The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/04/24 RDA Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this document on the bulletin board according t~ ~ (.?- Act re_quirements. ~W- ~~~ 2IhJ7 Signed I!JI/J;V? - - CllY OF CHUlA VISTA AJI Cheryl Cox, Mayor/Chair Rudy Ramirez, Council/Agency Member Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager/Executive Director John McCann, Council/Agency Member Ann Moore, City Attorney/Agency Counsel Jerry R. Rindone, Council/Agency Member Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Council/Agency Member ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Notice is hereby given that the Chairwoman has called and will convene a Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 (immediately following the City Council meeting) in the Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, to consider the items on this agenda. 0 L{4 . heryl Cox, Chairwoman April 24, 2007 6:00 P.M. (Immediately following the City Council Meeting) Council Chambers City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Council/Agency Members Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor/Chair Cox PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Agency from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Agency may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised as public hearings as required by law. if you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meetinf!. 1. CONSIDERATION OF REZONE APPLICATION (PCS-06-005), PRECISE PLAN APPLICATION (PCM-07-015), AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRC-06-27) AND (DRC-06-28), FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS MARSELLA VILLAS, LOCATED AT 778 THROUGH 812 ADA STREET The Marsella Villas Project requests approval of a re-zone from R-2-P, One and Two Family residence zone with a Precise Plan Modifying District, to an R-3-P, Apartment Residential zone with a Precise Plan Modifying District. Additionally, they are requesting amendment to the Precise Plan Modifying District to establish development standards for the project site such as modified building heights and building setbacks. (Planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: Agency/Council conduct the public hearing, the Redevelopment Agency adopt the following resolution, and the City Council hold first reading of the following ordinance: A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATNE 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 (FIRST READING) B. 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 AND DRC-06-28 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) 2. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION DRC-06-33 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-06-025 The Design Review Permit application requests the demolition of the former K-mart store structure and former restaurant building on the site, and construction of a 97,396 square foot retail building and associated garden center, 649 space parking lot, and project signage including wall and free-standing signage. The Conditional Use Permit application requests outside sales and display of merchandise to identify and authorize the type of items that can be sold and displayed outdoors, and to ensure that certain items specifically prohibited by Chula Vista Municipal Code are not sold or displayed outside. (Planning and Building Director) Staff recommendation: The Redevelopment Agency conduct the public hearing, and adopt the following resolution: A. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-06-007, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRC-06-33 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME DEPOT STORE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-06- 025, TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE PERMANENT OUTSIDE SALES AND DISPLAY MERCHANDISE, AT 1030 THIRD AVENUE WITHIN THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (ADDED AREA) Page 2 - Jt. CouncilJRDA Agenda htto:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov April 24, 2007 OTHER BUSINESS 3. CITY MANAGERlDIRECTOR'S REPORTS 4. MAYOR/CHAIR'S REPORTS 5. COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS' COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT the Redevelopment Agency to their Regular Meeting on April 26, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and the City Council to an Adjourned Regular Meeting with the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation/Redevelopment Agency on April 26, 2007, and thence to their Regular Meeting on May I, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devicesfor the Deaf(TDD} at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 3 - Jt. CouncillRDA Agenda htto:/ /www.chnlavistaca.gov April 24, 2007 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 <$l ~i l~~ ol.., .........0-.0..... .<>-.<ll ') II i ~ , i l al ------- l . ~~. .zJI,..,.. .~Q,I I I l 1 l i~ . ! "I , 1 . I i Z I Ii ~ I ~ ! , :;!: ! ~ i ~". Ii ~~~ UI ~?_ \l . .,.,,~ ~/ ."," ..,,""'" ....... ~,....~ .'~ ~, ~. p,., o . . I I HLm' l "~j!HI<\ llJ III o ISJ~ ,. I ) .~-_.... ""- I1i I i 'Vd L>-' ;'-'~:;/I~i~ I I 190QQ ..,,-. ...... ..,~. .....&-... ~, 1-27 =...... r"'l"" III U III11 . . _. ' - _! , i i r I . --- ----T------- I , . ! . ""'" .......... .- , l I ! I ~ i .. I ~ I ~ ~ i ~ ' ~ ; l , 1 ; ! Vl z I :S c- oo:: l 0 l 0 ! --l u... , 1 "" i <( Zl r- :s I Z ~ i ::> ~ ~ ~; ;;; . . iel i a pi i ~i ~ II Ii ~H!!IS ~ :> ~"=,::':":..",::",..:..~..::.~~:.:"::.~~,==;:..~-"-::::,,,==,,::,::,~,::,,,"':..":':.-=-,:::-==~~..~=:.;:::,,,...~..::.....-:,,.:==~~~ "" I'll Iii "Iii i !', " CD rQ I . - rn iiJ~ · . l 'I' I ill i_"!. ,!, jl~ ! ! j'l!' I. llj . ~ <( I . Lt") si llillllllli IL ~ ~l!~l 1!1l!1 llllill! lhllld II! II Ii! !I iii! II d I,. 8 r ~ i ~ ~ ~~I' 11111I.~Il!,1 Ii I.!llmllll dllllli'.lllIoL.ldi!h Zl "'. ~i~~~ t;j~i ;;11111' " .. <@>tt>%>~<&~<ll><U~<ll>~~ .(~I ~..... Bg I ~ ~ .1 I I II!" I 11 i . I g . Iii ! ~ ..J i '7 I }. I ~~I.gllniJl!~~'>"~i.j! !lil~!,.hllilili!!ll!n II!! .~~~ ~ ,.1 ~g~J ~! Ill! II Ii I ~!~ ii!i Iii Ii ! ill ill I! !I~ Ii! ! I! III:, !l, Ii II !I! !il;'! i!! ill !lll!l ~ ~ I 5! D ~ III ~ \1 hi ~ 'dlll"~" I I " , '''' IHIi , ill..!! !., , , ~ I ,... . ~ '4> a ~ ! II , , ., ",.,. 0<&<6>00>0<S>0<@>~<@><$' ~ -.,,- .':. .~~. ~~. - <@> 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 ~~ "'= -,., ;;1<;: ~~ N~ ...= ~~ 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 Item No.: ;).... Meeting Date: 4/24/07 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRC-06-33) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC- 06-025). RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY- OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 15-06-007, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRC-06-33) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC- 06-025), TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A HOME DEPOT STORE AND PERMIT PERMANENT OUTSIDE SALES AND DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE, LOCATED AT 1030 THIRD AVE. (HOME DEPOT USA I CORPORATED). SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDI REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ;;1 4/5THS VOTE: YES CJ NO o BACKGROUND The Applicant, the Home Depot USA Incorporated, has filed the following Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit applications: (1) Design Review Permit DRC-06-33 is a request for the demolition of the former K-mart store structure and former restaurant building on the site and construction of a 97,396 sq. ft. retail building and associated garden center, 649 space parking lot, and Project signage including wall and free-standing signage (see Attachment 2, Site plan). (2) Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-25 is a request for outside sales and display of merchandise to identify and authorize the type of items that can be sold and displayed outdoors, and to ensure that certain items specifically prohibited by the CVMC code are not sold or displayed outside. In May of 2004, the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Area was created, which expanded the City's Redevelopment Area to include the Proiect site. Because the Project site is in a Redevelopment area, approval of a Design Review Permit and a Conditional Use Permit by the Redevelopment Agency is required. As of January 2006, all 2-1 " Date, Item No.: <::. Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 2 of 13 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. Applications for this Project were submitted prior to the creation and operation of the RAC and CYRC, and have been presented to the DRC and Planning Commission 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 planning/environmental process. Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Home Depot Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, 15-06-007 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the overall Home Depot 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15- 06-007 (MND). During the 30-day public review period for the MND, written comment letters were received from the public, including the Environmental Health Coalition and Theresa Acerro. The comment letters raised issues related to impacts, including but not limited to, Air Quality, Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics, and Traffic. These comments are addressed in the attached Final MND (Refer to MND Attachment, the Responses to Comments, Attachment 7). Additional environmental comments were received subsequent to the 30-day MND review period. These comments have been addressed in "Additional Environmental Comments" (Attachment 11) of this report. The Design Review Committee and Planning Commission considered the MND and both recommend that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-06-007 (Attachment 7, MND). See the Boards and Commissions Recommendations section below for the specific action. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: A neighborhood meeting was held August 24, 2006 to introduce the Project, and obtain public comments and input. Staff from the Planning and Building Department and representatives of the Home Depot made presentations at the meeting. The meeting drew 10 individuals, including local residents, business owners, the Environmental Health 2-2 Date, Item No.: IL Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 3 of 13 Coalition and other interest groups. The following are some of the concerns expressed by the attendees: 1. Diesel fuel emisSions and noise from trucks would impact residents west of the Project site, some of which included town homes lacated 5 feet from the property line. A suggestion was made to relocate principal loading area from the southwest side to the south side of the building, and to relocate the lumber off-loading area from the northwest side to the east side of the building. Staff Response: An Air Quality Report was prepared, which addressed the issue of diesel fuel vehicle emissions. As outlined in the attached MND, the Project operation will not result in adverse air quality impacts. Air quality impacts associated with construction activities will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Please refer to the Analysis section for a more detailed discussion of building placement and loading areas. Further, the Applicant has prepared alternative designs for the building footprint in response to these comments, which are in included as Attachment 3, and discussed in the Analysis section on page 9. 2. Noise impacts to residents to the east across Third Ave, and north across Moss Street are likely, given the experience of noise impacts from the previous K-Mart operations. Staff Response: A Noise Report was prepared, which addressed the issue of potential noise impacts. As outlined in the attached MND, all noise impacts will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. 3. The traffic study estimates truck trips serving the Project to be a maximum of 30 per day (Mon-Fri.) and 4 per day on weekends. A concern was expressed that this number is too low, since the number does not include customers or sub- contractors. Staff Response: The traffic study addressed Home Depot company truck trips and assumed sub-contractor truck trips were to be 5-7% of the all truck trips (30 per day (Mon-Fri.) and 4 per day on weekends). Customer truck trips are not included in this estimate. The issue was addressed in more detail in the Air Quality Report, and discussed in "Additional Environmental Comments", Attachment 11, page 17. 4. Concern that Home Depot may not comply with restriction of truck delivery hours of operation from 10 pm to 7 am on weekdays and 10 pm to 8 am on weekends. 2-3 Date, Item No.: /], Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 4 of 13 Staff Response: Home Depot is required to comply with a limitation on truck deliveries of Mondays-Fridays from 7 am -10 pm, and Saturday-Sunday from 8 am-'O pm, pursuant to the restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance (Performance Standards and Noise Control, CVMC 19.68), and the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. 5. Concern regarding effect of a Home Depot on surrounding property values. Staff Response: Staff has not received information to substantiate this. The representative for the Home Depot stated at the meeting that they have studied the effects of their stores on property values and found that no adverse effect on property values occurs as a result of construction of a new Home Depot store. 6. Business owners and residents would like to see more high quality redevelopment Projects such as Home Depot in their neighborhood. Increased vacancies like Ralph's and K-Mart are contributing to crime in the area. Home Depot would help bring mare jobs and improve the image of the neighborhood. Staff Response: Comment noted, with staff in concurrence, regarding the potential benefit of development of a new Home Depot store in this neighborhood. The site is located in the Added Area of the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency conduct a public hearing and adopt the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-06-007, approving DRC-06-033, and PCC-06-025, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION On December 4, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 5- '-0- 1 to find that Initial Study IS-06-007 for the Project was adequate, and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007 (See Attachment' 0, Resource Conservation Commission Minutes). On March '9, 2007, the Design Review Committee voted 5-0-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve Design Review Permit DRC-06-033 and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007. 2-4 Date, Item No.: ::.. Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 5 of 13 On March 21, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the PCC-06-025, and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007. DISCUSSION PROPOSAL Design Review Permit: The Project proposes demolition of the existing K-mart store and restaurant and construction of a 97, 396 sq. ft. retail building with attached 31, 647 sq. ft. garden center. Also depicted on the plans are a 649-space parking lot, and a sign plan to include wall and freestanding signs. A Seasonal Garden Area is depicted in the parking lot in front of the Outdoor Garden Center, which would be used for temporary sales such as Christmas trees. The CVMC requires the Applicant to obtain approval of a separate Temporary Outside Sales permit by the Planning & Building Department to conduct each temporary outdoor sale. Conditional Use Permit: The Applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit for permanent outside sales and display, pursuant to CVMC Section 19.58.370. Permanent outside sales and display areas are delineated on the plans as "Sidewalk Display", and will be partially enclosed by trellises, and single-story roof elements. The allowed outdoor display areas will be demarcated by stomped concrete. There ore five proposed areas for outdoor display located along the front (east side) of the building, adjacent to the customer entries, and labeled on the plans (see Attachment 2, Site Plan). The Applicant is proposing to permanently display four different categories of merchandise outdoors. These categories include Building Materials, Outdoor Equipment, Outdoor Furniture and Storage Units, and Live Goods (plants)/Landscape Supplies. These areas are specified on the Project plans and discussed in the CUP section of the report below. PROJECT SETTING The Project site is 11.1 O-acres in size. It is located on 1030 Third Avenue, with frontage on both Third Avenue and Moss Street in southwestern Chula Vista (see attached locator map). The site is adjacent to the existing Rolly's Burgers located on the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Moss Street. The Rolly's Burgers site is not 0 port of the Project. The subject parcel is currently occupied by vacant K-Mart and restaurant buildings (see Attachment 7, Demolition plan). To the south is a vacant grocery store. To the east, 2-5 Date, Item No.: 2- Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Poge 6 of 13 across Third Avenue are smaller commercial businesses. To the north across Moss Street are commercial, office and multi-family uses. To the west are multi -family residential uses. LAND USE The Project site has a General Plan designation of Commercial Retail. The General Plan designation for the site was not amended during the General Plan Update in 2005. The proposed retail use is in compliance with the General Plan. The site is zoned Central Commercial (CC). The purpose of the Central Commercial (CC) zone is to stabilize and improve the commercial characteristics of major community business centers. Retail commercial uses such as Home Depot are permitted in the Central Commercial zone upon approval of a Design Review Permit. The Project is consistent with and implements the intent of the CC zone. ANALYSIS - DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT: ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Primary access to the site is from Third Avenue, which is classified as a 4-lane Class I Collector street. Secondary access is from Moss Street, which is classified as a 2-lane Class II Collector street. The site will be served by two driveways from Third Street and two driveways from Moss Street. Moss Street is not a truck route, however the Applicant does have the right to utilize Moss Street as access to the nearest adjacent truck route, which is Third Avenue. In addition, the Applicant will provide two, 5-foot wide pedestrian paths adjacent to the centrally located entry driveways connecting the site to Third Avenue and Moss Street. A traffic study was prepared for the Project by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated April 19, 2006. The study used generation and vehicle rates based on existing Home Depot stores in Chula Vista. The study analyzed the existing traffic conditions for the adjacent and surrounding streets, and also studied these streets with the addition of the Project traffic. The Project traffic study found that intersections would operate at level of service C or better at peak hours, in accordance with City standards. Therefore, the Proiect will not significantly impact traffic in the neighborhood. Trucks deliveries have been estimated at a maximum of 30 trips per day during the weekdays, Monday through Friday, and 4 trips per day on weekends, averaging of 115 and maximum of 158 trips per week. Delivery trucks will access the site using the northwesterly driveway access from Moss Street to approach the loading docks at the rear of the site, and exit via the southeasterly driveway to Third Avenue. Deliveries will be limited to the hours of Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, and Sat.-Sun. 8:00 am- 10 pm consistent with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. Permanent truck parking is 2-6 Date, Item No.: 2- Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 7 of 13 not proposed along the western property line. In order to reduce the number of trucks using the Moss Street driveway, the Applicant has proposed adding a truck turnaround adjacent to the main loading dock, which will improve truck access into and out of the site via the Third Street driveway. PARKING The Project proposes 649 parking spaces (consistent with required parking) generally located on the east side of the lot between the building and Third Avenue. There are three loading spaces at the primary loading dock, and one 10ft. by 25 ft. loading space at the lumber off-loading area. The parking lot has been re-designed to eliminate one of the three existing driveway entries to Third Avenue, which is presently adjacent and parallel to the Rally's street driveway exit. At the request of Chula Vista Transit, the Applicant will incorporate a bus stop into the Third Street frontage at this location. NOISE WALL The Applicant prepared a noise report for the Project. One of the mitigation measures recommended by the report is the construction of noise attenuation walls along the western property line. A noise wall ranging from 9 feet along most of the western property line, to 15-ft high adjacent to the lumber loading area, is proposed. The sound wall will be baffled to include material that absorbs, rather than deflects sound. This wall can also be planted with vines to soften its appearance. Per the CVMC Fence and Wall Regulations, zoning wall heights of up to 9 feet in rear and side yard setback areas may be utilized in a situation where commercial or industrial zones abut residential zones. The DRC recommended that the wall be stepped down from 15 feet to 12 feet to 9 feet, northerly of the proposed 15-foot portion of the wall, to provide better noise attenuation and design. In response, the Applicant has proposed to go beyond what the DRC recommended, to provide an extension of the 15 foot wall for a distance of 18 feet to the south and 9 feet to the north. It is important to note that the increase in height for these portions of the wall is proposed to better screen neighboring properties to the west, but does not constitute new mitigation measures for identified noise impacts. Parking will be re-designed so that the minimum required parking would be provided (see revised wall detail, Attachment 13). Staff recommends conditions of approval requiring submittal of revised wall plans and a revised site plan showing these changes. LANDSCAPING The perimeter of the site, including the street frontages, the southerly and westerly edges of the site, and the parking lot, will be well landscaped with a mixture of trees and shrubs. The landscape design is intended to enhance the appearance of the street frontage and break up views of the storefront. Landscaping will also be utilized to soften the appearance of sound walls and the building facade. The pedestrian accesses to the site from Third Avenue and Moss Street will be well landscaped. 2-7 Date, Item No.: 2. Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 8 of 13 On the Project site, there will be a 9.foot wide, 2: 1 sloped landscape buffer adjacent to the properties to the west. This buffer will create an opportunity for landscaping that will screen the main loading area to the west, as well as soften the appearance of the sound wall. The Design Review Committee recommended that the landscape plan be conditioned to require columnar.shaped specimen trees, and larger and heartier shrubs in the landscape buffer area (See Attachment 5, Wall sections). BUILDING PLACEMENT The Project proposes one large building with an attached outdoor garden center, located at the rear of the lot, set back approximately 348 feet from Third Ave, 96 feet from Moss Street, and 60 feet from the multi.family residential area to the west (see Site Plan, Attachment 2). The building has three customer entries on the east side of the building facing Third Ave, with the primary entry in the center. The primary loading/receiving area is on the southwest side of the building, and the lumber off.loading area is at the northwest side of the building (see Site Plan, Attachment 2). At the above-mentioned neighborhood meeting, area residents in attendance raised concern about the location of the building and the loading/unloading areas, which are adjacent to the westerly multifamily residential area (see Locator Map). The concern is primarily noise and air pollution. Staff worked with the Applicant to research the possibility of having a different site design arrangement. Two alternatives where analyzed by the Applicant: . The first alternative places the building along the south side of the property with customer parking on the north side of the building and loading and unloading facilities on the south side (see Attachment 3, Alternative Site Plans). Under this arrangement the loading/unloading docks face west toward the multifamily residential area. Although this alternative appears feasible, delivery trucks would enter the site on Third Avenue and exit along the west property line to Moss Street, in reverse of the proposed plan. In staWs opinion the issue of noise and air pollution still exist under this scenario, with the added issue of parking lighting and customer activity noise towards the north. This plan also makes Moss Street a more attractive ingress and egress route for customers and delivery trucks. It will also make shared access with the store to the south more difficult. The proposed building orientation would block the visibility of this market from Third Avenue. In steWs opinion, this alternative does not represent a better site design solution to mitigate the issues raised. . The second alternative places the rear side of the building along Third Avenue with the parking lot on the west side, adjacent to the residential area (see Attachment 3, Alternative site plans). Under this alternative the loading and 2-8 Date, Item No.: '2. Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 9 of 13 unloading facilities are located along Third Avenue, requiring 9 ft high wall along the entire length of the building frontage to screen the loading facility from public view. The parking and customer entrance to the store is on the west side facing the residential area and primary access to the site is form Moss Street. Based on the store operational parameters, customer needs and overall relationship to the westerly adjacent residential area and major street, this particular alternative, in staff's opinion, would be detrimental to the Third Avenue street scene and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Further alternatives are precluded by an existing public storm drain easement running diagonally across the southeast corner of the site that must remain clear of obstructions. Based on the building functions, the proposed noise wall and landscaping, the internal floor plan, loading and unloading facilities and customer loading needs, the proposed site design offers a better alternative for its size and shape and operational needs. LOADING The site has been designed so that proposed loading areas have separate access from the main public access, as suggested by the City of Chula Vista Design Manual, Commercial chapter, Loading design guidelines page 111-7. The main loading area facility is located behind the building to the west, away from public view and screened by a combination of 12-foot high wing walls, the noise wall, and landscaping. It is approximately 125 feet from the nearest adjocent off-site apartment building. The lumber loading area is screened from the adjacent condominiums by the 15 ft. high freestanding noise wall and landscaping. The loading area is approximately 65 feet from the condominiums to the west. From Moss Street to the north, the lumber loading area will be screened by a 6 ft high freestanding wall and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer at the property line. In addition, the existing driveway has been shifted 56 feet to the east to avoid direct line of sight down the rear access driveway. SITE CONTROL PLAN The Home Depot will operate the store in compliance with a Site Control Plan, which specifies the operating requirements for the store (see Attachment 4). The Site Control Plan is a requirement of the Home Depot USA Inc. The plan will include applicable requirements of the MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Conditional Use Permit, applicable building codes and CVMC requirements. The plan will clearly state these operational restrictions, and be posted at the manager's office, every loading dock and public building entry, so that employees and management will know and operate under the restrictions. A condition of approval has been proposed to require that the plan 2-9 Date, Item No.: 2. Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 10 of 13 be approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of the Building Permit. ARC H ITECTU RE The Design Review Committee has reviewed and approved the proposed site plans and elevations and recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed design, and staff supports the recommendation of the Committee. SIGNAGE The existing K-Mart pylon sign will be replaced with a single 14 ft. lOin. x 13 ft. internally illuminated monument sign at the main driveway entry on Third Ave. The sign is designed with a color scheme and materials that match the architecture of the main building. The Applicant has proposed wall signs on the Third Avenue and Moss Street frontages. The signage complies with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (See elevations, Attachment 2). ANALYSIS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In recommending approval of the requested CUP to the Redevelopment Agency, staff relies on the following points: An important part of the Home Depot business is outside sales adjacent to the store entries. Municipal Code Section 19.58.370.A1 (see Attachment 9, CYMC 19.58.370) describes certain items that are permitted subject to approval of a site plan, including (but not limited to) flowers, plants, model storage buildings, patios, and additions, but goes on to include subsection i., which states "Any other item which is determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character"; and subsection j., which states "Any other item specifically approved by the Planning Commission to be displayed in an area specifically designed for said merchandise". The items that the Applicant proposes for outside sales and display are as follows: Building Material display: . Plywood, fence panels, landscape timbers, sheetrock, masonry Projects, roofing, and bulk lumber. Outdoor equipment display: . A grill display, lawn tractor display, power mower display, and wheelbarrow display. 2-10 Date, Item No.: 2 Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 11 of 13 Outdoor furniture display and storage unit display: . A picnic table display, outdoor table and bench display, hammocks, glider and parch swing display Live goods and landscape supplies: . Seasonal flowers, Seasonal vegetables, and small trees. Outdoor displays may sit on the ground, on racks, or on shelves, depending on the item. The types of displays include freestanding displays of outdoor equipment, such as grills, low rolling carts for items such as gazebos, stepped platforms for items such as fencing, displays of flowers and plants on racks, shelves or planter blocks, and special display racks provided by the manufacturer for items such as stone tile, solar panels and roof tiles. Staff has reviewed the proposed items and found that certain items that are proposed by the Applicant for outside sales and display are permitted by the code. These include flowers, plants, and model storage buildings. All the remaining items specified on the plans and referenced in the Project Description above, including the Building Materials, Outdoor equipment, Outdoor furniture categories, must be approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Staff recommends that these items be approved as well, with one exception noted below. The Applicant has proposed outside sales and display of bulk lumber. Although not expressly prohibited by the code, staff is concerned that there is potential that outside sales and display of bulk items such as lumber will be so large as to be difficult to manage, requiring use of forklifts for everyday operations. Large bulk displays may also be out of scale with the setting, so as to be visually unattractive. Staff recommends a condition of approval that these be limited to displays of typical samples of lumber. Because any merchandise to be sold and displayed outdoors must be expressly permitted by the Redevelopment Agency, these items are listed on the site plan. Any change in the type of merchandise to be displayed will require approval of a modification to the Conditional Use Permit by either the Redevelopment Agency, if it is a significant change, or where appropriate, the Zoning Administrator. The intent behind Zoning Administrator action is to enable minor changes to the products or display areas to be made administratively, without necessity for a public hearing. AESTHETICS One of the major issues regarding outside sales and display is aesthetics. In staff's opinion, views of large quantities of products, or product displays that are out of scale with their setting, are not attractive. In response, the Home Depot has proposed architectural elements to break up views of the outdoor sales and display areas, such as trellises, single-story roof elements with columns, and landscaping at the far ends (north 2-11 " Date, Item No.: Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 12 of 13 and south) of the building frontage, to help break up the side view of these storage areas (see Attachment 8, Outside Sales and Display Detail). SAFETY Another potential issue is safety of pedestrians and vehicles. Outdoor displays should be kept out of driveways and pedestrian paths, and should not obstruct sight visibility for driveways. In response, the pedestrian paths have been noted on the plans, and the outdoor display areas have been sited so that they do not obstruct pedestrian access or visibility. A condition of approval is included that will ensure that outside storage and display will not exceed areas delineated by enhanced paving or obstruct sidewalks and entries. CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DESIGN MANUAL The Project as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) , including the development standards of the CC zone, the Design Manual, and Landscape Manual. CONCLUSION For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-06-007, Design Review Permit DRC-06-33, and Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-02S, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Agency Members and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts from the preparation of this report and the processing of the Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit. All costs are covered by the deposit accounts. 2-12 ATTACHMENTS 1 Locator Map 2 Site Plan /Elevations 3 Alternative Site Plans 4 Site Control Plan 5 Woll Sections 6 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 Demolition Plan 8 Outside Soles and Display Detail 9 CVMC Section 19.58.370 10 12/04/06-Minutes of Resource Conservation Commission 11 Additional Public Comments on the Environmental Document 12 Public Correspondence 13. Revised noise/screening wall detail 14. Ownership Disclosure Statement Date, Item No.: '2. Meeting Date: 4/24/07 Page 13 of 13 Prepared by: Richard Zumwalt. Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department J: IPlanning\casefiles\fy06-07\DRC\publichearing\D RC-06- 3 3\staffreport.HomeDepot- RD A.doc 2-13 . . I " , ~ ., " , Rice Elementarv School ., r. C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT LOCATOR PROJECT Home Depot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: Miscellaneous PROJECT 1030 Third Av Proposal replacement of currently existing 118,660 sq.ft. K Mart ADDRESS: and 10,606 sq.ft. Restaurant with 97,396 sq.ft. Home Depot SCALE: FILE NUMBER: retail building and 31,647 sq.ft. Garden center. NORTH No Scale PCC-06-025 Related cases: DRC.06.033, IS.Q6.Q07 Z., 14 J.\plannlng\carlos\locators\pcc06025.cdr 01.17.06 A~rt, 'A' _.^~ ,\ b L!) .- 'f 'T Hllll! !!I~!I! ! I' H ~~ ~ ;:;;l'!~ ". < ~ " lIi;:)~~- i;~ ~i ;!;:!. ;!:~ l ,j ~ . 0 , " . ~~ , (') ,. :~ . H ~~-'~ 0 ~~ " ' ~~ ~~i~ a Ii ~ - I I !l I ~!i L Ill! I ss " .0 I jl! ! II! I m <l: ~~ ~ Illq I Jill I hil IllJliH i! ! fl u Ii l,U', d! Ii'l' 'I ',' . I' -.!,' '!1 I 'i8. ~I <IIi I ',' ~ ~ g 0::: :~U ~ ~.1 0 -J., I ',~. i~" ; 0l!S -I 1 illl . II :'I! Hlj., .. > ,a.. 1 I' I h , 1,,11, ~ ~ ~ ;..1. ::J l~~.l" "_~~~15 1:3 '" ~ <.\:;; U t :; I~~ ! ~~!~~ t ~ j I ~ : z <( ...J (j~ 0- .{i!; 0::: tii~ 0 >~ 0 :5ffi .....J ~EU. r< ~ u - UJ f- Ui , I I -""U ---jj - ~ ~ " , , o o , '/1'- I I II f ~ "11 Ill" I f! . ~ I It . 'Ih" 11,1 1(1 .- ~ iI,~ ~ lid} 1_ I 'I l~ is lilh C"III h ~ !:'~{i - {IJ Ii P .j 0 ., ~ l'lIll III hlil.1 ~!l ~ fi!!ii! !1l!1!lf!' !. 0 Ii! ~3 ~~ n~~ al'o~g_, . i:5 u ":l.... "=:'i" ~,.3 01;;;': ~ 1Jt lit 1::::I~ '::':1 <'Si5....c::O:::""ifli3 1.0-1 ~ i [~J , I I =: =110 J. I I~ ~~ d .- ~ " , > o u =, =, -, =, =, -, 1I1~~~ ~~ . .. ~~ 2-15 @ In ~ Q) E Q) ..c II (fJ I. c " C1l '! D.. f. ~ ;', Q) " ''',ll +-' III jh (7j ] ~I~U @ ATTAoV{1 M~N'-- 'A ~-- ~~.: ~:"'..,. ._~"" ~:::- _....~ 'I.?=~ ~-;:=_ . ....- . ::;;:-: -, .~.... ."., 1lIlII. . ~ff~ ::ff::' ....,. ~ , " " , ~~~ :::::.:."::..':,... ~~,,-,~ - =-=-" 1 FRONT ELEVATION '~ . :::n '-' "no ~n "~~, -)b~ -- - ::', 2 REAR ELEVATION .....--..." ---~ - ~ ~ ~",.,,, _ ., ""'. J ::~::~t _:," ....'. . . ~ .~.....~ 4 RIGHT ELEVATION :::;=-''::..:~.. N I ~ en 3 LEFT ELEVATION ~ ~ ,..... .. . m .. ::::, " ...... LEGEND' l.WALLPANElS,PAlNTTOMATCH:ICI.1JO"PALMSPRINGSTAN" 2. WALL PANElS,PAlNTTD MATCH: IClf07Q "TUSKTlJSK" 3.ACCENTOETAllS,PAINTTOMATCH:ICI#651"ORANGERY" 4. NOT USED 5. WALL PANELS, PAINT TO MATCH: ICI .127 "MANIUA TAN" 6. STONE VENEER 'VIEATHEREOOE lEOGESTONE: WISCONSIN" BY CULTURED STONE 7,CANVAS,"HOMEOEPOTORANGE" 6.WALLPANELS,PAJNTTOMATCH:ICI#316 "CLAY POT" 9. FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILES, COLOR: "BLACK" West Coast Support Center 3800 West Chapman Orange, CA92868 Tel: (714)940-3500 '1J'I:B:]l I::B::IlllJI]: J:L1::D:lJW SWC Moss Sl. & Third Ave. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA mi THE H.OME DEPOT SWCTbirQJ"o,..,o@ -" Jr.. ChulaVlsta,CA CA-HD03-K.5 Z g~llVSSOCIAlFS =~-_.'lI;I'It::.: ProjeClSummary: ~- _eo..._ 1'05.,...Q11.1'"" "i:="""'"' lj,;~:~ ,~:: --""""'-- """""''''''"' ThO_Po,,", v.._ "'-<)onlo,c...., Ttt;>T"""""" 05,"'" ',>61" "..... ':>9,1"" ..........."""" ................... -......"""'11....'.- _""-@.JII'.ooo 'foO'...._ ----I""''''''' '''''''......-... :;- ~ ~- _TOOOI_ --'_Inol'~ T""'._"........ .-- "..,... ~ .~:= ",..... .1..... ::.~ 14'.... ""'" """.000" ......CIoo_""" """'""' cCPC"",'''''''''''''''' __ cc.oCo'""~"," _-""I",.~.., C....."'..,CA"." "'........P-- ::=':~O:="""I->O ......................., -- il$OOW,~_ ~,CA"'" ConIo... -"""'_ -- '-'.7""0_01""""-"'\ 01............,01..._...._ .........5M._...,"'11,'980~...""1 ~'~~:;".,C""O,oIs.n'"""" ProjeclNo,: PlolScale: 1".40'.0- 1.."aDe'a: February2B,2007 Prep.redSV' \'SP 5. D. G.: JoI1nHan:;ej1 R.E.Marlager; GaorgeR.y CUP & DR REECNama' CHULA VISTA, CA (KmartTakeDver) ELEVATIONS " l() !I l' HT I'I!~ m~i~ ! II I 'IB . ~ ~ "! i Z 0 ~ 2~ ~ 5~~~ i~!:2 I ~ ' · c:: ". < I I;lt 5~ <( ~!h 0 , n \III ~ ~ II . lj! no "--' ~i 0; C') II ::':.5.. ;::" ~ a... OL5 0 i " . ~s ~ . ~ d O/S ~~ I . ,I !l II . I i II" ~'F w~ ~~i~ 0 I LI . .111 i" a. 5~ 0:: " " I ,I I .! I, I "11' h'l ~~ 0 "" 0 ft ,p~ I >',1 I I i Ih!, .!jli1i :::> <l: "I! I ~ I hill!, I . j;l}. 11111,. ! ! ti U 6~O U II I Hi, Ill' .111'il II ,'ii, i L 1 I 'Hill. ii,!l ci --' . LL --I , II --I r I --, I, _-Ii I I r I 1 I , --I I --I ~ -ii1 :1 Ii H ~ ' Ii _~J , r C ell 0.. " ... o o u.. ell ::l ... 0- Q) (J c o ~ U ~ ~ I 1 I i 1 ii 1 Ii 1 I, , 1 , 1 --.._~..-<,,---_...----_...~ _,,-:t.,::: 2-17 Ii L() [blill <( ~ ~ ~ u. . :d ~ C"') ~~oj~ 0 ~~j6 ~ ~~ ,-, * O-LI O"if " 00 @J -, !! 8 ,. i I !I II '1-' n~. :11 ;:: ~iij ~ .. ill ~"'~ I(i i~. - II t I I. '1-- .' I II- ",:!! lllll i ,. ilHil ~ , 0 I ~ 1l~!11 !!~!~ I II l! h-t1 _Ii j M l li;li. I !ilj I I "Illll llpll,! ,--I . ili'il i,h'il i i I 'Ii , I hit " 'j- ;'jl- ,d II ,Ill i,li II "j"l- !'jl_'I_ ~ !! ~~ ~ . III i!"'!" ", l. l "HhH!~iH ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ 00 ~::: ,:O:::U @ i i: ! !~!ji : , ,,--:---:-61-.c1'-1- . "'" '<(Iln' I : ! ! ! ! : is! ! ! ~ E> E> E> e ~ E> E> E> e ~ E> E> E> e ~ ., , ~ E> E> E> e E> ~ E> E> e ~ E> e E> E> 00 E> 2-18 0:: o 06 ll., ::l; U; ~ ~z . <: . -' . (L ~ LL 1ij 0 EO >S~ }. !~ r~ ';~Ji !'j " -1m ~~H c C\l 0- .... o o a::: C\l :J - D- ID II C __ o " U~ ~ i :\ li!., Ii ! II l! I;! ' I 1I1nl. II I I Iii II PI ! , 'I 11l:1 J J II ,( ~ .. I mIll II'i ~ .. C" ::1:1 :1::1:1; (I... ,.;,...11 "'$ iJ:!i;!! ;li '!I!:!;,!t;, ~ ~ti .. '... i ~. .0 ,~~I~ n~n~~~~'" b b . ~,. I I::;: ::::::::: i ':;';:ill- 1(1 :t ill: ullil!!! I 1.1111 j!! ! I illll I il!lIllll.lilliill! I ! ,~'bj@<l.j. I 11:11 l. 13~$O~ r-t~'" I ~ ! ~U~ "'1 Ill, !"l! .Ill! mil mmm 11I11111I mmm IUU tit! 111111111 "- .. ::; ~ '" N . ~ , l I .. 1,.)11 ). .'. ....f.g 1;1 j ., ."l,f ~ i~ t i-o !I~~; !i~I'I' lid.! ;~il!!l 'I' !,II' SJ'!; o i . " -- I . I .:.t.. ~ 33<; 3N11H?1 \11-< L-l G€ l33HS ~ - ~ II ~ II ! ~Iill ;U !d iI 8 0 il! I III I~! it ag ., $j,li ~~Ii 0' ~i o z w I'J w --' >- ~ I ([ J~ ~ "- r I o --' :u I w " :r ~~ ~ lj ,1" ... .!! p_~.!l~ ~ J ~ ", ,- '. " II" I ~l! ! i~I'!' IlIl.! ,1111' "!~I! 8 !!r ~':, i: '#' ~;!i "i , ....---- o.:.:.;e3i::€"- -..---...- ~ 10' . C I ~ .... ~ I UJ :~ot ~ ~}10/03 ~ 1: I II \"""" LOT UIE ( 10 ~ #lWST[O) :iT l : LUMBER . SlcewAU<.~.PLAY I VESTIBULE r:i..~~~ 1.012 sa FT ~~~~ ~\ ------- -""'"" CUSTOMER P ., AU< SCREE ED BUILDI G MATERI S/ WILL C LL AREA 2,261 sf T.R.C. D MATERIALS S89Sf - 1\ I \ \ -I """""' -..... I "'s- MATC~LINE eEE e~EET 39 <L-1J . H..I . . _-":I~fUl .......... " WI AD PR 140'-0' I I I I I I I I I I I I , --... _1CCfM.".O KEY UAP e. --L-ll -'=" . ~ . ;;-"-/-.-.' eEE ef.iEET L-1 FOR FLANT LEGEND I t;lRBJ:AI=-. .,.:EJfE I - tn'YOf etll.A.A VISTA _Dl'......hT_k. ~...--';:HEHouE DEPOT 080:0.... , ~ ~ - ~ . .. --. - .-- "'- r-r- t 11<1 12' J t. r(-~~__- , '0""'. 182'-4. I OUTD OR GARDEN ENTER : 1,836 sf : I I I I I I I I I \IlNE:SONlIOTH ....,,""'" , ~ / i. /' -- .- H.,' . _':::C"-"'1I::t.:f-:=~-':u,_-':-._.-.J -- -- -- gw,cc:-..:;..rm 'i The Home Del) Iii 95,642 sf 'I ~ 95K-Rec-32GC-Side-Ritj IIJ Prototype:95REC-32K-Side q" !JI I :II '.i. U ENTRYIEXlT :t VESTIBULII I: 1,255 sa Ff . ~ ~04'-~ Tra&h Compactor 32'-8. 'r;;ro" Enclosed Recycling Area to Indude CardbOard Bales and Pallets w/6'CMUWalts& 10' H Malal Roof Abova ~ ill SIOEW:SPlAY SEEDEr. A. FOR MORE INFO :nON _IL-_._ -, MATCj.jLINE 5EE 5I-lEET 40 (L-a) . , 'is'' 43t I ~ I ~ - :=;.'U;"::::':c:;=::- ....~....:-=~:::........ 00_.LO. CUI. -'-"-~ ..... .-- - . 5EE 5I-lEET L-' FOR PLANT LEGEND - . "'....... Io;IItuOI.II ~ L-X) ~ I [J~a~I~~ I CfTYOflClfUlAV1trA -- -- THE HOME OE,.OT J' I W.. All 110 It.., ......... ,. , '" , -..,. , '::0 ~ \. ~ ~--, to..;.. b I '.>:' (0, " '00lVASllAClC" lei #458 "atllmGlO' Ia #2Il8 , 12'-0' , ~3'-O" " , SIGN SPEClflCATIONS: @ INlERNAllY lU.Ul.lllIAiED AUllIlliUII FAIlRICAiED SIGN CNlINET PAINTED TO WITCH SITE CONSiRUCIlON. SEE SIGN PROGI!N.I fOR SPEClflCATIONS fB\ CENTER to. ILl.UIIINATION TO BE FWORESCENTI.N.lP5. SEE SIGN PROGI!N.I FOR \!:V Sl'EClFlCATIONS @ PAINT WlIH A TEX-coTE FllllStl. COlORS TO WATCH SItE CONSlllUCllOH @ i" FlATCIJT OUT BlACK PlEXl1JI!RS SURFACE lIOIJN1E)TO IolONlJt.IENT CO STONE VENEER TO WITCH CENTER "I'/(ATHEREllGt 1.ElICESTONE:WlSCONSIN' BY CULTURED STeNE 2-23 A--7I. ''Z / X> '0. ~X )<)<(Q< ~ ><>OX XI )(X, )<)< ><x .y:)Q x .yy.y. Y\ (\ )<>00< v x^.>< R ~ ? y<~ )<~ ",,,.><Y ~ .(>Q:;V?\ ~ x X .J<y ">f'0" "..)<, x X?< 'Vx '>< x; Q<x ?:xv X; ~ X< Y' >QO< XV X,( ~Y' '><~>>;XX< vV >Q<x xx xp ~ "x Y ~ 'h, >0Q< x x;p y<X )< >>?\ 2"> (Q< Ix ~ Q< '><~ ~ XX ~ r V /'>< POST CAP MALLEABLE IRON DOME SHAPE FASTENED WITH TWO STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS 180 DEG. APA END CLAMPS TENSION BAR BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK / PANEL POST SURFACE RESTING POST BASE (UN-ATTACHED TO SURFACE) ><Q< y(' ;:; (\ Z N >> .)<.)Y ^x"" x ~ & ~ N< V><><:> 000 0~ ">(>< x. '>)0 (\ ^x xV ^x ~ * """X)(:x Yx v ^J<>. " ~ 9: y .,;<, x x 0; ^x: ><x x<< 0^ ~ AV\6 ~ x xX><>< (><X>Q< Qy x @ 61_0" " REMOVABLE CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYP.) Scale: NTS CUP & DR CHULA VISTA, CA (KmartTakeover) \.' RT \- ., -d ~ ""- -" .~ ~ .- -. '<t N I N i , " , f~: \ ~ ~J \ 3:"", :t1: - ~ s ~ I"~ _1:;[1 ~ -\ -/ '~' W ~ ~ t -- , I'.)! I' 1'.): 0'1, O ~ 1'1'11; II: I' , Ii' 1'llltOO I ! : I' -t-- --- nr --I" --t - uf- -tl--tj- -t---I- '[ 'i-" .-. !-.,)., "'I" ~ n :" I'll 11'1' 1:"11111100 I II n U, I,,j I1II I: I ~ 11111 I I U Gttti-tttH~tttmt~H I~ [}tHIHIHIIHIH~HIHH~1 HI r~ '<'1'<':' , 1 , 'lJ 111I 00 1'111 n ;'1,1, ,;", 'ITlrITrTr~lllrITrITITTrU 1ttttH1tttttH8tftJ+ttml+H+D'~'-' ,~ I. I ' w, ~'"_,,,',' UJ . ~ . . t;; I' J ~ (J) ,',',,"',"" c.o ,;;;;," ~-~ - " I .-J l ~ j " : ] I ~> --- f- r'ld . I, r 'i_t, ] i I 'I -rri -1- =11 I '-n" ) --- -, ,~.'! n I ~~ ~\ :1 ", ~ ~i1 ;? ?! -\ '\Ii C<:f ,,'i 1i ~,\ i'i,i -\ w- (\ \) -'0 ::1 C" 't ~ CAR AND TRUCK CIRCULATION PATH CONFLICT II !I II I I " \i j ~, " C Z;; '1,.-"'-> - III," I'f''''': h~.' ,[\,,1",1,,',.-',",8, I / ';, , '"f=d--n-..:, UJ I I CAR AND TRUCK CIRCULATION PATH CONFLICT L \ -~\;\ \."- , ~Dn nr i-"~~,,) __' nt~OM~~~L I I I il ~ ISSUE DATE OO/OOROO] Operating Restrictions Site Plan for Home Depot Store # 1849, 3rd & Moss Street, Chula Vista, CA EMPLOYEE PARKING EmplO)'eE5 are rnqLJired 10 park on,.lle. Nooll..sne parking ISp"rmIIl<>d !~ ~ \'-J ~ :t ~ f 'l:: CITY OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS O"'"""~ from the f'\'bl~; approval pmcass lor" Coodltlonal Use PormllforouldQ01dl'lPlayandenfQrcellbyCQdeC(011p1,,"ce "ffkers, aWlTJved Slte Pia" arid approved BulldlngElevaUol1. CITY ORDINANCES C~yrnChv!aVlsl"Mu"lolpaICO<l\la"dp",j1lClCorKlillonsof Approval (PCC..()6..()25) PREPAREOBY Jol,nl1ebnrth,ZlelmrthAMoclalesArchltedu,,"""dPl:annl"9 T"I.(619) 233-6450 HOME DEPOT lEGAL CONTACT PHONE NUMBER Forlog~1 qvesHo"s,)'OII may contact the Home Depo! Legal Deparimenlal(7141940-3500,lIyourec:olvaavlolaUon,please 'eferjoSOP09-08.llyouarelmwrewhallodo,cotll;lctLegal. CITV CONTACT PHONE NUMBERS Plal,ningIPonnll.: Rich",dZUlTlW311,(619)691_5255 COO" Enlorcemant:TBD. (619)691-5260 Fire; TBD,(619)691-5055 P~I",,: TBD,(619)691-5151 ZONING CIl".. VIsta Central Commercial CCP REQUIRED PARKING Parklngrequl....d_6'l9spa""s. Parldngprovlded-6S1spaces. r<E()'-,Hr:'OFW,f:N:,G~", STORE HOURS Home Depot 6 am to 1 0 pm Monday through Saturday, 7.rnto10pmSllnday DELIVERY HOURS 7:00a.m. to 10:00p,m. Mond"ylhrnug"Sunday. Notrud<.~ aHowedongltepliorto7am. LOADING AREAS AND HOURS LoadIn9areaSllre<lss"ownonpllln.O"'sldelorldlftoparatlon~ sha~ be Ilmillld 10 7am 10 10pm Mondaythru Sunday. NOISE.!. P.A. SYSTEMS Tes"ng of emergency gene'alor shall OCCIJrperlodloally be1w<!en the l>corn g,OOam and 5:00pm MandBy1hru Frlday PAw,lem shaH be Iocatedl","d../Jul!ding and~<Irdenr.ent"rend dl,ected away from 1he nearest residential property IlI1e. No P.A. nolsep"rmltle<lb~lore 7:00am. MAINTENANCE HOURS Swooping and sleam daantng of I"" ~t,,: 7;00 am 'n 10:00 pm Mund"ytflrol'ghSunday. Pa1"i<in91<>t and rntall bulldll1g paijo swesplngar1dde"otr>gshalocc"'dally. Steamdeanlngwlll OCCllr quarterly. Opernlkm o! Trash Compactt>rs: 1:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday lIwough Sunday REFUSE AREAS RellISe Enclosure(s) must be OOVt!1"e<l pe' SUSMP ,equl,emems daS~Mdt"s"'eenanyrnfuseoontalr"'dwllnlncl9.lgnaled9rea, RECYCLING A'ocydlngplanl.tobelmplomentlldlnacoordanoowkhtheclty apl'fo.oo,ecycl",gplanonnle O\}TUOOR STORAGE AREAS No sto'age <>t mawlal. I. pe<"'~led CJ<,t.!<w I!;e end;e,c,M srea (If!het<J~h'llloadl''!ld':>ckannga'de<1o~;'I,,,r SlAGINGAREAS -'-cm;lo'll'Yatagi"'lls{lnlyall"...",jlnr.rcasMs>gnal;odmt,h1e. Nonmc-J~I r!H.llt..'talled alx>v""ldj.~(,."'tsc'Mnw,,~. TRAILER STORAGE AREAS Deslgnatad on the soulh slcIe ot lf1e Ganjen Clint.... LOAO-(~..i30 T;',UCK ('lENT"L n""\J"nmd en fhe nc"n~~;lsle'" "id.. of t~, ~uli,j;'g Ol;ffiOOFl. DISPUI,YS OUldoordlsployaHowedlnftvedeSlgnalwareasonly.\Wbt!o,jeN"natod onslle by llMled pnvOtn""t. See9i1Il plon_ DI'playsmaylillong'"""d. On racks. "ran shel~e. dependlnqOfl~'a Items bt!olng dlsplaj'i'd. ~trt shall nmlnlaln '" allth"aa a podeatrnln pat~1 of l'a~el amllnd il nnd be limited 10 amade""llml'led,lhO(>"looordl.playsl,allbellml\edlnU,eJollowiw,l <:alogorles <Jfsa'e Iterm: A. Building Ma!edals (p~wood dl6p1ay. fun"" panel display, laadscapo t1mberd"'olay,sl'....I:Ot*dlsploy,'na~o"'yp'O'Jucldlsplay,'''''flng d,sp\ay.some bul;., ILlmbor). B. OuldOOt"'1uiprmmt(grill<JISlllay.lawnl'ac!