Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2006/01/23Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Second Avenue Weed Clearance & Stormwater Drainage Improvements PROJECT LOCATION: Beginning at H Street between 2nd Avenue & Elm Avenue, extending northerly & then westerly across 2"d Ave. south of G Street ASSESSOR'S PARCELNO.: PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: N/A City of Chula Vista, Engineering Deparhnent IS-06-006 January 12, 2006 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: Prepared by: Benjamin Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager A. Proiect Set[ine The project area is located within an urban residential setting in western Chula Vista. The project site is generally located north of H Street between Elm Avenue and 2nd Avenue. The project area consists of a stormwa[er drainage system presently composed of sections of lined concrete, box culvert and underground stormwater drain pipe (See figures 1~). The project area and surrounding ]and uses consist of existing single-family residential uses and a church parking facility. B. Proiect Description The proposal consists of two phases, with the first phase proposing the removal of weeds, silt, rocks and debris from an open cement-lined drainage channel that traverses the backyards of several residential lots (See Figures 3 & 4). As part of Phase II, the City proposes to permanently underground an existing section of concrete surface channel extending from the northern border of a residential lot (459 Second Avenue) to the eastern edge of Second Avenue through another residential lot (445 Second Avenue) and to realign the currently under-grounded sections of the concrete drainage pipe west of Second Avenue (Figure 2). The upstream water source that runs through this open channel is from urban run-off. Phase II improvements include wall replacement of an existing junction box, construction of a single box culvert, grading, and the removal of several non-native trees located within the residential lot located at 459 Second Avenue in order to realign and replace an existing local sewer line. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project area zoning is R-1 (Single Famly Residential)_ Adjacent zoning is also R-1 (Single Family Residential). The existing General Plan designation is RLM (Residential Low Medium). The 1 project is consistent with the regulations of the R-1 Zone and with the goals and policies of the Residential Low Medium Genera] Plan designation as well as the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan which calls for preservation of existing drainage structures and the proper design of future facilities to ensure the effectiveness of existing drainage systems. D. Public Comments On December 1, 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 December 12, 2005. One written public comment that was not specifically related to the project was received. 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 project, and that 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. Bioloev To assess the potential biological resource impacts of [he project, a biological resource survey report (August 2005) was prepared by Burkhart Environmental Consulting. The primary focus of the survey was to document and map the size, location, and general quality of all habitat types and the presence or potential presence of any sensitive resources (plant or wildlife) on or near the site. The biological resource study is available for review a[ the City Planning and Building Department. The open drainage channel consists of disturbed habitat with weed species bordering the surface sections of the drainage channel. Vegetation includes cottonwood saplings, curly dock, giant reed, and cattail. The area where the second phase will take place consists of a gravel driveway for asingle-family residence, Second Avenue and an existing asphalUconcrete paved church parking lot. The surrounding habitat is urbanized and heavily disturbed. The project site has little biological value in its capacity to support native plants and wildlife. (See Figure 4) Based upon the Biological Assessment, the proposed project will result in impacts on 435 square-feet (0.01 acres) of disturbed wetlands associated with the phase I weed and debris clearance of the concrete lined channel and impacts to 871 square feet (0.02 acres) of California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) jurisdictional wetlands associated with the Phase ll under grounding of the stormwater drainage pipe. Before impacts could occur to the CDFG jurisdictional wetlands, a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code would be required as well as a waste discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Pursuant to the Biological Assessment report, the mitigation for the project will include the purchase of wetland mitigation from an approved mitigation bank, equivalent to that lost as a result of project approval. Phase II proposes the removal of ornamental trees along the southern border of the residential lot located at 445 Second Avenue. This action has the potential to impact nesting raptors and migratory buds. 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 apresence/absence survey for breeding birds ten days in advance to the proposed removal date. If active nests are identified, then, preparation of an appropriate mitigation plan will be required. 2 GeoloQy The project has the potential to result in soil erosion during construction activities. Hydroloey and Water Ouality Implementation of the project could result in potential silt discharge into the storm drain system. F. Mitieation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts BioloQv 1.) Prior to the commencement of work, the City of Chula Vista shall obtain the required permit from the Califomia Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and streambed alteration impacts. 2J Prior to commencement of work, impacts to CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and hydrophytic vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 of equivalent habitat consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Wetlands Protection Program. This land shall be purchased by the City of Chula Vista at an approved mitigation bank. 3.) Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July 31, a preconstruction survey must be performed by a qualified biologist to determine the presence/absence of nesting raptors and migratory birds. The pre-construction survey must encompass the construction impact area including adjacent areas within 500 feet of the project site. 