Chula
Vista, due to Interstate 5 forming its eastern edge. Pedestrtan routes across the freeway are
limited and heavily traveled by cars and trucks. Freeway on- and off-ramps at PalomarStreet
provide convenient freeway access into the Distrtct for vehicles.
Vision for District
The West Fairfield Distrtct has been redeveloped through a
well-planned and coordinated master plan. There are few land
use conflicts, and land uses have been expanded by
reclaiming an old San Diego settlement pond to the southwest
The West Fairfield District has good freeway access at Paiomar
and Main Streets, and it is an employment center, with regional
retail and other employment uses. An educational facility is
also located in the West Fairfield District
.,;,,\!{t-
- -
Page LUT-151
an-~
CHUlA YISV'.
1-92
A TfJt-CI-1/Vlt,U/ 6
Response to Theresa Acerro's comment letter on the Marsella Villas MND IS-06-005
Comment Item #la: Proiect Design Impact
Content of comments states that in the absence of a specific plan for the Palomar
Gateway area a severe and unmitigatable effect to the community character is being
caused by proposed project.
Response to Item#la:
The Chula Vista General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact (Dec. 2005) states that
the City shall prepare, or cause to have prepared, a specific plan, master plan, or other
regulatory document to guide the coordinated establishment of a Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway District. This reference is made to the Preferred
Plan, which according to Policy LUT 43.6 of the General Plan would permit 40 dwelling
units per acre within the Transit Focus Area. The proposed project density of 24 units
per acre is significantly below the target density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Under the
existing R-2 zone, development could take place at around nine dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project size and scale would not have the potential to cause severe or
significant adverse impacts to the community character that full implementation of the
Preferred Plan would. Since seven dwelling units are being removed, the net increase of
dwellings in the community would in reality be 32 townhomes.
Secondly, the project is residential in nature and it is compatible with multifamily
residential development to the east as well as the mobile home park to the north and
additional new development found along Ada Street. The proposed development
represents an improvement to the existing neighborhood. Many surrounding residents
have spoken in the public forums and public meetings held in support of the proposed
development. Residents have mentioned existing blighted conditions, lack of lighting
and increased security risks as reasons for favoring the proposed development.
Thirdly, objective LUT 43.1 of the General Plan allows for a specific plan, master plan or
other regulatory document to guide development. The proposed project is subject to
Design Review Committee approval the establishment of a Precise Plan and site plan
review by planning staff. Additionally the project is subject to the approval of a parcel
map and precise plan that will serve as the regulatory document for implementation of the
. entire city approved design standards, streetscape, sidewalks, landscape and pedestrian
features that will be required in order for the project to be in compliance with the general
plan policies and objectives.
Comment Item # 1 b Soils contaminated bv pesticides
Response to Item # 1 b
The proposed development site was subject to the preparation of a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment, and soil sampling reports that accurately characterized the subject site
1-93
soils with respect to pesticide contamination. The technical reports and soil remediation
proposal were subject to review and approval by the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division. Prior to
commencement of any construction, the upper one foot of the project soils will be
removed along with any spots that contain levels of pesticide that are deemed harmful to
human health. The County Department of Environmental Health will review the final
clean-up report prepared for the site. The proposed development offers the opportunity to
clean up the environment by removing contaminated soils from within an existing
residential community.
Comment Item #lc: the absence of a specific plan has a potential negative cumulative
effect upon infrastructure that is old and in many cases in poor repair. Water lines
Response to Item #lc: The Sweetwater Authority maintains the water system in this part
of the City. The Sweetwater Authority has issued a "Will Serve" letter to developer
indicating that they have the capacity to serve the proposed development.
Comment Item #ld: the absence of a specific plan has a potential negative cumulative
effect upon infrastructure that is old and in many cases in poor repair. Sewer lines
Response to Item #ld: The City ofChula Vista Public Works Department comments that
there has not been a failure of either sewer or storm drain systems in the area. A Public
Works supervisor indicates that routine maintenance of storm drains has occurred within
this area in the past year, but no failures.
Comment Item #le: the absence of a specific plan has a potential negative cumulative
effect upon infrastructure that is old and in many cases in poor repair. Drainage facilities
Response to Item #1 e: The City of Chula Vista Public Works Department comments that
there has not been a failure of either sewer or storm drain systems in the area. A Public
Works supervisor indicates that routine maintenance of storm drains has occurred within
this area in the past year, but no failures.