<>'dlspl<!Y,p"""<!rn"lw<'1 dlsplay.wl1eeiharrnwdlsplay), c OuldMfFllmllllreandStorngeUnlls(plr...nlctabledisplay.lIt1Idoor lI!lI1a&ban(".hdl$pl..y.hamm"';';,glkler&porch~"ingdl~play) o UveGondsar.dLllndscapeSuppllas{sessonalfl",.........sea""".o1 ""9..tIIb1E'~,.mIl'111""ea,. SEASON:,; U.J.ESEVF,T3 i')p,,,,,II,,,,, 0; S"nson,,! 1:';,loll G",..:mn '" '~:lt)t"t<"1 h~ U,,,t,; '/:sl~ M"nl",p~i o:;",j', ~ndl"" '9,58,:)7(1 IS1, n", ell, "11t-"",'S r""ar.~r,," s"",~ "ilb a T ";,,,r,r~'r t.I,,, I"m"-~ "I'l'm,,"~ !n'" 1":''"'': "I 24 :ja,> In ''''1, c:,I',""li" ;',"'" 1,,,( I'm ",,,,,,",,!;.,,, H'''''' ,::o,,,,.e',li'(f\ M;';, tH ",""." U,,,,; ~I> p",mits.. ,,,~,- ",,,.Ii b", ,~:>""d tn ;"'~ ,_:!"e b,,~I"e':, or ~tlr,p('I"'1 ""~'.pfe~ iENTS & AWNINGS Tenls....qulm a Sr>erJ!II Evont PermII approved by fho CIIy. Tontswlllonly be allowed In SeasooalNea. BUFFERS & SGREENING Bulfern and screening pe.-approved sIIe plans. AIIouldoorslomgelncl1J<:lIng equlpmenl storage shall be oomplel!lly scmened lrom stmetll by Ihe use of appro'lOOSCfeenlnglfelldng,wall,l..ndscaplngorboll1 LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCE AJlplarrtlngssltaHbemafnlalnodlllahea!lhyandfl'rlvlnguondlUooand relaUvelywelldl,ee. AlIplanls w!\IchM lutf1rlve because of disease. damage. accident Of o1her cause shall be Immedalely replaCfld wIIh a plant of tltosarnespudesand slzeasodglnanyapproved_Althedlscrntlon of tlte Oly Planner, replauement of any planf ma"'rlalslhal have ooan ImpfOpe~y malntalnlld shaft be requlmd af" size equllllo the size Ihe pla,,1 would h..".. been had I! bolen prope~ycared fo" No prants shown on eo approvad~anma~be'a""",ed...othoulpermI9slonntlheCllyPlann"'. AJI lrees shell bemalnlalned In a manne, lhat ,etalns tIte nalu,allo,," ollM sped9s_Topplngandeggresslveprunlngwlllnotboallowed.AIIscnll!'nlng shrubsshallbomalnfalnedalahelghttlmfelfecU....lys~'"lheare.a!hal wmeplantedloob$Clifll;te,parldngareas.lrashendosures,loadlngareas. Landscaping andd",,"up.ervlcesare performed Iwk:e a week end Inulude bl1lam not Im!Ied to W<ledlng, fertHtzer,lf\mrn1ng endrJea"'-'p. SIGNS & BANNERS Signage nollu e~ooIId ma~lmum helghl, number. square tcolage and type allowed per appfUVEld slge pad<<>ga 0' as aJowed In lhemunldpal SECURITY S9CUdlyshall be pro\<ldlldbythlllnssP,e\lOOtlon Department durtr>gh<lursofsloreoperaUon.24hollfEmergencyNumbar; CaIHomeDafWt@1-872-4J6-3376. SHOPPING CART MANAGEMENT Snopplng cart comlls are to be provldedthrougnoutlhe par1<lng 101 and al thelronl ollhe sl Or<! HomeDepnlemployeeswilloollecllhee;arts conUnuouslylhroughoullheday. GRAFFITTI REMOVAL POLICY Allgtllf!h(shallberemovlld~tn24hO\lf"S. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PlAN Provisions lor maintenance of lhe wal.... qlJaHty BMP's specffylng the requ~ed malnfenance adlv""'s and the time Interval 10< regllla' m1dnlenancels klentllled In 1he ""Ill Slnrm wala' managemenl plan (SWMP) lor the property wtrictlls aflachod as an appandl. 10 fhe Management Plan, PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF MANAGEMENT PLAN If violations <Jf lhe Managemenl Plan or the Condlllons 01 Approval are idenUlled and lhe slOle managemenf I. nul ,,,sponslve to tt>e City's reqoosls,enforcemenlaclionswmbalakeni1ac<:orrlancewithlheappllcablepruvlslonsofll1e Chula Vista MunldpatGode FIRE LANE MUST BE CLEAR AT ALL TIMES VISTA PACIFIC VILLAS LOAD & GO PARKING SOUl}IBAY MANOR c Ie OUTDOOR DISPLAY- l"- N I eN FXIST1NG RAI PH'S Bt 00. ~ SEASQNAC,' SI\LES " ',", , (/) ~ m (/) -l (/) m o -l o Z OJ ... .j>. ~~~ ~i~~ ~~@ ~~ ~.~it ~~""; ;~'f> :: .<>" ~<~" -." . ~~ ~~5;~ ';...~ E; .. ... ./"......_ I'" I, I>> z.2\~ 1 , I. ~--'"''''..' { -;;.';'1"'- j .I './ /i / - ~/- '" ~ ~ - "''''~.i::'* H..~l< ....=>?;;O'#-'il. >:':l!!~;1'- ,,"~~i!l _01\:;:~iS: ~j~-J'" a~ ;; ;; " . . 'l' t .. ~ -". .lJ!~~ .:I~~~..."" ::n"'Zi l:~..,,,. e~, Eo ..~ ';i!~ r.i lE~~~ li;~ ~e S;ye,,~ j_;.:E $~ ii~~~;; :si~g;,;, ~;~;;;~... , \ m )> (/) -l ~ m (/) -l i '$Z' 16: ~ Cf) m o ::! o z )> m )> (/'J ::::! ~ m (/) -l \l --"". 3!<iol~~ii "'.~~~~ j~~f ~~i:.; ~~~1 "",.",:~ ~'1'" " '$ ~ i '---';~"''';~;;''~'''';~' . i, 'ftI i /:,'~' I _---" i~ . '."Lrh f F ~ BL:- 2-28 /tlT4CBMEtVT S- I iF I / ",-';p';'r '~111 gllj ~:"I, II Ii .." ~lll 4J.'.ii'."J J ",lnlm,bl";;'!n~> Y.li~:' (-~+ilt.l\l I; [ ,I, I I ." !;;X.lsm4GCHAlN:IJtlK ,,_.0 rlmf;f.&.SCRne.H CWlH 10 R.EMAlN E D C,,':":;-l:".'.'..:,> ~~\;:hl;;i.fFi;; SECTION D - EAST! WEST HVAClllU'S. REfRIGERATED 10/19/2006 SECTION E.. EAST/WEST .-1YAJ.9.1l'i.1];O COOLERS.. ENLARGEO SECTION D & E.. EAST/WEST AT LUMBER TRUCK UNLOADING AND !!s..~E2JJjy!\~qI3.P~I!Yl:,fQQ~!'B IQtL. J I . r U: , ) ~~l:r.~~~i' 'J II 'so fJO, . I W l I I r I ID ~ cp (f) (f) @ m N I N 15 e EXIS'jNOCH.\I~ltJ~IK fE:lfCl!:-a. S(;riE:E~l CLmH ro HEMAIU \1 F E D I il I o (Y) I N J ,'. ,_.~ ~',./ '\ 1'''''';''''. ;J[:':~: 'JI" ". .---.: ,/ '["'- ~/ .,,"~ rr:.~!;,L_.rACL :;:jUI\ 17\ 11 ~ ('.' . ./', \-1 l.t- ....r \'1 ;' !\l SECTION F.. EAST! WEST 10/19/2006 ENLARGED SECTION F -, EAST/WEST @BACKUPGENERATORENCLOSURE 16 ~XI!mNQ CHAltl UN-, "!.:.tICl! 1\ fH;fH:t'~f tl.OtH'ro AF.'.Ii\li~ E "J ,i Ie, 'HJ ".', ,.J I" """.0.1\,1 .OJ''''' I ' sf) Nt), WAI. I , ~ I ~ Ii \lJ I ~ W J) ~ ~ C") I N =::I~: C::I'.'" _1. , -j, \~1 J l:!:),OO ADJACENT %--------. MUL TI- FAMIL*_",,(j~).j)L "---1j l'.{FMk~'1Jl,~ SECTION G ~- EAST/ WEST LOADiING DOCK & COMPACTOR 10/19/2006 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Home Depot PROJECT LOCATION: 1030 Third Avenue ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 619-051-12/13/28/68/69 PROJECT APPLICANT: Home Depot/Ziebarth Associates CASE NO.: 1S-06-007 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUlVlENT: October 30, 2006 DATE OF RCC MEETING: December 4, 2006 DATE OF FINAL DOCUlVlENT: January 12. 2007 Prepared by: Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the draft Negative Declaratiou are denoted by uuderline. A. Proi ect Setting The project site is a previously disturbed 11.10-acre parcel located on the southwestern corner of Third Avenue and Moss Street, witbin the Redevelopment Project Area of the City of Chula Vista (see Exhibit A - Location Map). The project area consi~ts of five parcels containing public access, utility, lease and emergency service easements, (see Exhibit B - Existing Site Plan). The entire project site was previously developed with existing commercial retail buildings, and associated parking, as well as an active food kiosk and currently vacant restaurant. The topography of the site is essentially flat, with a slight downward elevation change from east to west. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows: North: South: East: West/Southwest: Fast Food Kiosk/Apartments and Behavioral Center Retail Center with vacant supermarket Fast Food Kiosks and Commercial Centers Multi-Family Residential B. Proiect Description The project proposal consists of the demolition of an existing (vacant) 118,669 square-foot commercial retail building (K-Mart) and replacement with a Home Depot store. The proposed 129,043 square-foot building includes a 31,647 square-foot garden center. An existing 10,600 square-foot restaurant is proposed f<,Jr demolition to accommodate the project parking lot. The existing fast food kiosk located on the corner parcel would be retained. 2-lg 2 f\t\-Otd'\\\\pX\ \- b The project site plan calls for an outdoor sales and display area, customer merchandise pickup area, and building materials will:call area. The proposal includes a loading/receiving dock area and lumber off-loading area to the rear (west) of the store building. The proposal contains a paved parking area to accommodate 666 parking spaces, which is 21 spaces in excess of the required parking per the Municipal Code. The proposal includes the removal and relocation of driveway accesses along Moss Street and Third Avenue, relocation of light posts, as well as the abandonment and installation of new fire hydrants. Proposed on-site improvements include new storm drainage facilities, water service extensions, sewer lateral connections, relocation of driveway accesses, trash compactor, emergency generator, a 6-15 foot high sound/screening wall along the west and north property lines. Additional onsite improvements include enhanced landscaped treatments and new lighting standards. Hours of operation for the store are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. The anticipated number of store employees ranges from 150-200 employees with 75-100 employees expected at anyone time. Truck deliveries will be limited to between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Weekends). in accordance with the City Municipal CodelNoise Ordinance. The maximum number of daily delivery vehicles is 30 trucks during the week and 4 trucks per day on the weekends. and an average of 115 trucks per week. The project site is located within the CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designation. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The proposed project site is within the CCP (Central Conunerci2.lIPrecise Pl;;n) Zone and CR (Commercial Retail) General Plan land use designation. The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and the Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed project requires the approval of a Design Review Permit by the Design Review Committee, a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator for outside sales and displays, and a lot consolidation by the City Engineer. D. Public Comments On January 30, 2006, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended February 9, 2006. Written and e-mail comments were received regarding noise, traffic/parking, air quality and road deterioration issues. (A verbal comment was received regarding the redevelopment goals of the project area. This comment was referred to the Community Development Department). The City and the applicant held a Community Workshop on August 24, 2006 to present the project and receive public input. The City received public comments regarding business redevelopment, project redesign, potential noise/traffic and air quality impacts and cumulative impacts generated by the proposed project. 2~33 On November 13.2006 a Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the DToiect was vosted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to vrovertv owners within a 500- foot radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on December 15. 2006. Comment letters were received from the public and from the Environmental Health Coalition. The issues raised involved noise. air quality/risks imvacts. traffic and other proiect related impacts. The issues raised in these letters have been addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and attached checklist. as well as in the attached response to comments (Exhibit "C"). 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 may have potential significant environmental irupacts, however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Air Quality To assess potential air quality impacts of the project, an Air Quality Technical Report for the Chula Vista Home Depot, Chula Vista, California, dated October 16, 2006, was prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (SRA). The results of this analysis are summarized below. Thresholds of Significance To determine whether a project would create potential air quality irupacts, the City evaluates project emissions thresholds in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SQAMD) standards. In order to analyze potential emission irupacts, the emission factors and threshold criteria contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were used. Short- Term Construction The emissions associated with the demolition and construction activities of the proposed proj ect with mitigation will result in air quality impact below the significance thresholds for all construction phases and pollutants. The minimal grading of the site, building remodeling/renovation construction and worker and equipment vehicle trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated with the construction and demolition activities. Air quality irupacts resulting from construction-related operations are considered short-term in duration since construction- related activities are a relatively short-term activity. In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold criteria contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were used. Based upon the emission factors and anticipated construction activities it is estimated that the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels, if not mitigated. 23.34 A comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQ:MD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant was analyzed. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model. Implementation of the' Mitigation Measure 1 contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. See the noise section below regarding potential truck idling air quality impacts and mitigation measures. Long-Term (Operation) In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to regional air quality. The proposed project once developed will not result in significant long-term air quality impacts. The minimal project generated traffic volume would not result in significant long- term local or regional air quality impacts. The proj ect results in a reduction in cumulative Air Quality impacts due to fewer net vehicle trips for the overall proj ect site. No area source or operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Toxic Air Contaminant Evaluation/Health Risk Assessment The study contains a health risk assessment and results of toxic air contaminant (T AC) emissions and potential risks associated with Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) from project related and development traffic during construction and operational phases. According to the California Health and Safety Code a T AC is an air pollutant that that may present a potential hazard to human health. Typical risks emitted from on-road traffic include gasoline-fueled automobiles, diesel-fueled trucks/vehicles and stationary sources, such as diesel-powered engines, and truck idling. In order to estimate the emissions to a worse case scenario, a conservative 70-year exposure model scenario of emission factors from truck traffic was used. The study concluded that there is no health risk based upon established thresholds. Hot SDots In order to determine the potential for significant air quality impacts associated with CO emissions, an evaluation of CO hot spots was completed. This was done to determine if the proposed project emissions exceeded the acceptable regional criteria and violated the CO standard. The CO "hot spots" were based upon the findings of the proj ect traffic study. The traffic study indicated that the project-generated traffic would not lower the Level of Service (LOS) below LOS "D" and, therefore, in accordance with regional standards, the CO levels would not create significant impacts to the ambient air quality. 2135 Geology and Soils To assess potential geological and soils impacts of the project, a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Proposed Improvements to Home Depot Store, 1030 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, California, August 4, 2005, was prepared by Twining Laboratories, Inc. The results ofthis analysis are summarized below. The project site is not located in an active Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon fault approximately 5 miles away. No known significant or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site have been identified. According to the preliminary geological study, existing fill soils on the project site will be over excavated and recompacted as engineered fill. The upper soil under the building pad will consist of aggregate base over non-expansive import material. Elevations at edge conditions were taken into account and identified in the preliminary geotechnical report and considered in grading design and preliminary earthwork estimates. As a standard condition, a final soils report will be required for review by the City Engineer. In addition, erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of the grading plans and implemented during the construction phase. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential geological impacts to a level of less than significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Hazards/Hazardous Materials In order to a&sess potential hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc., entitled Home Depot Development/Chula Vista, dated August 24, 2005. In addition a pre-demolition asbestos survey and support data was prepared. A copy of the technical study is available for review at the Planning and Building Department. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) previously located_in the former Kmart auto service center were removed in 1993. Several soil samplings were taken and analyzed under the direction of the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS). No significant release was identified and the County required no further remediation or assessment actions necessary. Four USTs previously located in the former Chevron station located at the northeast portion of the site were removed in January 1990. A release of gasoline resulted from closure activities and soil contamination occurred. The release was investigated and remediated under the direction and to the satisfaction of the County DEHS, according to their closure letter dated February 17, 1999. No further action was necessary. 22,36 The Phase I identified an auto repair section containing former hydraulic lifts and wheel alignment area for the previous Kmart Store. Those areas have since been replaced by the existing retail and storage space. No indications of these former features were observed during the site reconnaissance and it is assumed that these features were removed around the time of the UST removal in 1993. However, this area should be observed during site demolition and grading activities for the proposed project. In the event any original auto repair work area features are discovered or suspicious environmental concerns are encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis if warranted, identifying any new environmental concerns with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential hazardslhazardous materials impacts to a level of less than significance.- These measures are included as it part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Lead and Asbestos Removal Due to the age of the existing commercial building and restaurant, there is the potential for lead and asbestos containing materials within the buildings proposed for demolition/renovation. Additional evaluation was required to determine the presence of any of these hazardous materials prior to demolition activities. According to the Phase IT prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants, dated August 3, 2005, a pre- demolition asbestos survey was performed by a registered asbestos-consulting firm on July 29, 2005. It indicated that all accessible areas were inspected for possible asbestos- containing materials, including flooring, ceiling, and penetration mastic materials of the roof. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) were identified in some of these areas. The purpose of the pre-demolition asbestos abatement was to remove (ACMs) within the building. On December 16, 2005, abatement was conducted to remove the identified ACMs at the site by CST Environmental Inc. and removed by a licensed hazardous materials hauler to a registered hazardous materials site in accordance with appropriate federal, state and local hazardous waste disposal regulations. Inaccessible areas such as inside walls were not sampled. If during demolition and renovation suspect (ACMs) materials are observed, additional sampling and analysis prior to removal and renovation activities will be required. Therefore, abatement will be performed by registered asbestos and lead abatement contractors 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. The mitigation measure contained in Section F below would mitigate potential hazardslhazardous material impacts associated with the release of asbestos and lead to below a level of significance. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) During the site assessment transformers and other electrical equipment were observed around the existing buildings. No leaks or staining were observed on or around the transformers. Historically, PCBs were used in cooling oil Jor electrical transformers. The age of the transformers was not known at the time of the site assessment, and those within the electrical rooms appeared to be older than those outside. Therefore, there is the potential of PCBs 2~37 within the cooling oiL Additional sampling of the cooling oil for possible PCBs is required prior to removal for site demolition. In addition, the fluorescent light ballasts located throughout the project site were unknown as to whether or not they had been retrofitted. Therefore, there is a potential presence of PCBs in the light ballasts within the store and restaurant. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential hazards/hazardous material. impacts associated with the release of PCBs during demolition/renovation activities to below a level of significance. Hvdrologv and Water Ouality Based upon review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are . no significant issues or impacts regarding the proposed drainage improvements for the proj ect site. The proj ect proposes the installation of a storm drain system, filtering treatment system, backflow device and preventor, drain piping, catch basin, inlets and conceptual Best Management Practices include gravel bags, dikes, landscaped areas, and improvements to existing brow ditch along the western property line. As required, the proposed drainage must be directed away from existing and proposed buildings including adjacent properties. A final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of the proj ect grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre-development flows. The proposed drainage improvements designed in accordance with local and regional requirements as described above would improve the overall on-site drainage system and acco=odate the proposed project. The drainage facilities will be installed at the time of the site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant will be required to comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Manual and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the storm water systems during and after construction. The applicant will also be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01 and other permit requirements, identify storm water pollutants that are generated with proposed BMPs, and submit a water quality study with submittal of final grading/improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (See Section F). Storm or non-storm water from such designated area shall not be discharged into City storm drainage systems but disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations. No significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system or water quality are anticipated to result from the proposed proj ect. Noise In order to assess potential noise impacts of the proposed proj ect, a noise study was prepared by Giroux & Associates, Inc., entitled Home Depot @ Third & Moss Streets, dated October 13, 2006. The noise assessment analyzed the project with respect to the regulations contained in the Chula Vista Municipal Code (noise control ordinance). A copy of the noise study is available for review at the Planning and Building Department. 2238 Critical noise sources are all located within the rear alley (western property line) that include truck movement, loading/unloading dock activities, lumber offloading, idling trucks, forklifts, backup alarms, emergency generator, trash compactor and trash collection. These activities are located next to the western property line and to the closest residential development. Other noise sources include the customer pickup lanes and the outside sales area located in the front of the store (easterly elevation), outdoor and rooftop mechanical equipment, P A systems, building/parking lot maintenance, short-term construction noise, vehicle noise in the parking lot, and traffic noise on adj acent streets. Loading/Unloading Dock and Lumber OjJloading The new loading/unloading dock, located along the soathcaat southwest comer of the building, is in approximately the same location as the existing dock. A lumber-offloading pad is proposed on the northwest comer of the rear truck route is buffered by a screening wall. No lumber or other materials will be stored outside in the rear alley. Only palettes will be allowed to be stored further to the south along the western property line for future pickup. Typical noise sources associated with loading/unloading docks may include idling truck engines, truck backup alarms, fork lifts, banging of hand carts, and roll-up doors, noise from public address systems and employee voices. Typical loading dock support equipment such as small or medium trucks or forklifts usually contain backup alarms. The semi-trailer unloading dock and trash compactor will create a second source noise that is separated by setback and distance. Operational loading/unloading dock noises are considered significant noise impacts if not properly mitigated. A sound absorbent material or sound aborbent cladding will be c011Structed between the harrier wall and rear of the store building. The loading dock will contain a product feature consisting of foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the deck leveler to reduce dock mating and truck plate noise impacts. A wing wall extension will be added to the comer of the building extended for 75 feet. For those impacts to near by noise receptors, a major noise reduction can be accomplished with the installation of a 6-15 -foot high sound wall along the western perimeter boundary. These features will effectively shield the will call and lumber/offloading dock areas, thus bringing operational noise into conformance with the City's Noise Ordinance. The project includes typical noise sources generated from pickup/delivery service businesses such as public address systems or bell signaling systems. Even though the store hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the City ofChula Vista Noise Ordinance, Section 19.68.050, and the proposed project limitations regulate these public address and signaling systems. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, the operation of the public address system and other signaling systems cannot occur prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (weekends). No significant noise impacts are expected to occur to any residential receptors as a result of the operation of the public address system or other signaling systems. 2..8s 9 Truck Idling There is the possibility of operational noise impacts to the adjacent residential development caused by extended truck idling. To avoid this potentially significant noise impact, trucks will not be permitted to idle along the rear of the store near residential properties, or park on the public street for extended periods while waiting for the business to open. Proposed mitigation includes rear store loading/unloading activities limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (weekends). Mitigation measures also include the requirement that the noise/screening wall be" constructed in accordance with the project noise study. Steady noise from idling diesel trucks awaiting access to the rear of the store will be minimized because truck idling is subject to a five-minute time limitation in accordance with State law, Chapter 10, Section 2485. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate unloading/loading dock activities including truck idling related noise impacts to below a level of significance and in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance standards. Emergency Generator/Trash Compactor An emergency power generator and trash compactor are proposed near the western property line, adjacent to residences. There is the potential for noise impacts to the residents or employees during these operational activities. The emergency generator will only be used for a few testing minutes per month or in the rare event of a major power outage. However, in order to mitigate any potential significant noise impacts proper proj ect design and operational mitigation measures the applicant will include installation of a special sound- reduction-enclosure (minimum 9-fQot high CMU walls) around the emergency generator. The enclosure entrance doors will be closed during generator operation. The trash compactor operation would be considered incidental nuisance noise. The use of the outdoor trash compactors will be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (weekends) in accordance with the City Noise Ordinance standards. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below ','{ould mitigate power generator and trash compactor noise impacts to below a level of significance. Outdoor/Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC) equipment is proposed on the roof of the commercial building. The noise generated by the machinery motors would vary depending "on the type and size of the mechanical equipment. Based upon the mechanical plans, the study concluded that noise generated from the HV AC would not exceed the City's noise standard even for night-time operations with the proposed parapet screening. Therefore, the mitigation measures contained in Section F below have been included to mitigate HV AC/or rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts to below a level of significance. 2240 Short- Term Construction Noise Pursuant to Section 17.2.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, construction work (including demolition) in residential zones that generates noise disturbing to persons residing or working in the vicinity is not permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, except when necessary for emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member of the community. Due to the presence of the adjacent multi-family residential development, this provision of the Municipal Code applies to the proj ect and would ensure that the residents would not be disturbed by construction noise during the most noise sensitive periods of the day. . Traffic Noise The proj ected traffic noise impacts associated with traffic volumes along Third Avenue and Moss Street and at the project site were assessed in the noise analysis. The report concluded that the traffic volume would have a less than significant impact on noise. Transportation/Traffic To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the project development, a Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 19, 2006 was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Inc. Traffic impacts were defined as either as project specific impacts or cumulative impacts. The traffic study is summarized below. Andysis Methodology/Significance Criteria . In order to anticipate cumulative future projects in the area, a conservative methodology approach was applied to the existing traffic volumes. This created a foundation or baseline for the proposed project impacts to be measured and used in the traffic analysis. The analysis included existing volumes, existing plus growth volumes and existing plus growth plus project traffic volumes (cumulative); a 1.5% growth factor was applied to existing traffic volumes. Existing Conditions The project site is currently accessed via five driveways: three driveway accesses off of Third Avenue and two driveway accesses off of Moss Street. Third Avenue is classified as a Class I Collector within the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. Unsignalized and signalized intersections were studied based on the anticipated traffic circulation within adj acent and surrounding street segments. Peak hour intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better in accordance with City threshold standards. 2-4? Site Access/Truck Operations and Parking The proposed access to the site is through four driveways, two off Third Avenue and two off Moss Street. The project includes the elimination of one existing driveway to improve circulation and access to the project site. The northwesterly driveway from Moss Street will be used primarily for truck entrance and will be realigned to allow proper truck circulation, accessibility, and turning movement for delivery access to the loading docks and lumber staging area located at the rear of the building. Truck accessibility was looked at from three locations; entrance, loading docks and exit. Modifications have been included in the latest site plan and through project design, the proposed accessibility and circulation have been adequately addressed. In accordance with the City Municipal CodelParking Ordinance (Section 19.62), the proposed proj ect requires 645 parking spaces. The Home Depot proj ect proposes 666 parking spaces, 21 parking spaces in excess of the Municipal Code requirement. No significant traffic impacts will result relative to traffic or truck circulation, site access or parking. Existing plus Growth and Proposed Project (Intersections) Signalized intersections were studied during the peak hour operations including key intersections at Third AvenuelMoss Street and Third Avenue/Naples Street. All signalized intersections will continue to operate at adequate levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. The key signalized intersections will continue to operate at LOS C or better in accordance with the City threshold standards. No significant intersection/capacity related traffic impacts would result from the proposed project. Truck Loitering There is the potential for truck loitering to occur with similar type projects thus creating potential traffic impacts onto the surrounding public streets. However, due to ample parking available on site, proper truck circulation, and the restriction of delivery hours (the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. ((weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.m. (weekends)), adverse impacts are not anticipated. The mitigation measures contained in Section F (Noise Section) below would mitigate potential truck loitering impacts to below a level of significance. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality 1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator: . Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. 11 2-42 . Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. . Use electrical construction equipment as practical. . Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. . Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. . Water the construction area minimum three times daily to minimize fugitive dust. . Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. . Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. . Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available. . Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. . Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. . . Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. . Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. . Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. e Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. . Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Geologv and Soils 2. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide the signature of the geotechnical engineers as evidence to the City Engineer that all the reco=endations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 4, 2005 have been incorporated into the plans. 3. Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit a final soils report for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to 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. 5. If during demolition and renovation activities potentially Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are observed within the inaccessible areas such as interior walls, additional samplings and analysis prior to the removal of such materials shall be required. Abatement shall be performed in accordance with standards and regulations noted in mitigation measure no. 4. In the event suspected ACMs concerns are encountered, a 12 2-43 qualified professional will be retained to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for reVIew. 6. Prior to the removal of any electrical transformers for site demolition, the transformers will be inspected. If the transformers are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be presumed to contain PCBs and they will be disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. In the event potential environmental concerns regarding PCBs are suspected or encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. 7. Prior to the removal of fluorescent light ballasts located within the proposed buildings or portion thereof for demolition, the ballasts will be inspected. If the ballasts are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be presumed to contain PCBs and they will be disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. In the event potential environmental concerns regarding PCBs are suspected or encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for reVIew. 8. During the demolition and grading activities for the proposed project, the area of the former hydraulic lifts and wheel alignment shall be monitored. In the event additional auto repair work area features are discovered or suspicious environmental concerns are encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new environmental concerns with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. Hvdrology and Water Oualitv 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre-development flows. The City Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management practices. If one or more of the approved post-construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2!.~4 10. Prior to the co=encement of grading operation, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator. Noise 11. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction activities including demolition 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. . 12. A 6 to IS-foot high noise attenuation wall, including screening wall shall be constructed along the western property line in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and as depicted on the project development and grading plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator. 13. A 12-foot high wing wall extension shall be added to the corner of the building extending for 75 feet. in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Coordinator. 14. Truck deliveries shall be restricted except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance (Section 19.68). IS. The loading dock shall contain a product feature consisting of foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the deck leveler to reduce dock mating and truck plate noise impacts in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Coordinator. 16. The lumber unloading area barrier wall shall be constructed of sound absorbent material or equipped with sound-absorbent cladding to minimize multiple sound reflections between the barrier wall and the rear of the store bUilding in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006. 17. All diesel delivery trucks shall turn off their engines during unloading/unloading activities at the Home Depot loading docks and lumber offloading pad whenever possible. In the event a delivery truck is not able to immediately enter the loading docks or lumber off-loading area upon arrival, the diesel truck idling shall be restricted to a fiye-minute limitation in accordance with State law. Trucks will not be permitted to idle along the rear of the store near residential properties or park for extended periods of time while waiting for the business to open. 2~\5 18. A minimum 9-foot high sound reduction enclosure surrounding the project emergency generator shall be constructed in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006. During emergency generator operations all sound enclosure doors shall be kept closed. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the design shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Review Coordinator. 19. Outside operational activities located along the rear and sides of the building including docking/unloading/loading, trash compactor, emergency generators, trash/recycled cardboard pickups, and signaling systems shall be restricted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday to Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays in accordance with the City ofChula Vista Noise Ordinance (Section 19.68). 20. All rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners shall include appropriate noise abatement and be screened by a minimum three-foot high rooftop parapet that blocks the line-of-site view from the backyards of the nearby residential properties to the exposed roof and mechanical ventilation systems, consistent with the noise study dated October 13, 2006. G. Agre=ent 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 herein, and will irnpl=ent same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) Date Date Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) NIA Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date NIA Signature of Operator Date 15 2-46 (if different from Applicant) H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City ofChula Vista: Steve Power, Planning and Building Department Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager Department Richard Zumwalt, Plarming and Building Department Miguel Tapia, Redevelopment Department Garry Williams, Planning and Building Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Division Jim Newton, Engineering Division Frank Rivera, Engineering Division DaVid Kaplan, Engineering Division Ben Herrera, Engineering Division Sohaib AI-Agha, Engineering Division Hasib Baha, Engineering Division Michael Maston, Engineering Division Gary Edmunds, Fire Department Justin Gipson, Fire Department Lynn France, Conservation and Environmental Services Department Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District Sweetwater Authority 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, ElR No. 05-01, December 2005. City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003. Traffic Impact Analysis for Third Avenue Home Depot, Chula Vista, CA and dated April 19,2006 (Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers). Noise Impact Analysis for Proposed Home Depot at Third and Moss Streets, Chula Vista, CA and dated October 13, 2006 (Giroux & Associates). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Home Depot Development, Chula Vista, San Diego County, CA and dated August 24, 2005 (GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc.). 16 2-47 Asbestos Survey, 1020/1030 Third Avenue, ChulaVista, CA and dated July 29, 2005 (JMR Environmental Services, Inc.) and Asbestos Abatement Closeout Document, 10321/2 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA and dated December 23,2005 (CST Environmental Inc.). Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Proposed Home Depot Store, 1030 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA and dated August 4,2005 (The Twining Laboratories, Inc.). Air Quality Technical Report for the Chula Vista Home Depot Chula Vista, California, dated October 16, 2006 (Scientific Resources Associated (SRA). 3. 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 ofChula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this proj ect is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: die /lYT / / J:\Planning\MARlA\lnitial Study\Home Depot\IS-06-007DraftMND.doc 17 2-48 Rice Elementarv School C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Home Depot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: Initial Study PROJECT 1030 Third Av Proposal replacement of currently existing 118,660 sq.ft. K Mart ADORESS: and 10,606 sq.ft. Restaurant with 97,396 sq.ft. Home Depot SCALE: FILE NUMBER: retail building and 31,647 sq.ft. Garden center. NORTH No Scale 15-06-007 Related cases: DRC-06~33, PCC~6~25 ~ ~~ J.\plannlng\carlos\locators\ls06007.cdr 11.16.05 ....-;" '\TTTTU T'T" A ~ I !~ H ! lilt e!"'~ l~H [li]~ Hi~ ::~i ~ai 11 ~I~ .< "'..~ ~~r'! "n ~ H :~~ i _.~ ~ <"9' "'-;Ill:!.. - r ,," ~-.. ~ ~:!i!~ i;j:ril! j' 'i'ii~ " ;'~ h H ...."'i! I 8~ t , .! ~~i , , Jl j :<!~ ~ '~ . i H~~i'! 'J ,!l ~ "" ~H l ,~"! ~ !.1: I UHf! ~h1!j~ ~ , d~ ~ j ~~ ~ ~. .. H ! . H" ;eF i l~j =i~ H!~~F ~ , ." ~ J:!i :! ;j ~~ _u ~~ ~~ ~ij jr; H ..~ 0, il" s,h t{i.~ !I.t; H ~ f~;:H 1 it' ~ 'jtn: iSi; 11' i VI j ~t;l nil.. il i Ei ni~H ~l!!~ ~f ~! a: l'i-'~I1 l{. "I ii ,,1 g ;'l"J ~! T . ~I' o t~iiI1. H!h Hl L is nUfi} H! !i Hr ii 1H~h'. .." . II g ~~ i: ~-'" ...!!i: <::/:0 ~I:i~::i ..J '" c .... e;: =: c 1""-1 i , " " w. , :E I I 8 I I "(~H5 =t ::;10 -, -- T'O"'ft 0 I I I ~WI~ , "'-- ~ w ~ o " IL- I I - \ 2-50 - Z <{ ~ IX <~ ..J , 0 u. Q. ..,:e; 0:: 00 " . 0 ~~ D.. >" 0 << ..J Ai' " . . :J o E U. ~ ~ r~ W c [ 0 () c- o < d " f- " . - us @ ~ E-< ..... ~ ..... ::0 ~ r-1 f~ ~~ .' ,!.g, H1J ~:d ;.g ~ ~i~ "I'" ~~H ("') ;{ Q) E Q) .r: () (f) c 0 CIl " , D.." ~ Q) OJ :t:::: ro c w (f) @ Comments Pag~ 1 of I Maria Muett From: Malr Nae [drmnae@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:47 PM To: Maria MueH Subject: home depot ~-1 [ Dear MmeJSit, We are living ncxllo old K-Mu11345 moss street.We heard that this spot wiH change:o Home Dqpol. We arc very gud about that because our life will change very bacHy.They receive 30AO trucks in a <lay the noise and the traffic will create ll-catastrophe in our daily jifestykl don't want 10 mention how mat")Y trucks,QJ' hig, cars that belong to the costumers will come to this urea: N I CJ"I ~ C:I(m)coreI5 & 9 fileslhme depot mnd.cdr 01.12.07 c.j.f. Response - A Resident Mair Nae, 345 Moss Street (Response e-mail communication - dated December 12,2006) A-I) As stated on Page 10 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Inc., dated April 19, 2006 assessed potential transportation, traffic, project generated trips and site access impacts associated with the proposed project. The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City ofChula Vista's Guidelinesfor Traffic Impact Studies. The study concluded thaUhere would be no significant impacts associated with transportation/traffic. Thirty operational trucks is the maximum in a day with an average of 115 trucks per week. EXHIBIT C 1 Comments IA-2 [They told that they will build 11 SO~lild wall~ that will make us to live Iike-we are in a "Ghetto". The air pollution produced bytheegzosted gases will be another problem for our heallbln any Hcime Depot stores thel'e aren't residencies cJosertlum ours.Home Depot also [ chromcallyhave huge amounts qf outdoor storage and day laborers and unlicensed co.ltractors hanging around ull day.That also will disturb our lifestyle. A-3 "" I C11 "" A-2) A-3) Response - A As noted on Page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Noise Section, a noise study was prepared in order to evaluate potential noise impacts created by the project. The noise study concluded that in order to mitigate identified significant noise impacts to sensitive noise receptors (i.e., residential), a 6 to IS-foot-high sound attenuation wall is required. The sound attenuation wall would be situated within the applicant's property, approximately IS feet to the east of the westerly property line. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and noise study, noise impacts can be mitigated with the proposed mitigation measures and design features. The sound attenuation wall would effectively shield the will-call, lumber/offloading dock areas, and other operational activities from sensitive receptors. Thus, bringing the operational noise impacts of the proposed project into conformance with the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, as stated on Page 3 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Air Quality Section, an air quality report was prepared to evaluate potential project related air quality impacts. The report identified impacts related to short-term construction/demolition, construction vehicle trips, dust, exhaust and other ail' pollutants related to construction, traffic and demolition activities. These are considered short-term in duration since construction related activities are identified as a short-term activity. With the proposed mitigation measures, the construction related air quality and ail' pollutant impacts would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Comment noted. This comments does not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission will address the outside display areas during their review of the associated Conditional Use Permit. 