Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2006/03/06Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: PROJECT APPLICANT CASE NO. DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: RoadOne San Diego 1805 Maxwell Road 644-040-6100 A to Z Enterprises IS-OS-017 Februazy 15, 2006 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING: March 6, 2006 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Proiect Setting The project site is a vacant, previously disturbed 7.73-acre parcel located at 1805 Maxwell Road, within the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project Area of the City of Chula Vista (see Exhibit A -Location Map). The project site is divided into two terraced building pads with abutting slopes. The upper terrace is located in the northeast portion of the property, and the lower terrace is located in the southwest portion of the site. (Exhibit B -Existing Site Plan). The entire project site has been previously disturbed through the construction of an existing storm drain facility that served previous commercial and light-industrial uses that included a construction equipment storage company. The project site recently contained miscellaneous construction materials and equipment storage from unknown sources. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows: North: San Diego County Landfill South: Chula Vista Elementary School District Property East: Wrecking Yazds West/Southwest: City of Chula Vista Public Works Yard B. Project Description The project proposal consists of a vehicle towing and impound business. The towed vehicles will be transported to the site, 24 hours aday/7 days a week. Customer service hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No vehicle work, repair, dismantling or cleaning will occur on-site. The maximum number of tow deliveries expected is 30 per day. The anticipated number of employee shifts is 3, with 2-5 employees per shift and 25 customers expected on the average during the week. A modular office trailer, staging and containment area, as well as a parking lot, are proposed on the upper level. The staging area will be used in preparing towed vehicles for storage. The short-teen vehicle storage area is proposed within the lower terraced level southern portion of the project site. The proposal includes the installation of a new fire hydrant along the eastside of Maxwell Road. Proposed on-site improvements on the upper level include new sewer facilities, paved access driveway and staging area, modular office trailer, and chain-link fencing with security gate including ]andscaped treatments. Proposed lower level improvements include new drainage facilities, decomposed granite, curb, berm and vegetated bioswales within the vehicle storage/parking lot, interior roadway including landscaped treatments, and security lighting. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The proposed project site is within the General Plan ILP (Limited Industrial/Precise Plan) Zone and Limited Industrial (Reseazch and Limited lndustrial) area. 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 an Administrative Design Review Permit by the Zoning Administrator. D. Public Comments On June 30, 2005, 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 July 11, 2005. No verbal or written comments were received on the proposed project. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Envirorunental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project may have potential significant environmental impacts, 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 prepazed in accordance with Section 15070 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Air Ouality Short-Term The proposed project will result in a short-term air quality impact created from construction activities associated with the proposed project. The minimal grading of the site, modular office construction and worker and equipment vehicle trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated with the construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are considered short-teen in duration since construction-related activities are a relatively short-term activity. 2 In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold critena contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were used. Based upon the emission factors and antcipated construction activities it is anticipated that the proposed project will exceed the SC'AQMD's daily threshold emission levels. Table 1 below provides a comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant. Emissions were calculated using the t1RBEMIS 2002 model. The addition of emissions to an air basin is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. 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 signifcance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Table 1.0 Project Estimated Construction Emissions 2006* Pollutant CO ROG NO, S02 PM10 Unmitigated (]bs/day) (lbs/da) (Ibs/day) Ibs/da (Ibs/da /total) Construction equipment and 37.56 4.53 30.33 0.02 51.21 radin Total 37.56 4.53 30.33 0.02 51.21 Significance Threshold , 550 75 100 150 I50 Exceed No No No No No threshold ROG is used in the Air Quality Model and VOC is used in [he SCAQM~ Threshold Criteria. For the purpose of this analysis, ROG is used in this model. Long-Term 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 slgnificant long-term air quality impacts. The minimal project generated traffic volume would not result in significant long- term local or regional air quality impacts. No area source or operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Refer to Table 2.0 below. Table 2.0 Project Estimated Operation Emissions 2006* Pollutant CO ROG NOx S02 PMlO (Unmitigated) (Ibs/day) Qbs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (]bs/day) Vehicle Emissions 23.21 1.75 2.32 0.02 2.00 Area Sources 78 3.