Comment Item #1f: Provide a mix of land uses that meets community needs and
generates sufficient revenue to sustain exemplary community servIces. facilities and
amenities
Response to Item # 1f: The area where the proj ect is proposed is residential in nature. A
local residential street serves the project site and surrounding residences. To introduce
commercial retail uses within a full residential neighborhood would probably prove to be
disruptive. Other areas within the Palomar Gateway Area are more suited for the mixed
land use concept proposed by the General Plan. Amenities are being provided as part of
the project design approval including common open space, tot lots, pedestrian
connections to adjacent properties to permit access to transit focus areas, landscaping,
pedestrian oriented lighting, walls and fences and exemplary architectural design.
).
1-94
Comment Item #2: Proiect needs to implement mitigation measures of CVGPUFEIR
Response to Item #2:The project required the preparation of over 15 technical documents
in support of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These technical documents assessed,
tested and analyzed project specific issues related to traffic, noise, soil hazards, air
quality, archaeological, historical, paleontlogical, geotechnical, water, sewer, drainage
and water quality. Recommendations from these reports were incorporated where
applicable, as mitigation measures and as conditions of project approval. The Design
Review Committee reviewed and made recommendations with respect to the architectural
design to ensure a quality product. Proposed conditions of approval and site-specific
mitigation measures have reduced any potential project adverse impacts to a level of
insignificance.
Comment Item#3: Someone is not doing the required mitigation measure monitoring.
Response to Item #3: Project specific mitigations have been recommended for adoption
as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Once the project is approved and the
MND is adopted along with the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program, City staff will
be responsible for overseeing the complete and full implementation of the adopted
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for this project.
Comment Item #4: What about mitigation requirement for project amenities?
Response to Item #4: Project amenities are being provided as part of the project design
approval including common open space, tot lots, pedestrian connections to adjacent
properties to permit access to transit focus areas, landscaping, pedestrian oriented
lighting, walls and fences and exemplary architectural design.
Comment Item #5: Potable water availability:
Response to Item #5: The Sweetwater Authority has provided the applicant with a" Will
Serve" letter indicating that adequate potable water is available to the proposed project.
Comment Item #6: Traffic Impacts
Response to Item #6: A traffic impact analysis identified potential cumulative project
impacts and mitigation is proposed that would reduce traffic impacts to less than
significant.
Comment Item #7: Air Oualitv Health Risks (one in 704.?25 a significant cancer risk)
Response to Item #7: Ninyo and Moore, environmental consultants, prepared A Human
Health Screening Evaluation (HHSE) in order to investigate project site soils containing
elevated levels of pesticides. The objective of the evaluation was to determine if further.
site characterization and risk assessment, or site remediation was appropriate. The HHSE
.,
..)
1-95
was based on assumptions intended to overestimate risks to provide conservative estimate
of potential health effects. The conservative assumptions included the low likelihood of
inhalation of airborne dust bearing contaminants, dermal contact, or incidental ingestion,
since the majority of the site wiIl be covered with hardscape, buildings, and vegetation.
The HHSE based its one in 704,225 potential cancer risk assuming the pesticides were
left in place, particularly in Area A.
However, with all this evaluation, it was determined based on consultation with the San
Diego County Department of Environmental Health that the applicant would be required
to remove a minimum of one foot of the top soils and further characterize any areas that
are observed to possibly contain contaminated soils in order to remove them to a depth of
four feet. EssentiaIly the site would be cleaned of soil contaminants thus avoiding
potential impacts to human health from pesticides in soils. After completion of all soil
remedial actions soil sampling data would be submitted to the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health for their review and issuance of a "No Further
Action Letter", signifying that remediation goals for residential soils have been met. This
remedial action has been incorporated as part of the project mitigation measures.
Comment Item #8: Air Oualitv Health Risks associated with long term exposure to diesel
exhaust
Response to Item #8: A health risk assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential
effects of placement of six-seven residential units of the proposed 40 units within the
most easterly 500 foot buffer of Interstate 5 in accordance with Policy EE 6.1 0 of the
General Plan. This analysis was prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (July
2006) in accordance with City methodology. There is presently no state or federaIly
recognized threshold for assessing these potential impacts. The State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and San Diego Air PoIlution Control District
have provided basic guidelines (SDAPCD 2005) for preparing HRA's for stationery
sources but not for mobile sources (i.e. highway traffic). The guidelines for stationery
sources have developed very conservative exposure assumptions. These models assume
that an individual resident living within the 500 foot corridor of a poIlution source would
remain in the same location for 70 years, 24 hours per day, seven days per week, without
leaving the residence site. Given this conservative risk analysis the HRA indicated that
for a 70-year lifetime exposure the cancer risk would be 58.7 in a miIIion. The study also
estimated a 9-year cancer risk for a child as 14.5 in a miIlion.