2 Comments IA-4 A-5 A-6 [With few trees they hope they will save the aesthetic, ""ieh is wrong loo.Another subject :As an excmple I would like to glve the H streel~s Home Depot had ,126 calls for Police service in 200S,Down the same street K~Mart bad 45, The sand boxes lila! they setting themOlll, with the [wind will be lmother problom for ourhealth'and homes cleal~ing. Additionally HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS Jllllterials -many are. slored and transpol'ted reglilarly to und frolll Home pepoL [ Finlllly the will build 129.000s1: arcll,lhis will take.34 weeks business "dust and noise. Please Help liS to not destroy our lifestyle ,our daily problems are enough rol' us Best wishes . Mail' Nae 345 moss street #5 Cbula Vista A-5) A-4) Everyone is raving about tile al}ne~..X!!lliwJ..!\1gjLbcla-, '" I 0'1 (.0) Response - A Comments noted. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study Checklist, the project site is serviced by the Chula Vista Police Department and adequate police services and response times can be provided. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Pages 5 and 6, Hazards/Hazardous Materials Section, Environmental Site Assessments and asbestos surveys were completed in order to assess potential hazards/hazardous materials on site. No significant hazards/hazardous materials were identified on the existing site. Appropriate mitigation measures were included in the event ofthe possible discovery of hazards or hazardous materials created by building remqval (lead and asbestos, transformers, PCMs), underground storage tanks and previous auto work and hydraulic lift areas. The applicant is required to be in compliance with the Building Code, Fire Code and San Diego County Environmental Health Services rules and regulations regarding proper storage, usage, and disposal of hazardous materials. A-6) Comments noted. See SectionA-2 above. 3 Comments December I J, 2006 Maria tvluelt Cll)' ofCIUllu Vistt\ PJUl1llillg HIlO Building Dl:parlmcnt 276 4th {\ YC, Chula VislU, CA 91910 RE: fvlND Home DcpOL projcctliIS-06-007 B-1 Dc,ll'l'v\S.{I,'lucll: J appreciiltc the opportunity to comment UPOlllhis document. An MND for (L pr(~iect of this magnitude with the potential for signiJ1cant negL'!tive effects is totally unucceptable. An EIR with a tldlrange of alternatives is needed to meet minimal CEQUA disclosure requirements. The mosl blatant omission in the documents b the ,Icknowledgemcnt of the fuel that Home Depot is more than 11 rclnil center. II dearly hilS a warehollse! distribution function as well. The sign on the SUllIrn and all stores built prior 10 the Saturn store acknowledges that it is "California's Home WmcllOl1Se," The huge ~\m0l111t ofbllilding materials fOllnd at the baek ofalll-lomc Depots also aLtests 10 this fact. Saying fhat Lhis is equivalent to ,I retail store and a reslaurant is absurd, The back OfSiltllfll store: ","' :;;r~ Th~ front orthe Dennerj' ~l5~, 'e: WurchQuse: "u wholesllle store, or, sometimes, n Inrgc retail store" (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1979. Response - B Public Comment Teresa Acero (Comment letter via e-maiJ/facsimile/mail -dated December 13, 2006) B-1. This coml)1ent states that an ErR should be prepared for the project and not a mitigated negative declaration. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070: A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a substantial effect on the environment, or B) The initial study identifiedpotentially significant effects, but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial study that demonstrates that the project as mitigated will not have a substantial impact upon the environment. Therefore, in accordance with state law a mitigated negativedeclaration has been prepared. Teclmical studies have been prepared by qualified experts that show all impacts associated with the project for such issue areas as noise, air quality, drainage, water quality, and traffic are mitigated to a level ofless than significant. Public Resources Code section 21080 (e) states that .. ...substantial evidence includes jact, a 4 Comments Response - B reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. "No substantial evidence of a potentially significant environmental impact associated with the project has been submitted. Public Resources Code Section 21080.2(c) states that public comments that are not based upon a specific factual foundation (expert opinion) do not constitute substantial evidence of an environmental impact. Home Depot is a member of the Rancho Cuyamaca Chamber of Commerce as a ~Home Improvement Warehouse" (along with Home Expo and Lowe's, hUo:/lwww.ranchochamber.ofQ/membersIv04/Home Improvement Warehouse _11 lOlL) 'The perception that warehouse outlets are unsafe has the potential to seep into customers' psyches about home improvement 8...2 stores in generall which is why other companies say they are redoubling their efforts to improve the safety of their operations (see sidebar, above)." From article abotJt Home Oepot at: Iitt/J://www.lindartk:/es.comarticles.rn/OVCW./s17 2liai 66.122 /186. "If Home Depot won't disclose injury numbe 5, state Of federal regulators should force the company and similar "big box" warehouse retailers to do so. >> AT IlttO:J/www.biziournals.com/allanta/slories/2003/02/24/editoriaI1.l1tml This comment states that project alternatives should have been analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that proj ect alternatives be identified and analyzed in environmental impact reports (EIRs). There is no requirement for an analysis of project alternatives in an MND. Since there is no substantial evidence of an envirOlm1ental impact associated with the project after mitigation, an EIR is not required. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to analyze project alternatives. B-2) Comments noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. 5 Comments Home Depot has allowed Lowe's to ildvcrtise ilsclfus Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse IInel it has chosen to claim the title of world's largest I,-Iomc Improvement Retailer, dropping: the older "Callfornia's Home Improvement Warehouse" B-3 but it still uses a warehollse approach to its store design and with 30 tl'llck deliveries a day clearly is lllore than a big box retail store. Cosleo on Naples and Bmudway that is being sued along with the city (or deliveries utnight and a wall that is too low only has 8 or') trucks ddivcring each day. The lI1anuger ul tht: Big K~Murl 011 H claims 11 maximum orolle truck Ii day delivers to bis store. Customarily Home Depots mLlst do E1R~s. The)' had to in San Marcos, [Escondida, El C~jon, Vista, and foJ' Dellnery Road store, Saturn store, and others in Sail 8-4 Diego. Thc.y also did for Rancho Del Rcy and OlayRanch stores in Cllllla Vistl:l. ^ctuully it appears becHwic of mix-ups in numbers that they used some of the information in the technical reports from other locutions. The sections that are not dealt with in the MND and need to be dealt with in the ElR arc: Aesthetics, Coml111lllity Character, Public Services, Land Use and Planning and Project AJiernalivcs, Most critically CEQUA requires a reasonable range ofAlternmives in order to provide the public and the decision makers with the means to compare the Proposed project with olher suitable options. 8-5 There clearly are alternalives that would significantly limit the negative impacts oflhis building 1011 much more satisfactory degree tlum building two 12 foot walls, a 15 {oot \Vall and a nine fOOl box around a generator while meeting the project objeclivcs equally well. In order to fully evaluate Ihe environmental dfects orthe proposed project, CEQ/\. mandates that alterniltivcs to the proposed project he analyzed. Section 15126,6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to Ihc locution orlbe project, which would fcusibJy f1ttain most orthe busie objectives oflhe project hut would avoid DI' substantially lessen any of the signillcllllt elTccts ol'the projcct" and the evaluation of the comparative merits of lhe alternatives. The alternatives discussion is inlcnde~ to Hfocus 0111.1Jternatives to lhe project 01' its location which are capable of avoiding or substantiully lessening any significnnt effects of the project," even iflhest:: alternatives would impede to some degree the allainll1cnt llfthe project objcctives. The way the I--Iomc Depot is planned 11 is not a tenant improvement, since two subst,mtial buildings will be demolished and the entire 10,1 acres will be graded this project merits an EIR. Also since the city's recently B-6 Response - B B-3) Comments noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. B-4) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-lo The types of environmental documents prepared by other cities for other Home Depot projects is not relevant to the site specific environmental analysis performed for the Chula Vista Home Depot project on Third Avenue. It should be noted that all of the Home Depot sites mentioned in other cities that had ErRs prepared, involved construction on undeveloped land. The Third Avenue Home Depot site is fully developed with a 118,669 square-foot K -mmi and a 10,600 square-foot restaurant. All potential issue areas related to the proposed project have'been thoroughly addressed in the MND in accordance with CEQA. The comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental document prepared for the proposed proj ect. B-5) Comment noted. This comment states that project alternatives should have been analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that project alternatives be identified and analyzed in environmental impact reports (ErRs). There is no requirement for an analysis of project alternatives in an MND. As stated in Response No. B-1, since there is no substantial evidence of an environmental impact associated with the proj ect after mitigation, an ErR is not required. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to analyze project alternatives. All potential environmental issue areas have been addressed consistent with CEQAAppendix G. B-6) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-5. Also, as discussed further in B-18, existing/permitted uses on the site would generate 8,350 trips based upon the SANDAG trip generation table; the Home Depot would generate 6,150 trips (2,200 net trip reduction). The 6,150 trip figure is based upon a more conservative trip generation coefficient (trip generation for an existing Home Depot) than that provided in the SANDAGtable. 6 Comments Response - B 8-8 adopted GPU fino significant llllmitigatble negative effects city wide to Air Quality, Noise. Traffic, Aesthetics and Community Character (in the case of the ~oulhwcSi without a specific plan with design guidelines LUI' 41. l3, .14, .15.) any project of this magnitude will cOIllribute 10 this situation and needs an EIR to explore alternatives to reduce impacts or to at the very least fu!ly disclose these additional impacts. II remains to be seen if a project Sll{;h aSlhis will be compatible with a specific plan for the Third Avenue section ofthc' Southwest Specific Plan since such a plUll has not yet been adopted or even started. The Noise Barrier flier for the proposed wall is designed for "Jndustriul Noise," which is WIHl{ the entire Noise Analysis deals wiLh, not commercial noise, which is another reason why an EIR is needed. This is not a use within the CUfrent zone of commcrcialJretnil. It hilS an element of that but it also by the nature orlhe way H1) does business hns an clement ofindustrial as well. Industrial requires a minimul50 Ji.)ot hurler from residential. The building would need to be moved to the enslcrn pan of the lot to provide this buffer. B-7) Comments regarding questions of consistency with the cunent City General Plan noted. 8-7 In summmy, these comments focus largely on the configuration and design of the proposed project as regards building placement and compatibility with the residential areas to the west. While the subject site at the southeast comer of Moss St. and Third Ave. is within the General Plan's South Third Ave. District (Figure 5-21, pg. LUT-141), it was not subject to any designation changes through the General Plan update adopted in December 2005, and remains designated as Commercial Retail and consistently zoned as CC Central Commercial. . The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and is subject to design review, as well as a CUP for the outdoor storage component. '" ci, As indicated by several of the GP policies cited in the comments, -.J the General Plan does anticipate a future specific plan and/or other forms of rezoning (and the establishment of according design guidelines) to occur in the area. Several of the GP policies cited indicate that the prescribed future design emphases (building placement, mixed use, etc) be taken up through these subsequent specific plan/zoning efforts. While it is likely that these future efforts will be focused largely within the Southwest Town Focus Study Area to the south (Figure 5-21), they may also involve the '., subject site. However, until such time as those effort are undertaken, projects will continue to be processed pursuant to existing zoning in areas such as this, where no GP land use designation changes were made and existing zoning is consistent with the GP. B-8) As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a noise study was completed by a qualified professional. Existing Home Depots were modeled and analyzed. The noise study indicated that the noise from truck operations would be below city standards with the proposed mitigation. No significant unmitigated noise impacts were identified to occur after mitigation. 7 Comments Aesthetics and Community CharadeI' jlre negatively impacted by the excessive amounts of outdoor storage typically and chanlCleristically tound around their buildings. The atmosphere is one of a warehouse, and it docs not bother me when I go there because l am coming to buy supplies fix a projcct,butncxt to a residentialncighborhood and across the stl'celll"Olll a hospital it is not atlmctive. There is generally a large amount of dust around customer pick~llp canopy from broken cement bags or just normal1eakage from cement bags. There is also the issue of day laborers and unlicensed contractors who hang around Home Depots seeking jobs. Even ut 7 AM in the morning there were five at the SatLlrn store. I hav'.: been there when there were over 15. At the H 8-1 Street store at 2PM 011 a Sunday afternoon there were two groups or more thun five men each. This is not at all appropriate near a residential neighborhood or a commercial neighborhood for that mutLer. I have seen them go into bushes to relieve lhemselves. Human waste in Ihe lundscaping near residential could be considered II health hazard. There needs to be a thorough dIsclIssion of these IsSllCS in un EI R and some kind of Illilig~tion fbr them. Public Services: QUI' police me chronically unable to meet their threshold roc Ilon~ emergency calls. The responses to calls tbr service in 2005 for the Home Depot off of H Slreclllumbercd 126, while lhe Big K down the street had only 45. Clearly a Home Depot makes 1:1 higger demund upon tbe police than a normal SlOre. Now the neighborhood has something to do with these calls. The K~Mart on Third had 107 in 2U05. Using the equation 126/45 = X/I 07 one comet up with the expected llllmbcr or responses to calls for service 01'300 for the new Home Depot an impact. There is also lhe issue of Imhlic henllh and safe I)' impacts. HOME DEPOT MUST MAKE STORES SAFER BY Jim Molis Atlanta Business Chronicle - February 21. 2003 "This edilion of Atlanta Business Chronicle carries a shocking report about dangers faced by cllstomers and employees at Horne Depot stores. Our stories document more than a dozen customer and worker deaths in Home Depot stores in recent years, plus a 45 percent jump in Occupational Safety & Health Administration violations by Home Depot in 2002. ... But Steve Rasak. the Los Angeles attorney who represented the family of a 79-year-old woman killed in 1999 by a falling 75-pound box at a California Home Depot, believes the warehouse concept that has made Home Depot a retail giant also makes its stores among the most dangerous. Home Depot refuses to disclose how many customers are being injured in its 1.500- stores. and no law reauires disclosure. But the shoppina public has a riQht to know the. number of customers who are being injured because, unlike manufacturers and other industries tllat can be inherently dangerous to employees, retailers invite the public into their workplaces." http://www.bizjoumals.com/atianta/stories/2003/02/24/editoriaI1.html 8-11 Response - B B-9) As stated on Page I of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project site is currently developed with a 118,669 square-foot Kmart Store. The existing structure would be replaced with a 129,043 square-foot Home Depot. Both businesses are considered by the City of Chula Vista to be retail establishments pursuant to Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code. The Chula Vista Design Review Committee has reviewed preliminary plans for the proposed project on two separate occasions. The project design has been modified to reflect comments made by Committee members. Specific changes to project plans include the incorporation of horizontal and vertical elements using trellises, color and fa<;ade articulation, as well as landscaping treatment en1iancements along the site perimeter and interior parkway. The truck route along the rear ofthe building has been designed with a landscape buffer and noise wall/screen wall to screen trucks/vehicles and unloading activities. Outdoor display areas have been designed with paving patterns, canopies and trellises. The Design Review Committee will address on-site improvements and any aesthe.tic issues when the proposed project is presented to them for decision at a later date. The presence of day laborers is not considered to be an envirorunental issue and would be addressed through Chapter 9.09 (Loitering) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. B-lO) As noted on Pages 21-23 of the Initial Study Checklist, adequate police protection services and response times can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The City's performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met and the proposed proj ect will not create a significant effect upon or require the need for new or altered police protection services. B-11) Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. 8 Comments B-12 Land USl~ nnd Plallllinl!: At every workshop held during Ihe, General Plan Update . process we were shown pictures and told that Uig Box stores would not be allowed to build their buildings on tbe back ofIhe lot with a sea of parking in the front. WulMar! and Caseo on Broach""llY Lire bidden from view by a row of stores with their backs to Broach-vay fucing tlleir pC:lrking lols. Why is Home Depot being allowed to build at the back of its lot with u sea of pur king faeing Third'! Is it because it is being built in the Southwest, and we are not considered important enough to deserve qualit)' redevelopment? LUT38.12 Esmblish a design code thai reinforces the safelY apd serenity of the area, and seeks to establish a coherent, lIcslbctic, internatiollul charncler to the Southwest Planning Area. (This block WtlS not pUr! of the GIlU, bUI is bclwecll two blocks that were.) How does this project support this gllidclinc'? In faCl it seems 10 violate LUT 38.4: Encourage owners of existing commercial shopping centers that contain chain grocery and drug stores to include ndditionaluses, SLlch us rcstaunmts, entertailll11ent. ~hildcure fncilities, public meeting rooms, recreation, cultural facilities, and public open spaces, which enhance neighborhood aCLiviLY, Thisllomc Depot is removing a restaunllll fj'Oll1 f\ retail center. If Home Depot is gelting any incentives frolll the city where arc the public amenities promised. In fael what is the public benclil, ifnny, oflhis project? tl;UT 25.5) 'I'here is also the issue of LUT):IProft.'cl (1f(/aCtWI re.r/tkl/li"/IIt''..~7hborh(Jorfr 1;/' (~f/tlb/iflfJ//J/ gflltlel1//e.J' Iltlll Ji.'a/e r/O/I'// rlel',?!opH/f/1I1 (II Me e((~t':i' qjlJ/ghe/'/iJ/eJ/si(F mired 1I.1'(~ cO/J//IU'I'ClaldJlrI /J/'bulI n.~uilell//(/! IIl't.w.r (i e. Inll/.fll/rIIMlllrear). L UT5. 3 A'efjl/ke I!/(/I e(IIINI/e/'e/a! (/1/(/ iNml.f/ria/ r/el'e/oplllelll (/r'(;il(:ellllo 1'l.~r/a'(''IIIi(/1 o/' etl/(ealiolla/ fl.l"t::r be (/(!t::'rjlltl!t."{F ,fcnw/(/(I {II/flbl(!/el'ed 10 11I//lIil!I~~e kr:hl. Ilr)iJc.~ g/t1rt; (/1/(/ OlD' o/h'r "dv(.'1:I'(, li11f/fle!.r //}Jol/the reri,h'Jllla/IIt'lghborhoot! or t'dlll'tllifJl/{tI/i/dlr?l~ I'laving the Home Depotatlhe buck of the IOl essentially in the same place as the old K- Mart ducs not provide for a buffer or transitional area <1t all. LUT4.7/(eqmi-e /IUd (J/{Ii!{Ior .r/o/,{///e {1If?(l.f or ,l'Ok(z~"e.I'(lldf be J'{'J'eellt?fl/jvOI /J/!rpllb/ic rlghl q/llr(l~ A design like the H-Streel slore with a recessed mea 011 Third for ull the stomge, louding docks, lumber offlOi:lding and pick-up would do this, but current design docs not. There is no specific southwest Illan at this time, nor are there design guidelines LUT 41.13, .14. .15 so Ihis would be a signiJieant negative impact OIf Community Character thai couid only be mitigated by <l SOllthwestenl plan, This requires all EJR ifndoptiotl in spite of this is conceived. The Current GP adopted on December 13, 2005 was 11dopteu with llllmitigatable Community Character impacts, because these spednc plans do noLllOW exist. This "muld require: (Ill EIR for any project of this llll:lgnitude. Transllortatioll and Trame: The first error is 011 page 2 where tbe slore's hour~ me listed as from 6AM to 9PM IVlondny through Saturday UJld 7A1Vlto 9Plv[ Sunday_ "I'Ll' ilppJicalion and the MND state the hours will be 6AM to IOPM Monday 10 Suturda'y and 'lAM to lOPM on Sundays. What is not stated 011 page 3 is lhat L Street is 11 designaled truck roule. Naples and Moss arc: not. Frank M. needed to get a lawyer to have signs and a barrier placed along Naples west of Broadway in order to prevent trucks from using tiltH street. My neighbors got similar signs posted on Hilltop south ufo-Orange. The residents on Moss have the right to expect that trucks will not lIse their residential street. especially .-;ince RIl)"vicw l3chavioral Center is a hospitul. which is a sensitive receptor and needs ,I) he protected from truck tranic. Nowhere in the tramc repOl1' is this hospital JTlcntjo!J~d. This is H big failing ol'thc report. B-13[ B-14 Response - B B-12) Comments noted. See responses noted inB-7. B-13) Conunen(noted. Text of hours of operation will be conected in the traffic study. There is no change in the identified significant impacts in the study or Mitigated Negative Declaration. No additional impacts would occur as a result of the textual change. B-14) Comments noted. In response to comments on the designated truck route, in accordance with the California State Vehicle Code, Section 35703, "No ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 35701 shall prohibit any commercial vehicles comingfrom an unrestricted street having ingress and egress by direct route to and from a restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon the restricted street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. " Pursuant to Section 35701 of the California Vehicle Code and the City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department, truck access to the site must be allowed off of Moss Street. Trucks would not, however, be allowed to travel west of the project site on Moss Street. 9 Comments Pflge 4 stutes thut there me no proposed cumulative projects inlhe are,}. Thi~ is <lIst) false. Creekside Vistas was approved by the eYRe this l110nth 10 stun construdioll on 167 IWllIes lllld reL,dlless than a block "wuy near the corner of L nnd Third. This will 3-15 add over l.l l./){)OADT to the roads in the area. Since iris stated {hilt traft1c is cxpccu~d to come hom nVl~ miles around the store it is puzzling 1hal page 4 only lists 7 intersections. There is no mention of (~5 01' L Street presumably the 30 trucks a day making deliveries arc going to use this Jl'cewuy. The BayJi'oJll Muster Plan will add cumulative cflcc(s to ['.hC proposed pl'(~jcct as well. FigUl'c 4.2~5 traffic Wi.Jl effccllhis project 1I.11d the added truck Hnd customer tl'l1fl:ic wiH add to the congestion. TABLE 4.2.13 PHASE I CONDITIONS 3-16 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE shows that IRS will be most Iv F once Phase I is iJl1plmnented. Phase 1 und this projected opening 01'2010 correspond ~ith each olher. This project certainly willlldd a cUJIlulative effect to the ullmitigatablc negative impacts projected if the Dayfront Master Plan as pl'Oposed is adopted. This should be considered [in Ihlj ,l11l\lysig as well as Creekside Vistas and the infiU projects along Moss. Page 9 has a faulty unalysis. The actually trame count <lIthe H Street store was done in the middle of the "veek. This store is almost totally u store UliUzcd by homcmvncrs who mostly visit it 3-17 on theweekellds. ALso because it is a smaller store without a cllstolllcrpickllp can(\~)y it b Ilol a favored store tor the pickup of cemenl and other bulky items. This store has a lower trame count than is Ilormallor a Home Depot. If aCHlal counts are lo he used there "" I c:n o Response - B B-15) In response to comments regarding analysis of cumulative projects, as stated on Page 11 of the Traffic Impact Study by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan.dated April 19, 2006 a growth factor of 1.5% was added to traffic volumes to account for unforeseen projects. As can be seen in Table 8-1 of the traffic study, all intersections are calculated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better and in fact all intersections are at least 9 additional seconds of delay from degrading to LOS E. These 9 seconds of delay correspond to approximately 10% of general cumulative growth. Therefore, even if a growth factor of I 0% had been utilized (which would more than cover the traffic generated by specific cumulative projects), no significant impacts would have occurred. B-16 Comments noted. The project site is located outside of the study area ofthe Bayfront Master Plan Traffic Study since minimal trips from the Bayfront project were projected (by that traffic study) to pass by the site. Please see Response No. B-15. Additionally, in response to the comment regarding freeway impacts, the San Diego Traffic Engineers' Council guidelines for traffic studies in the San Diego region (dated 3/2/2000) requires the analysis of mainline freeways if a project adds over 50 peak hour trips to a freeway segment. The project's truck traffic (30 per day max) plus the regional patronage and employee traffic was calculated to add less than half of this amount to 1-5. Therefore, an analysis of! -5 was not wa11'anted. B-1? Refer to Response No. B-15. In order to obtain a worst-case analysis, weekday peak hour traffic impacts were analyzed in the traffic study. Weekday peale hour traffic volumes on sU11'0lmding streets are much higher than weekend traffic volumes. 10 Comments B-18 must bl: nil uverage ora number ofslOres. The normal figure llsed ill EIR's for Home Depots is 60/KSF. This is what was lIsed in Carlsbud, Escondida, EI Cujon, Vista, und Sun Mmcos. It is based upon un actual count lor another El Cajon Horne Depot. (Reference respective EIR's) Tbis is the figure that should be lIsed. for this store. [fthis figure is lIsed we gel a more valid trallic count of7,788. Subtracting K~Mart this comes to em increase of2,918. This is the Jigure that should !ulve been used in the traffic analysis.. The analysis or the K~Mart traffic is not in Appendix D tiS ,the study stale:; it should be. Page 14 10.5 is totally ridiculous. The CIHlJll Yi!>la Buffet was not in operation for almost the entire Yt'm 2005. It never was a very prosperous restaurant. II got a fair UIl10Ulll offaot traffic and some of K-Marl's traffic also went to the Buffet. It should not be included at ull in the alU\lysis, but ifit is to be included there is no way that 3,480 ADT should/could possibly be attributed to it!!! Where in the world did the tigure of8,3~O come from? The study measured K-Mart as 4,870. The normal SANDAG chart figllre for a restaurant with quick turnover is 1,000 per acre, which would be 1,000, (The 1993 application for explulsion shows K~MHrt's portion of the lot to be 10.1. 11.1-10.1 leaves I ucre for the rc~taul'anL) This is too high for this restaurant. The very prosperous Jimmy's down the street count their daily trips in the hundreds. Again this restaurant WlIS not open in 2005 and therefore did not contribute to the traffic at all and the proper figure to use for the Home Depot is at lea.st 7,788 minu!i 4,870, even minus 1,000 ('which is imaginary ((Jr a restaurant that WlIS not open and therefore had no impact) equals 1,918 extra (rame lrins J,!;cnerated by Home Depot, which is an underestimation. This traffic study necds to b~ redone usiJlg Ihe correct figures ilnd not including the restaurant that has not been in operation for almost two years. The Home Depot clearly will result in an increase in ImrnC nol a decrease! Another issue not addressed is the GP. which (bund T^IlLE5,1O~54 FllEEWA Y SI<:GMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ClHClILATION 1i\'lPACTS l'rclcl'J'cd Si:,:CllUl'j\l StJ'l'el Jlwm To ExiJ;ling Phlll I 23 1-5 SR-54 E Street C F I; F I; 1-5 E Street II Sln:el D Ii' F F F 1-5 Il $treet J Street D F f F f 1-5 J Sln:cl L Street D F F F II' 1-5 L Slreet Palomar Sll'ccl D F rt F F Jlud Third Avenue bt:lween L Street and Palomar \VIIS thund to be one of the road segments that would have II significant lmmitigalablc negative impact on tmffic circulation in the GP update. This project would add to the situation over 2,000 additional trips, which CllIlnol be mitigated. 8-19 Response - B B-18 In order to obtain a trip generation rate based upon an actual Home Depot operation, traffic counts were conducted at the existing Home Depot store located on East H Street in Rancho Del Rey. A trip generation rate of 46.7 trips per thousand square-feet of store area was derived based upon field data. This trip generation number was then applied to the proposed Home Depot store on 3cd Avenue. The trip generation rate is more conservative than the lTip generation rate noted in the SANDAG trip generation table which has a trip generation rate for a home improvement super store of 40 trips per thousand square-feet of floor area. Permitted and constructeq uses on the site as it presently exists, would result in 8,350 trips. The 8,350ADTcomes from the 118,000 square-foot K Mart at 60 ADT/IOOO s.f. and 10,600 s.f. of restaurant at 120 ADT/ 1000 s.f. These trip generation coefficients are based upon the SANDAG trip generation table. The traffic generation numbers noted on Page 14 of the traffic study were provided for comparative purposes. The traffic calculations for the site used to determine traffic impacts were based upon the actual operation of the K Mart store. Trips associated with the closed restaurant were not figured into the trip generation rate for the project. Based upon the actual use the site at the time of the traffic study (Page 9), a net increase ofl,150 lTips was determined to result from the project. B-19) The project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the City General Plan Update and would not result in any new impacts beyond those identified in the GPU EIR. Please refer to B-18. II Comments I-fyllrolol!v and Water Oultlitv The Hnalysis in the MND is perfullctory ond inadequate. The new Storm Waler permit requires parking lots to be biol1lters. There is nothing now in the landscape plans indicating that this will happen. The slatcmctlllhal the "post':' dcvelopmcnl pCl'lk How rate does not exceed the pre-development 11ows" is inadequate. 8-20 The southwest has numerous drainage problems and maintaining the slalUs quo is not salisHlctory. There has to be an improvement in the drainage as a result ofthi9 project. r'i1ters lInd bioswalcs need to be shown on a drainage plan. Simply staling thai the project will meet the MUllicip,tlpcrl1lit is not adcquute. There should be a drninagc plan provided that demonstrates this. [ Noise The noise sources have been listed <lnd the top of page S lists 9 Jiffercnt sowees fit the back adjoining Ihe residential uses. A significant one has been left OlIL Employees of the K-Mart made the lives oFrhc residents miserable by talking loudly llnd playing music 8-21 while they worked nights stocking the store. This is another potential noise source. aile or the code violations the I-I street store received WllS for cleaning the pm'king lot in the llliddle of the night. This is a monthly task and the residents next to the pnrking Jot olIB [ nnd it very annoying. There is an error on page 8 oflhe MND. The location of the 8-22 loading dock iSlhc southwest corner not the southeast corner us lhe MND states. If indeed no lumber 01' other materiuls will be stored outdoors in the alley this will be the only one of the 15,000 stores where this happens. '" I m '" Response - B B-20) As noted on Page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Study was submitted for the proposed project and found to be acceptable by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department. As stated on Page 7 of the MND, the applicant will be required to comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Manual and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the storm water systems during and after construction. The applicant will also be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit No. 2001-01 and other permit requirements, identifY storm water pollutants of concern, and submit a water quality technical report with the submittal of final grading/improvement plans. These measure have been incorporated into the MND. The existing site was developed several decades ago, and does not have state of the art BMP measures in place. B-2l) This comment states that store employees ofK-Mart made a great deal of noise at night by talking loudly and playing music, and that parking lot cleaning at night created a noise disturbance. The noise study analyzed the noise associated with the operation of the proposed Home Depot, and found that noise associated with store operation is environmental noise and can be mitigated to less than significant level. Pursuant to the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance 19.62 (CVMC), loud voices/music is nuisance noise and would be subject to enforcement action by the City of Chula Vista Police Department. Parking lot cleaning will be limited to store operation hours. B-22) Comment noted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration will be corrected to state that the loading dock would be located at the southwest corner of the proposed building. This is a typographical error and does not affect the environmental analysis. The project was analyzed with the loading dock in the correct location at the southwest corner of the building. No new impacts would result from this minor modification to the enviromuental document and no additional mitigated measures are required. 12 Comments B23[ B-, Actually 1 don't think they coulJ do bllsiness thjs way, which is ,....,hy the building needs to be placed in n diflcrent pmt of the lot. fl is highly doubtfullhM [\'lIck idling can be kept to 5 minutes without the presence of a policeman writing tickets. When it is wmm or hotthc engine needs to be running ft)r the heaLer or nil' conditioner to v'lork. Also it is very hard on the engine of large trLlcks to be shutting off the engine all the time. There does not appear La be any study aftlle cumulative effects orall these noise sources on the occasions when they would "ill huppen al once. It would seems thai. if walls ns high as J 5 feet need La be buill this simply is nollhe right location for the building. 7 AM to 10 PM is a ridiculolls noise ordinance. These people have small children \vho need to be in bed well before 10 PM. People who have to be at work at 5 or 6 also need to be in bed before 10 PM. There is ~'\Iso a great deal of information about the harmful psychological and physical e1Tects of low level noise on sensitive receptors. "Even low-level ofliccnoise call illCl'eil~e hCllllh risks ilml lower la~k lllullvi\liull lhr workers, (:ornelll'cscllrchers tilld" b!!O.JL'.'l::~~.}YJ.l9Yif.!.!Ul~,U,:411Jrc lellscsiJili III I inn i sv.o tliccs.ssl.hlllll. N I '" c.> Events that disturb and harm our physical, emotional, and mental health are called stressors. Stressors can lead to the body Initiating the fight-or-flight adrenaline response. The body gels ready to fight a stressor, or flee a stresSOL Boom cars, with their l1igh-intensity/low-frequency sounds and infrasound, are a known stressor that can lead 10 specific, negative events in the body.... Dr. LIl\her Terry, a fi)rmel' U.S. Surgeon General, noted that "cxcessivc nuise exposure during pregnanc)' can intluence embryo develojllllcut." 8-25 "Growing evidence soggests a link belween noise and c3rdlo\l3scular problems, There is also e\lidem:e suggesting 1I1alnoisemayberel<lledtobirlhdefeclsandlowblrth-weightbabies." "The U.6. sludy in Los Angeles found lhal, in addilion to greater lncidencll of low birth weights, Ihllre wal; also a grealerincidenceofbirthdefeclssochascleftsoflhellporpalate,andspinalmalformalions." (Source: Till! En\lironmental Proteclion Agency's NOISE EFFECTS H~NDBOOK) Even chronic, low-Icl'cllrumc nui:;c ul 50 - 60 dB cun adversely afli:c{ ~hildren. It cUn cause i\ rise in blood pres~ur<" hean rate, Dud stress hOrmOlll's. Ill. uddili(lll, it also reduecs taskmoliY<llionillld learning. Elevuliolls ofsln:ss honnon<:s ure linked 10 Ihe adult iJlnmscs of"high blood prCSSlll'e. elevHlcd lipids and cholcs\<:rol. hcart dbCilse ami II reduction ill the body's supply of disease-lighling lmlllun<: cells." (Source: hllp:/Jw\\'w.ncwscicntist.com/ncw!>l - Ilhaca. NY,5122J2UUl Bursts {lfNbisc: "On<: bllrstoJ'lloisc. as 1'-0111 a pClssing trllck, b kmlWlllo lIlLcr endocrine, ncurolugicnl, nnd canHovascuhlr funclions ill mall}' indiviJuals; prulongcd or frequcnt exposure to sllch noise lends to muke the physiolugicll! dblurlliluces chronic. In nddilioll. llobe-induced stress creates severe tension in dnily living llnd cOlllribulcs w menial illness." (Source: NOISE POLLUTION, Electric Libmry prcscllIS Encyclopedia.com) "Rcselln:h shuw:; thul InknniUenl and impulsive noise is more t1hlurbillg limn con\inuolls noise." (Source: League for the Hard ofllc<lring's NOISE & IIEAL.HI fACT SHEET) lIospitalnoisc IUIs been shown III slow healing." (Sourcc: THE SOUND AND TilE FURIOUS, by Corinne f\slurillS) 'j 'J~ ' ' c~r~ N"i:;~ ,"'UI'CC~ Irollltow-frc'IIlw('y e(JlllpnllcnIS. like boum c~rs.. Jcsen'c spedal c"ll.i,Jcr~[i'''l. "Di'lUl'b~llCCS mur llccur ncn 111l'Ugh [he ""lilt! prc,sufc IeI'd duri.,!: c.\p(J'II"~ is hd"", JO <ll.l,\. " I..,w-Jrc,\"ener ,I<\;'C "ill pcnclmlc ,,"uti, umll>mdcrs IlHjfC fcudil)' Ih~1l high Irc'lLlcncy !loise. is,,,,,'"''- GUllW.l.lNES FOil COl-U"llJNITY NOISE, ADVI'(lSE IIEAI."I'JI EFFECTS OF NOISE) B-23) B-24) B-25) Response - B Comments noted. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, steady operation from idling diesel trucks awaiting access to the store will be minimized because truck idling is subject to a five-minute limitation in accordance with State Law. Both the City Code Enforcement Officer and Highway Patrol have authority to enforce this measure. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code the sensitive periods of the day are between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday tllTough Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. The noise analysis was based upon existing Home Depot operations. All noise impacts associated with store operation were considered and appropriate mitigation nleasures were developed. The sound attenuation wall proposed for the western perimeter of the site would mitigate noise impacts to a level that is consistent with City standards and less than significant. Comments noted. The comments db not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 13 Comments This is only n small sampling of the negative health effects that the people in the condominiull1S and apartments have endured for the years K-Mart was behind them. The patients at Bayvjew already have psychological problen1s. They do not need to be exposed to the risks associated with noise levels in the 50db range from 7 AM to 10 Pfod daily. The single -ti.lInily home across the street is to be replaced with 15 condominiums, c>:posing more children, pregnant women and average people to stressjusl hecallse I-lol11c Depot is not being made by the city to do what common sense says is most 111gicalt relocate their building to keep all trucks and forklifts away from the hospital and residences. It is the job of the city to protect the residents not to avoid inconveniencing the largest !'cluil store in the world. luLInt.uu!lI.a.lJ.:mJIl,.!iQ1iJJ(/JH.I)i.il:Jl,;rt!Js .... (IOCllment Is liSl;hll to per$Dl"lS Inll!re~teu In nndlog Dut mOle about what NolJie PollulJonls <lnd what Its eff~l;ts ,,'e, as w~1I ~s how th.\)' fIlil)' .ilOCUliltl!!Y meaSllle lhe amount 01 nDlse In tlltlir onvIlOllfTu:lfl\." Alttde Online Source; lM~e 1~"l!utl.~nXleilljJl.!l.llil.lI1& -25 TIi~ 'Iuno r~JI~Illro,n diu ConI'" I.luf..n, IIl1a<l AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY FOR n!E UNITED 51....lES. ,",(~d U'ol fill... ," ......"'"..... "uni."" l<I1" c>:"'~'l.1~llaboullh... n"jghb<"h"c~lo. Iii. ",." Ula ","ill ,~".o" Jo' w.mlirlg lo "lOV~ l~ ~n"lh"I""'II"n NOJ..Is.... l,.."t ..Clnud 61,,10:1 in ""'10' u s.. .'1... i" Ill. l;o.115 ,'ura Al,IOl1lOb,la. "'. lha I~[llul.,,~rcaof".". Nq,lii.e.LA.l,h:iillI11.'.U1!.lI!:lIL. Tills 197& dowment .... IS u somewhil[ dated hut ~till very heljlful Ef'A docu'l1enl ..bout noise ilnd heilllh.~ Article Online SouJce: !:[QI;;I':J~pIJlJlJon.Duml[\fJjloUJie U"inlom,prod ,loop t. 1'."0,,", 10 0. 0 p""O""I.U. IQfgfl\ldpf1y'IOI~I(:"1 ~n'l "","!il1 Ju"r.llo'~ng oJ hullhy plIf$OIl' \1\01101"$ $1.01' oli.l"rbano:a If. ",,".olcJoa 10 bO . m'JOr olfoct ~1.l\~lJcn"'.<or.I.1 "oil<>, d<llo On lh. eJle... of en"~""'l\l<Il ".1,. "'1 '1.01' Of. .fJ1il~.j. fhO""1 In.o.,Gh a" .1."1' di'lu"'o".o 1>.0,1><1." corl<l"cltldln, ...,oll ""i... r.Ull ualflc flU ..~.....y no'lo, fO'OXllmjlln. 'oad Vall.. no>.. in OX""" .13U dO alll"'b.lI'''P. TI,. p'ul>llWil, of b~"'11 ........k..nod ~''''j).... "IU, UIQ "",.-bel QJ n"i.. o.""t. por nigJ,l l\j'"')t'."kg""lndn.ll.i'lllW.nall.o~"..di""45de.hD"IIll;oli,,,ilod;forun.iti'i.",di.iduol',Q(lovon~...~rkl'ali'plor."ad 'her luCl." U'.\mllu.nr;.a U,. problemaf njilh~lin... 1"';'0 knd"ao il. oow"aMO ill lu,a.IlI,.1 a'a" ...111. low b.e~&'QIJ<'Id M"~ 10...11. ~<llribII\al",n. of M'-''' "'a ',;br.lion ,~d, U Ih"l p,oduced by Ira,no and ho.~yduly v"tu""'o. ,,,.1'0"11:0' y,llIllow-Jro<luon.'Y .0"1l0IlMli I/,I\i<ll .fa "",,," di,!ulb...g. a.on "I V~f)ll<wl....nd pc...ure Io\'\lll. TI'... 10...... ruqL:on<;y ca",'o,,""11 r"ve" 5<{Inif'~.ntl'"lrimenlaJ olfer.! ~n lio..llh nlal r,ullh" d"rlIl~d U ~'e abun.~ olj'donlir,"~lo p'yctual,,< di..",d"... ao<:ordina lown."l norm.. En\l;/'l)l"fflOllliilllOlla il ""I bl=~a....a to bu 0 <""'c cI '"",,liII ~ln",... />I" ~ ..""",dl".if..liI~(.I."nain''''01If.,.lholkl''''h>~."I<rlln.,"lmenllllllilo'd''5,1h.l.dva"""eWacI5(;le",,'rolll11ental_lal/J1rnetllelhullhu>c!udeiholo!le\MJlgClllill"llol .OllIPi"lnl", aoldol)'. on..lioH,,1 WC"" na;vou. complaln(~. n~".n. h~.o;toctle. '"","Wily, '-'lj"'l"n(.\i"oneu. ..~....r .-.",ul_""". oI,001l''o.. mood. 1I",0loa., .."",,,"I CIlnJIr.n.. -Ii a. (l,UIO'''. h)'l!e<i-a, nnd p.y0l10i... Por~labo" $l...'h~ h~va I'.Jl.Y,;IU15Il.<I"""'llon51>$l>W." n"I.. a>qllJlillfo aoll "..mol hoalUl indiclllgll; such a< r.lng 01 ....a.b.ing. "'l'lom Jl(Om.a, ~'fl oll"yd>"aCljv-lI ~fUjj' and .j.a~i"\Il1i1i5. .",j mrmlol "",pllol .Jo.....lI1l"iilu. Tl;ort mIl.~ bfl greal d~lfl"'''''''''' ihc ~bifi\y oJ ~;'."l P'!P"l;rliQr" \o""'P<' , ,,,,,1'0 pol..lioo; r.,ulicula'ly vuinc>oblolllOllps m.y ~du<le. -el:lldro". "'. ok/crtl'.",,~ IhOu,.....~ p.lenisl'''\Ia..e..., u~c>.l~ dopru.i",,: :-26 11 tp:1 !\VWW .nonoisc.orgll i brary/whonoisc/whoresponse.h tm All of this indicates that the city's noise standards arc not stringent enough to protect tbe health of sensitive receptors. On page 3 the noise analysis only deals with the adjacent scnsiti ve receptors to the west. It totally ignores the residents to the north and the patients at Bayvicw to the North. Considering the zoning of the property ~lS retail commercial the dropping ofllllllber and the fi'equent operation offorklifts should be considered a nuisance noise not an environmental noise. The excessive number of trucks- 30 a duy is also \vay out of line with any other commerCial use in the city. This is more in line with light industrialllses sllch as towing services, garages, etc. The noisc report ignores tbe differcnce in elevation between the K-Mart pl'Opclty and the residences. The added height of the land on which the condominiums sit, as well as the lack of required setback from the property line made the 6 foot sound wall useless. The page litled Noise Impact and Mitigation has a table dealing with dBA at 50 feet. Even with added setback HD proposes of 15 Icet th)m its prope11y Iioe the condos are only 20 feet till III the new sound \vall \vherc the lumbcr pallets are to be dropped, This 'would mean that the sound \vould be greater than what appears in the table. Wouldn't there be a cUll1ula:.ive noise effect with lhe unloading noise mul the traffic noise that would exceed the 55 dB standard for the single-l111Ilily homes? Figure 3A shows that the noise for at least. 4 of the condominiums cxceeds 60 dB and all of the condos and the apartments are tiubjected 10 50 dB, Figure 313 shows thaI the condos are still subjected to higher tban 50 dB al tbe current \\'all , The reduction to 50dB at t 5 feet high is quite a distance wesl of some ortlle condos. Since sOllnd travelllpWal'd the height difference would seem to reduce the protection ror the condos rather than enhance it as suggested. The lile for the condoMND Response - B B-26) Comments noted, The noise study considered noise impacts, including truck unloading activities and on-road traffic impacts, to all sensitive receptors (including residents to the north/Moss Street) and found that all noise impacts can be mitigated to a level ofless than significant. The noise study was prepared by a qualified professional and found by the City of Chula Vista to meet applicable standards (City Noise Ordinance) for the preparation of noise impact studies. 14 C.\pl'C!\~CS lid:> opinion scvt:nd limes. The JilTcrclll:1:: betwcell 59 dB illld ()()Jll i~ oul disccllIllbk by Ih.:: human cur ,ll11JlICiUlIlly I d~)Ubllhat llHlSllllClIsurCllIcnt devices arc U";ClInllC 10 within iL Ii"action 01',; dccihd. Thi.~ 15-lbol wall docs llo!mitigllll; tht: SbUlld sullicicntly below the 6U dB slnndurd tu be effective. The report Ud,]lOWlcdgcs Oil the pngc titled UnlomJing Noise Miligatlull Ihat there is" possibility of "multiple rcllccllolls betweenlhc SOllUd-\\'lllllllld the Home Depot rcul" building wllllthn( would JI1l1gnify the Jll'ojcclcd noise kvcb," This would magnil)' lhe. sound in the "scmi-HlIllu::J crcillL'J between the 15 foot WIlli ;Iud 34 roollull:k wall of the buikling. Ihb seems 10 be a possible prubklll, but the boltorn 1i1ll~ is thai 5lJdB is not sulllclcntly below the 6()(!B standard 10 off~r all)' ilssurance Ihat lhe standard will nnt be exceed alleast parI orthc lime. The I-IV AC unils iU'C extremely nois}' nt 86dB. This is loud enough to causc hCllring loss for thc people who must work in close pro.\illliL}' 10 thcm. Thllllellves lhe residents 10 deal with 5 I dB IlfcontinLlous lIoise ti'om these coolers, which has not been c:dCllklled ilS cumulative. While there is mention orihe impossibility of 11 of them running at night together. Ihis would become a probabilily during the day time when the IlnL~c sHmdunl would be surpussed. Nothillg in this repmt dculs with the cUlllulative etrccl of all these Iluises.ln isolation tlll:y may barel}' meet the slandard but it is so close to lhe st,mdunlthnl cumulativc]}' thcy have 10 cxceed iL Why lIluSt HOlllc Dcpot use its ~peakcr system ,1t illl? 1\,]05t employees cllrry hand held wal~ic lalkies or cell phones and U3~ thcm 10 COll11l1\lnlcllle with onc another or the)' lire stnLlegieally placed so they can comlllunicate in Ihis way inside. The same devices can be used ouLside. 