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 prior to initiating any constmction activities. In the event that occupied nests(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 City's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to initiating any construction activities. Noise levels at the active nest must be reduced to below 60 dBA Leq. Geoloey In order to minimize construction related erosion, the applicant shall be required to prepare and implement a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and obtain a waste discharge permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). This stormwater plan will be prepared by the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of work pursuant to the provisions of the CRWQCB, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 and the City of Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Stormwater Management Standards Requirement manual (November 26, 2002). Hydrology and Water Quality In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant shall be required to prepare and implement a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and obtain a waste discharge permit from CRWQCB. This stormwater plan will be prepared by the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of work pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 and the City of Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Stormwater Management Standards Requirement manual (November 26, 20021. 3 E. Consultation 1. Individuals and Oreanizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Power, Planning and Building Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning and Building Mazisa Lundstedt, Planning and Building Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Matt Little, Engineering Roberto Yano, Engineering Khosro Aminpour, Engineering Applicant/Property Owner: City of Chula Vista Agent: Roberto Yano, Civil Engineer 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, adopted December 13, 2005 Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Biological Technical Report & Wetland Impact Analysis for the Second Avenue Drainage Clearance Project, RC Biological Consulting and Burkhart Environmental Consulting, (BEC) August, 2005 Initial Study 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 avai]able from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator 4 Project Site Figure 1 Vicinity Map Ja ~-~Fee~ ~~~ },500 ~ 750 >~ Oq - - -~° i a ~~,.wm~va ~ z 4 s.mw. A d m.~.w ra. N po£ a~e~ ~ ~ ~~ w~og>a, yFy~°~` Y=sz s~m~ ~s.; o~ ~3~~ y 1 m -. <.,..., v. d a ~~ t,~ ~~4 .-. m°,m '~ ~: q ~ I \ .a.,.~,~ \ \ \~ - 6 T a rn rn o°, ~ m °ro m ~ 5° ~'. ~; `a I' ~ , } y, ~~. 1. ~~ ~. ~~ ..~•.A yi , S ~~'° Tom' `~I ~ µ '.~,rA,~ s'ue'. .~ _ ;,~~ ~ _ t'.. `l;- ~ ~~ ~. 1 F,..: ~g « 1 ..% ~ ~ f', ~~ ~ ~ .~ s7 ri' ~ ~,," ~. ~Y~~~~ ~, W a I ~r ~~ }~ Yj ~ , ~ ~ a '~ ~ t 1 „ r4~ ~ V+ r~. A'y 4, ~, ~ y~ ~ ~~ Qp7m #l`; l°`~ y 4Y l~ e ~{ f~yf~ ~ i ct •~ ~ ~ \I(/ rairww_. cm 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: City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista General Services Department 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 91911 Same as above (619)397-6105 Second Avenue/H Street Weed Clearance & Stormwater Drainage Improvements January 11, 2006 IS-06-006 ISSneS' ' Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Wtth Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ^ ^ ^ ^ or 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? ISSlleS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Signincant W[th Significant Im act Mitigation Im ac[ P Incorporated P No Impact Comments: a-d) The project site contains no scenic resources, vistas or views that are open to the public. The project is not in proximity to a state scenic highway nor are there any publicly visible scenic resources. The project will not result in the construction of any above ground structures that could obstruct any views. The proposed project will not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Mitigation: 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? 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? Comments• a-c) The project site is not in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources or designated farmland. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ^ ^ ^ ^ Less Than Potentially Signincanf Less Than With ISSneS: Significant Mitigatlon Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) 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 owne precursors)? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ ^ ~ concenhations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ^ ~ substantial number of people? Comments• a-d) The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposal would not generate any additional vehicular traffic. The proposal would not conflict with air quality plans or standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts. Since the proposal consists of a relatively small-scale construction project, short-term air quality impacts would be minimal. The largest equipment proposed to be used during constmction would consist of a backhoe tractor. The backhoe tractor would be used minimally to excavate and place the concrete conduits for an estimated work period of four weeks. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. N. 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 of Fish and (lame or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) I-lave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ^ ~ ^ ^ habitat or other sensitive natural community 3 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Wtth Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impart No Impact 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 intemrption, 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 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J ~4 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Wdh Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Comments: a) The project site is located in a fully urbanized developed azea. Based upon a Biological Assessment by a Biological Consulting Firm (RC Biological Consulting 8/05), no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. b) Based upon the Biological Assessment, the proposed project will have direct temporary impacts on 400 square feet (.01 acres) of hydrophytic vegetation as a result of the Phase I weed clearing and impacts to 871 square feet (.02 acres) of Califomia Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) jurisdictional wetlands associated with the Phase II undergrounding of the stomtwater drainage pipe. The hydrophyfic vegetation is considered disturbed wetland, which is a sensitive habitat pursuant to the City's adopted MSCP. Before impacts could occur to the CDFG jurisdictional wetlands, a Streambed Alteration Ageement pursuant to Section 1602 of the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code would be required. c) The Army Corps of Engineers does not take jurisdiction over drainage channels constructed in uplands unless they connect to Waters of the U.S. Although the onsite drainage channel ultimately drains into the Sweerivater River, it does not connect to Waters of the U.S. upstream. Therefore, it is not a federally protected wetland as defined by Section 404 and no project impacts are noted. d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and feld inspection by City staff, no native resident or migratory wildlife comdors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. Therefore, approval of the project will not result in adverse impacts to these resources. Phase II proposes the removal of ornamental trees along the southern border of a residential lot located at 445 Second Avenue. 