Based on the HRA report, there could be potential health risks associated with locating
sensitive receptors within 500 feet for major highways. However, at the present time the
regulatory agencies have neither adopted specific guidelines for the preparation of mobile
air toxic health risk assessments nor have they established appropriate thresholds for
determining significance of potential impacts to health. The proposed project is in
compliance with all currently adopted state and federal standards and therefore the
potential impact is not considered significant under CEQA.
'1
1-96
Comment Item #9: Paleontological impacts
Response to Item #9: The San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of
Paleontological Services conducted a paleontological record search and paleontological
resource sensitivity assessment for this project site. As a result of this record search and
assessment the museum found no recorded fossil localities within a one-mile radius of the
project site. However, because the project site forms part of the Bay Point Formation and
the "unnamed nearshore marine and sandstone", the museum is recommending a
complete paleontological resource mitigation program (excavation monitoring, fossil
salvage, fossil preparation, fossil curation, and final report preparation). This mitigation
program will be implemented as part of the project approval.
Comment Item #10: Police and Fire impacts:
Response to Item #10:
The City of Chula Vista Fire and Police Department indicate that they can adequately
provide services to the project area.
S'
1-97
~ \ f?.
-f-
r ..:
ellY OF
CHUlA VISTA
MEMORANDU~
March 13, 2007
TO: Richard Zumwalt, Planning Division
VIA: Boushra Salem, Senior Civil Engineer
FROM: Ben Herrera, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Response to Theresa's Acerro's Letter Pertaining to Marsella Villa Engineering
Related Items
Please see comments relating to Engineering Items:
1. Ms. Acerro states that the existing water system may exceed its capacity.
Response: The Sweetwater Authority maintains the water system in this part ofChula Vista.
2. Ms. Acerro states that the existing sewer system in the vicinity south of Palomar Street and
west of Industrial Blvd might be able to handle one more development, before the sewer
system exceeds its capacity.
Response: The City's Engineering Wastewater Section analyzed the sewer capacity in this
area last year. The analysis included three future multi-family developments, BayVista Walk
(163-units, in addition to 8,000 SF of commercial space), Trolley Villas (94-units) and
Marsella Villas (45-units). The analysis concluded that these developments would not
adversely impact the existing sewer system. However, it would trigger the requirement for a
sewer study if the sewer flows in Industrial Blvd exceed 60%. The operating capacity of the
sewer main is designed at a maximum of75%. Currently the existing sewer is flowing at
57%, marginal capacity. The three developments would increase the capacity by 3.7%.
3. Ms. Acerra states that there was a major pipe failure last year near the intersection of
Industrial Blvd and Palomar Street.
Response: Ms. Acerro does not specify which type of pipe failed, water, sewer or storm
drain. I have contact the Public Works Supervisor, Dave McRoberts, in charge of the sewer
and storm drain maintenance. He states that there has not been a failure of either the sewer
or storm drain systems in this area. He states that routine maintenance ofthe storm drain in
this area has occurred in the past year, but no failures.
4. Ms. Acerro states that adding the additional daily trips generated by the future development
will increase the rate of failure of the existing streets.
Response: Many streets in the City require attention. The City has a Pavement Management
ENGINEERI~Gg~ARTMENT
Program that analyzes the condition of the City's existing street and prioritizes the streets
that require rehabilitation or reconstruction.
5. Ms. Acerro states that the existing drainage facilities are in rudimentary shape.
Response: Since the City annexed this area in 1986, no major drainage improvements have
been constructed. All current and future developments are required to comply with the City's
drainage design and storm water permit. All storm water runoff are required to be treated on-
site. The pre-development storm water flows cannot exceed the post-development flows.
Therefore, proposed developments are required to detain flows on-site as to not impact the
existing drainage system.
If you have any question, give me a call at ext 5602.
);\Engineer\PERMITS\EP . TPM and Parcel Maps\TPM Pre-Applications, EPOOl \EPOOI.Marsella VilJas.MEM.DOC
ENG [NEERI~G ~~p ARTMENT
A7( AC f-I-..A1 e,u T '7
P I ann
Building
Planning Division
&
Department
I Development Processing
n g
CflY OF
CHULA. VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following Information
must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
.~ 1/\1.lJ..M \,--\t.V~2.0
A-\.:....l t'AA'hto ~~~,.e"2...
l
i-.. (.J,. _ l (lV'\s, -hi l c-\ tt7V1
~cw,. ~ vi !.\AM 1o["'\Jl \
-
JXvV\ (() li) /,\ J&1'"s'
2.
If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
3.
If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
~ ----
4.
Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~ azJrv SaM Mez
5.
Has any person' associated with this contract had any financial dealings ~ijh an official'. of the City of Chuia
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No+
If Yes, briefiy describe the nature of the financial interest the official.' may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past tweive (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? NO! Yes _ If yes, which Council member?
176 Fourth Avenue
1-100
Chula Vista I California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~\(?-
-r-
r_ _
P I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ NO,"*- .
If Yes, which official" and what was the nature of item provided?
---
-----...
Date:
t~lo~
/
/
,/
Print or
.
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
..
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
1-101
Chula \/i;;ta I California
91910
(619) 691-5101
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IS-06-005, AMENDING THE
ZONING MAPS ESTABLISHED BY MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 19.18.010 BY REZONING THREE PARCELS
LOCATED AT 778, 780, 790, 792, 794, 808 AND 812 ADA
STREET FROM R-2-P (ONE AND TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, PRECISE PLAN) TO R-3-P (APARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL, PRECISE PLAN), ADOPTING PRECISE PLAN
STANDARDS, AND ESTABLISHING A PRECISE PLAN FOR
THE PARCELS.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" which is incorporated into the ordinance by this reference, and for the
purpose of general description consists of three parcels totaling 1.92 acres, located at 778, 780,
790,792,794, 808 and 812 Ada Street ("Project Site" or "Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, Rezone and Precise Plan applications were filed by
Nahum Mendoza, Alejandro Sanchez, and Roger Cao-Romero ("Developer") with the Planning
and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting an amendment to the adopted
zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in
order to rezone the Project Site from the R-2-P (One and Two Family Residential, Precise Plan)
Zone to the R-3-P (Apartment Residential, Precise Plan) zone, adopting Precise Plan standards,
and establishing a Precise Plan for the Project Site ("Project"); and
C. Prior Approvals
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2005, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a resolution
amending the Chula Vista General Plan, which included an amendment of the General Plan Land
Use Designation for the Project Site from Residential Low-Medium (3-6 du/acre) to Transit
Focus Area; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on
February 5, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 5-0-0-0 to recommend that the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency approve the Design Review Application DRC-06-27 and DRC-06-28,
subject to adoption of this ordinance, and
1-102
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency held an advertised public hearing
on April 24, 2007, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, and receiving the recommendation from the
Design Review Committee, voted _-_ -_-_ to approve the Design Review Application DRC-06-
27 and DRC-06-28 for the Project, subject to adoption of this ordinance; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on March 21, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 7-0-0 to recommend that the City Council
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Rezone, adopt the Precise Plan Standards and
adopt a Precise Plan in accordance with the findings listed below; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on March 21, 2007, and the minutes and
resolution resulting there from, are incorporated into the record of these proceedings; and
E. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project
applications and notices of the hearing, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of
the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
April 24, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue; and
WHEREAS, after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, and receiving the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council voted _-_-_ to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-06-005) and the Rezone, adopt the Precise Plan standards
and adopt a Precise Plan, in accordance with the findings listed below; and
II. The City Council of the City Chula Vista ordains as follows:
A. Certification of Compliance with CEQA
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project
for compliance with CEQA and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-06-005 in accordance with
CEQA.
WHEREAS, based on the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that the Project could result in significant effects on the
environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would
1-103
Ordinance
Page 3
occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration,IS-06-005.
B. Independent Judgment of the City Council
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and
concurs with the Planning Commission, and Environmental Review Coordinator's determination
that Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-06-005), in the form presented, has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-005).
C. The rezoning of the Project Site is consistent with the City ofChula Vista General
Plan, as approved on 12113/05, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare and good
zoning practice support the amendment to the Municipal Code.
D. The City Of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to rezone the Project Site as depicted in Exhibit "A"
from the R-2-P (One and Two Family Residential, Precise Plan) Zone to the R-3-P, Apartment
Residential Zone with Precise Plan Modifying District, including Property Development
Standards as represented in Exhibit C.
E. Precise Plan Findings
I. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The City Council finds that the proposed precise plan standards contained in
attached Exhibit C will not have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood because the proposed standards allow the applicant to design a
Project that is more compatible with higher density residential and transit-
oriented mixed-use development planned for the area. The surrounding area
includes mobile home park and proposed multi-family dwellings on the north,
multi-family dwellings on the east, and single-family homes to the south and
west. Such standards will allow the flexibility in establishing new
development standards for building height and setback regulations that will
permit construction of attached town-home dwelling units with garages,
private balconies, and common open space, which is more appropriate for the
area, as it transitions from existing duplex and single-family development to
transit-oriented high density residential and mixed use type development.