'Illere is 1IU reason tu (llkm, speaker use at aiL There areal 1ensl9 sources of noise Lhat life dell!:, with illth.:: rear oflhe building. One of which is mitigated tu 59dll. CUlTIUlaliwly this will be all inlolerable situation for the dosesl residents. The building simply must be moved llwayfrollllhehomes. I-leu...)' Trucks-Home Depolllnd Lucky's page admits lhatthe noise (rolllthc Home Dcpot trucks is subSlallliillly loudw than those from Lucky's (.. typic..1 commerdaluscr). Home Depot Fork Lift page is claiming their lorkliils only muke II maxImum 007 dB al 30 feet. This contradicts lhe noise report inlhe MND for Ihe Moss Villas thai measured Oil puge three till.: lloiseli"l1m il rorklift beeper ~1 85d13 at 50 fL::ct. II is d(Jublfullhal evclllhc 15-foot wall thut is 30 leel uway will be able 10 rniligilte lhllt iJdcqu~tel}'. The t(n-klltls arc the most consistcntlluisllllce lloise al a Home Depot. At Oentlcry al 71\1\1 when unlOilding 1I1ruck all sidlorbuilding facing condos the bu<.:kl:p heeper WHS disconnected. This would ccmlikc a reasonable requirement. Table 4 shnuld be lidding all these noises logclher rather lhan dealing with Ihem separmely. because lhey will be occurring simulllllleously. also again 50 feel is the shortesl distance whellthe condolllilliums arc aClu<Llly 20 feci way li'om the lIew \~all and the trucks and forklifts are not going to hep 30 ct away trom thlll wall illulllimes. The Noise Darrier mer is fm Industrial Noise, which is whatlhl.': Iltire Noise Anulysis deals with, not commerciallloisc, which is why 'an UR , needed. This is not II use withillthc current 1.Olle. "ASt LSEW~II Sy.I~ll\S .he ASI LSE Wal] Syslcm hns been II provcn SHecess in lhe noise ahatclllcllt nduslry. These noise bilrrier Willis have bcen used on many inlers\Ilk highways. but also lmve industrial uppliciltions uround gas compressor Slillions, ekctric transformers, cooling lowers, chillcrs. compressors and more." !l!.W:Jh\'\\iW ..lCl.lusricfllsollltions.comJllruduetsfwllIU.B!lemsf!luhlcr....Jl.!![!s.asn 8-27 8-28 8-29 Comments Response - B B-27) Comments noted. Additionally as noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a noise study was required to evaluate potential noise impacts created by the proposed project. The noise study included evaluation and analysis of noise generators including but not limited to HVAC and rooftop mechanical equipment, PA systems, forklifts, backup beepers and other operational docking equipment. The study concluded that there would be no significant impacts associated with noise as mitigated and the project does not exceed City thresholds. B-28) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-18 and B-24. B-29) Comments noted. See responses noted inB-18. 15 Comments The people behind the old K-Ivlnrt were extremely llllhuppy with K~Mart so ,to say this project will JlOlmuke the situation worse is totally inadequate, It has to con~;idernbly make lhe situation beller, and looking at the data presented -dds willnGt be lhe case. The cumulative impacts of these 9 pIllS noise sources, even iflhe mitigations suggested mnke the reductions promised will create a totally intolerable situation. An investigation'of COllllty records shows an extremely high Wi'll over rate j~)r those condos. People react by moving. The city has a duty to protect these people lor the many reasons listed in the articles all the physicul, psychological and social effects of low-level noise, Aller all noise is used as a weapon. The residents liJlforlllnntcJy Weft: lIOt aware that they needed to cull the polkc every time noise was il problem. They will be milde llware oflhis. The 8-30 condos were built with only a five-foot setback [rom the rear properly line, evclllllough the file shows the developer \Y~lS told seven,1 times this was not sfllbfnclory. The !'-loise report done J~)r the condo MND asslImed the noise source would be 30 feet away, becuuse they assumed there would be thh> setback. It also mistakenly relied upon blockingtht: sOllnd at the level ofa human ear, totally ignoring that the bedrooms ufthe condos were on the second nODI' and all the apartment building me two stories. People in the apartments closer to fourth than the old K-Marl complained lo me abollt the noise. Apparently tbe workers stocking at night regularly Icn the door open, played the mdio, and tulked loudly as they used forkliHs to move things about. The people ill the condos complained ,tbout being Hwakencd all the time, and children not being able to sleep. A gentleman in the apartments on Moss also commented about the time of delivery and the noise from K~Mart's trucks. Noise is another area that Olll' General Plan update found 10 calise signific<lilt llnmitigutable impacts without specific design and land use policies in sped f1c plans being implemented. 1\5 iU\ISlnlled in TlIhlc 5.12,6, tr<lflk incn.'1\sC'sl)n ;In:a roads will re:-;ult inuobt: increast,:S of between 3 and 9 decibels for rccein~rs adjacC'llt to these J'Olldwil)'il. This im::rclIse is a significant adverse impact. (Page $-52) 'SiiJJl!i71(n the 1I0ise o//tl!-wis C(.Jj/(ltlcln/fiJA- Iheprqjecl lilt/le(Jled 1111"1/ sI."g'II/ii(,"t/il/ (,lIllllt/a//re /Ioil"e lillf.J(lCLJ' wOllklo('t'lIr /0 e.rirlli{f{ receivelJ' a((it/celll/o {''e!imil ' 8-31 ai.(,/.I!(Jli(}// eklllCl/f /'{){{{hfl(J-:r (fee ](d)/e .f..I..i-tJ). Jtf'dkJ//}J C!/iltep/'op().r(~d /;iIJlinJI///Jell!tI/ 1:Ynl/e/ll (l..-klh~Kr"~r l/olre. Thai J,t!diO/l recoK'II::e.J' Iha! Itlll.1 fI,re.I' M(t/ gellt:'rtlle .f1g/!(liciWI /Ioire sholl;'loe .repmtller/./ir)//I IMe.r /11(// are .J!tl/1/c!llar(F.J'(!fl.fI;ive!o 11O/I"t'. (P 5!Jtf) JiilCt! lIIil' lend (j{/II(}"(J!J'ir if li!ft''{Ljible a/lne tJellera/ Plall sl{fg(.~ dti"(:cl (me! (,lIl/lIIlaliFt! liJlfkLCl.r n.!!ltl/il.fJj:lli/iamt flllal/o/ /lIi/~r(Jled ,The flr/Op//Oll <<///;(;' Pn/d'l'l-erl Plo/! or d/~J.' (I/Ihe .u'c'l/{I/i'O..l' /;(IJ't';/;e ,f{/me i(/fi'{''/.f .j'f;J{:e 11Ir::J' ore ,he same {II llie gel/enl/ plrm k'J'd (!!l'llla(F.fiJ: "P .f.P6This separation is not occurring so we mllst lilld a sjgnificant llnmitigat~lble impact in this case. r Ail'OulIlity; The Ail' Quality Impact Anuly.sis is vt':ry thin and inadequate. It llnr-ortllllilt~l)' used the erroneous traffic data to conclude that there would be no incrense ove!' the B~32 existing co.n~i.tions. This in itself-is not adcqua.te tor ng~ill our ~le\\: ?!) was found t.o G1USC unmtugatable mJverse cllv]]'onmcntal effects to AIr Qmdll)', I hIS report acknowledges non-compliance and reports 3 areas where state standards are c.xcccdcd. Response - B B-30) Comments noted. Please see responses notedinB-18 and B-21. B- 31) This comment notes that significant unmitigated noise impacts were found along circulation roadways in the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report because site specific analyses was not feasible at the General Plan level. A site-specific noise analysis was conducted for the proposed project and the finding was made that all noise impacts associated with the Home Depot project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. As noted in B-18, existing/permitted uses on the site would generate 8,350 trips, and the Home Depot would result in 6,150 trips. This reduction in traffic intensity would result in a net reduction in road noise as modeled in the General Pla'n Update ErR. B-32) As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, an air quality impact analysis was prepared to evaluate potential air quality impacts created by the proposed project. The air quality impact analysis used the traffic data developed in the traffic study prepared by LLG, consistent with the CEQA criteria, regional air quality and City threshold standards. As noted in B- 18, existing/permitted uses on the site would generate 8,350 trips, and the Home Depot would result in 6,150trips. The report-identified impacts related to short-term construction/demolition, construction vehicle trips, dust, exhaust and other air pollutants related to construction, business operations, existing traffic and customer traffic. While the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is considered a nonattainment area for the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and the CAAQS forPMIO and PM2.5 as stated in the comment, the City of Chula Vista has established thresholds by which a project's contribution to the emissions in the air basin must be evaluated to determine significance of impact. The standards used by the City of Chula Vista are based on 'the South Coast Air Quality Management District's significance thresholds, which apply to the 16 Comments Response - B .; The j(lIllJ/e,!fo Ai;oIla.l"/if i1' /IOI/-d/({Jilll/'ell~/iJ/:li'(kl(;(/ tt/Jd,f/a(e tJ..':o//t::' ,fllm/kln/l,; ,fir/Ie FtJ:l/thff/f!.I'/afe .!}/f.U.f/(l/k/a/"rlJ: .411,ilL'rt!tl.fe 1/II'.IIi- CllliJ:I'IOfl.I' IIVl/ld /N! h)((g/J(I-'jlI"(Jjk//I/tma/lo (/1/ ,i/C'rt.'tf,f(! i/l /,ojYlI/(J/iOrl. II'IIII{;' COtJlIIlf:nia/ a//(!,iN/II.IYIF(j/ ,!'OI'I'Ct:',f' 1I'0#/d (.'(I111110llle /() Ine.re t(lllil:.r/()//,I; j)rop()/1if//kJ! lik'/"(.'aJ'C ,il /'l?sidcFlli"llfllif.r (,{I/IYell'e (1.1> (1 gellenJlti/(/icfI(Or qjihf! PO/t'IJlif.lI./ilrpOjJllla/iol/,3rrowi/, (lllt/ reklledilii' tJlllllt().' t!j/i':t:L.1: /lecl./lIse foe (IiI' ba.nil if' IIOlltlllll1iJII1t?I1I'/OI' o.?{)IIt~ PA/Lf, m/ff FAf/il, IJ,:e pOff:'Jllb/ ,iknmJ,Y i/ll'erirlt!/J/iaj 1/11I1.1- allflllle iI(1ij...,iie.f m:rociflln/ J/'Iih popu/aJIEJ/J grout;', enw a,1" lIIillgated/illlte CellNal Pklll {pt/flte 'lilt! os ()Iltt'lwil'{! I/Jlligale,/i!v!/;e (/(1/ IiI 11.1' CO.; /?nutcllollPhll1 (HIt! u/ml'ln,AfaIJt7,sTel/'lellf ProglWIf. I't'j/I'(!..fetll.j' t7 Cllmllktll,.,e(F con.rirlerable '//Id.J'/lt,,!//cUlII ai/' 'llllllilY lil1pilCL A/il!Jwli/N/ 11/(:,{l.fI(l't}'.f 11-1 II 'O/IIt/ nxlJlc-'t! li/i;n~/IIt"/II{l/ cLIIl//llalil'e lillpi/('/..r (l.I:r(Jc/al(.Y/lI'iflt Me m/opfioIIW'llte Pre/t.'1n:l/ .Pltm or '.1111" 0(';/1(;' See/If/IICAf, twIll ]l'()/llrlllol l't'm{('C' In(l ClI/"NI"liJ~ illlpih'lIO mi: !j1lt/h(F n~J'f)f/n'(;~J: 1(; 1'/:."/01/.''' /ew! q/.1'I...f:I1(1i'CilIICe. (Page 595) .1.1' .I'll(.'/;, I,)/N;'I'(,{!/'Jllll/ liltpl'OI'MI{r'/ll.r /i'Dlllt! Fer/lice lil/pllct.r /Wllj{)f 10 (/ lel'(l/ Ie.l:r tllLlIl.f~!:lIil/CIlII! 111en,iu/'e, ,rigl/(ji(.'tll/l 1I1//1/l111//iligllletl C/lI//lfII7//J-e Irqjj/c lil/pact.!' IIl'e /lofed/ol' lite ,fired IJefJJ'()rA:" II' Lh~ Ocneral Plun EIR Ilcknowledged that air qllality is an Adverse Unmitigatable Ncg;.ltive effect of growth, then II would scem that no project CUll fully mi{igalc Ii,H' (lis negiltiYe effect until such time as region wide changes arc made. South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bemardino, and Riverside Counties). The South Coast Air Basin standards are far more stringent than the San Diego County's Air Pollution Control District standards because the South Coast Air Basin is considered a severe nonattainment area for the NAAQS for ozone (while the San Diego Air Basin is considered a basic nonattainment area, with far fewer exceedances of the standard), and the threshold at which a source is considered "major" (i.e., anticipated to have a significant impact on the ambient air quality) is much lower. Furthermore, use of emission standards to assess potential significance of impacts on a nonattainment air basin is standard practice under CEQA, and has also been used to evaluate stationary sources under the New Source Review requirements established by the U.S. EPA and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Under the New Source Review requirements, emission thresholds are established below which a source is not considered significant and is therefore not required to provide further analysis or offset emissions. It should also be noted that the emissions presented in the Air Quality Technical Report do not provide net emission estimates and therefore do not subtract out existing emissions associated with traffic traveling to/from the K -Mart and restaurant that have been operating on the site. Both construction and operational air impacts were analyzed and were determined to be less than significant. Emissions from construction are a ShOli term and temporary, and thus would not result in significant impact on the cumulative '" I a> ...... 17 Comments Response - B ambient air quality impact. 8-33 Tbb project results in emissions from demolition, construction and duy to day operation tbat would contribute substantially 10 illl existing air quality violation, result in cUlllulatively considerable net increase ofPMIO. OJ. und NO" and YOCs, and expose sensilive receptors (hospital pUlienls and childj'cn in residences) 10 substantial pollmant concentrations. The report shopped around using a variety of diffcl'Cllt emissions standards and picked and choose the ones that would make this project look best. This is not only a questionable pructice, but an unacceptable one. The entire report should have stuck with URBEMIS2002 model. It seems parr afthis rcpOll \\'~iS copied from sOllie other report since lhey are talking about grading 17 acres and this is only 11.1 acres. l:::still1utes lIn: not adequatcwhcn dealing with residents' health. There has to be continuous monitoring Oflhc site during demolition <.lud extra steps have to be taken to conl,-lin all or virtually all of the dust on site. There is all error in the mitigation monitoring "cJlOI'! where it says the area will he wet down twice:t Jay, The Air Quality report says .1 minimum of 3Xs per tllIY is nceded to reduce dust b')l 51%, I wOLlld say II greater reduction than that is required so perhaps 4 or 5 times a day should bt;: required, considering the condos ure only 5 Feet Ji'om the properly line and tbcre.k a hospitul across the street. Table 5 shows that NOxtotals will be as high as 97.17. 96.7.1, 95.94,81.33, since the significance criteria is 100 I think this has to be Found to be close enough to require fLuther precautions. Ptvlw is also very high nt'73.48 and 73.45. Further precautions need to be taken becuuse of the sensitivity orlhe receptors very Ileal' by. B-33) The air quality impact analysis utilized the appropriate emission standards for the various types of emissions in accordance with Lead Agency direction and SCAQMD standards for CEQAreview. As discussed above, these standards are conservative in that they are based on standards for an air basin that has more air pollutant issues and thus more stringent standards than those established for the San Diego Air Basin. Accordingly, these standards provide a measure of conservatism in the evaluation of significance of impacts. The project does provide estimates of emissions from construction, evaluating heavy equipment emissions, fugitive dust, worker conunute, and truck traffic emissions. The emission estimates are based on the latest infonnation from the California Air Resources Board's OFFROAD model, which is more recent than the URBEMIS 2002 model. There is not a requirement to only use the URBEMIS2002 model in evaluating air quality impacts. N I m 00 The reference to 17.7 acres has been corrected to reflect the actual 11.14 acres of the site. This resulted in 40 percent ofthe site being graded on a single day. The uncontrolled emissions from grading remains at 44.30 lbs./day as noted in the study and no new impacts have been created or new mitigation measures required. The mitigation monitoring report has been corrected to reflect watering a minimum on times a day as reflected in the calculations in the Appendix of the Air Quality Report. The mitigation requirement states that it should occur at a minimum and that based on the situation more may be necessary based on observation monitoring. The comment regarding what the necessary margin below the established threshold for NOx is noted. See responses noted in B- 29. In addition, the conclusion of the report is that the NOx emissions associated with project construction are below these 18 Comments Page 14uscs the erroneous trame ADT's to make a false asslImption that operational impacts will not calise a negative impncL This page also llsed the URBEMlS2002 model but npparclHly used it for "retail and restuurant uses," which is incorrect (page 14 paragraph 2). They used the wrong assumption for tran'ic lIll1ke LID due to this error. They need \0 include the actual number of trucks 30 per day belonging to 11D plus the number of large contractor trucks lil a typical HD, plus a higher percentugc of medium sized trllcks by cllstomers "vim Hre picking up large building supplies. I do not believe one cun assume a phase out of higher polluting vchicles. CEQUA requires a B~34 reliance upon existing conditions, not guesses lor making detenninmions orsignincullc~. The worse case scenario for present day vehicles needs to be used. not some fi.mtusy of II possible future. Estimates need not be used. The emissions for u Home Depot of the same size as the proposed one should be used, Table 6 is extremely low for l:\ f(lCiliry of [his size and not valid. Page 15 ug.ain is saying net \'ehi~le trips would decrease. This is not correct. Also in E1 Cajon it was found that CO emissions would be 1,000 pOllnds per day. There has to be an error in [be calculations and/or ussllmptions here, This needs to be redone using 60KSF for the store and factoring in the achmlllumbcr of delivery trucks. Also the model for a rctaHfwarehollse store has to be used not relail and reslnunull as slated in the lext. '" I '" CO Response - B significance thresholds and there is no significant impact. B-34) The statement regarding a mix of retail and restaurant uses was a typographical enor and has been corrected in the air quality report. The conection does not affect the number or type of trips generated or the emission estimates in the air quality analysis as that is based on data from the Traffic Impact Analysis. Detailed analysis of the impacts of trucks both during construction and during operation was performed. The number of estimated construction trucks is identified on page 18 of the air quality report. The number of operational trucks is addressed on page 19 of the air quality repOli. ThiIiy operational trucks is the maximum in a day with an average of115 truc)cs per week. The analysis was conducted based on emission factors generated by the ARB's approved EMFAC2002 model. The EMFAC2002model is the model that is required for use by the ARB for estimating emissions from motor vehicles. That model provides emissions for the mix of vehicles that is on the road during specific years evaluated. The calculations in the EMFAC2002 model demonstrate that emissions decrease in the fl1ture due to improved emission standards and phase-out of older vehicles is based on guidelines that are approved by the ARB and is not an assumption used for this study alone. It should be noted that the emissions presented in Table 6 are based on the year 2008 and do not take into account future years with improved emission standards and phase- out of higher polluting vehicles after the year 2008. Thus the 19 Comments Response - B TubJc 7 iSl.:fl"oncous and ignores the data HvuilabJe on these intersections in the GP I::IR thut shows (\ plus growth degrad~ltion to lllliH;Cepti.lble levels. Page 19 uses a lllllnber oftl'ucks lhat is too low. Home Deuot ~Idmits to 30 ocr rillY and 4 or 5 011 the wL'ch:cnds. This comes to ISH trucks !lei" week. 1I0t 115 us this entire BRA is l:lllSI,.'d llIHIIl!! This makes this analysis invulid.lt needs to be redone using the correct dat3. It also ignores. (hut L Street and Third are called Olll in the General plan as Streets that will calise problems inlhis area. analysis is more conservative and a worse case scenario. B-35) Comment noted. Please refer to response B-31. Detailed analysis of the impacts of trucks both during construction and during operation was performed. nBU:I1i~ j, \'U.U,E DAIl. \' nl1i"IO~S TO nlE UN DIleo AIR B.Ur.'( RtSVUi:;'Q fRO.u el>lLDOIJT or tHIADOPTtD C!NEIlAL J'L..I..H {p,u~lptrdlYI As shown in the URBEMIS2002 model outputs contained in the appendix ofthe Air Quality teclmical report, the model was run for both summer and winter emissions. For conservative purposes, the higher of the two values was presented, as noted in Table 6, Operational Emissions. Splitting out emissions between the two seasons would result in lower estimates overall of emissions on a lbs./day basis. Thus, the analysis presents a worst-case emissions estimate scenario. 8-35 SlllW\l;P~;I.lttn:: ,Sli"""O[ (0 ro~ RO{; ~o,,' PM;, njiUllI{~~riQQ A~oplfJG.uIUIPlln (lIJIlI' (\!XlS) n0301 M~~OI AnI l-f~~nt ,\"a 1>t(>bjle An' S~I(li SO,U1:I1 TC!lJI' S~Wtli ~\JrU' IOIJl' Slm/tU SOURII TCIJ1' JiM I'] LC-J9 21HI~ lQ),US ,,, IOUU (I7HHl (116) (17Ui/;J ~S.~).l I,m ~H17 I.m l.m [D,UG (lP.Ol"'l . (I~,al :' i(j}~i 3.'71 RlH DlI H~6 n.m (l~JO~) !.lIS [lUPlj JH " "I leI) 10 110 " '" " lH1! . H,!,S i~jH , H.H? lun 11. !un \fltlU co Nij'jI U16 m.m lO~J)O 10,615 nUllO (lnl.1lll) Hiif (191.JJ1) NOx 4HH 1.204 4liH 1l.458 l.m 1.'.~91 (1P,~O) " OHII) ROG lH}i 10.739 B.1!] 9.-151 H.ll4 HJ9,S (tUH) 1375 {lU1i} B-36) so,,' HI 12 l~J lP5 10 III II . " iI!>l., 11.8n IG1) H.~J'i n.1-I4 LH!1 lH-H ~Ull HO 1~.~~ 'T.!.ll;u,-,y;ijiitl'.;".I<\Ut;Q~iaJ '!mllliol:\ tdnj\.lIldbf UPJlE.\USl-)O~ lfl! f~r 'i0, Comments noted. For clarification, emission factors, basin-wide emissions budgets, and emission estimates are each different components for analysis. The URBEMIS2002 model must be run correctly to obtain correct emissions, and must be run for a specific type ofland use and a specific year of operation. The U.S. EPA's AP-42 document provides emission factors, which are presented in terms oflbs/hp-hr, not lbs/hr (pounds/horsepower-hour). The U.S. EPA's AP-42 document provides emission factors and must be used correctly to obtain correct emission calculations. The tables contained in the appendix to the Air Quality technical report provide emission calculations that have been done based on regulatOlY guidance. "" I ...... C> This table is fi'ollllhe General Plan EIR. I am wondering \'llly the data in this Ail' Report does outtake into account summer and winter temperatures, since this is n raelor as the table above shows. Also why arc cUlllulative etlccts ignored'! I admit that J just downloaded the URMEI31S2002 model and I dun't have a thorough grnsp of it, but it does say that in the SDAIl the slim of area and operational truck CO emissions is 15.76 IbsJday umnitigutcd, lnultiplied by 30 Irucks that comes to 472.8 for just vehicular cmissionsjust counting the truck.s. I do not understand I1mv the consu[t,mt gOI the I1gures in THblc 6. The text also says that Table 6 is supposed 10 show Ills/day and Lons/yea/', but jt does ~ot. Likewise the NOx they give is 1.49, multiplied by 30 equal 44.7 just for the 30 trucks. Where exactly do your figures come l1'om'1 Also fix Lhe emergency generator, looking at Section3.3 in the new EPA AP~42 the figures that I see for lbs/hr fix an emergel1cy gcncrutor using diesel fuel are CO 6.68, NOx .031, SOx 2.05, PMIO 2.20. Even tJlviding by 4 f'or 15 minutes I don't get YOllr ligures. 8-36 20 Comments 18_3{ Tile suggested stundmd mitigations at the URMEBIS202 site were Energy Efllciency 201J!o oyer Title 24 and 20% of all landscaping equipment.ill.!! be electrical [1o\Vcl'l~(L Also the 3X's per day site watering is considered the minimum for dust control. Willlhis be monitored to make sure it is done? In summary there arc difficultie.s \",,1l11 the reports that need to be resolved, but in tbe context of the the General Pllln ElR conclusions of lI11rnitigatable negative environmental effects, the hlstorJca] trentment of Home Depots. the need for an alternatives annlysis because ortbe difnclllty of mitigating effeds even with faulty datu Ilsed, ~ind the extensive chunges proposed for the site an EIR should be required for this project I SUblllillhis request with the support of the around 200 people who have signed the petition sa far asking l!lolll-Iame Depot be required to place their building on another port orthe lot fal' away from residences and no trucks be allowed on Moss StreeL The simplest alternntive would be to use the plans for !he H Street store, slightly enlarging inlerior areas. Provide a 4-foot de~p depression along Third screened wilh extensive landscaping and it security fence. Truck entrance/exit driveways could be drivewuys 1 and 2. Customer traffic could enter along driveway three and existing Moss driveways. At Rancho Del Rey Slore alllf'llCks and clI!ilomers enter on Plaza Drive. upparcntly \vithout ~l problem. The dccorulive treatments ORe has asked liD to make on [he back ofille buildiJlg would muke an auractive building for Third. All their mess, lumber drop ofrand loading docks would be in the depression and behind the building, but not visible from Third due to difference in ekvatioll. Employee parking could be put there to ifl-ID so chose. TIle building ilsclfwould block virtually all noise from lhe residences. 8-38 8-39 ~ Sincerely, Theresa Acerro 3730 Festival COllrt Chula Vista 91911 rvtuin Store Garden Lumbl.:forl loading b . c. ,. "' r~ !:l g l>~ g p:> .0 5 ~ Halley's nrh.~\\.ll)" 1 [ .andscapi.lu:- LJril'ilW(I)' 2 DriVC\\'ilj-3 'I Third Ave. Response - B B-37) Comments noted. As part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) is included and the City Mitigation Monitor oversees the application of the MMRP. B- 38) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-1. In addition, the City has received no written documentation of signed petition during the 3D-day public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The submittal of a petition would not constitute substantial evidence of an envirorunental impact pursuant to Response B-1 \lbove. B-39) Comments noted. 2] ~I ! '" - = " 8 8 c u N N ~ -0 o a !:: ~o c''::: .- ~ ~ > . u 0- ...J u o . ;; 2 ::j .~ !~~ a ... ~ Z..g~ ..:!a ~- :~~ > . . . ~ ~ g E ~-o~ 2=~ ~~ ~] ~ 0 o ~ o . ~ - gE ~ ~ %"05 . u 0 ~- ';:;;!.l. ~~ ~~ o 3 ~...J 2-72 Comments Response - C Environmental Health Coaliti9n ;,'" ", ';".Ii !l,A \;,I:GiI..O If, fl e:'~ A L U 0 ;A 11'8 I E'/N'II '~, '.';, ,,I Environmental Health Coalition (Comment letter via e-mail - dated December 13,2006) 401 Mill! Clf Cars Way, Slllte:310" National City, CA OlllliO. (519) 47/,-0220. fAX, (619) 474.H10 eh[@~n\tlrDnm~n t~lJi ea lth,llrg . wlVw,envlrlln mCHltalhealth.lIrg "I!a"". C-l) As stated on Page 3 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, an air quality study was prepared to identify and evaluate potential project related air quality and health risk impacts, Oel;eIl1l>er 13, 2006 The Air Quality analysis included a grid of receptors outside of the facility boundary within the HARP toxics modeling analysis rather than specific receptors. The grid of receptors does include receptors located at the high-density multi-family housing within 150 feet of the proposed project, and represents all locations (residential, occupational, and sensitive) outside the facility boundary. The analysis' was based on a residential exposure scenario, assuming exposure for a 70-year period, and addressing TACs from diesel trucks and the emergency generator to be located at the site. The analysis demonstrated that the impacts on all receptors, including the residences, were not significant. NJllri;IMucft City of Chuhl. Vista PJallninguud nuildiug Department 2764111 AVe. Chuhl Vista, CA 91910 RF.: Enviroumental Health Coalition Comments 011 Mitigated Negutive ncclilnltlon t'-.) for Proposed Home Deput onComer of IVlo5s nnd 3rd I -J Deud\'ls.1VJuett: <.oJ Air Oualltv The applicant has agreed to limit emissions from diesel trucks through restricting idling times to 5 minutes or less as a mitigation measure to reduce emissions from trucks. This is also a requirement of state law. EuvirolHnentalHealth COtlHtion(EHC) j::;submitting tlle follQwingcQmmenls ill respunse tile IvtND forllle proposed Home Depl1t on the Comer 01'3,,1 (md Moss, Mted.as proiect"# lS-()6-0D7. . TlreAir QuulilyStudy for the proposed proje~tnott;:s that "sellsitivercceptoh;"are "eousidered to be schools, hospitals, dayclln; cen!ers, or qll1cr fucililiys thal'may house illdh'iduals with health conditions Ihat would be adversely impacted by changes in air qualily." The Air QualitY-E:;tudy negleclSlqexpUcitly identifyholllcsas illc\uded ill l(lis calegory. Hc]'wever, the California Air 'Resources Board (CARB) recently released:l document called the "[and'Use and Air Qualit}' Hundbook" which specifically notes l'esidemialland uses as "sensitive land uses," Of course, c):li ldreu are amongst the !lHLl ~ensilJve receptors, and homes "hOll-tie" children. The increased hospitalizlltion rate ir,llhe rcgiOll'due to asthma [urlher 5ubstmtiaIes tbe I\eed 1,0 com;i!-ler homes in this category. C-1 This is a purticularlyperrincnt omission in the Air Qualily Study given IhM there is high dCllsitymulll-family housin~ within 150 feet of the proposed project White lhe [lAND nOles multipk lllcaS[jres to mitigate air quality <lssociated with cOllslmctiull impacts, there me no measurC$l\Oledto mitigate ongojngimpacts associated with Toxie Air COlluuninonts(TACs) re[0-0./;ed by oargo handling eqlliprilent, delivery [mel,s, nlll! other vehjcles. The CARB "L.<tnd lJ~e and Air OUlllitv Hllndbook" reacts to several studi.es .c.onducted which SllOW significant Ildversehclll1h impacts associated with rro~unlty to distribution \\'arehollses and high traffic roadways. Spedt1c.:ally, the parilcllh.lte mnrter released from diesel powered vehicles has been iclellti fled to be tile cause at 70% of caucers caused by environmental factors. These studies note [hal: the lllost l:ilWere impacts occur within 350 feet of [he emission source. 23 Comments IC-2 [ Tn light of these sdentifie findings, EHC believes that: 1. A full or focused ElR should be 70llducted which includes an-analysis (lfthe impacts ofveh,icle emis..':;ions.ol1 nearby res.l~Cl1ts, .md 2. The proposed project should he fe-designed to adequately buffer these sensltlvc land uses from adverse health impacts associaled witb TACs. . N I -J ..,. Response - C C-2) Pursuant to CEQAGuidelines Section 15070: A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a substantial effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identifiedpotentia/ly significant effects, but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the ejJects to a point where clearly nO significant effects would OCCW; and 2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial study that demonstrates that the project as mitigated will not have a substantial impact upon the environment. Therefore, a mitigated declaration has been prepared. Teclmical studies have been prepared by qualified experts that show all impacts associated with the project for such issue areas as noise, air quality, drainage, water quality, and traffic are mitigated to a level ofless than significant. Public Resources Code section 21080 (e) states that "...substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, !>peculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. "No substantial evidence of a potentially significant environmental impact associated with the project has been submitted. Public Resources Code Section 21 080.2( c) states that public comments that are not 24 Comments LHUd Ilsc alld Plnnninl.! Key planning dOCtiIuents ill Chllla Vi.sta note that big box relail/warehollses should l11i.tkc an dIaft to [ocate parking behind the facility, 11,) be shielded from view of JIHlill urterhtl routes, such as Third Avenue. The Home Depot. as itis cUlTcnUy proposed, is ill violation of thi:-i principle, A revisi011 to the de:5ign of Home Dljput that' moves the Slructure enstward would not only achieve Ihis objective, but also diminish -the health impacts Df T ACs as.'lociated with equipment operation and delivery trucks, as well at'; the slgniticant noise impacts noted in t]le MND. C-3 In the ChuJa Vista General Phm, LUT Objective 35 notes that stable residential Jl~,,;ighborhol)ds shaH be protected flOm adverse land use impacts. The ,Home Depo1 is directly proximute to core multi~family residential dcvclopmeull.lreas. III keeping \'}ilh the Cieneral }l1ULl, the p.ropnsed project should be designed to heed this principle, ul:d I mitigate lhe. air, noise, aesthetic, and other concomitant impacts associated with lhi~ ~ incompa.tible mixed use. Similarly, LUT 4.7 notes that targeted commercial development shull be compatible witha4iacent land uses. '[be proposed project, as designed, cauLlOt be consh'ucd to be compalible with the adjacent residential uses, A re~de.sign oJ:' tilt; site which further buffers the residential uses from the most concentrated emission oftoxics land OTher impacts is necessary to improve compatihililY I C-3) Response - C based upon a specific factual foundation (expert opinion) do not constitute substantial evidence of an environmental impact. Since all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated, project modifications have not been required. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project is located within the CCP (Central ConunerciallPrecise Plan) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designations. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 19.36.020, the proposed use is a permitted retail land use, and Sections 19.36.070 and Sections 19.58.370 require a Conditional Use Pemlit for outside sales and display both temporary and permanent to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The sun-ounding residential land uses to the west and north are multi-family residential, within the R3 Zone. The project as designed proposes adequate screening and buffers to minimize light, noise, glare, and other adverse impacts upon the residential neighborhood. The mitigation measmes and project design have been calculated to adequately buffer potential air, aesthetics, noise and health risk impacts in accordance with the City Municipal Code and threshold standards. 25 Comments Aesthetics C-4 The. MND notes that the propo!;ed project will include the demolition 01'<1 restaunmt to be .replfJced by additional parking spaces tor the Home Depot. Whi Ie there may be different perspectiveg on whether a restaurant or parking lot is more aesthcticalh pleasing, it is illdisputablelhat thi.s is a significaut impact, and needs to be nuthcr " ull~lyze~ in a focused or full ElR. AddiriOllUlly, tbe sWToundings ora Home Depot ;:,re 1I1l1'll.le In the sense that most I-IomeDepots include largeolltdoor storage areas wiler..; ~,rodu~ts fire stored in public view. Many people peI'ceive this as one giant messy gtL.agc. J here IS not. proposed mitigation for this significant aesthetic impact proposed iUlhe MND Adenuacv of MND C-5 I EHe bpIieves that a mitigated negative declaration is an imlppropri.lte level of review under CEQA Jor the proposed project. The scope and intensity of this project warrants a fuB or focused environmental impact reporL A big box retaiJ/warellGWie facilityoflhis nature will have significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Indeed, our UJlderstallding is that most I-lame Depots that have been built in San Die-go County have included afuU ErR. V.,Thy is it that this Home Depot project only warmnt:-; 3n J:vlND, while others have required a full EIR? EHC has not identified [lny justification ! 1-0r exemption from a full or focused ElR for/his specific proposed project. EHC understands thalllQ EIR was done on the vacated K,.mart that currently occupies t.he site. If this is the casc, then a full or focused EIR is llecessary before another retail/warehouse: shop of fI similar size is Constructed. In any case, the ll<lture of operations of a Home Depot is very different and needs to be analyzed in more d'cptl.L A full Of focused EIR would require an <malysis ofv)able alternatives to the Home Depot project, and could include a closer look at other design options on the current site which would /July miligu1c. th~ mo::;t 5t:vere impacts ofihis project. EHC believes that lhe decision to analyze this proposed project with an MND not Duly precludes substntial analysis of these altematives, but is also a viol~tion of CEQA. Thank you again for the oppornmity to comment on the environmental revie\v of this proposed project. Please teel fTee to call with any questions Of comments at 619.tl74.0220 x 120. C-4) Response -C The Chula Vista Design Review Committee has reviewed preliminmy plans for the proposed project on two separate occasions. The project design has been modified to reflect aesthetic comments made by Committee members. Specific changes to proj ect plans include the incorporation of horizontal and vertical elements using trellises, color and fayade articulation, as well as Imldscaping treatment enhancements along the site perimeter and interior parkway. The truck route along the rear of the building has been designed with a landscape buffer and noise wall/screen wall to screen trucks/vehicles and unloading activities. Outdoor display areas have been designed with paving patterns, canopies and trellises. The Design Review Committee will address on-site improvements and any aesthetic issues for consistency with the City of Chula Vista Design Review and Landscape Guidelines, when the proposed project is presented to them for decision at a later date. The project would substantially improve the existing site with new structures, landscaping aud hardscaping. The outdated and dilapidated restaurant building would be removed. The applicant will be required to comply with the Municipal Code concerning outdoor storage and other local or regional standards and regulations to be enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies including the City's code enforcement section. C-5) This comment states that an EIR should have been prepared for the project and not a mitigated negative declaration. Please refer to C- 2. Additionally, the comment states that analysis of viable alternatives to the project and alternate design options alternatives should have been analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that project alternatives be identified and analyzed in environmental impact reports (EIRs). There is no requirement for an analysis ofproject alternatives in an MND. As stated in Response No. C-2, since there is no substantial evidence of an envirorunental impact associated with the project after mitigation, an EIR is not required. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to analyze project alternatives. 26 Comments ----Original Message--- From: THERESA ACERRO (mailto:thacerra@yahoQ,com] Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 6:56 PM To; Marla Muett; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval Cc: Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramlrel; Jeny Rlrldone Subject: Home Depot must be moved as far away from residential as possIble This is nn additional COIlllllent on the MND for Home Depot, This is very gootllldvicc, since sc\'crnl uther shes have information llbout horrible fires and spills ucurring Ilt Home Depots. This is another excellent rcnson 10 move the stofe far IHvay froUl rcsidentilll. Why WIlS the lU.led for nlIltzardous ffilltcriuls ManagelUent I'lnn not Ibtcd ill the MNU'! 0-1 Whllt YUIl ClIlI do: To review records 011 haZllrdoLlS spills, go 10 www.r1k.nel. The next lime Home Deplt kllOL:ks OlJ your l\cighborhood's door, usk IUCllI lire omdals to gel a cumpl1Hc inventory ortbe hm:arllous mnlcrinls stored inside the store, alld iI print out of any incidcllls nlltiunwlde atlhtl slOrc that involved the release o/'lO:\k Jlllltednls. Be sure your local fire chief has asked for cupies urlhe Nationll] Fire l'rcvelllion As!\odlltiun tNFI'A) repol'ls Dllthc [-hunc Depotlhes ill Tempe, AZ, IInd Quincy. MA. Ask the company to provide II report of the glll'den center Hre lit Sigmll Hill, CA LocHI homeowners }U\.ve II right to know the risks involved in living near a wan:hollSc Jilll of ehemlcak solvents. paints and pesticides. Welcome to Jl01l1c D.::potl !1l!n.;fI.W\1'lY,~!lril.l~J~Jm,'i!g,:1,!:.Qll~.e.J1IslJ,J1lI]l'Jrcndston'=4(!j Do You Yahoo!'! Tired ofspam? YahoolMllil has the hesl Splilll protection around hnp:f!JlllliLphoo.eolll "" I ...... ...... D-I) Response - D Theresa Acero (Comment via e-mail - dated December 24, 2006) Comments noted. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The applicant as conditioned will be required to comply with hazards/hazardous materials storage and usage regional standards and regulations to be enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies as well as the State of Califomia, County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Services and the City's Fire Department. 27 ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) HOME DEPOT - 18-06-007 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed ShinnlLynndale Place Tentative Parcel Map project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-06-007) The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this proj ect ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Geology/Soils 3. Hazards/Hazardous Materials 4. Hydrology and Water Quality 5. Noise 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-06-007 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-06-007, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. J:\Planning\MARlA.\Initial Study\Home Depot\IS-06-0071v1MRPtext.doc 2-78 Home Depot (18-06-007) (10/30/06) Mitlaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram Table 1 .. . ~rr"lGATI6NIVI9NITOR1NGAN6~Ef'dRTfN&\e~p-&~AM( .... .' " . Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments Measure No. Verification Verification Party Initials Date 61RQUALlTY ...... ...... . Pre pufing Post, ............ " . '. ..' , '.. . T.M' Coifst Canst CO'sl . ., '.' . . 1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanU City shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as Inspection Engineering details, notes, Of as otherwise appropriate: DepartmenUCity . Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple Planning and Building construction equipment units. Department . Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. . Use electrical construction equipment as practical. . Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. . Use injection-timing retard for diesel~powered equipment. . Water the construction area twi6e minimum three '" times daily to minimize fugitive dust. I ...... . Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to CD minimize fugitive dust. . Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. . Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if availablel . Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. . Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. . Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. . Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. . Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. . Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. . Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces jf winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Page - 1 I" Home Depot IIS-06-007) (10/30106) Mitioatlon Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram Table 1 2. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant Applicant/City shall provide the signature of the geotechnical engineers Planning and Building as evidence to the City Engineer that all the Department/City recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, dated August 4, 2005 have been Department incor orated into the lans. 3. Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the Plan Check/Site X X X Applicant/City applicant shall submit a final soils report for review and Inspection Planning and Building approval to the satisfaction oftha City Engineer. Department/City Engineering De artment 4. Prior to any demolition activitles, a Ijcensed and Plan Check/Site X X ApplicanUCity registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall Inspection Planning and Building perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in DepartmenUCity accordance with all applicable local, state and federal Engineering laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Department Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation. I 5. If during demolition and renovation activities potentially Plan Check/Site X X X X ApplicanUCity (Xl Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are observed Inspection Planning and Building 0 within the inaccessible areas such as interior walls, DepartmenUCity additional samplings and analysis prior to the removal of Engineering such materials shall be required. Abatement shall be Department performed in accordance with standards and regulations noted in mitigation measure no. 4. In the event suspected ACMs concerns are encountJred, a qualified professional will be retained to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. 6. Prior to the removal of any electrical transformers for site Plan Check/Site X X X X ApplicanUCily demolition, the transformers will be inspected. If the Inspection Planning and Building transformers are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be DepartmenUCity presumed to contain PCBs and they will be disposted of Engineering in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Department In the event potential environmental concerns regarding PCBs are suspected or encountered a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. Page - 2 Home Depot (lS-06-007) (10/30/06) 7. Prior to the removal of fluorescent light ballasts located within the proposed buildings or portion thereof for demolition, the ballasts will be inspected. If the ballasts are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be presumed to contain PCBs and they will be disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. In the event potential environmental concerns regarding PCBs are suspected or encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. During the demolition and grading activities for the proposed project, the area of the former hydraulic lifts and wheel alignment shall be monitored. In the event additional auto repair work area features are discovered or suspicious environmental concerns are encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis Identifying any new environmental concerns with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review. 8. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the preparation of the final grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does 'nqt exceed the pre-development flows. The City Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management practices (BMPs). If one or more of the approved post- construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post- construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Plan Check/Site Inspection Plan Check/Site Inspection Plan Check/Site Inspection Table 1 x x x Applicant/City Planning and Building DepartmenUCity Engineering Department x x x x Applicant/City Planning and Building DepartmenUCity Engineering Department x x Applicant/C~y Planning and Building DepartmenUCity Engineering Department Page - 3 Mitiaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proqram Home Depot (IS-06-007\ (10/30/06) Mitioation Monitorino and Reoortino Prooram Table 1 10. Prior to the commencement of grading operation, temporary desilUng and erosion control devices shall be installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator. Plan Check/Site Inspection x x x ApplicanUCity Planning and Building DepartmenUCity Engineering Department 11. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista ApplicanUCity Municipal Code, project-related construction activities Planning and Building including demolition shall be prohibited between the OepartmenUCity hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday Engineering and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Department Sunda s. 12. A 6 to 15-foot high noise attenuation wall including Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity screening wall shall be constructed along the western Inspection Planning and Building property line in accordance with the noise study dated DepartmenUCity '" October 13, 2006, and as depicted on the project Engineering I development and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Department 00 City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator. '" 13. A 12-foot high wing wall extension shall be added to the Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity corner of the building extending for 75 feet in accordance Inspection Planning and Building with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and to the DepartmenUCity satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Engineering Coordinator. I Department Page - 4 Home Depot 118-06-007) (10/30/06) Mitiaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram Table 1 14. Truck deliveries shall be restricted except between the Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Mondav throuQh Inspection Planning and Building Fridavs and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 D.m. Saturdays and Department/City Sundays in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Engineering Ordinance (Section 19.68), Department 15. The loading dock shall contain a product feature Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCily consisting of foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the Inspection Planning and Building deck leveler to reduce dock mating and truck plate noise DepartmenUCity impacts in accordance with the noise study dated October Engineering 13, 2006, and to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Department Review Coordinator. ..., I 00 c..:> 16. The lumber unloading area barrier shall be constructed of Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity sound absorbent material or equipped with sound- Inspection Planning and Building absorbent cladding to minimize multiple ~ound reflections DepartmenUCity between the barrier wall and the rear of t e store building Engineering in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, Department 2006. 