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 23.99 4.93 2.33 0.02 2.00 Significance Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 Exceed Threshold No No No No No 3 *Snurce SCAQMD CEQA Hmtdbook Air Quality Model /993 / South Cnast Air Quality Management District/Air Quality Significance Thresholds Biological Resources In order to assess the potential biological resource impacts of the project, a biological assessment report was prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., dated November 22, 2005. The results of the biological assessment report are summarized below. The 7.73-acre site is located within the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan in an area designated as a "Development Area". The proposed project site consists of partially developed and disturbed land, and the adjacent properties, to the west, north, and east are completely developed. The project site is not located within or adjacent to the City's Preserve; therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to the MSCP Preserve are expected. Sensitive vegetation species and potential raptor nesting areas have been identified in the biological resources report and are discussed below. Y'egetation Communities The biological resources report described the majority of the project site as Disturbed Habitat or Urban/Developed. Approximately 2.07 acres of non-native grassland were identified on the project site. In accordance with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, non-native grasslands are considered a Tier III habitat and shall be preserved or mitigated pursuant to the standazds contained in Table 5-3 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The results of the biological survey also identified an isolated patch of three mule-fat shrubs located in a fully disturbed azea of the project site. Mule-fat is identified as a facultative wetland plant species, meaning it is usually occurs in wetlands but is occasionally found in non-wetlands. Given the presence of these plants within a disturbed upland area, the lack of any other wetland indicators or adjacent wetland resources, and the small number and patch size present, these plants do not constitute a wetland community. Mule-fat is not designated as a covered species under the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and Mule-fat is not a State or Federally listed species of concern. Therefore, impacts to the three isolated Mule-fat shrubs would not be considered significant and no mitigation is required. The proposed project has been designed to avoid all biologically sensitive areas containing non-native grassland.. In order to ensure avoidance of the non-native grasslands, prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits, orange biological fencing must be installed on site in accordance with the development plans and to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. The City's Mitigation Monitor will conduct periodic site visits to verify the placement of the biological fencing and to ensure that all construction activities remain within the approved limits of grading. Landscaped Treatments Based upon non-native grasslands identified on the project site, any proposed landscaping must not contain invasive vegetation that has the potential to infiltrate these non-native grasslands. To ensure that there are no significant impacts to the sensitive habitat, prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a final 4 landscape plan palette to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. This measure is included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (See Section F). 6G'ildlife Impacts Two Eucalyptus trees aze located at on the northeast comer of the project site. No raptor nests were observed during the biological survey. However, there is the potential for raptorial birds to nest in Eucalyptus trees. Impacts associated with clearing and grading activities upon raptor nesting are considered potentially significant. Therefore, apre- constrncUon survey for nesting raptors will be required. A copy of the preconstruction survey results and recommendations must be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a level below significance. HydroloKV and Water Quality Based upon review of the preliminary hydrology study prepared by K & S Engineering, dated October 28, 2005, and proposed drainage improvements, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no adverse impacts regarding the project-related post- construction flows and proposed drainage of the project site. Existing Conditions "the existing drainage conditions include a 54" corrugated metal piping (CMP) and a channel running alongside the western portion of the project site to a point downstream of the proposed site improvements. There are two drainage basins located within the project site. There will be no change to the direction of flows, as all existing and post development flows will drain into the same storm drain system. The on-site drainage system drains towards an existing offsite drainage system that is located at the southern portion of the project site. Proposed Conditions There will be no redirection of surface flows since all of the flows will go into the existing storm drain system for the project site. There will be a slight decrease in the flows within the East Basin and a slight increase of flows by 1% (cfs) on the West Basin, due to a minimal change m the concentration factor within the lower parking area. The flows will be connected to an existing concrete brow ditch. The improvements include inlets, piping, riprap, natural swales and filtration systems along the western edge and southern portions of the project site. GVuter Quality As required by the Engineering Department, all damaged vehicles will be stored in a vehicle storage area located on the lower level of the project site. According to the project site plan this designated area will be treated with Best Management Practices (BMP) that include impervious pavement, curbs, bernrs, silt basin/traps, bags or bales, vegetated swales and 5 other filtration system measures to prevent soil and runoff contamination. 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. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of the project grading plans. In accordance with City standards, post-developed flows will not exceed pre-developed flows. 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). 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. • 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 twice 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. • Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. V • Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Biolo¢ical Resources 2. To avoid any impacts associated with construction noise, construction must occur outside of the breeding season for nesting raptors (January 15 through July 31). If construction must occur during the breeding season for these species, prior to initiating any construction-related activities (including clearing of vegetation, grubbing, and grading), pre-construction surveys must be performed by aCity-approved biologist to determine the presence of absence of nesting raptors within 500-feet of the construction area. The pre-construction 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 and approval prior to initiating any construction-related activities. If nesting raptors are detected, a noise mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Enviromnental Review Coordinator prior to initiating any construction-related activities. 3. Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grading or construction permits, temporary orange biological fencing shall be installed around the existing non-native grassland areas and reflected in the grading plans. It must be constructed in accordance with the development plans to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. The City's Mitigation Monitor will conduct periodic site visits to verify the placement of the biological fencing and to ensure that all construction activities remain within the approved limits of grading. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a final landscape plan/palette to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval to ensure all landscaping used in the project area will he non-invasive and compatible with the existing non-native grassland vegetation. Hydrology and Water Ouality 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans. The City Engineer shall verify that the Fnal 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 apost-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. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to 7 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. 7. The vehicle storage area for the damaged vehicles shall be treated with decomposed granite, curbs, berms and other impervious treatments, as reflected on the development plans, in accordance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. G. Agreement to Lnplement 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 implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declazation 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. ale \,t/i„e~eer Pres«le..-t- Printed Name and Title of Apphcant (or authorized representative) Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) 2 - / S- 2~0~ Date 2-/S-ZCro6 Date Date Date H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Oreanizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Power, Planning and Building Department Miguel Tapia, Community Development Department Marisa Lundstedt, Planning and Building Department Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Department Glen Laube, Planning and Building Department John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department Garry Williams, Planning and Building Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Division Jim Newton, Engineering Division Ben Herrera, Engineering Division Alex Al-Agha, Engineering Division Sohaib Al-Agha, Engineering Division Beth Chopp, Engineering Division Michael Maston, Engineering Division Justin Gipson, Fire Department Lynn France, Conservation and Environmental Services Department Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District Otay Water District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 88-2, May 1989. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003. Phase I Enviromnental Site Assessment for 1805 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, CA and dated May 18, 2005. Biological Assessment for RoadOne Project Site, 1805 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, CA and dated November 22 2005 (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.). Preliminary Hydrology Study for RoadOne, Maxwell Road/Chula Vista, CA and dated October 28, 2005 (K&S Engineering). 9 3. Initial Study This environmental determmatlon 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. Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator 1:\Planning\MARIA\Initial Study\IS-05-017MN D.dnc Date: 10 OTAY LANDFILL ~~ PROJECT LOCATION CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR APPLICANT. A t0 Z ErltefprlSeS, INC. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 1805 Maxwell Road ADDRESS: Re uest: Pro osal vehicle lowin & im ound at 1805 Maxwell Road Q P 9 P in the Otay Valley Redevelopment Area. NORTH SCALE: No Scale FILE NUMBER: IS-O5-017 Related cases: DRC-OS-0B, SUPO-O5-OZ J:\planning\cados\locators\IS05017.cdr 05.05.05 ~~ ~/~/ FRCiP1 _TP.N Inc. FRX N0. :619 230 1089 Fab. 82 2006 02:29PM P2 ern «,.vo.,.w. t;(~_.. I '~ /~ t HN ~.r n ~aM. 4A1 .WrMn W101TCMW CMG ~~{{.ll ~j ~ ' rM ~ ~ac~ APN- 644-Q~Q-6100 ('7"13 AGJ PROPOSED VEHIGGC YARD FOR SHORT TERN STORAbE '5-AI' OGGLPnNOT ~\ d~yy ` I I uwr H1{ 6AA ObMW Wlb M[cK~Nf YAF(+ F i~= _._... --. -~ iYP 4:f A Mx, eu.oie~:xo Mro MGl:llb ~mi ~x~/g/ ~ ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) ROAD ONE - IS-OS-017 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Road One Towing Services. 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-OS-017). 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. Hydrology and Water Quality 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-OS-017 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-OS-017, 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-\PlannmgUAAR1A\Initial SludyV2oadOne\IS-OS-017MMRPtexLdoc d Q F N C E E 0 U V m m m d ~ a N E ~ , o U '~ m c m _ ~ a Dm 9 V !