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 apresence/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) The proposed project will not conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Approval of the project will not have impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans. No adverse impacts would result since the project site is a designated development area pursuant to the City adopted MSCP Subarea Plan (May 13, 2005). Mitigation: 1.) Prior to comnaencernent of work, the City of Chula Vista shall obtain the required permit from Califomia Deparurren[ of fish & Game (CDFG) for impacts [o CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and streambed alteration impacts. 2.) Prior to commencement of work, impacts to CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and hydrophytic vegetation shall be mitigated at a laof equivalent habitat consistent with the Chula vista MSCP Subarea Plan wetlands Protection Program This land shall be purchased by the City of Chula at an approved mitigation bank. 3) Pnor to the rerraval or altemtion of landscaping during the months of January ]5 through July 31, a preconstnrction survey must be performed by a qualified biologist to determine the presence/absence of nesting raptors and migratory birds. The preconstmction survey must encompass the construction impact area including adjacent at gas within SW feet of the project site. 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 Envirotunenlal Review Coordmator for review poor to initiating any construction activities. th [he event that occupied nests(s) is/are found during the survey a mitiguton plan mcludmg appropnate construction setbacks and nmsc reduction measures shall be prepared by a qualified biulogist and approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to initiating any construction activities. Noise levels at [he active nest must be reduced to below fi~ I dBA Leq. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than I$$ne$: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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 § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ~ significance of an archaeological resotlree 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? Comments• a-d) The project site is located in a fully disturbed urban area. Project implementation would not result in any adverse impacts to any known cultural or paleontolgical resources in the area. Minimal excavation would occur on private property along an existing dirt driveway. 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: i. 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? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ~ h Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than ISSUES: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact iii. 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 a]temative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal ofwastewater? Issues: Less Than PotenBally Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Im act Mitigation Ita act p Incorporated P No Impact Comments• a, c-e.) No impacts to or from seismic activity are noted since the project involves a minor improvement to a drainage system and replacement of a relatively small section of stormwater concrete pipe. b.) The proposal would result in the prevention of erosion of topsoil in the immediate area and downstream by installing a new drainage concrete pipe and replacing existing undersized drainage pipes. However, during the construction phase, the potential exists for silt or debris to be introduced into the existing stormwater drainage system. Miti:Tation• In order to minimize construction related erosion, the applicant will be required to prepare an implement a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and obtain a waste discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This stormwater plan will be prepazed by the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of work pursuant to the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 and the City of Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Stormwater Management Standards Requirement manual (November 26, 2002). 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 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f; Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Signifcant Im ac[ Mitigation tm act p Incorporated p No Impact 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 aze , adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intemuxed with wildlands? Comments• ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a-h) The proposal to install a concrete pipe storm drain in a fully urbanized area would not create or result in a safety or health hazard to people or the environment. The project is not near an airport nor would it interfere with an emergency response plan. The project site is not located on or near a hazardous site pursuant to the County Site Assessment Mitigation list of hazardous materials sites (pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5). No adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation• 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 m significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or vio]ate any water quality standards or waste ^ ~ ^ ^ 9 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant wtth Significant Im act Mitigation Im act p Incorporated p No Impact discharge requirements? 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 level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-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 mamler, 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 100-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 flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would ^ ^ ^ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? ^ ^ ^ ^ ISSUCS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Im act p Mitigation Im act p Incorporated No Impact Comments• a) The project has the potential to alter water quality and/or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during wnstmction. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared as required by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department and the Clean Water Act. A waste discharge permit shall be obtained from the RWQCB. Implementation of this plan will reduce impacts to a level below significance. b) The project consists of the installation of a storm drain facility that will replace an existing open cement lined channel. Runoff that previously flowed through the open channel will now be redirected into the storm drain facility. No impacts to groundwater aze noted. c) Some erosion may occur during construction of the proposed drainage facility. However, the proposal would improve the conveyance of storm water and prevent soil erosion. Implementation of the CSWMP that will be required will minimize erosion and siltation during constmction activities. d) The project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. No significant impacts related to flooding are anticipated. e) The proposed project will not expose people or stmctures to flooding hazards. No significant impacts related to dam or levee failure would occur. f) The capacity of the proposed project is consistent with the City's Stormwater Drainage Plan. Implementation of the required CSWMP will minimize pollution during construction. The project will not result in significant impacts related to drainage systems or increase pollutant load. Mitisation• In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant will be required to prepare an implement a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP). This stormwater plan will be prepared by the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of work pursuant to the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 and the City of Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storrnwater Management Standards Requirement manual (November 26, 2002). A waste discharge permit shall be obtained from the RWQCB. 