17. All diesel delivery trucks shall turn off their engines during Plan Check/Sile X X X ApplicanUClly unloading/loading activities at the Home Depot loading Inspection Planning and Building docks and lumber offloading pad whenever possible. In DepartmenUCity the event a delivery truck is not able to immediately enter Engineering the loading docks or lumber off-loading area upon arrival, Department the diesel truck Idling shall be restricted to a five-minute limitation in accordance with State taw. Trucks will not be permitted to idle along the rear of the store near residential properties or park for extended periods of time while wailing for the business to open. Page - 5 Home Depot (lS-06-007) (10130106) Mitiaation Monitorina and Reportina Proaram Table 1 18. Minimum 9-foot high sound reduction wall surrounding Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity the project emergency generator shall be constructed in Inspection Planning and Building accordance with the nolse study dated October 13, 2006. DepartmenUCity During emergency generator operations all sound Ehgineering enclosure doors shall be kept closed. Prior to issuance of Department building permits, the design shall be reviewed and approved bv the Environmental Review Coordinator. 19. Outside operational activities located along the rear and Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity sides of the building including docking/unloading/loading, Inspection Planning and Building trash compactor, emergency generators, trash/recycled DepartmenUCity cardboard pickups, and signaling systems shall be Engineering restricted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Department Monday to Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance (Section 19.68). . 20. All rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners shall include Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity appropriate noise abatement and be screened by a Inspection. Planning and Building minimum three-toot high rooftop parapet that blocks the DepartmenUCity ~ line-at-site view trom the backyards of the nearby Engineering residential properties to the exposed root and mechanical Department ~ ventilation systems, consistent with the noise study dated October 13, 2006. l:\Planning\MARIA\Jnitial Study\Home Depot\IS-06-007MMRPtbl.doc Page - 6 ~\IZ:::- --- ~ ~~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CllYOF CHUIA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: Home Depot John Ziebarth 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1020 Third Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (949) 341-0750 4. Name of Proposal: Home Depot 5. Date of Checklist: October 30, 2006 6. Case No.: IS-06-007 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues: ' Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Wodd the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 l1li b) Substantially damage scemc resources, including, 0 0 0 IlIII 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 II1II quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o o II o 1 2-85 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Signifkant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-b )The proposal includes a new retail building including garden center with site improvements, walls, and landscaping in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Design Review Guidelines. The proposed landscape improvements, walls/fencing and onsite improvements would improve the aesthetic quality of the partially active commercial site. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public and, therefore, would not damage any scenic resources, vegetation, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) The proposal is an infill commercial development project. The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent residential surroundings. The project site is planned for commercial development according to the General Plan Land Use regulations. d) The proposal includes replacement of lighting standards throughout the project site. Some of these standards will be adjacent to the multifamily residential development along the west possibly creating a new source of light or glare affecting nighttime views. However, the proposal will be required to comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting. The project is designed to include lighting shielding to prevent glare spreading onto adjacent properties at either the ground or second story residential buildings. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CYMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views to the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood area. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 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-agricultural use? o o o II b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? o o o Ii c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFarrnland, to non-agricultural use? o o o lIiI 2 2-86 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With .Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-c )Ihe project site has been previously developed with an eXlstlllg retail building, sit-down restaurant and fast-food kiosk. The surrounding western and northern properties have been partially developed with multifamily residential housing. These properties are consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated farmland. The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be created as a result of the proposed project. . MitilZation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? D D D IIlIII b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute D D D 11I'I substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a curnulatively considerable net increase D II [] LJ of any criteria pollutant for which the project reglOn IS non-attainment 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 D- III D D concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D II D 3 2-87 Issues: Comments: (a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Miti!!ation: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance. 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 in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish 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) Interfere 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree 4 2-88 o o o o o o o o o o o o o D D 11III II II II II Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? o o o 11III Comments: a) No endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing are present within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area. b) No locally riparian habitat or other natural sensitive communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area. c) No wetland habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area. d) No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area. e) No impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are anticipated with the project development. f) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will be created, as the development si"e is a designated development area 111 the adopced Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. 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 I) 15064.5? o o o II b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant o o o iIII 5 2-89 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact to State CEQA Guideiines 9 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? o o o III d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? o o o II Comments: a) The proposal is a redevelopment infill project that does involve the demolition of one existing commercial structure. Upon evaluation of the existing commercial structure and project site, it has been determined that the subject building is not historically significant. The structure does not embody the distinctive characteristics of any particular architectural style and/or is not a representative sample of the best of one style of architecture. There is no evidence or record to indicate that the building or site meets any of the criteria for consideration for the listing on the City of Chula Vista Historic Resource List. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts to a historical resource as defmed in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) Due to previous site disturbance and minimal grading for the proposed project, the potential for significant impacts or adverse changes to archaeological resources as defined in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated. c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and relatively limited amount of additional grading for the p;oposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are anticipated. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 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 o o o 1I 6 2-90 Issues: Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a lmown fault? 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? Ill. Seismic-related liquefaction? including ground failure, 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? Comments: a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o III o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o II o II o No Impact II II II o o o II The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant geological impacts to a level ofless than significance. 7 2-91 Issues: 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? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 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 acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 V1C1TIlty 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, 8 2-92 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 11II o II II o o o o Less Than Significant 1m pact o III o o o o III o No Impact o o o o II 11'I o II Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a, b, c and d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (HazardslHazardous Materials). 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 adverse safety hazards. 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 adverse safety hazards. g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency evacuation requirements. The proposed fire improvements include an emergency turning radius and fIre hydrants. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is anticipated. h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fire service requirements. No exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildfires is anticipated. lVIiti!!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Hazards/Hazardous Materials impacts to a level ofless than significance. vrn. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project a) Result in an increase in po llutant discharges to receiving 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? o II o o b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table o o II o 9 2-93 Issues: level (e.g., the 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? c) 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? d) 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 lOa-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including fluoding as a result of the failure ofa levee ordaro? 1) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Comments: (a-1) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o Less Than Significant Impact II II o o No Impact o o II II The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant HydrologylWater Quality impacts to a level of!ess than significance. 10 2-94 Issues: IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 11 2-95 Potentially Significant Impact o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o D Less Than Significant Impact o o o No Impact II 11II III Issues: Potentially Significant 1m pact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project site is surrounded with multi-family residential and nearby commercial land uses. The proposed commercial redevelopment infill project would be consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding residential and commercial areas and would not disrupt or divide an established community; therefore, no significant land use impact would occur as a result of the project. b) The project site is located within the CCP (Central CommerciaVPrecise Plan) Zoning and CR (Commercial Retail) updated General Plan land use designation. The project has been found to be. consistent with the all-respective zoning regulations, Genera! Plan guidelines and regulations, therefore; no significant land use impacts are anticipated. c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore, the project would not encroach into or indirectly affect the MSCP Preserve area. The project site is designated as development area in the MSCP Subarea Plan. Mitillation: No mitigation measures are required. X. MlNERAL 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 II 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 II 12 2-96 Issues: Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact a) The project site has been previously disturbed with the existing commercial retail land uses. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitie: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 plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without t.l)e project? 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 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 13 2-97 D D D II D D l1li D D D D III D D l1li D D D D IIiII D D III D Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. e-t) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is it located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project development would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained.in Section F of the rvIitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Noise impacts to a level ofless than significance. xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project a) Induce 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 II b) Displace substant.ial nmnbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction. of replacement housing elsewhere? o o o III c) Displace substantial numbers necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere? of people, replacement o o o 11III 14 2-98 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-c) The proposed project involves demolition and replacement of the existing commercial retail and restaurant businesses. The proposal does not involve residential housing and would not induce population growth in the area or require substantial infrastructure improvements. No permanent housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or people would occur as a result of the proposal. Based on the size and nature of the proposal no impact to population or housing would occur as a result of the project. Mifu!:ation: No mitigation measures are required. XIll. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically 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: a. Fire protection? 0 0 III 0 b. Police protection? 0 0 III 0 c. Schools? 0 0 0 III d. Parks? 0 0 0 II e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 III 15 2-99 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Commeuts: a) Adequate fIre protection services and response times can continue to be provided to the site without an increase of equipment or personnel. The applicant is required to comply with the Fire Deparlment policies for new building construction and fITe prevention. The proposed project would not have a signifIcant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fITe protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) Adequate police protection services and response times can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a signifIcant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no signifIcant adverse impacts to public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista School District letter, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees for the non-residential construction/proposed commercial buildings. d) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, the project would not have an impact on or create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities. e) The proposed project would not have an impact on or result in a need for new or expanded govemmental services and would be served by existing or planned public infrastructure. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XN. 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 occur or be accelerated? D D D III 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? D- D D . 16 2-100 Issues: Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Less Than Significant Impact a) The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, as it is a commercial infilIproject and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment. Miti2;ation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFF1C. 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 patterns, 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 incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 17 2-101 o o II o o o o l1li o o o II!II o o III o o o II o Issues: 1) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: (a,b,d,e and f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 0 0 0 III 0 0 II1II 0 c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. g) The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation programs. The existing bus turnout, adjacent to the northerly driveway, has been redesigned in accordance with City Transit and pub lie transportation system standards along this portion of Third Avenue. Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 18 2-102 o o o il!Il o o III o o o liII o Issues: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination 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 commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 19 2-103 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o Less Than Significant With J\iIitigation Incorporated o o o o Less Tball Significant Impact II1II II1II o o No Impact o o II1II 1111 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project site is located within an urbanized area of southwestern Chula Vista currently served by necessary utilities and service systems. According to the Engineering Department, no exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project. b) According to Sweetwater Authority correspondence dated November 22,2005, an existing 18-inch water main is located on the east side of Third A venue, and a l2-inch water main located on the north side of Moss Street. The Authority records indicate there are three existing domestic water services, three public fire hydrants, and two private fire services to the project site. One of the public fire hydrants and fire services is located on private property within the Authority easement. The proposed improvements include the abandomnent of a fire hydrant and main within that easement. If the owner provides to the Authority written authorization from the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) that the hydrant can be abandoned, the Authority does not object to the abandomnent of this hydrant/main. Additional proposed improvements include new fire hydrants, service lines, installation of fire sprinkler riser room, knox box and check valves on any individual fire protection systems. The authority requires any new water services installed serving the proposed project will require the installation of backflow prevention assemblies including a Double Check Detector Check Backflow Assembly on any new fire protection system. As the water facility improvements are designed in accordance with water authority standards and conditioned to meet all water quality requirements, nO significant impacts to utility service facility systems will occur as a result of the proposed project. c) The proposed project is subject to the NFDES General Construction Permit requirements and shall obtain permit coverage and develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the issuance of grading permits. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comp.ly with the City's Storm Water Management Requirements. See Mitigated Negative Decloration, Section E. Refer to tho Hydrology and Water Quality Section addressiI'g existing and proposed storm water lacilities. d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from the existing water mains along Third A venue and Moss Street and the applicant will need to install a service main to service this site. The applicant will be required to install expansions to existing water facilities in compliance with the Sweetwater Authority standards as described in Section b above. e) See XVI.a. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs ofthe region in accordance with State law. g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste. Mitil1ation: See Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality Section. The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate identified storm water/storm drainage and water quality impacts to a level of less than significance. 2-~4 Issues: XVII. THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A)~ The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 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 units 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 Medieal Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fITe and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) Traffic The Tbreshold 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 ofI-805 are not to operate at a LOS be]owtheir ]991 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. 2 -21 0 5 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o No Impact iIII II .. II Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated D D D III E) Parks and Recreation Areas The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities/J,OOO population east ofl-80S. F) Drainage D o II o The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer 0 0 11II 0 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. H) Water 0 0 II 0 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatrrynt, 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 offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 2-11}6 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Thresbold standards would occur as a result pf the proposed proj eet. c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the project will contnonte 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 and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E; refer to the Transportation/Circulation Section addressing project generated traffic conditions. Based upon the review of the proposed project design and traffic study no adverse impacts to the City's Traffic Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. e) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a commercial infill project located west ofI-80S and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. No adverse impacts to the City's recreational threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. f) See Mitigation Declaration, Section E. Based upon the review of the project and preliminary hydrology study, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the proposed drainage improvements of the project site. The proposed drain system includes improvements to existing drainage system, ir....stallation of Dew storm drain, filtration and treatment units, brow ditch, a series of inlets and piping, private catch basins, cuI verts and cleanouts. No adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur os a result of the proposed project. g) The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Cbula Vista wastewater services area. The existing area sewer facility system includes sewer lines along Moss A venue and Third Street. There are currently 8" PVC sewer mains along Moss Street and Third A venue. Sewer lateral extensions into the proposed project site are proposed to service the various lots. The applicant shall be required to submit a final sewer plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant is required to grant an easement to the City of Chula Vista wastewater services for the purpose of maintenance of the proposed sewer lines. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. h) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from the existing water mains along Third A venue and Moss Street in addition to proposed new service systems designed in accordance with Sweetwater Authority standards and required City conditions of the project. No significant impacts to existing facility systems or the City's water threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 2-11)17 Issues: XVIII. 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 eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incrementa! 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 D D D II D D III D D D D II a) The project site is currently developed and located in an established urbanized area within the designated development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. No biological resource impacts or potential historic resources associated with the proposed project have been identified. b) The project site has been previously disturbed with similar commercial retail land use and site improvements. As described in the Mitigated Negative Oeclaration, sigoificannlirect project impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. When the proposed project is considered in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects, no cumulative considerable impacts have been identified and none are contemplated. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly, associated with the short-term air quality impacts, hydrology/water quality, hazard/hazardous materials, and noise have been mitigated to lessen any substantial adverse impacts to a level ofless than significance. IVTItigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significance. 2....2floa 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-06-007. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the 1ine(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-06-007), and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicatetheA.pplicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. I~o *y ~'6 . :If; ~---~d/f Printed Name and Title of Applicant ( or authorized represe /1-/v-4" Date N/A Print~d Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) N/A Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date 25 2-109 XXI. ENVIRONl'dENTAL 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 o Populat ion and Housing I Geology/Soils D Agricultural Resources II Hydrology/Water II Air Quality o Pale on to logical Resources o T ransportationlT raffi c DBiological Resources o Energ y and Mineral Resources o Public Servic es D Utili ties and Service Systems o Aesthet ics lIHazards and Hazardous Materials o Cultur al Resources II Noise o Recr eation o Mandatory Findings of Significance 2-~6J 0 x,m. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 projecLmay have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "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 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. /) ~~f~ Environmental Proj ts Manager City of Chula Vista /;1 "~/a; J: \P lanning\lVfARlA \lni tial S tudy\Home Depo1\IS -06-007 draftcheckl ist doc 2-12171 D II D D D .' n .. ~~ '0 I !', ! i ~ ~ ,..... ~ : ... If ~ .. i ;; ~ ~ h ~ ~! ~ "'~" Ii I' ! ;'1"1'" , 1" i 1 ,'I Ij'll,li :, 'I,n ,~. i3[~~ql~ 1~$~:2~: j"ll ;:1 ~ ~i ~ i~~IlI:!lpnU~~2~:!illll~i~ ~: ~'!1:2i~h~~2~!l~!il~Il~'l!~ ~ I;!h~!l~!2 III ~~lltllll:eii~~~:2~:; ~ ~1l2~i:g "'I""" ~II' ~'!r,li'!!'! .e~ ~;~i~i~l'! llli~~~~~~~~:wi l,U ~~;:q i ~n;~~ !l1l1~~!~!l~i'" 0',. ,,! .II,..",I,."!".I,, I!! !!!!!!!l!lj!!!!!lIIII!!II!!11 ~ ~ S aa U aaU ~ aaUU8S~ S S~HU ~ a a ~8eeeesese@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ _ _ __ ~ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J1- _ -=- -- _'"_ -~"-~~ ~ ;.=-- ---'- - _-..2] llW fll ~::;:-=-~'=~~r'=~~~L-=i~~rts~~~~7~J-I'~ -' If ~~1 iT-:::-;-'II.rf1=-::::;;::"" -=-::'-1(" *~F ~==-=r~~' . ':.~ f --i~ ; II III.~ ~" " ',Y ~ 1~11 111 !I ", I I ~~ - / I I ' :[. '~!f':'.~ ',' ~~..'l~ )1L II 1 ai:' ~ ......",-"... ..:..;11 ~ ~ :1 ". ...[....1 ii.. n-: ~ ')1'~; '1' ~ , J..' ( .. ..t: .I'p "k <; i: . . .' ". I. 1: ji I Iii """: . : [0": rill 1:;;1 ta I" ; if I ! I \ I:. ~,_.~ ;:!,; I (I fiLiI Hi ':1; v i J ~ ~ J~q \ 'I rt -----1 II' 'c,J".. II 1,11 ::'~':}-n; rfu'--{~ ,i ~;~ T'\ .!L' ._.1 II L c/' Ii I ;:L ~ei!j . f:t~L ~,ll~ 1 ;:vl I ji:t ~ ;:1\ ')/ jJ+ :i~ 1 Ii f' ~>/ I ~ I rp '6 ,- dE e {..oV'" 'II ~ ~ - -. -A:. r.---r--lI: 1t._'t--:---j-'-L'-6~'-=--+ , ....:.~ I fi :t-. ~\.--.~~~" ''L 1 II I II - -=--=> ----);"'9 ~ J . -J'" ,,""- -----~ - -- --- '~I /' . -,,- ~'1k"-- ~,-,~"",d1<l N/.IIL I"H-ilI1'-"W(l ".~a;:'-;~.~) .~,;..,;~;;~~ ""'~':;,~~ ilJ. In ~O..='~fj ""I4CJ'Il<li5'J -ffi:I'~L .L.-J]I .J . ~ '1111 f-!i- II,il ...i-!J ltLi ,!i17 _ II. . TTrKH/l.{e.J/ ....,. "''"'"'''''''''''"''''' ! 'l " h ~lI!o~ "gs~ n~~ OJ ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ';5 :it' ~ ilj~ ~:'I! ~ ;;o"'!! ~~i'l~ ~t;;~ ~Ole~" !i~~ lUg ~~~ ;~~~ i ~i~1i ~~~~ ~~~ :i~1i~ ~ ,.~!i hi I !" ".,! :j ~ ;t;;~ l!tl~ :l~~~ i ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ da l~h ~ ~ i','!l !:;,! "I'!"~ Illi ! !i! " ..i', '"'11','1.' ii' ,'I' "!' ,>0" '. I ~,,~~ ~~a~ ~ ~~t;;~ ~~~~ ~!i) "'!~~ I:l~~i ~ ~..~~ ~i<>~ "'~ I ~~1ig ~~2", ~ ;;~Uli!j ~~f~ ~~ Gr 2-112 W" 0" , u:Hi~ "'-fl, :J -j" ! ...: IH 1I"~.i~ .}, j":;: ~ "'" -~ " , ~ r ~ . . ~~ O. L. W. 0' . Wo ~. O' z. ~~~~ >Il~o ~!" , " , u ~! >, 81 ; g t ! ; . ~ ~ i~ t ii~l~ !;~l'! .lll. 1"I!1 ,-. ilj '!. , i !lil~ 1 !in ll!lil' ,'!'!". '~i~! i '11,11 ~ ~~ !ge .. '.II'! ;111; II , , & :' I ! J I I' I , ,.. H .:l~ 7 '" I ~ ~ w - -.,"~.~, , _ _ ..:nl1Rl)J\VEN"E :c., :::\ ~ f' :t: .s: ~ l::: 1 cA n_-~~:FriTFr.-~r-.n':~-- - r'-n-"r..'rf'~74 I I I I I I I i I I / l:lllIi. ~==-~~~ ~.--. CI> ~~~,!:~~,- Scheme 'K.5' OUTSIDE SALES & DISPLAY AREAS L - -, I " , , , , I . , I , , I , .. I I' , ~ I , , I if iL L_.. COUMERClAL j~'.- , , I """ ~..---................. "'~... UjlLPC.lJf. OUIOOOR ll<SPlAYS it..,:"";"=i':i:"'-:='i:_- --~"""'''''i! = ~;.t;.t::r..z .:=:~ A $-.::':E".e:a:=:- . :r..::::t"""..i:.~--- ... ==:.:."::c.:;:,=':~ ~... "- ...------ --...- WlEIJll iIIiI C'Mf00lll\H. 6. lI&\IIW- fNIKIC I LOll "'" ...fI/lt~(Q -fIIlt~(Hl """""""" ~~]:x wt5 @) "" I ~ ~ - '----' ./>0 ---- ---1:1 ~I ___...J -- _ ....nu.RO.JoVENlll:: .--"----'''-.''-..ry : n : n. I o I I I I n -,.........--..-..-...-.-. I L.On: rtl: n: ; I I I I I n:~ , I IIIIlIi. ==-~..=~ --- <J> ~~~'=-~~o-- Scheme 'K.S' OUTSIDE SALES & DISPLA. Y AREAS L 1(____ I _n_ O o I . . I , . I I I o o I . i . , I o ; I . o I if :L l_u_ """"'""""'- ,---- . i .., .-..--.............., ..lMfCo.......loLJIIIl'O- llIJIllOOIlllJSllU'IS r:.:=-~.i=:::=:_- ....__.p~...~::o~~ t='.-:-,:o,,;r_r.;..-- ~ ==.!f":!.:a-=- Ii =-.:-...z::..~--- t ==.:.t::lo::.!:'''::=' -- 6; ..._______ --....- l.EGEl& - -...... i>~- 1""- .... f'IllEHIGlClIWI1'OO - """""0<1 -.... 'riii:!i:i:!iIUW.Ul: SMlS _.__,._'GISP\Jl @ N I ~ ~ - L 01 I' , . i cot.IlotfRClAL . i , " I . , I' , i if . .L L.____ _ _ -nuROJI\Il!N' II: fl D~Ffi:n:'--r--n :~--- r'-n-'T-- n"'-)1 I 1 I I I I I I I ,I I /---- . I l:lIIlIi. ~=:~==-~ ~...... (I ~~~,:.~~O"- Scheme 'K.5' OUTSIDE SALES & DISPLAY AREAS ... ---"_.....~ ",0tIt_ WUIlI'" 001000R liSl'lJoYS "='~':'.::-=-...::=-- 1it:l8.. _._..__ =-....=-~=r..:!== -- ~ =-=z=:.::'5::- 10 t:'.:=:-'..J::...-=---- 10 ==':'~,.'=J::';::: -- 10 ...______ ---- l.fWlll - ...-. "'~- I """"" ..... NEMGH:RIIlIf(() - fIl(ltCICllWiIT(NJ - -... ~~:~wa @) '-..--- ---,' N I ~ ~ '" - L. ------ I' , i i a'....E..CIAl , i , I. I , r , , I if lL. L._.._ n -.....-..-..- I L.Dn: m:n: I I I I n : """""'"Fl I I -n-"'r'" n":-770., I I / I . ,-'-- , , I - .-fl_............... ..CMlit.....!ILIlm'. OIJIDOOR DISPlAYS n::-":,,.::=:""-:=,..,i-- =_:e=~...~~-:::::- :.~.n;:;r_r.._.. ~ S.:=F.e.:a:=- .. =-.::-..t:..,"=,,---- . =::":.:.u-=-,,;:=. -- . ...------ ---- I.Wll ~ C'Mf0lliJllW. a .....,........ I ......... .. ,.~oo .. MItHIIWif(MJ ....... ... :~;~wa .. ::.=:.::=:-~ --- (I) ~~~,:.~~o_- Scheme 'K.5' OUTSIDE SALES &. DISPLAY AREAS @) N I ~ ~ e)C!S1WG RAt PH'!Il AIM ....... f1. ~'.r-~~F-i:"-T--.n~~ .~~ :---n-..':----n."--'/7 n. I ~ I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. z=.=-d":::'::-~ --- CI ~~,:,~~o-- Scheme 'K.5' OUTSIDE SALES It DISPILA Y AREAS L i' , i i , i , i , ; I , , I if :L. L e".Il.ERCIAl - ..... .. _... II..... .,\MIC'''''lUL1.1Ilpt. 0IJJ1l00R DISPlAYS r==--":"'i:::'-:=' =.:,: "-.:e:-=...~:;n.:..-r i:='....:.:r""'.:1o;;:;;r'-....-.. ~ =-=$"='=:=- . =-.=:-..J::..~--- . ==.:,:~.=-,.:-.-=. -- . ...-.---- ---- Llmll -....- 6. .....,...- I ...."'" ... AI[ WOQWljIJ 00 ...fIIt~(NJ ........ )r~ ~=" SIUS ,---- , , I @ '--' N I ~ ~ 00 I , i if iL. L.._ . rLD~-h-l:Fr.'-T-.n:':~--' ;'--fl-'-ruon"'-)4 I I I I I I I I I I f---- . i .IIIIlI;. =.=---:=::- --- ~e.:.~~O"- Scheme 'K.S' OUTSIDE SALES It DISPLAY AREAS t=-=-=-~ ~t:=:. . =-:i=:F=.::'S::- . =-.=-0...::.-=---- . ::.s:'::'''=:==-':=.'';l , :==-.-==--- WlEIlll - """...... 6. ........- I"""" - flit IOOIWII 00 -,.~(l(l _lIDO :~~=- Wf$ e I I +- ,.1/ <//i!ifl;/Zi'Zi%if%%iE o OUTDOOR SAl.,,'" DISPLAY DETAIl. A .......... '" I ~ ~ ~__-_..'>_'_'___i_________. ....., ,.,.,. I" t ----- I ..-- , , B '_ ,.-.--.- I I CD ._~ZZiS?~ZzlfZi%ifE%~z~wJ!!!h1if:1L~1111b"~7._ "'.!%. ~$r~ 1- - .- -. 177 tJ-] '//A ~ "" d-'}i!.Y;:;ff)(%i?~~ ~%y.P ~--------_. --- tC/Ioumonl,SAlESntSPIAYDETAIt.B \.C:i....,.-... @oUmOORSALE!,;OIS?I.AYDETAILG ",,",'.1.. LEGEND SIDEWALK SALES gzzj DISPLAY AREA WITH ENHANCED PAVING Y;Z.J 5' WIDE PEDESTRAJN PATH ~ THE"HOMEOEPOT ~~"<;lt__''''\''''''E'@ M,..,:;; Il. ChuIaVi$Ia,CA CA-HD03-K.5 z~..~..m; ...-.....1:11 .'*'_,,~ 10;;''''....... c"........""-"".,, "'.........~...,.~""'~ """""~"";"'_" ".,.<t.,. "'-'..'~. ".,,..,.,,,,~........,,,~ "'''~'''''''' ",,[;Ow ~'"-''''''''''' :;::C~ ..... ,-..~""...~,.,.-" W~:C7"'''.""",,,r,,'.''o,,''''='''' "'"."...........oI".."."'''~'"'~H....., '4"".000,""""'''0'' lOi!l;~;~U;, "'c.~"""'."''''''''''''S.''Oli;;)' """""'~,~,,,.l, P'~iMN<l.: f'1ot&alo l'~40'-{t 1_.Dal~; 0."",,,-<;0,1.2_ p,.,.,.",~ Br. ~5p 5.D.C.: JohnH"os.. P,I".M"".~: {;."'~eRoi' CUP & DR REIOGN"","": CHULA VISTA, CA (KmartTakeover) OUTDOOR DISPLAY DETAILS --~ a.: o w o z <( J: Z W J: I- ~ OOJ:C:> <(t;z Wa:a: ~z<( <(0 ~-oo ...JCt:0 o...l-Z 0000<( -W-J 000 ~ww ....Jo...oo ~wo >00... W-o 0$0::: wino.. I Ie: - '~ j i I , , / ,/' / { l l 1 I / ! /1 -- e ..; ....r 2-120 e I'. :..,.,.;". "']iv' :;j[H' . 19.58.360 commercial purposes (this situation does not negate the other provisions of this section). F. If new or enlarged commercial development occurs adjacent to .the existing dwelling units which face a local street, a fence separating the property shall also be constructed on the side lot line, the length of such fence to be determined by the director of planning. Such a fence may be of wood construction. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.90I(B)(35)). 19.58.360 Zoning wall or fence. A six-foot-high minimum solid masonry wall subject to the provisions ofCVMC 19.58.150 shall be erecled along the property line or zoning bound- ary to separate any C or I zones and/or uses from adjacent residential zones. A six-foot-high maxi- mum solid fence shall be erected along the prop- erty line or zoning boundary to separate multiple- family zones andlor uses from abutting single-fam- ily residential zones or areas. Said wall or fence may be waived by the planning commission if it is found that the adjacent areas would be sufficiently screened and protected without said wall or fence. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1. 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.90I(B)(36)). 19.58.370 Outside sales and display- Pennanent and temporary. A. Permanent. The permanent outside sales and display of merchandise, including vending machines of all types and coin-operated amuse- :nenlS, shall beper:nitted only when included as part of an approved site plan subject to the condi- tions herein. Service stations are subject to the pro- visions of CYMC 19.58.280. I. The following items shall be considered for outside display: a Vending machines of all types; b. Coin-operated amusements, excluding games such as pinball machines; c. Vehicles of all types, including boats; d. Magazines, newspapers and books; e. flowers. including artificial; f. Art displays; g. Plants; h. Model storage buildings, patios and additions; i. Any other item which is determined by the planning commission to be of the same general character; j. Any other item specifically approved by the planning commission to be displayed in an area specifically designed for said merchandise. 2. Conditions. a. Vending machines and coin-operated amusements shall whenever possible be within an enclosed area or sUllcture specifically designed to accommodate said items; b. The outside display shall not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation; c. Model storage buildings, patios and additions shall not be located in any area facing a major or collector street. or at the main entrance to the building; d. Plants shall be the only items in a plant nursery visible from the street; e. No outside display sbaIl be of such size or quantity as to alter the architectural appearance of the building; f. A lO-foot landscaped area shall be pro- vided between vehicle display areas and the street. Any item not located within a building or solid enclosure shall be deemed to be outside display and subject to the conditions herein. 3. The following merchandise shall be expressly prohibited from outside display; a Furniture; b. Clothing; c. Appliances; d. Play equipment; e. Dry goods; f. Soil additives; g. Tires, excluding service station as pro- vided herein; h. Used goods, except as provided herein. . B. Temporary. Temporary outside. .ales and display of merchandise for a period of 24 days in any calendar year, but not exceeding seven consec- utive days. shall he permitted upon approval of a temporary outside sales permit by the zoning administrator. Not more than six permits a year shall be issued to anyone business or shopping complex. Each such permit shall be accompanied by the required filing fee(s). Upon application for a permit. the applicant shall submit two site plans showing the location of the proposed outside sales area The plan shall include sufficient information to insure that the dis- play and sales will be conducted in a safe and proper manner and will not obstrUct traffic or cause a hazardous condition based on the standards adopted by the city. The permit sball designate the commencement and termination dates. 1. Other Required Conditions. a The application sbaIl be submitted for approval a minimum of two days prior to the requested date of commencement. /i ITA c:.. H IV( t ,() T 9 19-1~121 . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -. . ChuIa Vista Municipal Code ] 9.58.400 b. There shall be a minimum of 30 days between the commencement dates of the permit. c_ Temporary outside sales are prohibited in the CoO, CoN and C-V zones. d. The sales area shall maintain a 25-foot setback from the street when within an area desig. nated for parking. e. The sales area may utilize a panion of required parking to a maximum of 20 percent. f. The sales area shaJJ not interfere with the internal circulation of the site. g. Pennants may be used only for safety and precautionary purposes. h. The sales area shall be kept in a neat and well-kept manner at aJJ times. i. Price signs may be used but shall not exceed 12 by 16 inches. ' j. Other signs may be allowed subject to zoning administrator approval. Said signs shaJJ not exceed two square feet of lineal street frontage of the sales area. k. Promotional items allowed in conjunc- tion with a special even~ such as annive~aries and grand openings, are not subject to the provisions herein except when an outside sales permit is requested. I. Only merchandise customarily sold on the premises shall be considered for temporary ou[- side sales and display. (Ord. 2506 ~ I, 1992; Ord. 2011 !i 2,1982; Ord. ]436 !i3, 1973; Ord.1356 !iI, 197]; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.901 (B)(37)). 19.58.380 SpeCial events. A. Any business may request a permit for the use of temporary promotional signs and promo- tional items in conjunction with the following spe- cial events: grand openings, change of business address, change of ownership or lessee, and busi. ness anniversaries. If a business is part ofa parent organization, the anniversary of the parent com- pany may be used in lieu of the business anniver- sary during the calendar year. B. The maximum time limit for a special event shall not exceed 14 consecutive days. C. The applicant shaJJ submit a statement stat- ing the reason for the special event and indicating the commencement and ending date. The applicant shall also submit a site plan indicating the location and area of signs and location of promotional items. Each permit shall also be accompanied by the required filing feelS). D. Promotional items are subject to the follow- ing approval: 1. They may not be located in the from set- back; 2. They shall not interfere with internal cir- culation or eliminate required parking; 3. They shall not be indiscriminately placed or be of such quantity as to present a cluttered and unsightly appearance. E. Pennants may only be used in conjunction with grand openings and change of ownership or lessee. F. The planning department shaJJ issue to the applicant a special event permi~ upon approval of the applicant'5 request. The reason for the special event shall be conspicuously di5played on a sign for the duration of the event. (Ord. 2506 !i l, 1992; Ord. 201 I ~ ], ]982; Ord. 1436 ~ 3, 1973; Ord. 1356 ~ I, 1971; Ord. 12]2 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.901(B)(38)). 19.58.390 Senior housing development. Pursuant to CVMC 19.54.020, housing develop- ments for setriors. as defmed in CYMe 19.04.20], may be allowed in any zone except the R-I, R-2, C- V, C. T and industrial zones. Because the resi- dents of 5uch development have dwelling charac- teristics which differ from those of families and younger persons, it is not appropriate to apply aJJ of the normal zoning standards thereto. Accordingl y, pursuant to the processing of a conditional use per- mit for such developments, as required by CVMC 19.54.020(P), the planning commission and city council may make exceptions to the density, off- street parking, minimum unit size, open space, and 5uch other requirements as may be appropriate. The planning commission and city council may also adjust required setbacks, building height, and yard areas as appropriate to provide an adequate living environment both within the development and on nearby propenies. Any exceptions and adjustments shall be subject to the condition that the deve]op- ment will be available for occupancy by seniors only. (On;U878!i 3, 1979). 19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards. An application to establish a recreational vehi- cle (RV) storage yard (storage area for motor- homes, camping trailers, bOals and other recreation equipment) shaJJ address the following issues: (1) height limit for 5tOred items, (2) screening (land- 5caping and fencing), (3) surfacing, (4) access to the site, (5) office facilities, (6) customer parking, (7) lighting, (8) hours of operation, (9) security, (10) signing, (II) surrounding land uses and 5trUC- ture5. The application 5hall also be accompanied 19t~122 (Revised 1/(4) DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 4, 2006 Ken Lee Building Conference Room 430 'F' Street MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by Chair Reid at 4:30 p.m. ROLL CALUMOTION TO EXCUSE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Doug Reid, Vice-Chair Stanley Jasek, Commissioners Eric Mosolgo, Georgie Stillman, Lynda Gilgun and Richie Macias MSC (Jasek/Stillman) to excuse Commissioner Brett Davis. Vote: (6-0) STAFF PRESENT: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager Brendan Reed, Environmental Resource Manager Maria Muett, Associate Planner Steve Power, Environmental Projects Manager Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner Michael Meacham, Conservation & Environmental Services Director Roman Partida-Lopez, Intern - Energy Conservation Fund Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner Jim Newton, Sr. Civil Engineer Linda Bond, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: John Ziebarth, Ziebarth Associates, 2800 Fourth Avenue, #204, San Diego, CA 92102 Teresa Acerro, 3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista Pamela Bensoussan, 616 Second Avenue, Chula Vista Mair Nae, 345 Moss Street, Chula Vista Earl Jentz, 397-A Third Avenue, Chula Vista Total of 11 public attendees APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 6,2006 MSC (Stillman/Jasek) to approve the minutes of November 6,2006. Vote: (5-0-1-1) with Reid abstaining and Davis absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. DRAFT 2-123 . .,. A '.'\ ,).:'/-- /.-'- A rTACl""v,c : {U DRAFT RGG Minutes - 2- December 4, 2006 NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation on the Chula Vista NatureScape Program Mr. Brendan Reed (Environmental Resource Manager) presented an overview of the NatureScape Program, a community-based initiative promoting nature friendly landscaping and gardening. Residents can have their yardlgarden certified as an official National Wildlife Federation backyard habitat. Mr. Reed discussed the goals, what NatureScapes are, backyard habitat certification and community certification. The first workshop is scheduled for the end of February 2007. Commission Comments Commissioner Mosolgo asked the following questions: . Will there be a schedule for emptying rain barrels? . How will you increase the awareness between yards and open space? Staff satisfactorily provided information to the Commissioners' questions. 2. 15-06-007 -- Home Depot, 1030 Third Avenue Mr. John Ziebarth (Ziebarth Associates, 2800 Fourth Avenue, #204, San Diego, GA 92102) described the proposed project and architecture. Ms. Maria Muett (Associate Planner) presented an overview of the proposed project and identified potential environmental effects. Commission Comments Commissioner Stillman questioned the sentence regarding Level of Service "D" at the bottom of page 4 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Gilgun asked if any responses had been received from the public noticing. Commissioner Mosolgo requested that staff provide larger site plans in the packets from now on. He had the following questions and concern: . What type of drainage control will be provided for the outside garden center? . Is the storm drain at the site at capacity? . He would like the plan to incorporate more bio-swales. Public Comments Ms. Teresa Acerro (3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911) presented a PowerPoint presentation showing disturbing outside storage conditions at other Home Depots. She stated that a different alternative such as rotating the building should be considered because the noise from the numerous delivery trucks would have a significant impact on the many DRAFT 2-124 DRAFT RGG Minutes - 3 - December 4. 