~ ~ U W c ;.~ m as c a ~mmm ~ N K ~mEO1E c ~ c ~ -~ n c m ~n'o ~ a r a a awo o t~ „ ., t Z- o 0 H a V X 0 c c u a pO 5S W W q c O U X ~ u c E - ~ ` Z Q > n~ X f Z ~ '..~. O I F. w C m Z o o kn O O U U t ;E c m O Z ~ m U v c N N F ac ~ !' m Z` m `o_ p ~ m v F - N ~ c u N p N U E d ~ 9 c > o 0 m ~ L N N c a i E E o o n E a m J c ° n i a m y . w m m n N ~ Q n U N O 9 N C_ m m v n ~ V m O L p U m . ucim n 'v a v ~ E H ~ .N `o o~ f0 a 6 'o > m a oy J c ~c~ J da ~° o o n j ~ ' c ~ c ~ m L °; .~ w E c .O c n n ai m m N~ o o ~ a~ n m n C ~ a i E m C m v ~ m w~ ~ om ~ 'N ~ 5m a y u d ~ Wea C N 0 N U O ~ ~ O N U T _T Y '~ O O j p C d m y O _. ~ m m N C m O. C 7 N U U d 10 N O m C 'O U ~ `~ p ` ~O m c E f '~~~ ~~ S ~ m ~ ~ Q v a` ~ m~ ~o a 00 .. ~m mp c 'm f~f11 N C W.~ N n C ~ o Ol c C o ~O d N N W L r N U _? O C T a E W~ N C ~ U C ~ c N ° ~~ ~~ ~' 2j° Ed Ea~~ , N J °' a°~E ='a ~ ~ f y ° v °i .v °- ° w ' °~ o a m$ a da m~ m yet nio _ o x ~`~ ~ o mm c n ... c > > ~ m E om+ m `o ~o aE c NJ --E a i c NJ=o Q°m m~ m ~ d E in a°i? - aci "~ d5 3Z' >O1 ~-a °'= °d o° n~ J m o E c ~m = ~ `~ o C oy -~ O ' m w .: C N mJ A O a H -3 a~ c C c m T =gym U= kN ~ N C ...0_3 m c ` a i t O N N Q N N m N p L J 3 c o '~ ° O ~ m N E 'c E " m 01 ~ 3 L O~ 3 3 U D O O N U ` ~ o o E w on n dam-, a E mE m >'v~ wm m E Lm ~>L ma am ' U, o cm 20 w w hQ vmiQ m~m ~~ m.5 m y ¢` N m> i ~' a mm~ °m o m>j m o:° ~o > > >m ~m ~w cnE aE ~rn ¢..o co Kv, ~ mN a 3 U.t tnN ~ L a ~ ~a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c ~ oZ :. m N 3 W N N ~ m 00 a m T ~ m« U °c'de m a "c c d E g ~ c~c_rnmn 6 T N C d 4WP ~-P .- • ~ x N M1V ~" m m r a Ucc ~aci ac°1~ E =~c~r ~~mmo aq~po d 4W~ m~P m ~~ ~~ U m ~~aci ~o~E mE m C ~ C N ~mm cjro d"n`PWO X X X d N C d o_ U~yy C 4 m N o. ~ tp N p~ 2 c c d ry p v n do- $ m°d ~~a y C p~ ro p 0 n O 9 j~ T.~ ° m dCm h~^'~'ddno OG m= 0 d~ C C 0~= N 9 d m d `/~ p G'p S ~j ~ N ~ N C ~9 ~ u) ~ ), d B~ O c 0 .c 'U icT e- N O 9 6 N w N N y O ~J lp d 6 } d r C?~ d d d O O 9 F N d d N C d -3i p V1 ~ ni L d C p- N'O cp '~ ~ C O D d C. j d 0 p a a 0 s m m -o ~~mn8mEEg~TEU Cp 9d od 90tr fcod y mY CpLN DIR E 3"=' ~ w n d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? o H ~ ~ ~ ~ y q N~N 9 O ~~ 9 .!= C Cp N O P N .~' C N ~. ~ t4 U N G UC mTU O'bL o y d 0 m~ro~ ~ h ~ ~ O O` m N ~ ~ ~ Or ~ C O'er N d ' W 6 j 9 J O''O O~~~«~ O~ F ~ O K. E E "a.E m ~ d o c c ~. o w a-° S ~ -~.cmc~cndpo ~~m~N~c U mama n'^•=~ ~> u~~ o~ mw,n Q ~ N C~ N.y m U n o 0 o L ~p N E V O O QU O ~ L N~ m m U- U- m ~ d i!~ V C d O U~ G d N y o U y N N i R C ~ ~ C C ~ N ~ ~ 9 $ d m U „ 8 d . y ~ S pp~~ p d ; N C OHO m Oid" Ow C~ L t L N r£ U m"ry o4L°~E~E mm" `6i O~ C O~'~ ~ "L p- N rn CN C L~ J C d i C ~.p .+ C OL N~K C V LL1 ~,Z`7 Nd9 mt~ U d d"QQ~(~ ':. d d C 6Li N ~y O~ D 0 d Eve c- N C N C O ~T, y~ p .. O O C N N~~ N m m d " m N£pN7mF ~_. O N d~ N N V• N a w a- c `~ ~ do~q~~ m°o_ ~U - C d O c "'' . Gp O O D -my, '~ m 9 m U N~ N N C O d C ~ O L ~ E nU ~vN a U N ~_~ c'> m 4 AL C N L ~ m FS '% w o ; d d ~m~n~ N d g d r ~ a 3 c 3 d = O o ~ E ramNn ~p ~ ~~~pp 9 U 6 y ~ U ~ W E O d N O'6p 0 O ., ap U U m Q'c S° m9mN d p i6 > C d p~j C ~~ ~ N p d d~ m m L L O C d - m E w dt C m 9~ ~ p m b m c N c y~ C~ c rC. J p~ O d d d d m ~ > " n > `~ m odW> ~ t0 3 c m _N ~ N o~> o y66~ ad o -O .U "Q nU N m F _ n tb ~' d N rn cs W N m c 0 mU cc c'd y a,£dE u CcKa~ fl oro d c'm 2noWo 4 J m cJ ~ ~ m c ~? ~ ~ m E U C R ~ p _anQ- m d A a ai 9i0 Y c O U N G O~ O ~ tJ m v ~ N _N m E C u C N ~ Q o`amcm °apwo 0 ~~ N C a c ro Z ~rmc N v t4 t0 ~m c m ~ ~ t o SOS N~OE NN ;° E ~ ~ 7 G '~ ~ N °fy'rv' ~ C (Ep 3~ N Q 0 V ~ Q O° N ~ N ~ °<`a3 Nm ~rnaca o~8mo _ ro~crto m~ o£ mY o~~ 3 cr' 6`a3 ¢- $ Q io. c W S, V 3 W a `°~ 6~ V m .~o E V F Q T p~ ro V NOON a N N ID~ r~ d o~ N p N W~~ m _, NC ~N ~ OiaO yia~~] NG m a m a z 3 E ._ b,U y, m ~~c°aoOmo~WO~N~ ~.. Nmmc `6K ~ cmic 2m Er3,m i~ O 9 O i U G H. OU ~ N.^--~_ 2 N U~ ro~ a`. ~ O C N a d L C U ~~iU'd ~~ ~ N N ~ a a N U V~ N N N ~~g"~ c5 `c >n odm .O N s a O 4 a~ a Y o ~~ N N G ~pp N 0 L .+ ~pfIYJOU N~m'$iG E Nm o~°cm' ~ 3 m~ `°~`° ~~.e ..n m.d N;a ~~2 pv~ p ry N m (Y, i 9 ~ `L 'tea OE m£ N $ ~ppG~~~~((;; (6 0 40 ~ N ro 6~ ro c~ O~ C N C~ N E 4r ryy ~ F ~ OU 9~ N~ O N~ y~ N N c~' N ~'> N 9 N tO Q. Np3 cNNyNE NW ~LO6~C j~ V C N E a N .~ ..~ ~~ tS N a p y L> R J~~ E EN W w ~Nm'-O d ~~ m~g'm-- 5 >a o.N ~N.-`a3c ° ~ °m ° m Ern d v ~ 'N ~ a c ~c apa m o'm o ^_' 'S'. ~ W ^ 9 a C N r- pP~ C 0 N G 9 ~o N U 5 4 C c w \Il/ ~___. an or ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHUTA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: Road One San Diego City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 140 Reed Court Chula Vista, CA (858)492-5204 Road One-San Diego February 14, 2006 IS-OS-017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surnoundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adverse]y affect day or nighttime views ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ 1 Less Than Signincant Potentially With Less Than Issues' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact in the area? Comments: a-b) The proposal includes development of one modular building with site improvements in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Design Review Guidelines. The proposed landscape improvements would enhance and improve the aesthetic quality along Maxwell Road. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources, trees and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) The proposal is an infill industrial development project. The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the vacant project site or its industrial surroundings. The project site is planned for industrial development according to the General Plan Land Use regulations. d) The project proposal includes security lighting facilities along the entrance area within the upper level and along [he vehicle storage area located on the lower level. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). Compliance with the regulations will ensure that no substantial glare or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in [he surrounding area or onto the adjacent properties therefore no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convey[ 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ^ ^ ^ ^ a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ^ ^ ^ ^ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use'? Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a-c) The project site has been rough graded and surrounding properties have been partially developed. 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. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. III. AIR QUALITY. 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 projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ ^ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region 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 ^ ^ ^ ^ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ^ ^ ^ ^ number of people? Comments: a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. iti anon: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant air quality impacts to level of less than significance. 3 Potentially ISSLCS: Significant Impact 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 Deparment 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) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife comdors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant With Mitigation ]ncorporated ^ Less Than Signi7cant Impact No Impact ^ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ^ ^ ^ biological resources, such as a tree 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 ^ ^ ^ 4 Issues: conservation plan? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Signitican[ Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments• (a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant biological resource impacts to a level of less than significance. V. CULTURAL Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ^ ^ ^ ^ of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ^ ^ ^ ^ of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ^ ^ ^ ^ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ^ ^ ^ ^ outside of formal cemeteries? 5 Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) No building structwes and historic resowces are present within the project impact azea. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resowce as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) Based on the level of previous distwbance to the site, 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 distwbance to the project site and the relatively limited amount of additional grading for the proposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resowces or unique geologic featwes are anticipated. d) Based on the previous distwbance to the project site and limited amount of grading proposed, no human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation measwes are required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structwes to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ^ ^ ^ ^ on the most recent Alquist-1'riolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ^ iii. Seismic-related ground failwe, 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, ^ ^ ^ ^ 6 Less Than Significant Potentially with ISSUes: Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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: Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ~ ^ ~ a-e) There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies over 2 miles east of the La Nacion Fault Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns. The site has been previously graded and developed for previous commercial and industrial uses. The only building construction will involve a modular unit for office purposes. The proposal includes minimal earthwork that consists of excavation, embankment and import. According to the Engineering Department, the project will require a grading permit. 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 be required to comply with best management practices in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. The appropriate 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 Department. No significant geological and soil impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. VII. HA7.ARDS 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? 7 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation tmpact Incorporated 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 enviromnent? 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? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 8 Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Signincant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (a - d) In order to assess potential hazardous material impacts created by previous land uses, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by PIC Environmental Services, dated May 18, 2005. According to the study, no evidence of hazardous materials storage, staining or contamination on the project site needing fiuther environmental site assessment or mitigation was required. No significant Hazards/Hazardous Material impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 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 [o meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency evacuation requirements. 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. MitiEation: No mitigation measures are required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Result in an increase in pollutant 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'? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ^ ^ ~ ^ substantially with grcoundwater recharge such that [here would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would 9 Less Than Signilican[ Potentially With Less Than Is$nes: Significant Mitigation Significant Na Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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 pattem 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 mnoff 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? e) Expose people or shuctures to a significant risk of loss, ^ ^ ^ ~ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would exceed ^ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted mnoff? Comments• (a - ~ See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitieation: ^ ^ ~ The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant Hydrology/Water Quality impacts to a level of less than significance. 10 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSIIeS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lmpac[ Incorporated Impact 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? Comments• a) The proposal is consistent with the industrial character ofthe surrounding area and, therefore, would not disrupt or divide an established community. b) The project site is within the IP (IndustriaUPrecise Plan) Zone and IL (Limited Industrial) General Plan designations. The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations, General Plan and Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan guidelines and regulations. c) Refer to Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction noise/raptor nesting and biologically sensitive impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, under Biological Rernurces. Mitigation• The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially signiticant impacts to a level ofless than significance. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSUes' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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 regnon and the residents of the state? 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? Comments• a) The project site was recently used for equipment storage and the site has been previously disturbed. The proposed project would not result in the loss oY 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 as a mineral resource protection. No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Miti:ration: No mitigation measures are required XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or genemtion 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 groundborne 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 ^ ^ ^ ^ 12 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than TSSUeS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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, ^ ^ ^ ^ 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? Comments• a-d) It is anticipated that on-site business employees and adjacent business personnel may be exposed to construction noise associated with short-term construction activities. The project will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, due to the minimal construction activities associated with the project, impacts related to construction noise levels are not expected to be significant. Therefore, the proposal is not anticipated to potentially violate the noise limits of the City's noise control ordinance. The project site contains eucalyptus trees and according to the Biological Resource Study, there is potential for raptor nesting in eucalyptus trees. Potential short-term constmetion noise/raptor nesting impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, under Biological Resources. The proposal consists of a vehicle towing and impounds business with vehicle towing occumng 24 hours aday/7 days a week. No outside vehicle work, repair, washing or dismantling of vehicles will be allowed to occur on site. There are no sensitive residential receptors within the surrounding area only industrial land uses; therefore, impacts related to operational noise levels are not expected to be significant. 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. ~ The project is not located within the vicinity of a private atrstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. 13 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSUOS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XIL 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ^ ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ^ ^ ^ ^ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a-c) No residential development is proposed that would induce substantial population growth in the area or require substantial infrastructure improvements. No permanent housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or persons would occur as a result of the proposed project. Based upon the nature of the proposal no population growth inducement is anticipated. The project is an allowable industrial use under the Zoning t~rdinance and the General Plan. Mititration: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. 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 constmction 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Schools? ^ ^ ^ ^ 14 Less Than Significant Potentially Wlth Less Than I$sUes: Significant Mitigation Signi6can[ No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Parks? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ ^ Comments• a) According to the Chula Vista Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site and no new fire facilities are required. The applicant will be required to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building construction. The City's Fire performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) According to the Chula Vista Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposal 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's Police 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. The applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit fees for the proposed non-residential construction. d) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is not a residential project. Thus, the project will 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 would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure. Mitigation: 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 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? ^ ^ 15 ISSneS: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks. The project would not impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. b) The project does not include the constmction 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. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION /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 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 desigl feature ^ ^ ^ ^ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ^ f Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ^ 16 Less Than Significant Potentially ~yitn Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Signincant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ^ ^ ^ ^ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a, b, d, e) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, the proposed industrial infill project is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic, circulation or emergency access impacts. The project generated traffic trips are minimal, approximately 150 new Average Daily Trips (ADTs), consisting of trips generated by employees, tow services, and customer traffic The proposal will not create adverse traffic operations along Maxwell Road or the adjacent connector street (Main Street). The current Level of Service for Maxwell Road and Main Street is LOS "C", and with the proposed project generated traffic will continue to operate at LOS "C" or better. No significant impacts to streets or intersections aze anticipated based upon the minimal traffic generation from the project and project design. Through project design and project conditions consisting of proper entry gate placement to avoid vehiculaz stacking on Maxwell Road, adequate fuming radius for large and emergency vehicles, striping and signing for exiting vehicles entering Maxwell Road, no adverse traffic hazards would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. f) The proposal includes 10 off-street parking spaces, in accordance with the Chula Vista Zoning Code. The proposal meets ADA requirements for accessibility and pazking. The parking spaces are primarily for the employees and customers during the office operation hours of 8:00 to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. g) The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation programs. There are no bus turnouts or public transportation systems along this portion of Maxwell Road. Mi[ieation: No nntigation 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 constmction of new water or ^ ^ ^ ^ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could 17 Issues: cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ^ ^ ^ ^ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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? 18 Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project. b) See XVLa. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would be necessary. c) The proposed project is subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements and shall obtain permit coverage and develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of grading permits. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City's Storm Water Management Requirements. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality Section addressing storm water facilities. d) The project site is within the Otay Water District authority. Pursuant to correspondence from the Otay Water District, the project may be serviced from the proposed 12" potable water main on Maxwell Road. The applicant will be required to comply with the approved Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan and design standards. e) See XVLa. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law. g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to so]id waste. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. THRESHOLDS Wi71 the proposal arh~ersely impact the Citv's Threshold Standards? A. Library ^ ^ ^ ~ "1'he City shall construct 60,000 gross squaze feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the azea east of Interstate SOS 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. 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSUOS: Significant Mitigation Significant lmpac[ Incorporated Impact 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 raintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or less. C) Fire and Emergency 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-805 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 romps are exempted from this Standard. F,) Parks and Recreation Areas ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 aaes of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facihhes/1,000 population east of I-805. F) Drainaee ^ ^ ~ The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes no[ exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ?0 Less Than Significant Potentially Wkh Less Than ISSnCS: Significant Mitigetlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. G) Sewer ^ ^ ^ The '11Teshold 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 Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. No Impact ^ 21 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially Wkh Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. 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 site, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fue 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) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, due to the minimal Average Daily Trips (ADTs) generated from the proposed project traffic study was not required. The surrounding street segments and intersections will continue to operate in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold standazd (LOS "C" or better) with the proposed project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's Traffic Threshold Standazds would occur as a result of the proposed project. e) Because the project is proposed for industrial landuse, this Threshold Standard is not applicable. f) Based upon the review of the proposed project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the proposed project and drainage improvements. The existing drainage system can handle the additional flows and proposed drain system includes a series of inlets, pipes, filtering systems and natural bioswales. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. g) The Engineering Division has determined that the existing sewer facility, an 18-inch sewer line along Maxwell Road, is adequate to serve the proposed project. The proposed improvements include the extension of the existing sewer main with sewer lateral pipe installations within the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's Sewer 'T'hreshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. h) The project site is within the Otay Water District authority. Pursuant to correspondence from the Otay Water District, the project may be serviced from the proposed 12" potable water main on Maxwell Road. The applicant will be required to comply with the approved Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan and design standards. No adverse impacts to the City's water system or Water Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. ?2 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than I$$U¢s: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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 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: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction noise/raptor nesting and biologically sensitive impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, under Biological Resources. b) The project site has been previously disturbed with similar industrial land uses and site improvements. No cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other cusent projects and probable future projects have been identified. c) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as the proposed project has been mitigated to lessen any potential significant impacts to a level of less than signficance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significance. 23 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Alr• 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. • Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. • Use electrical construction equipment as practical. • Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. • Ilse injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. • Water the construction area twice 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. • 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. Biolo2icul Resuurces 2. To avoid any impacts associated with construction noise, construction must occur outside of the breeding season for nesting raptors (January 15 through July 31). If construction must occur during the breeding season for these species, prior to initiating any construction-related activities (including clearing of vegetation, grubbing, and grading), preconstruction surveys must be performed by aCity-approved biologist to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptors within 500-feet of the construction area. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of any construction, the results of which must be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval prior to initiating any construction-related activities. If nesting raptors are detected, a noise mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to initiating any construction-related activities. 3. Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grading or construction permits, temporary orange biological fencing shall be installed around the existing non-native grassland areas and reflected in the grading plans. It must be constructed in accordance with the development plans to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. The City's Mitigation Monitor will conduct periodic site visits to verify the placement of the biological fencing and to ensure that all construction activities remain within the approved limits of grading. 2q 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a final landscape plan/palette to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval to ensure all landscaping used in the project area will be non-invasive and compatible with the existing non-native grassland vegetation. Hydroloev and Water Quality 5. 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. 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 apost-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. (~. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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. The vehicle storage area for the damaged vehicle shall be treated with decomposed granite, curbs, berms and other impervious treatments, as reflected on the development plans, in accordance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 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 herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declazation 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. ~q lC ~It/tKC-feet ~resic%nf' Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) (or authorized representative) 2-(~ =~6 Date Z-/5 =z-OO~ Date 25 Signature of Applicant Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date Signature of Operator Date (if different from Applicant) 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. ^ Land Use and Planning ^Transportation/Traffic ^ Population and Housing ^ Biological Resources ^ Geophysical ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Hydrology/Water ^ Air Quality ^ Paleontological Resources ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Cultural Resources ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2G XXII. 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, ^ and an Environmental Impact Report is required. 1 find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but ^ at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista ]~\Planning\MARIA\Imtial S[udy\RoadOne\IS-05-017Checklistdoc 2~