2. That such plan satisfies the following principles for amendment of the "P"
modifying district as set forth in CVMC 19.56.041:
1-104
Ordinance No.
Page 4
(a) The City Council finds that the property is unique in terms of its physical
characteristics, configuration, circulation, social or historic characteristics
requiring special design. The Site is located within the Transit Focus Area
General Plan land use designation, which includes goals and objectives
intended to promote high density, transit-oriented residential uses.
Because the zoning intended to implement the Transit Focus Area
designation has not yet been adopted yet; a rezone to the R-3-P zone is the
most effective way to establish high -density residential development
standards in a manner that complies with the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
(b) The City Council finds that the Site is adjacent and contiguous to other
areas that are designated as a Transit Focus Area and zoned (R-3)
Apartment Residential to the south and west, and (CT) Commercial
Thoroughfare to the north. The adoption of the amended Precise Plan
standards will allow the Project to be designed with development
standards which will make a more appropriate transition between adjacent
multi family and single family development, and will also be designed to
include walls, fencing and landscaped setbacks that will help buffer the
units adjacent from the adjacent uses, in a manner that the development of
the Site will better coexist with adjacent uses.
(c) The City Council finds that application of the "P" modifying district is
appropriate because the underlying R-2-P zone regulation does not allow
multi-family development standards needed to achieve a high -density
residential Project design, and therefore a precise plan modifying district
is needed to allow a more compatible design.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning
requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and
application of the Precise Plan. Development of the lot using the development
standards of the R-3 zone would limit the ability of the applicant to propose a
design which:
(a) Meets the goal of providing development standards consistent with the
high-density attached housing, including: (1) 3-story, multi-family
townhome dwelling unit type, (2) 5-foot front yard and 7-foot rear yard
building setbacks; (3) Dedicated pedestrian access; (4) centralized
common recreational facilities. The typical R-3 zone permits 2-story,
28-foot high buildings, and IS-foot front and rear yard setbacks.
The City Council finds that these requested deviations under the Precise Plan
are warranted in order to achieve the purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying
District.
1-105
Ordinance
Page 5
4. That the approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the
adopted policies of the City OfChula Vista.
The City Council finds that the Project has been designed and evaluated in
accordance with the goals and obj ectives of the General Plan, including the
Transit Focus Area. The Precise Plan, as described above, will allow the
Project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and
the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
F. The Precise Plan and Precise Standards as depicted in Exhibits Band C are
adopted and are supported by the required findings (CVMC section 19.56.041, as outlined in
Section 11 (E) above).
111. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James D. Sandoval
Planning and Building Director
'-I~ /2 ./!~(<'~
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Rezone Map
Exhibit B: Precise Plan Map
Exhibit C: Precise Plan Standards
1-106
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IS-06-005, AND APPROVING DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT DRC-06-27 & 28 TO CONSTRUCT 40
TOWNHOMES ON TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 778, 780, 790,
808 AND 812 ADA STREET WITHIN THE MERGED CHULA
VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SOUTHWEST
AREA)
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" which is incorporated into this resolution by this reference, and for
the purpose of general description consists of two parcels totaling 1.65 acres, located at 778, 780,
790, 808 and 812 Ada Street ("Project Site" or "Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, a Design Review application was filed with the
Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista, by Nahum Mendoza and
Alejandro Sanchez ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a Design Review Permit to construct 40
attached townhouse units on the Project Site, as depicted on the DRC-06-27 & 28 plans; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-06-005 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based
upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that
the Project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the
Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-06-005.
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 2962, the Project Site was added to
the Merged ChuIa Vista Redevelopment Project (Southwest Area), and therefore the Project
requires approval by the Redevelopment Agency; and
1-107
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 2
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2007, the Design Review Committee recommended the
adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
IS-06-005, and Design Review Permit DRC-06-027 & 028, by a vote of 5-0-0; and,
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista voted _-_-_-_
to adopt an ordinance adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, IS-06-005, amending the City Of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by
Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone the Project Site as depicted in
Exhibit "A" from the R-2-P (One and Two Family Residential, Precise Plan) Zone, to the R-3-P,
Apartment Residential Zone with Precise Plan ModifYing District, including Property
Development Standards, and adopting a Precise Plan for the Project; and,
D. Design Review Committee Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Design Review
Committee at the public hearing on this Design Review Permit held on February 5, 2007,
including the minutes and Notice of Decision are incorporated into the record of this proceeding;
and
E. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on April 24, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing
staff presentation and public testimony, the Agency voted _/ _/ _ to _ the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA FINDS, DETERMINES and RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
II. Certification of Compliance with CEQA
The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-005) have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and hereby adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-005).