2006 residences to the west and the hospital to the south. The delivery area/loading docks should be further away from the people. Ms. Acerro indicated that she had a petition signed by many of the residents. Commission Comments ICont'd) Commissioner Stillman indicated that she had problems regarding air quality and noise. Commissioner Macias felt that anything you do, there is going to be problems. Commissioner Mosolgo had the following concerns: . He felt that there would be a queuing problem on Third Avenue because of more traffic. . On page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commissioner Mosolgo indicated the last paragraph under Hydrology and Water Quality seemed very confusing. Staff provided information and clarification to the Commissions' questions and concerns. MSC (Jasek/Macias) that the RCC find the Initial Study adequate and recommend that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Vote: (5-1-0-1) with Gilgun opposed and Davis absent. Commissioner Gilgun made a motion to look at other alternatives to mitigate noise. After some discussion, she withdrew her motion. MS (Stillman/Gilgun) that the RCC recommend that the Design Review Committee consider repositioning the location of the building so it backs up against Third Avenue and faces west. Discussion Commissioner Stillman stated that it is a moral opportunity that we see that the noise and air standards be applied. Vice-Chair Jasek stated that the applicant has gone far and above. What the applicant has planned is going to be a significant improvement in comparison to what is there now. Vice Chair Jasek suggested that the City could improve their code enforcement for existing Home Depots. He also stated that this would likely reduce the impacts that Commissioner Stillman is thinking about trying to minimize by design. Vice Chair Jasek further stated that it was unfortunate that this item came before the RCC at a time in the process when it is not economically sound to require a redesign. He suggested that possibly the City could consider bringing projects to the RCC for input earlier in the process. Mr. Jasek concluded that the CEQA document was, however, adequate. Vote tied: (3-3-0-1) with Reid, Jasek and Macias opposed and Davis absent. DRAFT 2-125 DRAFT RCC Minutes -4- December 4. 2006 Mr. Luis Hernandez (Development Planning Manager) stated that the vote could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Jasek left the meeting at 5:54 p.m. 3. Overview of the Historic Preservation Implementation Program Ms. Tessitore-Lopez (Associate Planner) presented an overview of the Historic Preservation Program Framework and Work Program Methodology that staff is taking forward to the City Council on December 19, 2006. Ms. Tessitorie-Lopez stated that she would be coming back to the RCC at a later date asking them to appoint a representative and an alternate to the ad hoc interim Historic Preservation Committee. This ad hoc Committee would be established until the formation of the permanent Historic Preservation Committee. Commission Comments Chair Reid asked if the proposed historic survey might have different levels of detail. Commissioner Mosolgo stated that it would be great if there were a level of historic significance attached to the framework. Commissioner Gilgun stated that the proposed program would standardize the process so people would know what is required. Commissioner Stillman had concerns regarding the interim Historic Preservation Committee in the proposal. She stated that the interim committee should be comprised of members who the certified local government considers certified qualified. Staff should adhere to the criteria of members appointed to the special advisory committee. At the moment, staff has the RFP going out before the interim committee is selected. Commissioner Stillman thought that the interim committee should provide input on the scope for the RFP. ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS MANAGER COMMENTS: Ms. Marisa Lundstedt (Environmental Projects Manager) stated that there would be an RCC meeting on December 18, 2006. CHAIR COMMENTS: Chair Reid requested that an updated roster be provided to the RCC members. DRAFT 2-126 DRAFT RCC Minutes - 5 - December 4. 2006 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Gilgun updated the Commissioners on what was discussed at the last Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting. The meeting was about cleaning up the Bayfront Brown Field site in Southwest Chula Vista property. The next meeting of the RAC is scheduled for Thursday, December 44 1.. 2006. Commissioner Mosolgo read about the major clean up and abatement on the Bayfront. He requested a presentation before the RCC regarding water quality sampling for the Bay. Mr. Earl Jentz (397-A Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910) had a question about the RFP and indicated that he was interested in the Historic Preservation Program. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Reid adjourned the meeting at 6:31 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday, December 18, 2006, at 4:30 p.m. in the Ken Lee Building Conference Room, 430 "F" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Prepared by: Linda Bond Recording Secretary (J:IPlanningIRCC\2006\RCC120406Mins) DRAFT 2-127 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT After the close of the public review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-06-007), the City received additional comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the City is only required to respond to comments received during the 30-day public comment period that ran from November 13, 2006 to December 15, 2006. In an effort to be fully responsive the City has prepared responses to late comments. The following summary contains the major comments and staff responses. 1. Comment e-mail from Theresa Acerro. received December 25. 2006 Comment: Look at Page 14 in the Air Report: "Because the project will include retail and restaurant uses, Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicle in accordance with the EMFAC2002 model outputs for traffic. This assumption includes light duty autos and light duty trucks as well as medium and heavy duty vehicles that may be traveling to the facility to make deliveries or as business customers with larger vehicles." Obviously this is why their figures seem so low. They ran the model based upon the wrong assumptions for vehicle traffic. The project obviously does not include retail and restaurant and their assumption makes no sense for a HD. As I said in previous comments 8,350 ADTs for the restaurant and the K-Mart makes absolutely no sense either. The restaurant was converting to a Chinese restaurant that would have ADT of 89/1,000 sqft or 943.4 ADT plus K-Mart's measured 4,870 or a total of 5,813.4 if the restaurant ever opened. This is no where near 8,350 claimed in report and less than the underestimated total for HD of 6,020. 7,740 is more likely figure for HD, since 60 ADT is what EI Cajon store has. The H Street store is not a very busy store, and traffic was measured week before Thanksgiving in middle of week-not their prime time. Home depot admits to 30 of their own trucks a day plus contractor and vendor trucks. This is figure that needs to be used. Staff Response: Your comments have been noted. The statement regarding a mix of retail and restaurant uses was a typographical error and has been corrected in the air quality report. The correction does not affect the number or type of trips generated or the emission estimates in the air quality analysis as that is based on data from the Traffic Impact Analysis. Detailed analysis of the impacts of trucks both during construction and during operation was performed. The number of estimated construction trucks is identified on page 18 of the air quality report. The number of operational trucks ATTACHMENT 11 2-128 is addressed on page 19 of the air quality report. Thirty operational trucks is the maximum in a day with an average of 115 trucks per week. The analysis was conducted based on emission factors generated by the ARB's approved EMFAC2002 model. The EMFAC2002 model is the model that is required for use by the ARB for estimating emissions from motor vehicles. That model provides emissions for the mix of vehicles that is on the road during specific years evaluated. The calculations in the EMFAC2002 model demonstrate that emissions decrease in the future due to improved emission standards and phase-out of older vehicles is based on guidelines that are approved by the ARB and is not an assumption used for this study alone. It should be noted that the emissions presented in Table 6 are based on the year 2008 and do not take into account future years with improved emission standards and phase-out of higher polluting vehicles after the year 2008. Thus the analysis is more conservative and a worse case scenario. In addition, in order to obtain a trip generation rate based upon an actual Home Depot operation, traffic counts were conducted at the existing Home Depot store located on East H Street in Rancho Del Rey. A trip generation rate of 46.7 trips per thousand square-feet of store area was derived based upon field data. This trip generation number was then applied to the proposed Home Depot store on 3rd Avenue. The trip generation rate is more conservative than the trip generation rate noted in the SANDAG trip generation table which has a trip generation rate for a home improvement super store of 40 trips per thousand square-feet of floor area. Permitted and constructed uses on the site as it presently exists, would result in 8,350 trips. The 8,350 ADT comes from the 118,000 square-foot K Mart at 60 ADT/1000 s.f. and 10,600 s.f. of restaurant at 120 ADT/ 1000 s.f. These trip generation coefficients are based upon the SANDAG trip generation table. The traffic generation numbers noted on Page 14 of the traffic study were provided for comparative purposes. The traffic calculations for the site used to determine traffic impacts were based upon the actual operation of the K Mart store. Trips associated with the closed restaurant were not figured into the trip generation rate for the project. 2. Comment e-mail from Theresa Acerro, received December 25. 2006 Comment: Having reviewed the Noise Report again and reread the staff letter to the applicant dated 3/15/06 I realize that there are a few more flaws in the report. The staff letter states: "Discuss any potential noise impacts to the nearby multi- 2 ATTACHMENT 11 2-129 family second story residential dwellings. The acoustical analysis shall demonstrate that second-and-third floor interior (my emphasis) noise levels due to exterior noise sources would be below the 45 CNEL standard." The noise report does not mention interior noise levels at all. It concerns itself with exterior only. This is a glaring oversight. Considering that the 15- foot noise wall will only get exterior noise upstairs down to 59 decibels (page 10), it seems unlikely this standard is met. It is troubling the way they shop around for information using 70 decibels at 50 feet (page 7) from Mount Carmel Ranch for proposed EI Cajon store, which is questionable data because there is an EI Cajon store that would have been more similar and provided more accurate data for that report, but using octave band from Torrance. The Mount Carmel study modeled for receptors that were at 155 feet away according to the Appendix. The Moss Villas has receptors at less than 30 feet unless all the trucks and equipment are confined to the 15 feet next to the west wall of the building at all times. This seems unlikely to me. The new wall is only 20 feet from the east side of some of the condos. The driveway appears to be 45 feet wide that leaves 15 feet for the trucks, forklifts and lumber to maneuver in if they are going to stay 50 feet away from the condos, whose private space includes the 4 and a half feet from their east wall to the concrete wall. How wide is a semi-truck? Another quote: "Short-term construction noise impacts to nearby sensitive noise receptors (the surrounding multifamily residential units) must be identified and included in the noise analysis Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code" There is no mention in the noise report of construction noise at all. There is also the exclusion of the sensitive receptors at Bayview Behavioral Center from the list of those who must be considered. This could be very significant since there will be no noise walls and 32 trucks a day plus heavy equipment will be in operation for 8 or more hours per day for six days per week for 34 weeks. (I am assuming our Municipal Code regulates the amount of noise allowed during the day in construction zones, not just forbidding it at night. I would also argue that there is nothing short-term about 34 weeks.) Staff Response: The applicable noise threshold is the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. The noise ordinance measures sound relative to Leq, not CNEL. Standard construction mitigates sound by 15 - 20 dBs. Thus, bringing interior sound to 45 dB Leq. Various data source comments noted. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a noise study was completed by a qualified professional. Existing ATTACHMENT 11 2-130 Home Depots were modeled and analyzed. The noise study indicated that the noise from truck operations would be below city standards with the proposed mitigation. No significant unmitigated noise impacts were identified to occur after mitigation. Additionally, in order to obtain noise generation activities and back-of store operations, based upon an actual Home Depot store located at existing Home Depot stores including EI Cajon, Torrance and Mount Carmel Ranch. Lumber and other building materials are off-loaded from the same flat-bed trucks at both locations in similar quantity, both stores have similar loading docks, both stores use similar cardboard compactors and have emergency generators, both stores use similar HVAC systems. The Mount Carmel Ranch noise data was used because it was considered representative, and had been monitored whereas the EI Cajon store had not. The Carmel Ranch data was supplemented with the Torrance measurements for certain activities not separately monitored. The differences in source-receiver distance and any barrier effects were explicitly modeled using standard noise propagation protocols since no two sets of situations are identical. The location of the unloading is determined by the location of the unloading pad, which is a hardened concrete slab designed for trucks to park and not block the alley for other traffic. The location of the unloading is therefore confined by the pad location. A semi-truck is 8 feet wide, the unloading occurs from both sides of the truck, one side directly into the sales building, the other side staged along the building for placement after the truck leaves. The assumed source-receiver distance at Chula Vista is reliable and representative of back-of-store operations at most Home Depot stores. Construction noise is exempt from numerical noise ordinance (Municipal Code) standards compliance as long as the noise is generated during hours of lesser noise sensitive (weekday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). Through compliance with these time limits, construction noise was presumed mitigated to less-than-significant, and not further evaluated in the noise study. The operational activity noise exposure to the Bayview Behavioral Center was assumed equivalent to the levels calculated at the adjacent single family uses north of Moss Street which were determined to be within acceptable levels. The statement that 32 trucks will operate 8 hours per day for 34 weeks during construction is a misrepresentation of sequential construction activities where activity peaks during demolition or pouring of foundations are interspersed with lesser intensity periods. Once the store walls are up, much of the activity will be shielded from direct view. Maximum construction activity intensity will not occur unabated for 34 weeks as suggested in this comment, which disputes the short-term nature of commercial construction. 4 ATTACHMENT 11 2-131 3. Comment e-mail from Theresa Acerro. received December 27.2006 Comment: The Noise ordinance says all residential except multifamily has a day maximum of 55 and a night of 45. It seems quite unfair that multifamily has been singled out for 60 and 50 and a bit confusing. The Marasella villas proposed for Ada are called attached single family dwelling units in the MND. They are town homes or condos. Which category would they fall in? What besides single family detached homes is the ordinance refering to when it says all residential? I believe that condos are single family attached homes, because each family owns its own seperate unit. They should be considered in the all residential category, not the multifamily exception. Marsella villas are now R2, but Moss Villas are R3, but they are not apartments they are single family attached dwellings. Calling them multifamily implies they are apartments, which they are not. They should fall under the stricter standard. If the council is the body that has the final say on the interpretation of ordinances I would request that they clarify this issue in favor of condominium residents who do not live in multifamily buildings, but single family attached homes. Multifamily is meant to describe apartments. Staff Response: Comments noted. The abutting property to the west is zoned multi-family residential. The multi-family zone has threshold of 60 dB Leq was applied. This is the same threshold that was applied to that particular project when it was analyzed for noise impacts a few years ago. 4. Comment e-mail from Bettie Lupi. received December 31.2006 Comment: From: baccv@aol.com [mailto:baccv@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, December 31,200610:57 AM To: CurrentPlanning Subject: Planning & Building Contact Form The following information has been received: Division: Planning Commission First Name: Bettie Last Name: Lupi Email: baccv@aol.com ATTACHMENT 11 2-132 Message: The proposal to locate the Home Depot positioned parallel to the alley & facing apartments for the old Kmart loaction on Third Ave. is not environmentally sound. When creatijng these plans, especially ones with long term mpact, we need to be proactive. We need to consider what we are negetively causing & make those changes while in the planning stages. NOT AFTER THE FACT. Please reconsider all the issues involved & make educated choices to keep to a minimum the problems that will arise if current plans go forth. Staff Response: Comments noted. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070: A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a substantial effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identified potentially significant effects, but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial study that demonstrates that the project as mitigated will not have a substantial impact upon the environment. Therefore, in accordance with state law a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Technical studies have been prepared by qualified experts that show all impacts associated with the project for such issue areas as noise, air quality, drainage, water quality, and traffic are mitigated to a level of less than significant. Public Resources Code section 21080 (e) states that "...substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative." No substantial evidence of a potentially significant environmental impact associated with the project has been submitted. Public 6 ATTACHMENT 11 2-133 Resources Code Section 21080.2(c) states that public comments that are not based upon a specific factual foundation (expert opinion) do not constitute substantial evidence of an environmental impact. 5. Comment (e-mail) letter from Teresa Acerro, received January 20, 2007 Comment: According to the Air Quality consultant, the reference to an article in The Voice of San Diego published January 2, 2007; entitled "A Toxic Air Inventory" shows that the 91911 zip code has 30,287 Ibs. of toxic pollution in the air (ih highest in the County) while the county's average is only 7,975. Top emitters of pollutants were listed according to the article by zip code. Staff Response: The commenter cites as one of her main references an article in the Voice of San Diego published on January 2, 2007, entitled "A Toxic Air Inventory." A review of the article indicates that the data published in the article are highly suspect. The article allows a link to a list of the "Top emitters of criteria pollution..... and "Top emitters of toxic pollution..... in a given zip code. When 91911 was entered, the list of "top emitters of criteria pollution" listed in the link began with Roman's Truck Body & Paint. A review of the APCD's data for that facility indicated that the Roman's Truck Body & Paint facility emitted 0.904 tons per year of reactive organic gases in the year 1997, the last year for which data were available on the District's online inventory. By comparison the South Bay Power Plant (also in the 91911 zip code), which reported emissions of 38.71 tons per year of reactive organic gases is not on the list of top emitters in the 91911 zip code. The Voice of San Diego article does not appear to cite correct or current data and is not a reliable source on which to base decisions on this project. Moreover, the study does not specifically address air quality impacts associated with the Project. Comment: It is a scientific fact that 70% of all cancer caused by toxic air contaminants can be traced to diesel exhaust. Long term exposure to diesel exhaust is associated with a 40% increase in lung cancer. This makes it critical that the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments be based upon the maximum number of trucks per week rather than an average, which underestimates the impacts. It also means that the thresholds should be lower in the 91911 zip code. Staff Response: The statement "It is a scientific fact that 70% of all cancer caused by toxic air contaminants can be traced to diesel exhaust", is not substantiated by studies, references or data that can be reviewed or upon what it is based upon. As to 7 ATTACHMENT 11 2-134 other similar comments regarding health risks such as "".Iong term exposure to diesel exhaust is associated with a 40% increase in lung cancer--" according to the California Air Resources Board, "Over 30 human epidemiological studies have investigated the potential carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. These studies, on the average, found that long-term occupational exposures to diesel exhaust were associated with a 40 percent increase in the relative risk of lung cancer. The lung cancer findings are consistent and the association is unlikely to be due to chance. These epidemiological studies strongly suggest a causal relationship between occupational diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer." (California Air Resources Board, Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on THE REPORT ON DIESEL EXHAUST as adopted at the Panel's April 22, 1998, Meeting). Thus, according to the California Air Resources Board, the increase in lung cancer risk is specific to occupational exposure to diesel exhaust. In addition, the air quality model was rerun with 158 trucks per week instead of 115. The results indicated the cancer risk at the nearest receptor (multifamily to the west) would increase to 1.47 in a million, and the chronic hazard index would be 0.000922. Both of these results are still well below the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's air toxics significance thresholds of 10 in a million for excess cancer risk and 1.0 for chronic hazard. According to the health risk calculations conducted for the Home Depot, the maximum excess cancer risk due to inhalation of DPM for the maximum exposed sensitive receptor were predicted to be 1.07 in a million, based upon the assumption that a resident would live at that location for 70 years. Comment: CEQA requires an analysis of anything that might be an impact. Using an average does not do this. The Health Risk Assessment specifically requires an analysis of the greatest possible impact. The HRA also uses a 70-year cancer risk assuming that the risk goes down over the years it should be based upon worse case 2008. The report underestimates the risks by making assumptions that mayor may not occur in the future. This is clearly not allowed by CEQA the analysis needs to be based upon what is currently occurring now. Staff Response: The risk assessment that was conducted for the proposed project was done in accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments latest guidelines for addressing potential health risks associated with exposure to toxic air contaminants. Diesel particulate has been identified by the State of California as a toxic air contaminant, and the health effects, according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, include carcinogenic risk and chronic long-term risk. There has been no determination by the State of California that shorter-term exposures cause ATTACHMENT 11 2-135 adverse health effects, and the State has not issued guidelines on addressing short-term exposures to diesel particulate. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidelines indicate that excess cancer risks are presented in terms of an increased probability of cancer over a lifetime (70-year) exposure period. The commenter indicates that the maximum number of trucks per week should be used to assess risk; however, because excess cancer risk calculations are based on evaluating increased probability of an individual contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure, the long term average, rather than short term peak, exposure should be evaluated. Thus, it is appropriate to use the average truck trips over a 70-year lifetime exposure period rather than using peak trips to assess long-term risk or impacts. The exposure period used for evaluation of emissions was over a 70-year period. The comment issue argued that the health risk assessment should be based on the year 2008. The fact is that excess cancer risk is calculated as a probability that an individual will contract cancer due to exposure to toxic air pollution over a 70-year exposure period. Because excess cancer risk calculations are based on evaluating increased probability of an individual contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure, the long term average, rather than short term peak is appropriate to evaluate the emissions that would occur over the 70-year period. It should be noted that the risk assessment analysis are conservative or taken as worse-case scenarios for the following reasons: first, the assumption that the risk assessment is for an individual remaining in the same location (point of maximum exposure) for 70 years, without ever changing locations, and secondly, the emissions are calculated based upon diesel emission factors for 2010 through 2040 (the EMFAC2002 model does not provide emissions factors for years subsequent to 2040, therefore it was assumed that the emissions would remain a constant for the period 2040 through 2080 and no additional improvements in emissions were assumed. Finally, the model does not assume any improvement in emissions over the 70-year period for truck idling; thus the truck idling emission factors remain constant over the exposure period and do represent a worse case emission scenario. Diesel technology and new standards for diesel fuels to reduce emissions from diesel engines have been implemented and are regulatory requirements in the state of California. It is anticipated, with programs to reduce diesel particulate adopted by the California Air Resources Board, that further reductions will be experienced and thus it is appropriate to use emission factors that are representative of the entire 70-year period of exposure, not 2008. Furthermore, the health risk assessment is extremely conservative because the EMFAC model does not take into account these emission improvements in its idling emission factors. 9 ATTACHMENT 11 2-136 Comment: Statement that the health risk assessment did not evaluate benzene and other toxic chemicals in diesel exhaust. Staff Response: The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's unit risk factor of 3 x 10-4 (lJg/m3r1 and chronic reference exposure level of 0.5 for diesel particulate exposure are based upon the mix of toxic air pollutants contained within diesel exhaust. It is designed to account for exposure to the components of diesel exhaust, including benzene and other toxic chemicals. According to the SCAOMD CEOA Handbook in Section 10, Table 10-2, facilities where benzene would potentially be associated with risks would include gas stations, refineries, organic chemical manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and food processing where substantial emissions of benzene could occur due to the type of operation. Benzene is generally not a typical pollutant of concern at retail locations. Comment: A project can have significant cumulative impacts even though the project complies with thresholds of significance in an approved plan or mitigation program. Staff Response: Neither the traffic, noise, nor the air quality reports found a cumulative significant impact. Traffic found the traffic volume below the allowable traffic volume for the existing buildings on the site. Thus cumulative traffic impacts would be reduced. There is no increase in cumulative air impacts due to the reduction of traffic even after factoring in any increase in truck volumes. Further the current drive distance to a Home Depot will be reduced, which will reduce exhaust in the air basin. The reduction of traffic at sensitive traffic volume intersections will also reduce contribution to cumulative impacts on the air basin. Thus, the Project will not add to the cumulative levels of air pollution. The commentator states, "Even chronic, low- level traffic noise at 50-60 dB can adversely affect children." The accuracy of 1978 study cited by the commentator is questionable when considering the average decibel level of a human voice talking is approximately 60 -65 dB. Chula Vista in 1985 adopted Ordinance No. 2101 adding Section 19.68 to the Municipal code entitled "Performance Standards and Noise Control." The applicable noise standard for multi-family residential zone in the municipal code between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. is 60 dB LEO. Other agencies such as Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 24, Part 51, "Environmental Criteria Standards" establish land use guidelines of DNL 65 dB as acceptable. The noise thresholds utilize for this study is the lead agencies criteria. The mitigation measure will achieve this level by requiring deliveries to occur 10 ATTACHMENT 11 2-137 between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise level at the closest single-family homes across Moss Street will be well below the single-family residential standard of 55 dB LEQ between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise report included cumulative noise analysis as well as near term noise and found neither to be significant. With the resultant mitigation measures the noise impacts on surrounding uses will be lessened below the current impacts. The reports do not rely on de minimus criteria for cumulative impacts. Comment: Thresholds of Significance applicability. How many trucks per week would be necessary to exceed the Threshold of Significance? Staff Response: According to the health risk calculations conducted indicate the maximum excess cancer risk due to inhalation of DPM for the maximally exposed residential receptor were predicted to be 1.07 in a million, based upon the assumption that a resident would live at that location for 70 years. The significance threshold, based upon the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's air toxics notification threshold, would be 10 in a million excess cancer risk. The risk calculations were based on average of 115 trucks per week; thus to exceed the threshold, it would require 9.345 times the number of trucks per week to travel to the Home Depot or 1,075 trucks per week. In another comment, the commenter indicated that the 158 weekly truck trips should be used versus the average of 115 weekly truck trips should be used to assess potential health risks. While it is appropriate to use average operations to estimate long-term risks, the HARP model was rerun based on this scenario. The cancer risk at the nearest receptor (the apartments just to the west behind the building) would increase to 1.47 in a million, and the chronic hazard index would be 0.000922. Both of these results are still well below the significance thresholds of 10 in a million for excess cancer risk and 1.0 for chronic hazard. Comment: Statement that the single-family threshold level of 55dB LEQ will be exceeded even with a 15-foot high wall. Staff Response: The adjacent uses to the west were approved as multi-family, not single family, and are located in the R3 - Apartment Residential zone and designated RH - Residential High (18-27 dwelling units! acre) on the City's General Plan. The noise study by Douglas Eilar & Associates and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Moss Street Townhomes Case No. IS-01-09, that its approval was based on, was for multi-family development. Chula Vista in 1985 adopted Ordinance No. 2101 adding Section 19.68 to the Municipal code entitled "Performance Standards and II ATTACHMENT 11 2-138 Noise Control." The applicable noise standard for multi-family residential zone in the municipal code between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. is 60 dB LEO. The mitigation measure will achieve this level by requiring deliveries to occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise level at the closest single-family homes across Moss Street will be well below the single-family residential standard of 55 dB LEO between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Comment: There is also no analysis of the impact of the noise of 115 (average) per week trucks on the patients and residents in the hospital and apartments they will pass in the current plan is adopted. Staff Response: The proposed project will not measurably increase the noise exposure at the Moss Street homes, apartments, nor the Bayview Behavioral Center, nor will it cause City noise exposure thresholds to be exceeded. Comment: Unloading will not be confined to only the unloading pad and will not be adequately screened by a 15-foot high screen wall. Staff Response: The unloading area is defined by a reinforced concrete pad that can accommodate the weight of loaded trucks parked for the duration of the unloading process and minimize maintenance of paving due to unloading operation. The pad will be in front of the receiving door so that as much of the material as possible can be unloaded from the receiving door side and placed directly into the warehouse. A 15-foot high acoustical wall screens this unloading area. This will also screen even the second story residential from the noise. The noise will be below the thresholds identified in the previous response. Comment: Some unloading will occur closer than 50 feet to off-site receivers. Staff Response: The unloading activities of the far side of the truck will go directly into the warehouse. The contents of the truck will screen the unloading process from the side nearest the warehouse door, and the greater distance will offset any effects of unloading on the side away from the door. The total noise generator is the midpoint of all activities as was assumed in this case. 12 ATTACHMENT 11 2-139 Comment: Noise levels of 50-60dBA are unhealthy, and raise blood pressure, raise heart rates, etc. Staff Response: The normal decibel level of the human voice talking is approximately 60 dB. As indicated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Response To Comments, a noise study was completed for the proposed project in order to assess potential noise impacts. The existing noise levels at single-family homes along Moss Street are 61 dBA. The City's noise/land use compatibility standard is 60-65 dBA CNEL for usable outdoor space in residential areas. The noise level from a single truck passage is 50 dBA (FHWA, 1977), and hourly truck volumes will be one or two trucks. The proposed project will not measurably increase the noise exposure at the Moss Street homes, nor will it cause City noise exposure thresholds to be exceeded. Comment: No analysis of the impact of the noise from 115 (average) per week trucks on the patients and residents in the hospital and apartments they will pass if the current plan is adopted. This is not done because the ambient noise is calculated to be 61 decibels due to 500 peak hourly trips daily on Moss and the traffic study never shows anywhere near the number of vehicles on Moss at any time of the day or night. Staff Response: See previous response. The proposed project will not measurably increase the noise exposure at the Moss Street homes, apartments, nor the Bayview Behavioral Center, nor will it cause City noise exposure thresholds to be exceeded. The project traffic study shows 282 existing peak hour trips eastbound on Moss Street near the proposed project site, and 260 peak hour trips westbound. The sum of these two values is 542 trips (see Figure 3-2, LLG Traffic Study, Moss Street west of 3rd Avenue). Comment: The impact upon our police department that consistently has been unable to meet their threshold response time for non-emergency calls was also not evaluated in the MND and is a serious impact that needs to be evaluated. The expected increase in calls of 193 more than K-Mart's 2005 129 is only going to make the situation worse and violates the city's Growth Management Ordinance, which forbids development that is likely to worsen a non-attainment of a threshold. The MND suggests that people should call in noise complaints and complaints about the day laborers. Staff's response to comments about noise and day laborer impacts is that city loitering and nuisance noise ordinances cover these matters, 13 ATTACHMENT 11 2-140 essentially acknowledging that there will be negative impacts in this area and brushing them off as a police matter, not requiring CEQA review. The SWCVCA believes this conclusion confirms a further burden upon the police caused by the project Staff Response: The City of Chula Vista Police Department reviewed the proposed project and as noted in the MND established adequate services can still be provided and no significant impacts to emergency services are anticipated. According to the Police Department, thefts from persons, auto theft, vehicle burglary, and panhandling are concerns for any retail parking lot and conditions are placed upon these projects to alleviate that potential. Project conditions include compliance with the City Police requirements that include proper utilization of security hardware, access alarms, lighting and landscaping to reduce criminal activity and to heighten crime prevention awareness through the concept of defensible space and design are standard practices. The City Police Department has a proactive business merchant program that includes proper lighting, monitored parking lot cameras, and a security bicycle patrol that can have a positive affect in reducing the rise of these type crimes occurring. Crime Prevention personnel are available for training regarding emergency and police reporting procedures. Scheduling of this training is recommended to coincide with the beginning of regular business operations. Comment: There is also no mitigation for the commonly accepted fact that heavy trucks tear up small streets like Moss. With a maximum of 30 trucks a day, not counting contractor and vendor trucks, Home Depot has an increase of at maximum of 29 trucks on Moss a day or an average of 115 per week as now planned. The residents of the Southwest have observed the deterioration of many streets in our area. Staff Response: This is a road maintenance issue and is not analyzed for CEQA compliance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Comment: Comments relating to Land Use and Planning Impacts from projects being approved throughout the area that are significantly changing the community character. The SWCVCA is concerned that all of this is happening with no plan. It appears the City too readily approves plans in isolation without evaluating their cumulative effects upon the community. 14 ATTACHMENT 11 2-141 Staff Response: While the subject site at the southeast corner of Moss St. and Third Ave. is within the General Plan's South Third Ave. District (Figure 5-21, pg. LUT-141), it was not subject to any designation changes through the General Plan update adopted in December 2005, and remains designated as Commercial Retail and consistently zoned as CC - Central Commercial. The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and is subject to design review, as well as a CUP for the outdoor storage component. As indicated by several of the GP policies cited in the comments, the General Plan does anticipate a future specific plan and/or other forms of rezoning (and the establishment of according design guidelines) to occur in the area. Several of the GP policies cited indicate that the prescribed future design emphases (building placement, mixed use, etc) be taken up through these subsequent specific plan/zoning efforts. While it is likely that these future efforts will be focused largely within the Southwest Town Focus Study Area to the south (Figure 5-21), they may also involve the subject site. However, until such time as those efforts are undertaken, projects will continue to be processed pursuant to existing zoning in areas such as this, where no GP land use designation changes were made and existing zoning is consistent with the GP. 6. Comment letter from Theresa Acerro. received February 1 and February 3. 2007 Comment:: As a result of the MND for Creekside Villas it was decided no left turns would be allowed from this project to be built at the corner of L and Third. This means that 200+ residents per day will most likely turn right at Moss in order to go west or north from their homes; as many as 500 (94 more trips) per day onto Moss since it is the quickest option to 1-5 or points west or north. This will_be an incredible impact upon the residents of Moss between Third and Fourth. This should have been a part of the traffic study for Home Depot since its store will add significant amounts of traffic and trucks to this intersection and street. Staff Response: The comment states that Moss Street would be significantly impacted by the Creekside Vistas project in addition to the Home Depot. The Creekside Vistas project was not originally identified as a cumulative project and therefore a growth factor was utilized to account for cumulative traffic. Since the commenter specifically questioned the capacity of Moss Street, an analysis of the Moss Street intersections at 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue was conducted. IS ATTACHMENT 11 2-142 The Home Depot project traffic was added to existing conditions, as was all outbound Creekside Villas project traffic, plus 158 trucks instead of 115. Table 1 shows the analysis results. This table shows that LOS B operations are maintained at the two intersections with the addition of Home Depot and Creekside Vistas traffic. Therefore, no significant impacts in addition to those already identified in the traffic study were determined. TABLE 1 NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Existing + Existing + Existing + Growth + Contr Pea Growth + Project + k Growth Intersection 01 Project Creekside Type Hou Villas r Delay LOS Delay LO Dela LOS a b S Y grd Avenue / Moss Signal PM 19.4 B 19.5 B 19.6 B Street 4th Avenue / Moss Signal PM 17.1 B 17.2 B 17.5 B Street Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED DELA Y/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOSTHRESHOLDS Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 8 10.1 to 15.0 8 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.11025.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E > 80.1 F > 50.1 F Comment: Request a number of lumber trucks Home Depot has per day and description of the vehicle mix. How much does a loaded lumber truck and cement truck weigh? The Air Quality Report on page A-11 ran analysis for 8.91 trips/1000 square feet 16 ATTACHMENT 11 2-143 1,149.39 trips, which helps explain the results however, the fleet mix on A-11 looks a little light too. Staff Response: To address the vehicle mix in the URBEMIS 2002 model, the initial analysis included the default vehicle mix to estimate traffic emissions. The default vehicle mix assumed the following: light auto, light, medium and heavy trucks of various weight, line haul, urban bus, motorcycle, school bus and motor homes. Because there would be a maximum of 30 trucks per day traveling to the Home Depot and because the project would not generate school bus trips, the default vehicle mix in the model was adjusted to increase the heavy-heavy duty truck trips from 0.9 percent to 1.0 percent and to eliminate school bus trips, taking the worse case scenario. For conservative purposes, it was assumed that 100 percent of all heavy-heavy duty truck trips would be diesel trucks instead of a mix of catalyst and diesel trucks. The remaining vehicle mix assumptions were not adjusted. It should be noted that the revised assumptions resulted in the following estimated average daily trips for each category of vehicles. Thus the assumptions used in the analysis result in not only 60 heavy-heavy duty truck trips traveling to and from the Home Depot per day, but also, 434 medium truck trips, 66 light-heavy 8,501- 10,000 Ibs), 24 light-heavy (10,001-14,000 Ibs) truck trips, and 60 medium-heavy truck trips, total of all average daily trips is 6,020. Based on these revised assumptions, the emissions were calculated for the year 2008 in the URBEMIS2002 model. The emissions would be less than significant. With respect specifically to the amount of lumber trucks, there are 5 to 7 lumber trucks per weekday and 1 to 2 on the weekend for an average maximum of 30 trucks per week. There are 4 to 5 garden trucks per weekday and 1 to 2 on the weekend. The balance of maximum 30 trucks per day will utilize the loading dock. 7. Comment letter from Tonv LoPresti. Environmental Health Coalition. received January 29.2007. Comment: The text of the Air Quality study refers to the SCAQMD methodology for determining a Localized Significance Threshold based on the size of the project site and proximity of receptors. Some of the values on the table for PM10, are below the estimated PM 10 emissions from Home Depot operations, as listed in Table 6 (page 15), and also the construction impacts, Table 5. This suggests that there IS a localized impact from PM10, and that further analysis of emissions from the loading dock to the nearest receptor is needed. According to SCAQMD: "If the project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate look-up tables are used as a screening analysis, then project specific air quality modeling may be 17 ATTACHMENT 11 2-144 performed. In the event that the project area exceeds 5 acres, it is recommended that lead agencies perform project-specific air quality modeling for these larger projects." Staff Response: The City of Chula Vista utilizes the SCAQMD's quantitative emission thresholds for construction and operation to address the significance of impacts to the ambient air quality. The City of Chula Vista's CEQA significance thresholds are adequate and appropriate for evaluating the potential significance of impacts. Based on these thresholds, the emissions of PM10 are below 150 Ibs/day and are therefore less than significant. Comment: The emissions estimates depend on Home Depot being consistently willing and able to limit idling times of trucks to 5 minutes. We have gone to several Home Depots and have timed idling times well in excess of 5 minutes. While Home Depot can and should suggest to limitation of idling times to 5 minutes as mitigation, emissions estimates must be based on actual existing data from actual existing scenarios. The fact is, trucks using Home Depots idle far more than 5 minutes. Also, it should be noted that we timed these trucks in January during mid-day when temperatures were mild. Trucks are more likely to stay idling when drivers wish to keep their air conditioning or heating on. Excessive idling is likely to increase in winter morning and evening hours, and in hot summer hours. Staff Response: Effective February 1, 2005, the State of California adopted Section 2485 within Chapter 10-Mobile Source Operational Controls, Article 1-Motor Vehicles, Division 3. Air Resources Board, Title 13, California Code of Regulations. This regulation restricts diesel vehicles from idling more than 5 minutes at any location. The Home Depot posts signs in the loading area and remind truck drivers of the 5-minute idling regulation. The average unloading time is 30 minutes per truck. Assuming all 115 trucks idle for 30 minutes at the nearest offsite receptor (which is the apartment complex behind the Home Depot), the excess cancer risk is 4.35 in a million, which is still below the threshold of 10 in a million. The fact is that there are only 22 to 30 lumber trucks a week that unload in this area breaks down to 4 to 7 per weekday and 1 to 2 each weekend. Comment: The air analysis uses meteorological data from Lindbergh Field. The APCD has meteorological data from Chula Vista. This data should be used in analysis of air emissions in Chula Vista. 18 ATTACHMENT 11 2-145 Staff Res/Jonse: For health risk assessments, the APCD requires the use of the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP). SRA contacted the APCD and asked whether the APCD had a preprocessed meteorological data set for use in ISCST3, which is the model that the HARP utilizes to conduct health risk assessments. The APCD indicated that they did not have a data set from Chula Vista that has been processed and available for use in ISCST3. According to the APCD's Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Taxies "Hot Spots" Program Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) (SDAPCD 2006), "Meteorological data used for refined HRAs should be from either San Diego Lindbergh Field (surface data from Lindbergh, Station 23188 and upper air data from Miramar, Station 93107) for coastal San Diego River-plain and low-lying terrain near San Diego Bay (including downtown San Diego), or Miramar MCAS (surface and upper air data from former Miramar NAS, Station 93107) for inland or upland/mesa locations." The meteorological data used were consistent with APCD guidelines. Comment: The air quality report does not spell out how analysis was conducted on chronic non-cancer risk. This analysis should use the single worst year, not an average of the 70 years as is done for cancer risk. It is not clear how this analysis was conducted. It is also unclear what the actual increase in PM10 in the air at ground level would be from the project. With this figure, an estimate could be made of the extra asthma visits to doctors, school absences, etc., attributable to the Home Depot. Staff Res/Jonse: The chronic risk evaluation was recalculated to account for the single worst year. The chronic hazard index based on the single worst year is 0.000994 at a location to the north of the Home Depot site next to 4th Avenue. The chronic hazard index at the nearest residential receptor to the site is 0.000983. This value is still three orders of magnitude below the significant risk threshold of 1.0. In accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, the standard approach currently used for health risk assessments includes four steps: 1) hazard identification; 2) exposure assessment; 3) dose-response assessment; and 4) risk characterization. The hazard identification step involves evaluating if a hazard exists and, if so, what the exact pollutants of concern would be and what type of health effects are associated with exposure to those pollutants. The exposure assessment involves evaluating the extent of public exposure to each substance for which risk will be evaluated. This step involves emission quantification, modeling of environmental transport, evaluation of environmental fate, identification of exposure routes, identification of exposed populations, and \9 ATTACHMENT 11 2-146 estimation of short-term and long-term exposure levels. The dose-response assessment is the process of characterizing the relationship between exposure to an agent and incidence of an adverse health effect in exposed populations. The risk characterization step involves combining the results of the exposure assessment with the dose-response assessment to evaluate risk. Diesel particulate matter has been identified by the OEHHA as a potential carcinogen, and as a chronic non-cancer agent. Carcinogenic risk is evaluated by assessing the increase in probability that an individual would experience due to exposure to the substance. Chronic non-cancer risk is evaluated based on the potential for an individual to experience an adverse non-cancer health effect due to long-term exposure. The California Air Resources Board's "Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as A Toxic Air Contaminant, Part B: Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust" (ARB 1998) identifies diesel particulate matter as a respiratory toxicant. According to that study, "Epidemiological studies suggest increased frequency of bronchitic symptoms, cough and phlegm, wheezing, and decrements in lung function as measured by forced expiratory volume in workers exposed to diesel exhaust. Exposure-effect relationships in these studies are often obscured by confounding factors such as the presence of mine or coal dusts." The chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL), which is used to assess potential chronic, non- cancer health risks associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter, is based on respiratory health effects and thus takes into account those health effects discussed by the commenter. Comment: The health risk assessment is based on estimates of average truck trips per week (115), but not high-end estimates (150). The risk must be presented for high-end as well as average conditions. Staff Response: According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, excess cancer risk and chronic risks are based on long-term exposure. Because the risks are based on long-term exposure, it is appropriate to use an average annual operational scenario to address health risks. Thus using the average truck trips per week is an appropriate methodology for conducting the risk assessment. The model was also run with 158 trucks instead of 115 as well by the air quality consultant. The results indicated that the cancer risk at the nearest receptor (the apartments just to the west of the project building) for 158 trucks would increase to 1.47 in a million, and the chronic hazard index would be 0.000922. Both of these results are well below the significance thresholds of 10 in a million for excess cancer risk and 1.0 for chronic hazard. In addition, the project traffic study shows 282 existing peak hour trips eastbound on Moss Street near the proposed project 20 ATTACHMENT 11 2-147 site, and 260 peak hour trips westbound. The sum of these two values is 542 trips (see Figure 3-2, LLG Traffic Study, Moss Street west of 3rd Avenue). Comment: We are very skeptical of the comparison of ADTs from the current site use to the Home Depot. These are likely to be very different mixes of vehicles. Customers drive different vehicles to shop at a Home Depot than they would at a Kmart. Also, we fail to understand how a restaurant could attract 3,000 vehicle trips per day, as seems to be the assumption made in the allowable traffic. Staff Response: The URBEMIS model was used to estimate emissions from the Home Depot without comparing with the decrease anticipated from the K-Mart, and indicated that emissions are less than the City's significance thresholds. No net evaluation was conducted. The comparison of ADTs was based on the traffic impact analysis and indicates that there would be a decrease in ADTs based on SANDAG's trip generation rates for allowable uses on the site within the given building square footages on site. The traffic study assumed that the 10,600 sJ. restaurant would generate 1,272 ADTs at the SANDAG trip generation rate of 120 ADTs per 1,000 sf for a sit down restaurant. To address the comment received regarding the URBEMIS2002 model outputs, the model was run using the default assumptions contained within the model to estimate impacts from a Home Improvement Superstore. The default assumptions assume a lower trip generation rate than was estimated in the traffic impact analysis, but also rely on default trip lengths and vehicle mix for the San Diego Air Basin. To develop a site-specific analysis that accounts for the maximum number of truck trips anticipated and adjusts for the ADTs predicted for the 3rd Avenue Home Depot, the URBEMIS2002 model was rerun with default assumptions adjusted. It was assumed that the trips generation rate would be 46.7 trips per 1000 square feet, for a total of 6,020 ADTs. It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Analysis does not report or account for the way trucks are treated in the trip generation model assumptions; truck trips are often treated as "passenger car equivalents" in traffic models and thus ADTs are increased accordingly to account for truck traffic. No adjustment was made for this assumption in the UREBEMIS2002 model run. To address the comment regarding the vehicle mix in the URBEMIS2002 model, the initial analysis included the default vehicle mix to estimate traffic emissions. The default vehicle mix assumes the following: 21 ATTACHMENT 11 2-148 Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.00 1.60 98.00 0.40 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 15.00 2.70 95.30 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.20 1.20 97.50 1.30 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.20 1.40 95.80 2.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul> 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.70 76.50 23.50 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40 Because there would be a maximum of 30 trucks per day traveling to the Home Depot, and because the project would not generate school bus trips, the default vehicle mix in the URBEMIS model was adjusted to increase the heavy-heavy duty truck trips from 0.9 percent to 1.0 percent, and to eliminate school bus trips. Furthermore, for conservative purposes, it was assumed that 100 percent of all heavy-heavy duty truck trips would be diesel trucks instead of a mix of catalyst and diesel trucks. The remaining vehicle mix assumptions were not adjusted. It should be noted that the revised assumptions result in the following estimated average daily trips for each category of vehicles: Vehicle Type Dailv Trios Liqht-duty Auto 3,311 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 903 Liaht Truck 3,751- 5,750 976 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 434 Lite-Heavv 8,501-10,000 66 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 24 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 60 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 60 Urban Bus 12 Motorcycle 102 Motor Home 72 TOTAL 6,020 Thus the assumptions used in the analysis result in not only 60 heavy-heavy duty truck trips traveling to and from the Home Depot per day, but in addition, 434 22 ATTACHMENT 11 2-149 medium truck trips, 66 light-heavy (8,501-10,000 Ibs) truck trips, 24 light-heavy (10,001-14,000 Ibs) truck trips, and 60 medium-heavy truck trips. To address site-specific travel distances, as discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the trip distances were evaluated based on the relative location of other home improvement stores. A review of Mapquest identified the nearest seven Home Depot locations to the site. It was assumed that the 3rd Avenue Home Depot store would attract customers from approximately half the distance or closer from each of these locations. The locations and their distances from the 3'd Avenue site are shown below. Existing Home Depot Store Distance to Site, miles 725 Plaza Court, Chula Vista 3.54 1320 Eastlake Parkwav, Chula Vista 8.11 525 Saturn Blvd., Imperial Beach 2.56 355 Marketplace Ave., San Dieqo 8.88 950 Dennerv Road, San Dieqo 5.07 1601 Precision Park Lane, San Ysidro 6.28 7530 Broadway, Lemon Grove 14.81 Average Distance to Other Home Deaot Locations 7.036 Half the Average Distance 3.518 In addition, the average minimum winter and maximum summer temperatures for Chula Vista were obtained from the Western Regional Climatic Center database (www.wrcc.drLedu) and used to estimate maximum winter and summer daily emissions. Based on these revised assumptions, the emissions were calculated for the year 2008 in the URBEMIS2002 model. A revised Table 6 is presented below. The emissions would be less than significant. Copy of the computerized model program is available in the Planning and Building Department files. Table 6 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS CO ROC NOx SOx PM10 Lbs/day Natural Gas Usage 1.05 0.09 1.25 0.00 0.00 Landscaping 0.78 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vehicular Emissions 370.22 33.28 47.12 0.19 32.31 Emergency Generator 0.56 0.21 2.60 0.17 0.18 TOTAL 372.61 33.70 50.97 0.36 32.49 23 ATTACHMENT 11 2-150 Significance Criteria 550 55 55 150 150 Sianificant? No No No No No Comment: We are very concerned that there is no assessment of the cumulative impact on localized air quality. There must be analysis that includes other sources of PM and Diesel PM in the area. Staff Response: As discussed on Page 24 of the report, "Based on the ARB's California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality - 2005 Edition (ARB 2005), the relative cancer risk attributable to diesel particulate emissions in San Diego County ranged from an estimated 870 in a million in the year 1990 to an estimated 420 in a million for the year 2000. Based on these estimates, the HRA results of 1.07 in a million excess cancer risk for residents near the project site is lower overall than that predicted for residential exposure to diesel particulate Countywide." This discussion was based on the ARB's California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality - 2005 Edition (ARB 2005). Background particulate concentrations were also provided in Table 2 on Page 5 of the report. Comment: The analysis of cancer risk included only diesel particulate matter. Of course, this may be the major pollutant of concern, but it is not the only one. Benzene and butadiene, for instance, must be studied as well. These pollutants should be included in the cancer risk assessment. Staff Response: The health risk assessment focuses on diesel particulate matter. Diesel particulate matter is the risk-driving chemical in truck exhaust. According to the California Air Resources Board's "Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as A Toxic Air Contaminant, Part A: Exposure Assessment" (ARB 1998), the substances identified in diesel exhaust that are considered toxics include benzene and 1,3- butadiene, as well as 39 additional components. Thus the diesel risk assessment does account for emissions of and exposure to benzene and 1,3-butadiene within the toxicity factors. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook in Section 10, Table 10-2, facilities where benzene would potentially be associated with risks would include gas stations, refineries, organic chemical manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and food processing where substantial emissions of benzene could occur due to the type of operation. Emissions of 1,3-butadiene would potentially be associated with risks due to incomplete combustion of petroleum-derived fuels, petroleum refining, certain fumigant production, and styrene- butadiene copolymer production. Emissions of benzene and butadiene from personal automobiles are small and do 24 ATTACHMENT 11 2-151 not contribute substantially to the excess cancer risk; retail facilities are not cited as major sources of emissions of these pollutants. With regard to diesel particulate, the diesel particulate unit risk factor accounts for the mix of pollutants contained within truck exhaust. Comment: We are very concerned that there is no assessment of the cumulative impacts. Staff Response: Neither the traffic, noise, nor the air quality reports found a cumulative significant impact contrary to the statement in the comment. Traffic found the traffic volume below the allowable traffic volume for the existing buildings on the site. As a result there is no increase in cumulative air impacts due to the reduction of traffic. Further the current drive distance to a Home Depot will be reduced which will reduce exhaust in the air basin. The reduction of traffic at sensitive traffic volume intersections will also reduce contribution to cumulative impacts on the air basin. Thus it will not add to the cumulative levels of air pollution. The commentator states, "Even chronic, low-level traffic noise at 50-60 dB can adversely affect children." Chula Vista in 1985 adopted Ordinance No. 2101 adding Section 19.68 to the Municipal code entitled "Performance Standards and Noise ControL" The applicable noise standard for multi-family residential zone in the municipal code between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. is 60 dB LEa. Other agencies such as Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 24, Part 51, "Environmental Criteria Standards" establish land use guidelines of DNL 65 dB as acceptable. The noise thresholds utilize for this study is the lead agencies criteria. The mitigation measure will achieve this level by requiring deliveries to occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise level at the closest single-family homes across Moss Street will be well below the single- family residential standard of 55 dB LEa between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise report was analyzed for cumulative noise as well as near term noise and found not to be significant. The reports do not rely on de minimus criteria for cumulative impacts. 25 ATTACHMENT 11 2-152 8. Comments on DRC staff reoort and resoonses to comments 3/19/07 and Attachment 11/RCC Minutes from Teresa Acero. Comment: Issues raised regarding the Air Quality model used, diesel exhaust, risk assessments and City noise ordinance. Staff Response: (to RCC Minutes) 1. The EMFAC2007 model was re-run to evaluate what the results would be if this model were used. For certain vehicle classes for certain pollutants, emissions are higher in the EMFAC2002 model than in the EMFAC2007 model, and for other pollutants and other vehicle classes, emissions are lower. For example, NOx emissions are generally projected to be lower with the EMFAC2007 model than with the EMFAC2002 model. The model does, however, estimate higher emissions for the on-road portion of heavy-duty truck travel; thus the on-road emissions are predicted to be higher. The commenter has expressed the greatest concern, however, about truck idling emissions from trucks idling at the lumber unloading area and the load dock. The idling emissions were also compared with the idling emissions predicted by the EMFAC2002 model. The EMFAC2002 model did not predict any decreases in idling emissions from 2008 through 2040 due to increasingly stringent vehicle emission and fuel standards. The EMFAC2007 model accounts for increasingly stringent vehicle and fuel standards and predicts a decrease in idling emissions. When accounted for in the emission calculations for the Home Depot, the idling emissions decrease by a factor of 2.213. Thus the idling portion of the emissions would be more than 50 percent lower using the EMFAC2007 model than using the EMFAC2002 model. 5. . Criteria pollutants are different than toxic pollutants. Auto body painting, dry cleaning, and gasoline station operations emit very low amounts of criteria pollutants, which include NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Toxic air pollutants include substances such as perchloroethylene, xylenes, benzene, etc. which are emitted by certain types of businesses such as auto body shops, dry cleaners, and gasoline stations. The reason that the 91911 zip code has a higher level of pollutants reported is mainly due to the presence of the South Bay Power Plant which is located within that zip code. 26 2-153 ATTACHMENT 11 The article that the commenter cites in her comments is mainly concerned with reporting the effects of non-road diesel exhaust. The focus of the study to which she is referring includes diesel engines powering equipment such as bulldozers, ships, trains, and power tractors. It is important to note that the California Air Resources Board has passed rnore stringent requirements for on-road diesel trucks, and has implemented measures such as restricting idling to 5 minutes to control emissions from on-road sources. The ARB is continuing to focus efforts to reduce emissions from both on-road and off-road sources. 6. It is important to note that more than occupational exposure has been addressed in the health risk assessment that was prepared for the project. Residential exposure was assumed in calculating health risks in accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Guidelines (OEHHA 2003). The OEHHA guidelines for preparing health risk assessment within California specify that one should assume exposure duration of 70 years in a residential scenario. Thus, the scenario that was used to evaluate potential health risks for the risk assessment conducted for the Home Depot assumes that residents would live in the apartments behind the project for 70 years, and would never leave the premises; they would not go to work, go to school, or leave the site; rather, they would be present for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. A comment states that the significance threshold of 1 in 1 million should apply to the project based on EPA guidelines. The City of Chula Vista uses the SCAOMD's significance thresholds. The SCAOMD utilizes a significant risk threshold of 10 in a million on which to evaluate projects. This is also consistent with San Diego Air Pollution Control District guidelines in Rule 1210, which indicate that a facility must notify the public of risks if the risk predicted due to the facility's emissions is greater than 10 in a million. EPA guidelines differ from OEHHA guidelines in several respects.' According to the EPA in Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, OSWER Directive 9355.0-30, April 22, 1991, and Development of Remediation Goals under CERCLA, numerical preliminary remediation goals are based on the upper bound carcinogenic risk of one in a million. These preliminary remediation goals are designed by EPA as screening tools to eliminate projects that do not require further evaluation. However, EPA states that "The RG [Remediation Goal] can be based on a 10-4 [100 in a million] cancer risk that is still within the NCP's [National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan's] acceptable 27 2-154 ATTACHMENT 11 range (10-4 to 10-6) for carcinogenic risk." EPA clearly directs that a range of risk is acceptable, and allows anywhere from 1 in a million to 100 in a million as an acceptable risk range. Furthermore, EPA's risk assessment guidelines allow for exposure scenarios for risk assessments that are based on more site-specific information. EPA's "reasonable maximum exposure" duration for a residential exposure scenario is 30 years, not 70 years, in a residential setting. This exposure duration represents the upper bound as determined by EPA for the length of time that an individual would live in a particular location. EPA also utilizes an average residential duration of 9 years to represent average residential duration. EPA allows site-specific information to be used in risk calculations as well. For example, if an average and maximum duration of tenancy in the condominiums behind the Home Depot indicated that the average and maximum duration of residence is lower than EPA's assumed durations of 9 and 30 years, respectively, this can be factored into a risk assessment. It is clear that the risk assessment that was conducted for the Home Depot provides a highly conservative estimate of risk, as it is based on the assumption that no emission reduction in idling emissions would occur over the 70-year period of operation assumed. It was assumed that a resident would live in that location without ever leaving the premises for a duration of 70 years. The risk was calculated using the OEHHA's unit risk factor of 3 x 10-4, which corresponds to the information provided by the commenter in her comments that indicate "a lifetime exposure to an average of one microgram of diesel PM in a cubic meter of air carries of cancer risk of 300 in a million." Data has been provided from the URBEMIS model and the City cannot comment on the commenter's runs using the URBEMIS2002 model. The San Diego County emissions were used in the URBEMIS model runs that were conducted for the project. It should also be noted that no netting analysis was conducted for the project; i.e., there was no accounting for the reduction in vehicle trips that would be realized from the closure of the K-Mart. 28 2-155 ATTACHMENT 11 Page 1 of 1 Maria Muett From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 25,20068:28 PM To: Maria Muelt; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval; Tony Cc: Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone Subject: Home Depot Air Quality report Look at page 14 in the Air Report: "Because the project will include retail and restaurant uses, Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicle in accordance with the EMFAC2002 model outputs for traffic. This assumption includes light duty autos and light duty trucks as well as medium and heavy duty vehicles that may be traveling to the facility to make deliveries or as business customers with larger vehicles." Obviously this is why their figures seem so low. They ran the model based upon the wrong assumptions for vehicle traffic. The project obviously does not include retail and restaurant and their assumption makes no sense for a HD. As I said in previous comments 8,350 ADT's for the restaurant and the K-Mart makes absolutely no sense either. The restaurant was converting to a Chinese restaurant that would have ADT of 89/1,000 sqft or 943.4 ADT plus K-Mart's measured 4,870 or a total of5,813.4 if the restaurant ever opened. This is no where near 8,350 claimed in report and less than the underestimated total for HD of 6,020. 7,740 is more likely figure for HD, since 60 ADT is what El Cajon store has. The H Street store is not a very busy store, and traffic was measured week before Thanksgiving in middle of the week-not their prime time. Home depot admits to 30 of their own trucks a day plus contractor and vendor trucks. This is figure that needs to be used. Do You Yahoo!? Tired ofspam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 2-156 ,47//-KH/l-1EA)T (J-.. 02/23/2007 Page I of I Maria Muett From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 11 :30 AM To: Maria Muett; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval Cc: Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann: Rudy Ramirez: Jerry Rindone Subject: a few more things noise report and MND need to address Having reviewed the Noise Report again and reread the staff letter to the applicant dated 3/15/06 I realize that there are a few more flaws in the report. The staff letter states: "Discuss any potential noise impacts to the nearby multi-family second story residential dwellings. The acoustical analysis shall demonstrate that second-and-third floor interior (my emphasis) noise levels due to exterior noise sources would be below the 45 CNEL standard." The noise report does not mention interior noise levels at all. It concerns itself with exterior only. This is a glaring oversight. Considering that the 15- foot noise wall will only get exterior noise upstairs down to 59 decibels (page 10), it seems unlikely this standard is met. It is troubling the way they shop around for information using 70 decibels at 50 feet (page 7) from Mount Carmel Ranch for proposed EI Cajon store, which is questionable data because there is an EI Cajon store that would have been more similar and provided more accurate data for that report, but using octave band from Torrance. The Mount Carmel study modeled for receptors that were at 155 feet away according to the Appendix. The Moss Villas has receptors at less than 30 feet unless all the trucks and equipment are confined to the 15 feet next to the west wall of the building at all times. This seems unlikely to me. The new wall is only 20 feet from the east side of some of the condos. The driveway appears to be 45 feet wide that leaves 15 feet for the trucks, forklifts and lumber to maneuver in if they are going to stay 50 feet away from the condos, whose private space includes the 4 and a half feet from their east wall to the concrete wall. How wide is a semi-truck? Another quote: "Short-term construction noise impacts to nearby sensitive noise receptors (the surrounding multifamily residential units) must be identified and included in the noise analysis Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code" There is no mention in the noise report of construction noise at all. There is also the exclusion of the sensitive receptors at Bayview Behavioral Center from the list of those who must be considered. This could be very significant since there will be no noise walls and 32 trucks a day plus heavy equipment will be in operation for 8 or more hours per day for six days per week for 34 weeks. (I am assuming our Municipal Code regulates the amount of noise allowed during the day in construction zones, not just forbidding it at night. I would also argue that there is nothing short- term about 34 weeks.) Theresa Acerro 3730 Festival Court Do You Yahoo!? Tired ofspam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 2-157 02/23/2007 Page I of I Maria Muett From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 20066:27 PM To: Maria Muett; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval Cc: Tony; Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone Subject: noise ordinance, status of condominiums The Noise ordinance says all residential except multifamily has a day maximum of 55 and a night of 45. It seems quite unfair that multifamily has been singled out for 60 and 50 and a bit confusing. The Marasella villas proposed for Ada are called attached single family dwelling units in the MND. They are townhomes or condos. Which category would they fall in? What besides single family detached homes is the ordinance refering to when it says all residential? I believe that condos are single family attached homes, because each family owns its own seperate unit. They should be considered in the all residential category, not the multifamily exception. Marsella villas are now R2, but Moss Villas are R3, but they are not apartments they are single family attached dwellings. Calling them multifamily implies they are apartments, which they are not. They should fall under the stricter standard. If the council is the body that has the final say on the interpretation of ordinances I would reguest that they clarify this issue in favor of condominium residents who do not live in multifamily buildings, but single family attached homes~ Multifamily is meant to describe apartments. Theresa Acerro Do You Yahoo!? Tired ofspam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 2-158 02/23/2007 Richard Zumwalt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rosemarie Rice Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:07 AM Richard Zumwalt Luis Hernandez FW: Planning & Building Contact Form -----Original Message----- From: baccv@aol.com [mailto:baccv@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:57 AM To: Current Planning Subject: Planning & Building Contact Form The following information has been received: Division: Planning Commission First Name: Bettie Last Name: Lupi Email: baccv@aol.com Message: The proposal to locate the Horne Depot positioned parallel to the alley & facing apartments for the old Kmart loaction on Third Ave. is not environmentally sound. When creatijng these plans, especially ones with long term mpact, we need to be proactive. We need to consider what we. are negetively causing & make those changes while in the planning stages, NOT AFTER THE FACT. Please reconsider all the issues involved & make educated choices to keep to a minimum the problems that will arise if current plans go forth. , 1 2-159 Maria Muett From: Sent: To: Subject: Richard Zumwalt Monday, January 22,2007 10:53 AM Luis Hernandez; Steve Power; Maria Muett FW: City Attorney's Office Contact Form fyi -----Original Message----- From: Diana Vargas Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:32 AM To: CityAttorney Cc: Richard Zumwalt Subject: RE: City Attorney's Office Contact Form Yes; I'll forward it to Rich Zumwalt. -----Original Message----- From: Cheryl Ponds On Behalf Of CityAttorney Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:56 AM To: Diana Vargas Subject: FW: City Attorney's Office Contact Form Importance: High Diane is this something your department handles? If not let me know who I should refer this to? -----Original Message----- From: thacerro@yahoo.com [rnailto:thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:09 PM To: CityAttorney Subject: City Attorney's Office Contact Form The following information has been received: First Name: Theresa Last Name: Acerra Email: thacerro@yahoo.com Message: Has your office looked at the MND for the Home Depot proposed for Third and Moss? we are in the process of requesting an EIR due to the inadequacy of the MND in mitigating or even evaluating all the negative and cumulative effects of the project. This is a preliminary letter. Our lawyer is drafting another. 1/22/07 Dear Chairman Jose Alberdi and Committee Members: Jeremy Hogan, Jeff Justus, David Bringas, and Yolanda Calvo: Our Request The Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association was formed to provide a structured association for the residents, property owners, and business owners of the underrepresented Southwestern region of Chula Vista, to participate in the preservation, planning, development and protection of the unique character of the area through community education and group action. In response to the 250 signatures of residents on petitions asking the city to require Home Depot to redesign and/or relocate their building planned for Moss and Third in order to keep trucks and loading/unloading activities as far away from residents homes and Moss Street as possible, the SWCVCA is asking that you recommend that the MND submitted for the 1 2-160 project not be approved. We further request that you ask Home Depot to seriously consider alternative designs, including those used at other Home Depots and return at a latter date with a design that will reduce significantly more the impact of their operations upon the residents of the southwestern community. Air Quality Impacts The Voice of San Diego article published on 1/2/07 shows that the 91911 zip code has 30,287 lbs. of toxic pollution in the air (7th highest in the county) while the county's average is only 7,975. It also has 3.1 million lbs. of criteria pollution in the air (3rd highest in the county) while the county's average is 38,240 lbs. This data coupled with the 20% higher asthma hospitalization rate in this zip code makes it imperative that cumulative impacts be analyzed. It is a scientific fact that 70% of all cancer caused by toxic air contaminants can be traced to diesel exhaust. Long term exposure to diesel exhaust is associated with a 40% increase in lung cancer. This makes it critical that the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments be based upon the maximum number of trucks per week rather than an average, which underestimates the impacts. It also means that the thresholds should be lower in the 91911 zip code. CEQUA requires an analysis of anything that might be an impact. Using an average does not do this. The Health Risk Assessment specifically requires an analysis of the greatest possible impact, not an average. Also the HRA does not evaluate benzene and other toxic chemicals in diesel exhaust at all. The HRA also uses a 70- year cancer risk assuming that risk will go down over the years. This is faulty procedure. The HRA should be based upon worse case 2008. The existing report underestimates the risks by making assumptions that mayor may not occur in the future. This is clearly not allowed by CEQUA the analysis needs to be based upon what is currently occurring now. This means diesel idling must be part of the risks, since the 5 minute law is commonly violated, unless a monitor will be present at all times when trucks are on site observing and enforcing the law it must be assumed that especially in hot or cold weather the engines will not be turned off while waiting or loading and unloading. Observations are sufficient proof that this is the reality of the current situation. Cumulative Effects: Section 15065. says Mandatory Findings of Significance must be found when 4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The negative effects found in the Air and Noise Technical studies do find substantial effects on human beings when they are viewed cumulatively with existing air pollution standard non-compliance in Chula Vista. **454 The trial court found that Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) contravenes CEQA case law, which holds that a project can have significant cumulative impacts even though the project complies with thresholds of significance in an approved plan or mitigation program. [FN41] There is no contravention, however, if Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) incorporates the fair argument standard; rather, the principle enunciated in these cases provides the legal basis for a fair argument that a project has significant cumulative impacts notwithstanding that it complies with an approved plan or mitigation program. FN41. See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, FN41. See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332-1338, 232 Cal.Rptr. 507; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716-717, 270 Cal.Rptr. 650 (Kings County ). Staff response to comments on the MND consistently relies upon minimal attainment of thresholds. CEQUA case law clearly does not find thresholds to be definitive when there is substantial additional evidence as the article in Voice of San Diego and expert testimony by EHC' s expert have provided. Noise The SWCVCA also finds it troubling that the noise report was only able to get the noise down to 59 decibels with a fifteen foot sound absorbing wall, admitting it could not reach the single family threshold of 55. The SWCCVA has extreme doubts that all of the lumber, forklifts and trucks are 2 2-161 going to be confined to the 15 feet of space next to the west wall of the building at all times in order to maintain the required distance of 50 feet. In fact the response to a comment to that effect states that "A semi-truck is 8 feet wide, the unloading occurs from both sides of the truck, one side directly into the sales building, the other side staged along the building for placement after the truck leaves. 50 feet in the diagram is the middle of the truck. This verifies that half of the noise source will be less than 50 feet from the nearest residents and therefore not meet the threshold, but the significant evidence presented documenting the negative effects of even low-level noise upon human health is a fair argument showing an adverse effect in spite of the threshold. ("Substantial evidence" means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (Guidelines, ~ 15384, subd. (a).) Substantial evidence "shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." (Guidelines, 5 15384, subd.) CEQUA law has validated that thresholds are not definitive. If all the cumulative impacts of lower level noise coupled with the 15 hours when they will be permitted of 7AM to 10PM are considered this is not only a nuisance, but also a negative impact upon people's health. "Even chronic, low-level traffic noise at 50 - 60 dB can adversely affect children. It can cause a rise in blood pressure, heart rate, and stress hormones. In addition, it also reduces task motivation and learning. Elevations of stress hormones are linked to the adult illnesses of "high blood pressure, elevated lipids and cholesterol, heart disease and a reduction in the body's supply of disease-fighting immune cells.If (Source: http://www.newscientist.com/news/ - Ithaca, NY, 5/22/2001. Noise: A Health Problem.. This 1978 document If... is a somewhat dated but still very helpful EPA document about noise and health." Article Online Source: Noise Pollution Clearing House The MND does not deal with this cumulative impact. Noise has not been adequately mitigated. (A threshold of significance may be useful to determine whether an environmental impact normally should be considered significant. (Guidelines, 5 15064.7, subd. (a).) [xii] A threshold of significance is not conclusive, however, and does not relieve a public agency of the duty to consider the evidence under the fair argument standard. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-1109; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-114; see Guidelines, 5 15064, subd. (b). [xiii]) A public agency cannot apply a threshold of significance or regulatory standard "in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect." (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, at p. 114.) This is exactly what the staff has done in their response to comments. There is also no analysis of the impact of the noise from 115 (average) per week trucks on the patients and residents in the hospital and apartments they will pass if the current plan is adopted. This is not done because the ambient noise is calculated to be 61 decibels due.to 500 peak hour trips daily on Moss. The traffic study never shows anywhere near this number of vehicles on Moss at any time of the day or night; ergo this needs to be analyzed in the EIR. Health Impacts: A full EIR is needed or a significant redesign of the building and its placement in order to avoid these significant impacts. Health Impacts are a CEQUA item that needs analysis. Air Quality and Noise have already been mentioned. In the Health Impacts section of an EIR the safety record of Home Depot also needs to be evaluated as well as the toxic substances they store in huge quantities and the health risks they pose to close by residents, customers and employees. A casual search on the Internet brings up many incidents throughout the country where there have been mishandles toxic substances. There is also the issue of employee and customer safety, fires and storage and handling of hazardous materials: "The next time Home Depot knocks on your neighborhood's door, ask local 3 2-162 fire officials to get a complete inventory of the hazardous materials stored inside the store, and a print out of any incidents nationwide at the store that involved the release of toxic materials. Be sure your local fire chief has asked for copies of the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) reports on the Home Depot fires in Tempe, AZ, and Quincy, MA. Ask the company to provide a report of the garden center fire at Signal Hill, CA. Local homeowners have a right to know the risks involved in living near a warehouse full of chemicals, solvents, paints and pesticides." 2006-05-31 - Elk River, MN. Another Horne Depot Catches Fire , 2006-07-03 - College Park, MD. Fires Plague Horne Depot, 2005-08-02 - Los Angeles, CA. Home Depot Gets Subpoena On Hazardous Waste http://www.sprawl-busters.com/search.php?readstory=405 How Horne Depot keeps store accidents secret - Atlanta Business When Home Depot provides attorneys with information about the frequency and severity of accidents in its stores, it demands they sign confidentiality . .www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/02/24/story4.html - 68k - Cached - Similar pages Accidents claim lives of Horne Depot shoppers - Atlanta Business ... Accidents claim lives of Home Depot shoppers, ... No comprehensive list of customers who have been killed or seriously injured in Home Depot stores is ...www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/02/24/story2.html - 71k - Jan 5, 2007 In 2001 because of several deaths in Horne Depots they hired Safety Managers for all their stores and instituted safety-training programs for all employees. Now profits are down so: 2006-03-19 Atlanta, GA. Horne Depot Cuts Its Safety Managers Nationwide. This is a concern that SWCVCA has, since these managers provided safety training and watched out for customer safety. Police Services The impact upon our police department that consistently has been unable to meet their threshold response time for non-emergency calls was also not evaluated in the MND and is a serious impact that needs to be evaluated. The expected increase in calls of 193 more than K-Mart's 2005 129 is only going to make the situation worse and violates the city's Growth Management Ordinance, which forbids development that is likely to worsen a non-attainment of a threshold. The MND suggests that people should call in noise complaints and complaints about the day laborers. Staff's response to comments about noise and day laborer impacts is that city loitering and nuisance noise ordinances cover these matters, essentially acknowledging that there will be negative impacts in this area and brushing them off as a police matter, not requiring CEQUA review. The SWCVCA believes this conclusion confirms a further burden upon the police caused by the project and agiin requests a full EIR for this project or a significant redesign to mitigate expected cumulative impacts. ("There is 'a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR' (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 84 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66J), and a 'preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review' (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316-1317 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 473]). An EIR must be prepared 'whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact' (No Oil, Inc., supra, at p. 75, [118 Ca1.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66J), even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1346 [125 Cal.Rptr.2d 140]; Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 [165 Cal.Rptr. 514J)." (Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580-581; see Guidelines, 5 15064, subd. If).) The SWCVCA believes that these and other comments on the MND, includi~g power points, public comments and letters provide substantial evidence. Negative Impact on Moss Street: 4 2-163 There is also no mitigation for the commonly accepted fact that heavy trucks tear up small streets like Moss. (Courts have held that the absence of expert studies is not an obstacle because personal observations concerning nontechnical matters may constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882-883.) The residents of the Southwest have observed the deterioration of many streets in our area. With a maximum of 30 trucks a day, not counting contractor and vendor trucks, Home Depot has an increase of at maximum of 29 trucks on Moss a day or an average of 115 per week as now planned. The citizens of Chula Vista should not be responsible for redoing Moss Street or, as is more likely and more common in the southwest, suffering with huge potholes created by Home Depot's trucks. (This does not include vendor and contractor trucks.) Many of these areas were not evaluated at all in the MND because the city insists upon comparing the proposed project to a permitted use that has never existed on the site and also never had an EIR to evaluate its negative effects upon the community. This is improper. When compared to the existing use-K-Mart- there is a maximum of 1, 150 trips a day. An EIR needs to be prepared to analyze fully the negative impacts of Home Depot upon the southwest community or a creative redesign needs to occur that further minimizes all the impacts that Might occur. We are asking the members of the ORC to support the community by declining to recommend approval of the MND or the current plan and requesting Home Depot to consider alternative designs that will place loading and unloading further away from residents, eliminate the garden PA system, since phones are used in other stores, and further limit the hours when trucks can be on site. There is an opportunity to build an orchid here instead of an onion. Let's insist that this opportunity be taken. Land Use and Planning Impacts The Southwestern portion of the city does not have a specific plan. The zoning ordinances are 50 years old. There are projects being approved throughout our area that are significantly changing the community character of the area. The SWCVCA is concerned that all of this is happening with no plan. It appears the city too readily approves plans in isolation without evaluating their cumulative effects upon the community. The Home Depot is only the current example. The GPU vision is for construction closer to the main street, not big box stores with a sea of parking in the front. This is an archaic design and not at all aesthetically pleasing. Not to mention the encouragement of urban blight these big box stores can cause. SWCVCA wonders if the old Ralphs will ever get a tenant with Horne Depot as its neighbor, and what will happen to the Frazee Paint Store off of L Street? How will the big industrial buildings recently built on Main Street effect the longtime local businesses that have been a part of the community for many, many years? The comment by the Home Depot representative that facing the loading areas toward the empty parking lot next store instead of the residents is contrary to the goals of redevelopment is patently wrong. The goal of redevelopment in the southwest has to be to improve the environmental justice and the health for the residents of the southwest. Relocating the areas generating toxic contaminants further away from residents will do both. Do the residents and community character ever enter into planning decisions in southwest Chula Vista? All of the construction going on in the southwest needs to be looked at as a whole rather than as separate projects as is happening now. The community made it clear they disliked intensely the design of Spotlight on Broadway, so what does the city do but approve another one very similar to it down the street. Planning is supposed to be about what the residents want, NOT what the city wants. It is time the city starts listening to the residents. Sincerely, 5 2-164 Theresa Acerra President of Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association 6 2-165 Original Message----- From: Tony LoPresti [mailto:TonyL@environmentalhealth.org] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:21 AM To: Elisa Cusato Cc: Diane Clancey; Luis Hernandez; spowers@cLchula-cista.ca.us; THERESA ACERRO; Joy Williams Subject: HD Air Quality Report... Ms. Cusato, We understand that your office is reviewing the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Home Depot on Moss and Third. Environmental Health Coalition supports MS. Acerra's claim that the MND is inadequate environmental review under CEQA (as we stated in a comment letter on the MND dated Dec. 13th, 2006), and that cumulative impacts have not been properly studied. In addition, our research director, Joy Williams, has reviewed the air quality study and has identified what we believe are shortcomings which further justify the need for a full EIR and/or further mitigation of the single source and cumulative impacts on nearby residences. We'd like to ask you, or other staff assigned to the review of this project, to include the following comments in your review: 1. The text of the Air Quality study (page 6 near the bottom) refers to an SCAQMD methodology for determining a Localized Significance Threshold based on the size of the project site and proximity of receptors. Some of the values on the table for PMIO, attached to this e-mail and available at the SCAQMD website, are below the estimated PMI0 emissions from Home Depot operations, as listed in Table 6 (page IS), and also the construction impacts, Table 5. This suggests that there IS a localized impact from PMIO, and that further analysis of emissions from the loading dock to the nearest receptor is needed. According to SCAQMD: "If the project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate look-up tables are used as a screening analysis, then project specific air quality modeling may be performed. In the event that the project area exceeds 5 acres, it is recommended that lead agencies perform project- specific air quality modeling for these larger projects." 