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted based upon findings of fact pursuant to the
CEQA Section l5074(b):
1. The environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study.
2. There is no substantial evidence on the basis of the whole record that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment
and analysis.
1-108
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 3
A copy ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(IS-06-005) is on file in the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA, 91910. The document and materials which constituted the record of
proceedings upon which the decision is based are under the custodial care of the Planning and
Building Director/Environmental Review Coordinator.
The Redevelopment Agency finds that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment,
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-
005) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopts the same.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista grants Design Review Permit DRC-06-
027& 28 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the Applicant and/or
property owner(s):
III. Findings Necessary for the Design Review Permit
The Redevelopment Agency finds as follows:
I. That the proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development
regulations of the Apartment Residential- Precise Plan Modifying District (R-3-P) Zone.
2. That the design features of the proposed development are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
Conditions of Approval
IV. The following conditions shall be incorporated into the plan by the Applicant prior to
issuance of building permits for this Project:
General/Preliminary
I. The Applicant shall develop, submit and obtain approval of "Recycling and Solid
Waste Management Plan" by the City's Conservation Coordinator. The synopsis
of the plan shall be included in the notes on the Building Plans. The plan shall
demonstrate those steps that the Applicant will take to comply with the Municipal
Code, including but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and meet the State
mandate to reduce or divert 50 % of the waste generated by commercial,
residential and industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract with the
City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the
Project. A "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Guide" is available at the
Planning and Building Department counter. The Plan shall include a statement of
how the Applicant will implement and participate in the Recycling and Solid
Waste Management Plan requirements. The proposed trash enclosure shall be
1-109
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 4
designed as follows:
a. Trash/Recycling enclosures shall be constructed per Site Plan and
Elevations, and reviewed and approved by the Conservation and
Environmental Services Department Allied Waste prior to final inspection.
b. Since no vehicle turnaround is provided, pullout of bins to the street is
required to service the enclosure. Enhanced paving or stamped concrete
shall be designed to ensure that bins can be rolled to the street, and
approved by the Conservation and Environmental Services Department
and Allied Waste.
c. Architecture/materials of the enclosure shall be consistent with design of
the main structures.
d. Provide a solid roof over trash enclosure to divert runoff.
e. Install smooth concrete access/base, designed to drain away from the
storm drain, in front of trash enclosure.
2. Pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees
for deposit account DQ-1307.
3. The Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Department and the City Engineering Division the mitigation measures identified
in the Marsella Villas Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (1S-06-005).
4. This Project approval is contingent upon adoption of the ordinance approving
Rezone PCZ-06-05, Precise Plan PCM-07-015, and Precise Plan Guidelines.
Planning Division:
5. Submit and obtain approval of a detailed wall and fencing plan, with design,
colors and materials to be determined by the Zoning Administrator, including the
following: (a) Details of five ft. high freestanding stucco fence along northerly
property line; (b) A five foot high, approx. 50 foot long CMU wall section along
the western property line of Site B, adjacent to the tot lot; (c) Color and materials
of the walls fence should match the building architecture.
6. Obtain approval of a plan showing variation of building color scheme throughout
the Project.
7. Building plans submitted for building permits shall include the following:
1-110
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 5
a. Ground-mounted equipment including heating, air conditioning, utility
boxes, and backflow valves that will not be constructed in utility
enclosures will be required to be screened with a combination of
landscaping, walls or berms.
b. Enhanced elevations consistent with Character Sketch (see Sheet CS-3
of approved DRC-06-27&28 plans) shall be utilized on elevations
facing Ada Street, the northerly property line, and the tot lots.
c. Garages door design shall include a variable color scheme, garage
door windows, and enhanced landscaping, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
8. Provide a detailed landscape plan prepared by a California Licensed Landscape
Architect for review and approval with the building permit submittal, which is in
substantial conformance with the Concept Landscape Plan, and designed per
Landscape Manual and CYMC requirements. The plan shall include the following
modifications from the concept plan:
a. Add a combination of walls and planting, to screen ground-mounted
mechanical and electrical equipment and utilities.
b. Provide a screening solution to soften the trash enclosure view from the tot
lots.
c. Add a minimum IS-foot deep band of enhanced paving or stamped
concrete to the entry driveways. Paving shall be designed to permit rolling
of trash bins to the street.
d. Planters located along the driveways shall be a minimum of 3 feet wide
and include a curb edge. Planters shall be designed to permit large shrubs
or small trees to help visually break up the rows of garages.
e. Planting palette shall emphasize drought tolerant plants per requirements
of the Landscape Manual.
f. Incorporate shrubs and vines to the base of privacy fences, and the stucco
fence at the northerly property line, to help soften and deter graffiti.
g. Provide a revised planting plan and elevation study for the streetscape
along Ada Street. The plans should show the ultimate landscape design,
and emphasize robust specimen trees such as Phoenix Canariensis, and a
combination of multi-trunked and flowering trees, evergreen low hedges,
and shrub accent planting.
h. Adult recreational amenities, such as picnic tables and barbeques, shall be
added to the tot lots.