2. The emissions estimates depend on Home Depot being consistently willing and able to limit idling times of trucks to 5 minutes. We have gone to several Home Depots and have timed idling times well in excess of S minutes. While Home Depot can and should suggest limitation of idling times to 5 minutes as a mitigation, emissions estimates must be based on actual existing data from actual existing scenarios. The fact is, trucks using Horne Depots idle far more than 5 minutes. Also, it should be noted that we timed these trucks in January during mid-day when 2-166 temperatures were mild. Trucks are more likely to stay idling when drivers wish to keep their air conditioning or heating on. Excessive idling is likely to increase in winter morning and evening hours, and in hot summer hours. 3. The air analysis uses meteorological data from Lindbergh Field. The APCD has meteorological data from Chula Vista. This data should be used in analyses of air emissions in Chula Vista. 4. The air quality report does not spell out how analysis was conducted on chronic non-cancer risk. This analysis should use the single worst year, not an average of the 70 years as is done for cancer risk. It is not clear how this analysis was conducted. It is also unclear what the actual increase in PM10 in the air at ground level would be from the project. With this figure, an estimate could be made of the extra asthma visits to doctors, school absences, etc., attributable to the Home Depot. 5. The health risk assessment is based on estimates of average truck trips per week (lIS), but not high-end estimates (150). The risks must be presented for high-end as well as average conditions. 6. We are very skeptical of the comparison of ADT's from the current site use to the Home Depot. These are likely to be very different mixes of vehicles. Customers drive different vehicles to shop at a Home Depot than they would at a K-mart. Also, we fail to understand how a restaurant could attract 3,000 vehicle trips per day, as seems to be the assumption made in the allowable traffic. 7. We are very concerned that there is no assessment of the cumulative impact on localized air quality. There must be analysis that includes other sources of PM and Diesel PM in the area. 8. The analysis of cancer risk included only diesel particulate matter. Of course, this may be the major pollutant of concern, but it is not the only one. Benzene and butadiene, for instance, must be studied as well. These pollutants should be included in the cancer risk assessment. Thank you, Tony LoPresti Policy Advocate Environmental Health Coalition 401 Mile of Cars Way National City, CA 91950 w) 619.474.0220 x126 c) 831.246.3780 2-167 www.environmentalhealth.org 2-168 Page 1 of 1 Maria Muett From: Steve Power Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 20071:19 PM To: Maria Muett Subject: FW: Home Depot -----Original Message----- From: Elisa Cusato Sent: Friday, February 02, 20078:49 AM To: Steve Power; Marisa Lundstedt Subject: FW: Home Depot Hi Steve and Marisa -----Orlglnal Message----- From: THERESA ACERRO [mailto:thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:29 PM To: Elisa Cusato Subject: Home Depot Elisa, It was just brought to my iattention today that as a result of the MND for Creekside Villas it was decided no left turns would be allowed from this project to be built at the corner of L and Third. In fact the city plans to build a barrier to physically prevent left turns here. This means that 200+ residents per day will most likely turn right at Moss in order to go west or north or to 1-5 from their homes. This will be an incredible impact upon the residents of Moss between Third and Fourth. This absolutely should have been a part of the traffic study for Home Depot since its store will also add significant amounts of traffic and trucks to this intersection and street. Part of this section of Moss does not even have sidewalks and both sides of the street are full of cars due to the densification of the block without adequate off street parking. Please add this to my list of the inadequacies of the MND. Thank-you, Theresa The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Ya.hoo I Search Marketing. 2-169 02/28/2007 Page I of2 Maria Muett From: Steve Power Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 20071:19 PM To: Maria Muelt Subject: FW: home depot cv -----Original Message----- From: Elisa Cusato Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:42 PM To: Steve Power; Marisa Lundstedt Subject: FW: home depot 01 FYI. -----Original Message----- From: THERESA ACERRO [mailto:thacerro@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 20074:17 PM To: Elisa Cusato; Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone Subject: Fwd: home depot 01 THERESA ACERRO <thacerro@Jlahoo.com> wrote: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:40:31 -0800 (PST) From: THERESA ACERRO <thacerro@yahoo.com> Subject: home depot cv To: john@ziebarth.com, smaloni@tomshepard.com John, You said that you would send me number of lumber trucks HD has per day. I asked about vehicle mix that I am sure has been measured at some Home Depot somewhere. How much does a loaded lumber truck weigh? How much does a cement truck weigh? The Air Quality Report on page A-II ran the analysis for 8.91 trips/IOOO square feet 1,149.39 trips, which certainly helps explain the results they got.The fleet mix on A-II looks a little light too. Did you know that the city is requiring Creekside Villas at Third and L (167 townhomes) to allow only right turns out of property, which will put as many as 500 or more trips per day onto Moss, since that will be quickest option for 1-5 or points west or north. This makes keeping trucks off of Moss and all driveways on Third open even more important. You say that Home Depot schedules all its trucks. Another helpful thing would be to schedule trucks when people would not likely be at home. 7 AM to 10 PM is ridiculous. A narrower range of hours in middle of day would help mitigate some. Also making loudspeaker only for emergency purposes would help. (Pointing loudspeaker away from residents would also point it away from nursery.) Theresa 2-170 02/28/2007 Page 2 of2 Everyone is raving about theal1:new Yahoo! Mail bet'l, Want to start your own business? Learn how on YahOOLS@lllB\!~il1~~1>, 2-171 02/28/2007 Comments on staff report and responses to comments 3/19/07 Staff Report I: page 9 Exactly what is meant by the Design Review Permit is not enforceable? Does this mean they can actually build anyway they want? If plan is to be approved by directoI<ofPlanning-Jim Sandoval can he enforce the permit provisions? A staging area for half the lumber is proposed against the building. Isn't this in the fire lane, which is shown and stated to be around the edge ofthi: building? Will this mean trucks will pass closer to sound wall and residents than allowed by MND? 2. We commend the applicant for the new site plan reducing the number of trucks using Moss and passing behind residents' homes. 3. \v e commend staff for increasing height of wall to 9 feet, but think that the entire length of the property line should have a fifteen foot wall adjusted perhaps for differences in elevation, as was done for the WalMart at 1200 Highland. We are asking staff to increase the height of the minimum wall. The Wal Mart is lower than the adjoining residential. It appears that the Home Depot will be higher at the south end requiring the higher wall. Attachment II stapled to RCC minutes 1. page 2 There is a new EMF AC2007 Model out as of January. We have not had time yet to run the data in the new model, but expect different results.http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm 2. Page 3 The City Noise Ordinance requires measuring the noise. Is there not an ordinance limiting deliveries to the hours on AM to lOPM weekdays and SAM to lOPM weekends as is mentioned throughout MND? Who exactly is responsible for enforcing this, since the police say they cannot find the ordinance number? 3. page 4 Rather than wait until the store walls are up we request that a condition of approval be added that will require the sound absorption wall with its accompanying landscaping be installed before demolition starts to protect the residents from the noise and dust. 4. page 6 We sincerely hope the mistake committed over at COSCO on Naples can be avoided here. The location of the loading docks on the north side of the building was clearly a huge mistake there that has amounted to torturing the residents across the street for 3 years now. 5. page 7 Staff is confusing criteria pollution with toxic pollution. The Auto Body Painting, dry cleaners and gasoline stations make us ih in crieria pollution. The power plant. Landfill and Hanson Aggregates make us third in toxic pollution. This data all comes from the EPA 2-172 and ARB websites and is a reason this is an Environmental Justice Issue, since the 9 I 9 I I zip code with a higher percentage of people of color and a lower median income than the rest of the city has been historically targeted for the placement of polluting industries. This information serves to show a cumulative effect upon Air Quality and the need for lower threshold standards. Here is information supporting 70% figure for diesel exhaust: htto:/Iwww.commondreams.oro/news2003/0609-02.htm Page 5 of the Marsella Villas MND also acknowledges this 70% figure as being from ARB. A recent analysis by an association of state air regulators found that diesel, exhaust - a mixture of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, arsenic, dioxin and mercury - increase the incidence of cancer in the U.S. by as many as 125,000 additional cases over a 70 year lifetime. California air officials estimate that diesel exhaust causes 70 percent of the state's airborne cancer risk from toxic pollution. Preliminary data released today by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), a nonprofit association of the eight Northeast air quality agencies, found that non-road heavy duty diesel engines can make surrounding air quality as much as 16 times more polluted -- suggesting that the health threats for workers and nearby residents may be even more significant than previously recognized. The interim NESCAUM summary is available at http://www.nescaum.orq. The UCS study breaks down pollution data on non-road diesel engines and other mobile sources in all states, counties and major metropolitan areas. The report also provides a cost analysis of producing cleaner engines, finding that for oneto three percent of the cost of equipment, pollution controls for particulate matter and nitrogen oxide can cut emissions by 90 percent or more. For the entire UCS report and local emissions see http://www.ucsusa.orq/c1eaninqupdiesel.html. 6. page 8 Health effects of diesel exhaust are more than occupational. The research so far is only conclusive for occupational exposure and cancer, but there is a lot of evidence for other health risks such as asthma, infections, lung damage, and premature death. Please see citings at: htto://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0603/et0603s21.html. Some of what is mentioned is danger to pregnant women. The newest study is: The use study, which tracked 3,600 children for 13 years, found that those living within 500 yards of a highway faced risk of permanent health damage. 2-173 including stunted lung growth and respiratory problems. January 30, 2007 Los Angeles Times? page 11. Essentially HRA was done for region and not for people living 50 feet away, but finding a way to do this type of analysis is difficult. We believe the acceptable risk is 1 in a million not 10. We believe any fraction over that is significant censidering the ambient conditions in this zip code. What is a an acceptable (E.g. EPA's "One-in- a-Million") Risk? According to EPA, single pollutants that are likely to cause cancer are generally of concern if they exceed a "one in a million" risk of cancer over a lifetime of exposure. One-in-a- million is thus considered an acceptable risk of cancer for a 'single pollutant. The average person living in the US today is exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals everyday by eating food, drinking water, using consumer products and just by breathing. Many of these toxic chemicals are also likely to cause cancer. To protect public health we need to keep the public's exposure to single pollutants below "one-in-a"million", because people are exposed to so many cancer-causing agents in their lifetimes. Using a "one-in a-million" risk level as a gUidepost to protect public health can also help address the uncertainty we have about a toxic chemical's potential for other serious--but yet unknownuhealth effects such as birth defects, reproductive system impacts and, nervous system damage among many others. Diesel exhaust exposure is unusually problematic because the majority of the nation's population is exposed to a greater than one in a million level of cancer risk. In fact the modeled averaged risk in all U.S. counties exceed this level. According to the state of California, a lifetime exposure to an average of one microgram of diesel PM in a cubic meter of air carries a cancer risk of 300 in a million. We acknowledge this issue is subjective at this point in time, but ask that the city error on the side of being more responsive to potential risk than normal. 8. page 12 There are several instances where it is acknowledged that the Home Depot is also a warehouse which would mean there needs to be more distance from loading areas and residents. It states here that the loading activities from the far side of the truck will go into the warehouse immediately. How will this be enforced? 9. page 23 We ran the Urbemis2002 model for both San Diego and South Coast Air Basin using the vehicle mix given in response and changing temperatures to CY in 2008 with defaults for other things. 2-174 We get a lot higher vehicle emissions than the consultant. We would like to see his data. San Diego Air Basin CO 491.08, ROC 37.86, NOX 64.05. SOX .35; PMlO 62 . South Coast Air Basin CO 422.18, ROC 35, NOX 57.23, SOX .29; PMIO 51.13 As suspected using the San Diego Air Basin produced higher figures. (Both Bayfront and GPU EIR's use SDAB). They are still below threshold except for NOX that is above the threshold for both basins. , , 10. We are highly skeptical that the additional 1,000 vehicles from Home Depot and 1,000 or more from Creekside will not cause traffic problems in this area of Third. It is really hard to believe the inteJsection of Moss and Third will be B for any length of time in the future. Oueratinl! Restrictions Site Plan There appear to be a few errors: Delivery Hours and Maintenance Hours are the same for weekdays and weekends We want to know how these will be enforced since this seems to be a problem area. We would like to know exactly where this blue staging area is. Is it in fire lane around the building? In Conclusion: It is unfortunate that Home Depot will not, staying within same footprint, switch there building area to adjacent to gardening and make it L shaped around gardening so that lumber offloading could occur on south side of the building. This would mean that there was no outside entrance to gardening, but walking a few 100 feet through the store would hardly seem like a huge problem when it would make such a big difference to the neighbors. We ask that as a minimum conditions of approval be added that: 1., The sound absorbinl! wall be raised to 15 feet for the entire lem!th of the back of the buildim!. 2. That the wall and landscaping be in place before demolition begins. 2-175 3. That the truck route be cham!ed to keep most of the trucks awav from the back of the building and off of Moss. 4. That some wav of enforcing all the conditions of approval be found and all residents be notified of whom to call when and if thev see or hear a violation:-' We ask that the DRC not recommend the approval of the MND as it now stands, but leave this to the decision makers to evaluate the subjective areas of difference of opinion. You certainly have the right to send it on to decision makers without a recommendation. We also ask that you request a clear way of enforcing the conditions of the Design Review Permit. We sincerely hope that we get to enjoy the benefits of having a Home Depot in our community. We hope they will be a good neighbor and go beyond minimum requirements to accommodate the concerns of the near by residents. Theresa Acerro President, Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association 2-176 EXHIBIT 2 - DRe APPROVED PROPOSAL ADD 12' HIGH WALL 8' TO THE NORTH IV) ..... f-- ~ l..\ ~ 'l: \) ~ 'l; NEW 9' H. SCREEN I SOUND- WALL PER DRC NEW 12' H. SCREEN / SOUND WALL APPROX. 8' LENGTH NEW 15' H. SCREEN / CC?lQ Landscaped Area Exis 9 Drive to 'Remov N , i'- lC) MU l_~ t:: I o ND r A p<Y..-.... N ~ I "[ way ed ,~ - I ,--.. I-- I ~ I N '" NE 6' C - SC EEN WA L TO AD CE PR PER l"- I"- o .n '. .. LUMBER OF -LOADIN '0 ..; N SCREENED BUILDING MATERIALS I WILL CALL AREA 2,261 sf -'" o '" .0 " en " c. '" o <I) '0 C '" -' Ln ~ 40'-0" @ ~ 18.0 EXHIBIT 3 - HOME DEPOT REVISED PROPOSAL AFTER ORe - MODIFY PARKING @ NORTH TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF 15' WALL 18' TO SOUTH AND 9' TO NORTH NEW 9' H. SCREEN I SOUND NEW 15' H. SCREEN I SOUND WALL G=D I N , F- I ll) I SCREENED '" 0 '" BUILDING 40'-0" .c I OJ MATERIALS I rn OJ , WILL CALL c. l l'l AREA U> ~ @ 'C 2,261 sf c: . '" lo ...J '<t en ~ ~ Landscaped Area o .0 Guard Rail Fence Enclosed ropane Racks '" or I learance Space NE 6' CMJ SC EEN I 0 lJND WA L TO r A I""r ,.. ." AD CEN PR PERT Exis 9 Driveway ... to Removed It:: <Xl r- !L~ , .~ I I I I ~ I N OZI,?:1rG7 1I.ZO JtAl C,V, ~~l'G & B1ILDINr. _"IV. "'.nlll.., .. a'.lldl"'l l,1lep.,tment PIJu,,>l"g O'i'l[s'CJIlI Olli\tcl",pmllIlII'IOC...llIl APPLJeA1'ION APPENOOt B ~.......1Ilt ~!II ~ Pl;lIlay 101-01, JIIlllI'lII WIt ~ llIllll\ _!hit wlIlIIqIllN "'1IIfQnIry actJan lI!i lIllI ~ PIIlI'II1IN CllI~..,Ii1l1on _ d oIIl<< IlIlIl::lII llOiIIlilr at.. Cllt, alitllalllltllt d diId'lIIRd oedIln OIl!'llPIhIp (If/' ~ Win ".1. ""'Ill.... cr.....lllIiQI. ~tar. Clly1lll'0IlIliI1IIIlIa...... -" batIIIIcL .,..~ ~""'<ilIIcln lNdCa t . lit 1. LIi!t"Il_\lt.I~.i'lWlIl~lI",_liItIrtlIllntlle/.llllp\llilYlIultlll__lIdoftlle~"...., <<11\6 1lllftlI1IIll,..g...IlWlliIr.~..",*".,ulr' II 1l!~.~.!lIlJlIIIIIer. 0Imft; lIA lI::I.ep l!IQ't. ~1llbl. T~t ~.~ ,.$.A., lI1c. 2. If lIlY jllIIINlll" lW/4llIlld pIlIIlIIRtlo C"}--'_. Clll........1 cr JI8IlneIIIlI/p.IIal'1he I181M5ll11'dlncllvldu* lIlIlIl a~~u......m:\IIlt~(coi"";' II ~-"''''landly. a ;Lt:."",;,,',~~;..;Qi~'~~ili~~~, ..~,.".T puo1].#1y cJ:!id- >l!~.mr-:JllftA ~hfll '1~~.,.t_ (1)...... iIIIallOl'" ~iIZ6.., 1ll'tMl, IIIIt lhe _ 01 WIt petUl llI' .ll'l1AIliar !lei -., y OI'tnlIlIIr ddtit lruIl 4. l'III-li:IeI1III!fl/llfltrl~~""~ oi".~.llCII1IIlIlIIlI or ~(;tllltilltllll411lHS1JaYe .1Ignikl1D tll,lUuA}Ol.I Mrr:ftllte Cllyl!>lhIa ...... , .John Z:I.,oaftb 'iJ~loi;."h' t~.~~~.. Q_oro. Rav R.~~ ..~at~'~-rl.r &. Jobn Bap..ell BatiE Ltc I Hall -.y ~ Mac clll J ~ dl1bla _Ill. hlld lIlY lIMllllial ~I Ii lQ* wll!J 8lI 0II0lW" of lIllI CIty 01 Q'IlAa vwa-,."'lO'lID i:IJnlMctwllllllt __12ll1C1r1l1a Yet_I'4o...L j , 1fYa, brIIIfty dB! ..Ib. _ "... or.. _....lnIiaIIllIt lIllI allIc:laI'" ....,...In.... 0..,__ 6. "'1IlHS lI'IIIdlIa CIlIIIIIiIlIIlI 01_ __ $2IlO 1IIiIIliIIlIte.lIIiIII'Ie (12) 1II'Clrllhl1O. cummt .._.boo of 1M CIIIIlB ~ Clfelll.-il'Ulo). Vaa_lr.,..,1IIIIcII CllIlnClI rr 1..1 U6 F<llltt" A...."". I C~iI 'iIl1>tll I Ciallto,.iil I 91910 I l"llll 6".-51 01 2-179 I1-TT/-1C.-flM -e: IJ( /1 ~\f~ -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.) ~ No~ . If Yes, which official" and what was the nature of item provided? HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Date: 119//1/6!7r i By: C. Signature of Contractort Print or Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal 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 inciudes, 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 Fuurth Avenue (hula Vista 2r1~aQirornia 91910 '6191691-5101 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-06-007, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRC-06-33 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME DEPOT STORE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-06-025 TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE PERMANENT OUTSIDE SALES AND DISPLAY MERCHANDISE, AT 1030 THIRD AVENUE WITHIN THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (ADDED AREA) - THE HOME DEPOT USA INCORPORATED. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 11.10 acres located at 1030 Third Avenue ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, duly verified applications for a Design Review Permit ("DRC") and Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 7, 2005, by The Home Depot USA Inc. ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a Design Review Permit to construct a new 97, 396 sq. ft. Home Depot retail building, an enclosed 31,647 sq. ft. garden center, and other related improvements as depicted on the DRC-06-33 plans; and WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval ofa Conditional Use Permit, PCC-06-025, to establish and operate a permanent merchandise outside sales and display of merchandise (together with the DRC Permit -"Project") at the store at the Project Site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.58.370.A, the permanent outside sales and display of merchandise is permitted only when included as part of an approved Site plan subject to the conditions set forth in this Section. Section 19.58.370.A.I lists the items to be considered for outside display and allows that other items can be included if the Planning Commission determines that the items are of the same general character as the listed items (subsection i) or if the Planning Commission approves specific items to be displayed in an area specifically designed for that merchandise (subsection j); and 2-181 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 2 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-06-007 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-06-007; and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, on May 4, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 2962, the Project Site was added to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project (Added Area), and therefore the Project requires approval by the Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that Initial Study IS-06-007 for the Project was adequate, and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007; and WHEREAS, on March 19,2007, the Design Review Committee recommended approval of Design Review Permit DRC-06-033 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007, by a vote of 5-0-0; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Design Review Committee at the public hearing on the Design Review Permit held on March 19, 2007, including the minutes and Notice of Decision are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed in that CUP; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit held on March 21, 2007, including the minutes and Resolution are incorporated into the record ofthis proceeding; and D. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project and notices of said hearings, 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 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and 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 2-182 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 3 WHEREAS, after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, and receiving the recommendation of the Resource Conservation Committee, the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency voted _-_-_ to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (IS-06-007), and to approve the Design Review Permit and the Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with the findings listed below; and 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-06-007) 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 adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-007). The Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved based upon findings of fact pursuant to the CEQA Section 15074(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. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-007) 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- 007) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista and adopts the same. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista grants Design Review Permit DRC-06- 033 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: 2-183 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 4 I. That the proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development regulations of the Central Commercial-Precise Plan (CCP) 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. IV. Conditions of Approval The following conditions shall be incorporated into the plan by the Applicant prior to issuance of building permits for this Project: General/Preliminary A. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the Property Owner, and the ApplicanURepresentative shall execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval, signing both the original and true copy on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and ApplicanU Representative have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be returned to the Project Planner in the Planning and Building Department. Failure to return a signed copy and stamped copy of this document within thirty days of recordation to the Planning and Building Department shall indicate the Applicant's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Representative of Property Owner Date Signature of Representative of Applicant Date B. Each Applicant for a building permit shall develop and submit a "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan" to the City's Conservation Coordinator for review and approval. 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 percent of the waste generated by commercial, residential and industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract 2-184 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 5 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 Department counter or through the City Manager's Office at (619)-397- 6360. 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 designed as follows: 1. Two enclosures located and sized as shown on the Site Plan dated 12/01106. The enclosures shall have capacity to accommodate two recycling/solid waste containers, and cardboard bales and pallets, to the satisfaction of the Recycling Coordinator. 2. Architecture/materials to be consistent with design of the main structure. 3. Solid roof to divert runoff from trash enclosure is recommended. 4. Smooth concrete access/base designed to drain away from the storm drain. Planning Division: C. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise specified, for this Project: I. Pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ-1275. 2. Submit and obtain approval of a Home Depot Site Control Plan from the Director of Planning and Building, which includes all relevant DRC and CUP conditions of approval, all relevant Mitigation Measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S-06-007 Mitigation Monitoring Program, and any other applicable CYMC requirements as determined by the Director of Planning and Building. The Plan shall be mounted in plain view at the store manager's office and loading areas, and other locations as determined by the Director of Planning and Building. 3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, or other permit specified in the Mitigation Measure, the Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department and the City Engineering Division the mitigation measures identified in the Home Depot Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-007). 4. 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) Freestanding noise /screening wall along westerly property 2-185 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 6 line, with minimum height of nine feet, increasing to 15 feet where required by the noise mitigation measures; (b) Provide an extension of thei5 foot portion of the noise Iscreening wall for a distance of 18 feet to the south and 9 feet to the north; (c) Vinyl-coated chain-link fencing for seasonal garden area; (d) The plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Site plan and noise study, with the exception of the increased noise wall height as required in (a) and (b) above. 5. Building plans submitted for building permits shall include the following: 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. Obtain approval of sign permit(s) for any proposed monument and wall signs. c. Submit revised Site plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. The revised Site plan shall be reviewed by the City's Traffic Consultant prior to approval. The revised Site plan shall include the following: 1. A re-designed noise Iscreening wall along the western property as required by Condition C.4 above, and re-designed parking necessary to maintain a minimum of 649 spaces on Site. 2. Add the landscape planter area shown on concept landscape plan at the base of the sound absorption wall along the western property line. 3. Addition ofa truck-turnaround and elimination of2 parking spaces in vicinity of the main loading dock. 6. 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 CVMC requirements. The plan shall include the following modifications from the concept plan: a. Add additional tree-planters, such as diamonds or tree grates, along the side elevations (north and south) of the building, to break up views of the side elevation and provide shade in the parking lot. These tree planting areas shall be located every fifth parking space between the parking spaces and the walkway. 2-186 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 7 b. Use shrub types that will grow 8-10 feet high in place of low growing shrubs, adjacent to the 15 -ft. high sound wall, in the landscape buffer along the western property line. c. Replace Star Jasmine on slope areas with a shrub species that will provide improved erosion control, longevity, and maintenance. d. Provide vine screening on both sides of sound wall. e. Replace canopy-type specimen trees with columnar-type specimen trees in the landscape buffer along the western property line. Building Division D. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Building Official: 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, 2004 Ca. Electrical Code, and 2005 Ca. Energy Code. See Table SA (CBC) regarding location on property and Table 5B (CBC) regarding area limits. 2. A Demolition Permit is required with Hazardous Materials approval prior to issuance of the Demolition permit for both buildings. 3. Compliance with Seismic Zone 4, Wind speed 70 mph, and Exposure C standards required. 4. Structural Calculations from a licensed Civil Engineer or Architect are required. Police and Fire E. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Police Department or Fire Marshall as specified below: I. A composite lighting plan and elevations shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) prior to issuance of the building permit. Lighting shall be shielded to minimize spillover onto adjacent properties. 2-187 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 8 2. Prior to final inspection, develop a crime prevention program to the satisfaction ofCVPD, which may include the following: a. Proper utilization of security hardware, access alarms, lighting and landscaping to reduce criminal activity and to heighten crime prevention awareness through the concept of defensible space and design; b. Participate in a proactive business merchant program that includes proper lighting, monitored parking lot cameras, and a security bicycle patrol; c. Participate in training regarding emergency and police reporting procedures. Scheduling of this training is recommended to coincide with the beginning of regular business operations. 3. 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. Provide a technical report from an approved consultant in accordance with 2001 Fire Code. b. Submit fire flow information from the Sweetwater Authority District indicating required fire flow of 4,000 gallons per minute for 4 hours, per Ca. Fire Code. c. Provide Fire Hydrants to Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) standards. Hydrants to be spaced every 300 feet of travel distance with no less than 4 hydrants for this Site. d. A blue reflective marker shall identify each fire hydrant, fire department connection (FDC) and post-indicating valve (PIV). e. Fire department connections (FDC) and post indicating valve (PIV) shall be designed to CVFD standards. f. Underground fire service shall be installed per Sweetwater Authority and CVFD Standards, including a Site plan with underground fire utilities and a completed pipe certification. g. Swing check valves shall comply with CVFD standards. h. Provide a fire sprinkler riser room to house up to 4 risers per CVFD standards. 2-188 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 9 1. Provide fire sprinklers per CYFD standards. J. Provide fire alarms for fire flow per CYFD standards, including a central station monitoring facility for sprinkler and partial alarm system, and interior fire alarm notification device at main entry. k. Submit plans to CVFD for interior fire alarm notification device. I. Provide a single manual pull station at the main entrance and riser room. m. Provide duct detection for air handling system in excess of 2,000 cfm, including fire dampers, and a test switch with LED. n. Submit a letter acknowledging compliance with CYFD policy 2916.01 for access, turnarounds, and water supply for new construction. o. Comply with CYFD policy for fire lanes. p. Provide a visible street address (min. 18 inches) to be seen from main access roads - Third Ave. and Moss Street. q. Provide minimum rated fire extinguishers (2A-IOBC) per each 75 feet of travel distance. r. Provide a Knox box for CYFD access at the main entrance and riser room. s. Provide a hazardous materials storage plan. 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 2-189 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 10 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. The Public Works Operations Section will need to inspect any existing sewer laterals and connections that are to be used by the new development. Laterals and connections may need replacement as a result of this inspection. b. Sewer manholes per SDRSD S-2 are required. c. Removal and replacement of broken curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the proposed Project's frontage. d. Removal of existing driveways and replacing with curb, gutter and sidewalk. e. Construction of proposed driveways per City Standard CVCS-IA. f. Construction of new curb ramps per the latest City of Chula Vista standards and American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. 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 as needed. 5. A lot consolidation or adjustment plat will be required for this Project. 6. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Department and/or Waste Management Department for proper turn around requirements. 7. Plans submitted refer to existing public storm drain facilities on private property without any easements. If these lines are to remain and are public, easements will be required. 8. All existing and proposed onsite storm drain pipes and storm water treatment unit to be private and privately maintained with the exception of the existing 24" RCP pipes beginning on western edge of Third Avenue and connecting the proposed storm water treatment unit, which will be public. 2-190 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page II 9. Existing 24" RCP storm drain pipes, including the pipe running underneath the existing restaurant, to be video taped and to be checked for any cracks and damages during the construction. 10. All existing and proposed onsite sewer pipes and laterals to be private and privately maintained. 11. A maintenance access right shall be issued to the City for the maintenance of the 24" RCP public storm drain pipes mentioned above. 12. The storm water treatment pad shall be 6" thick re-enforced concrete with #4 rebar at 18" on center. 13. Grading Plans shall specify the type of the proposed storm water treatment unit. 14. Design and construct a bus stop facility, including a bench, shelter, and trash receptacle. The design, location and specifications shall be to the satisfaction of the Transit Coordinator and Director of Planning and Building. G. 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 at pressure ranging from 54 to 64 psi. New water service will require installation of backflow prevention assemblies, including double check detector backflow assembly for any new fire protection systems. Please refer to the Sweetwater Authority letter dated November 27,2005. H. 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. Operate in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-025, Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-06-007 Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Performance Standards, CVMC Chapters 19.66 and Performance Standards and Noise Control, Chapter 19.68, including the Site Control Plan. 1. Comply with all applicable requirements of the approved Site Control Plan. A copy of the Site Control Plan shall be posted in the Store Manager' office, each loading area, and each public entrance to the building. 2-191 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 12 J. Operate in compliance with Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-06-007 Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Performance Standards, CYMC Chapters 19.66 and Performance Standards and Noise Control, Chapter 19.68, including the Site Control Plan. K. Prior to operation of the Seasonal Garden Area or the Outside Sales and Display areas, comply with following requirements: 1. Install seasonal garden area improvements as shown on Site plan and fencing plans, including temporary (removable) fencing, a crosswalk, and stop signs. 2. Comply with Outside Sales and Display requirements of the Central Commercial Zone. L. 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. V. Findings Necessary for the Conditional Use Permit A. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the Project will allow the Home Depot to provide more diverse commercial services, including outside sales and display of merchandise that will help the business to succeed. Outdoor sales and display is essential for some larger products, which are not practical to display indoors. It is also helpful for the sales and display of certain products that enables more efficient use of interior floor space. Display of some products, such as plants and shrubs, benefit from being outdoors, while at the same time enhancing the appearance of the Site. The Project will include attractive architectural features, landscaping and fencing that will improve and enhance the appearance of the store and image of the neighborhood. The location of the outside sales and display areas at the store entries are convenient and desirable for both the Applicant and their customers. B. 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 building has been designed to accommodate outside sales and display areas in a cohesive manner, so as not to interfere with vehicle or pedestrian traffic to and from the store. The outside sales and display areas will be visually enhanced by architectural features and softened by landscaping so that they will be aesthetically 2-192 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 13 attractive. The types of materials displayed do not constitute a health or safety hazard to the public. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise is consistent with the requirements of the Central Commercial Zone, and the Outside Sales and Display regulations (CVMC Section 19.58.370), which specifies the types of merchandise permitted and prohibited from outside sales and display, and permits the display and sales of items that are determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the permitted items. In addition, the CUP conditions of approval require the operation to be in continuing compliance with all applicable city codes and regulations. D. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The City General Plan land use designation for the Site is Commercial Retail. The proposed CUP permits Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise, which is consistent with the Commercial Retail General Plan land use designation, and therefore will not adversely affect the implementation of the General Plan. VI. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-025 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the Applicant and/or property owner(s): PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT The following conditions shall be incorporated into the plan by the Applicant prior to issuance of building permits for this Project: I. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building permit, pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ- 1275. 2. Use and reliance of this CUP is contingent upon approval of DRC-06-033 and satisfaction of DRC conditions of approval applicable to the outside sales and display area. 3. Obtain approval of a revised Site plan showing deletion of bulk lumber from the notations on the plans, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Upon certification by the Director of Planning and Building for occupancy or establishment of use allowed by this CUP, the following conditions shall apply: 2-193 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 14 4. The conditions in this CUP shall be applied to the subject property until such time that the CUP is modified or revoked. 5. Applicant shall obtain a final inspection from the Planning and Building Department, and operate in compliance with the following requirements, ensuring that the Outside Sales and Display Merchandise operates in compliance with the parameters of the use outlined in the application, CYMC Section 19.58.370.A.l, and this Resolution, including the following: a. Merchandise permitted for outdoor display is limited to building material display, outdoor equipment, outdoor furniture and storage units, and live goods and landscape supplies items only, as specified on the approved plans. This merchandise is expressly permitted by the Redevelopment Agency. Any proposed change in the type of merchandise to be displayed requires approval of a modification to the CUP, by the Redevelopment Agency or Zoning Administrator. b. Outdoor sales and display of household furniture, household appliances, dry goods, soil additives, clothing, play equipment, tires, and used goods are not permitted, per CYMC 19.58.370.A.3. c. The bulk storage of products, including lumber, is prohibited in areas set aside for Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise. These areas shall be limited to displays shown on the approved plans, and display of samples of lumber. d. Outside Sales and Display area locations shall be limited to those areas specified on the Site plan and delineated by enhanced paving. e. Outdoor Sales and Display areas shall not obstruct fire lanes, driveways, or pedestrian access. f. Model storage buildings and displays related to patios or room additions shall not be located immediately adjacent to the main entrance of the building. If these types of displays are visible from Third A venue or Moss Street, they shall be partially screened or softened by architectural features, landscaping, or other means, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. g. No outside sales or display shall be of such Size or quantity as to alter the architectural appearance of the building. 6. This CUP authorizes only the use specified in the application for PCC-06-025. Any new use, modification/expansion of use, or activities not authorized under this CUP shall be subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified CUP. 2-194 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 15 7. This CUP shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval ofthis CUP to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Applicant and after the City has given to the Applicant the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Applicant of a substantial revenue source which the Applicant cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 8. This CUP 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. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this CUP to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 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 CUP, (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 CUP where indicated below. Applicant's/owner's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit 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)(I), 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 2-195 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 16 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 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. 2-196 RDA Resolution No. 2007- Page 17 VII. 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 <.-ILv !L L~ Ann Moore Agency Attorney 2-197 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista, this 24th day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Agency Members: NAYS: ABSENT: Agency Members: Agency Members: Cheryl Cox, Chair ATTEST: Scott Tulloch, Acting Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) ) ) I, Scott Tulloch, Acting Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 2006- was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency at an adjourned regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on the 24th day of April 2007. Executed this _ day of _ 2007. Scott Tulloch, Acting Secretary J :\A ttomey\RESO\PLANN ING\Home Depot..RDA _ 04-24.07 .doc 2-198