Building Division
D. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Building Official:
1-111
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 6
Submit building plans and required fees per the following Building Division
requirements:
I. Building permits are required per 2001 Ca. Building Code (CBC), Ca.
Mechanical Code, Ca. Plumbing Code, and 2001 Ca. Handicapped
Accessibility requirements (including SB 1025 requirements), 2004 Ca.
Electrical Code, and 2005 Ca. Energy Code.
2. A Demolition Permit is required with Hazardous Materials approval prior to
issuance of the Demolition permit for existing buildings. Satisfaction of
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (IS-06-005) Mitigation Measures related to Hazards/Hazardous
Materials is required prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit.
3. Compliance with Seismic Zone 4, Wind speed 70 mph, and Exposure C
standards also required.
4. Structural Calculations from a licensed Civil Engineer or Architect are also
required.
5. On site private sewer, water and lighting must be submitted to the Building
Department and approved prior to issuance of permits. If private sewer is to be
designed to the Subdivision Manual standards, it must be submitted directly to
the Engineering Department for plan review and inspection.
Police and Fire
E. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Police Department or
Fire Marshall as specified below:
1. A composite lighting plan and elevations shall be approved to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning and Building and the Chula Vista Police
Department (CVPD), prior to issuance of the building permit. The plan shall
include specifications of all proposed lights, and a photometric plan that
includes the pedestrian paths and driveways. Lighting shall be shielded to
minimize spillover onto adjacent properties.
2. Prior to the delivery of combustible materials to the Site, comply with the
requirements of the City Fire Marshall, including but not limited to the
following requirements:
a. All construction shall comply with the 2001 Ca. Building and Fire
Code.
1-112
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 7
b. Submit fire flow information from the Sweetwater Authority District
indicating required fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours,
per Ca. Fire Code.
c. New construction shall comply with CVFD policy 2916.01 for access,
turnarounds, and water supply for new construction.
d. Provide automatic fire sprinklers per CVFD standards.
e. Each building shall be provided with a "fire control room".
f. A minimum of four on-site fire hydrants is required for the Site.
Hydrant location to be determined by the Fire Marshall.
g. Provide fire alarms in accordance with NFP A 72 and 200 I CBC.
h. Streets shall comply with C. V.F.D. minimum turning standards
1. Comply with C.V.F.D. policy for fire lanes.
J. Provide a visible street address and locator map for each building, in
accordance with premise identification detail.
k. Provide approved fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-
IOBC. Locate one fire extinguisher per building within an all-weather
cabinet. Such fire extinguishers shall be accessible along the path of
travel.
1. Provide an emergency gate and improved emergency access road from
north end driveway on Site B through the offsite property to Palomar
Street. Any gates serving this Site shall be automatic and have an
Opticom Strobe system, Knox override switch, and click-to-enter
system. Design shall be approved by the Fire Marshall prior to
issuance of the first building permit for Site B.
Engineering and Public Works Department:
F. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to
approval of grading or improvement plans (whichever occurs first):
I. The following fees will be required based on the final building plans
submitted:
a. Sewer Connection and Capacities fees
b. Development Impact Fees
c. Traffic Signal Fees
2. The Applicant shall obtain a construction permit from the Engineering
Department to perform any work in the City's right-of-way including:
a) Sewer lateral and storm drain connections to existing public
utilities.
1-113
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 8
b) A sewer manhole per SDRSD S-2 is required at all proposed sewer
main locations.
c) Removal and replacement of broken curb, gutter, and sidewalk
along the proposed Project's frontage.
d) Removal and replacement of existing driveways is required per
City Standard CVCS-IA.
3. Grading plans, in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual, and a
grading permit will be required prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. A drainage study and geotechnical/soils study are required with the first
submittal of grading plans. Design should incorporate detention of storm
water runoff, so that the post-development flow rate does not exceed the
pre-development flow rate at the outlet of the subdivision. Project
engineer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all
storm flows leaving the subdivision at the northerly limits shall not
adversely affect adjacent properties. Offsite private drainage easements
maybe required upon submittal of the tentative parcel map.
5. A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) and a Final Parcel Map will be required
for the proposed multi-family units. The TPM shall show storm drain
connections or sufficient information to indicate how the storm water
runoff will be handled. A Water Quality Technical Report shall be
submitted with the TPM.
6. Ada Street is classified as a residential street with a half-width right-of-
way of 28 feet. An additional 8 feet is required for public street
dedication. The dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of the
Tentative Parcel Map.
7. The Applicant is required to complete the applicable Storm Water
Compliance Forms and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm
Water Management Standards Requirements Manual.
8. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant
redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES
Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all
projects falling under the Priority Development Project Categories are
required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans
(SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
9. Development of the Project shall comply with all applicable regulations,
established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water
discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista
1-114
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 9
pursuant to the NPDES regulations and requirements. Further, the
Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water
Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP
shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention
and pollution control measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for
the maintenance of post-construction control measures.
10. The Applicant is required to identify storm water pollutants that are
potentially generated at the facility, and propose Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to prevent such pollutants from
entering the storm drainage systems.
II. The Applicant is required to identify storm water pollutants that are
potentially generated at the facility, and propose Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to prevent such pollutants from
entering the storm drainage systems.
12. The Applicant is to be advised that there may be requirements set at the
time his/her development takes place and/or a building permit is applied
for, depending upon final plans submitted for building permits.
13. A water quality study will be required to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Construction and Municipal Permits, including Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SDSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria
requirements, with the first submittal of grading/improvement plans, in
accordance with the City's Manual.
14. An Encroachment permit is required for all stairs located within the City
right-of-way. This is required after the additional ROW is acquired.
15. A public pedestrian walkway and public easement or Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of
Planning and Building, is required on the west side of Site B (easterly
parcel). Obtain approval of a revised TPM showing the location, width
and type of material required for the walkway. The Homeowners
Association shall maintain the sidewalk within the public easement.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
G. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Elementary
School District:
1-115
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 10
16. Developer agrees to annex to or participate in an existing Community
Facilities District for the Chula Vista Elementary School District, or pay
developer fees as required by State Law, to the satisfaction of the Chula
Vista Elementary School District.
General Services Department, Landscape Architecture Division
H. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Elementary
School District:
17. Remit to the City, Parkland Development Obligation and In-Lieu of
Dedication fees for 40 Multi-family Residential lots, pursuant to Chapter
17.10 of the Municipal Code, to that satisfaction of the Landscape
Architecture Division of the Department of General Services.
Sweetwater Authority
1. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Sweetwater Authority:
18. Water service from the Sweetwater Authority can be obtained upon
submittal of fire flow information, Site plan, street improvement plan,
irrigation plan, plumbing plan showing total fixture-unit count, fire
sprinkler plans and calculations, approved by the Chula Vista Fire
Department. Based on these plans the agency will determine if there is
need for a new water systems or substantial alteration of the existing water
system. If the owner provides the requested information and enters into an
agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water
service can be obtained. New water service typically requires installation
of backflow prevention assemblies for any new fire protection systems.
V. The following conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to establishment of the use
or occupancy of the Site:
2. The Applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to prevent pollution of the storm water conveyance systems, both during and
after construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated
into the Project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction
and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must
be either noted or stapled on the plans.
3. This Design Review Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
1-116
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 11
The Applicant/owner shall and does agree to indemnifY, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency and the City, their members, officers, employees
and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities)
incurred by the Redevelopment Agency or the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a)
The Redevelopment Agency's approval and issuance of this Design Review Permit, (b)
The Redevelopment Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated
herein, and Applicant/owner shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by
executing a copy of this Design Review Permit where indicated below.
Applicant's/owner's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this
Design Review Permit it and this provision shall be binding on any and all of
Applicant's/owner's successors and assigns.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(l), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the 90-day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or
other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution
and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a) and failure
to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees in connection with this Project; and it does not apply to any fees,
dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this,
nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
The property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained in the Conditional Use
Permit. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the
County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or Applicant, and a
signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of
recordation to the Planning and Building Department secretary.
Failure to return this document to the Planning and Building Department secretary shall
indicate the Property owners/Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding
application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without
approval. The document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as
document No.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
1-117
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 12
Signature of Applicant
Date
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall
have the right to revoke or modifY all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition
issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates
of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for
their violation. Failure to satisfY the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit may also
result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution and the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect.
PRESENTED BY
James D. Sandoval
Director of Planning and Building
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
~J~O-/ aA~" ~.;6-
Ann Moore
Agency Attorney
1-118