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 11 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Im act Mitigation Im act p Incorporated P No Impact 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 a capital improvement project consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plan. (City of Chula Vista General Plan adopted December 13, 2005) b) The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning designations. (City of Chula Vista General Plan adopted December 13, 2005 and City of Chula Ordinance 1281 1970) c) The project would not conflict with the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (May 13, 2005). MitiP_ation• No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL, RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in [he loss of availability of a ]mown mineral ^ ^ ^ ~ resource that would be of value to the region 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-b) The proposal would not result in any adverse impact to mineral resources (City of Chula Vista General Plan 12/13/05 j. No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. Mitigation• No mitigation measures are required. 12 Issues: Less Than Potentially Signincant Less Than Significant With Signifcant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact No Iropac[ 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 gmundborne 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 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-f) ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ The proposal would not result in any exposure of people to excessive noise levels. The ambient traffic noise along Second Avenue within the project area has been recorded to be 60 decibels at a distance of 30 feet from the centerline of street (Noise Technical Report, Draft Baseline Study, RECON, April 10, 2003). Temporary construction noise may result from the proposed project. This impact would be temporary as it relates to the relatively short constmction period. Construction noise would be masked by existing areawide noise generation, and it would not be considered significant. 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 13 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Wsth Significant Im act Mitlgation Im act p Incorporated p No Impact excessive noise levels. 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. Mitigation• No mitigation is required. XII. 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 infrastmcture)? 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) The proposal is a minor capital improvement project, therefore, would not induce population growth or displace housing or people. Mitigation: 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 altered governmental facilities, need for new or 14 ISSUCS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfomratlce objectives for any public services: Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ ~ Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ~ Schools? ^ ^ ^ ~ Parks? ^ ^ ^ ~ Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ ~ Comments: a) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services since it involves a minor improvement of public infrastructure. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ^ ^ ^ ~ regional pazks 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? Comments: The proposed project will not induce population growth and therefore, it will not create a demand for or impact existing neighborhood and regional parks. 15 Issues: Less Than Potentially SigniScant Less Than Signincant with Signincant Im act Mitigation Im act p Incorporated p No Impact Mitisation• 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 design ^ ^ ^ ~ 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? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ^ ^ ^ ~ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments• a-g) The proposal involves the construction and installation of a stormwater drainage facility. Temporary minor delays affecting possibly one lane may occur during the construction phase. The City of Chula Vista 16 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Signifcant Wrth Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Engineering Department will implement traffic control measures as standard operating procedures during project constmction to minimize traffic delays. Impacts due to constuction activities will be less than significant. No traffic impacts would occur after project implementation. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTII.ITIES 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. 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ 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? Comments• 17 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) The project will not generate wastewater. Therefore, it will have no impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements. b) The project will not generate the need for new or expanded water or wastewater facilities. No impacts would occur. c) The project is consistent with the City's Master Drainage Plan February 2005 and will not create the need for new or expanded storm drain facilities. d) The project will not generate a need for water supplies. No impacts related to water supplies would occur. e) The project will not generate a need for wastewater disposal. No impacts related to wastewater would occur. f) The project will generate a typical amount of construction waste, which will be transported to an appropriate off-site location. Construction materials will be disposed of at appropriate locations in compliance with all federal, state and local statutes. g) The project will comply with all applicable local, state & federal regulations as it relates to solid waste. No impacts related to solid waste are anticipated. Mititration• No mitigation measures are required. XVII. THRESHOLDS: adversely impact Standards? a) Library The City shall constmct 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 rdtio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. Will the proposal the City's Threshold ^ ^ ^ ~ 18 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than ISSUP.S: Signifcant Mitigatlon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact b) Police ^ ^ ^ Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 8] 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. 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 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 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 facilities/1,000 population east of I-805. f) Drainage ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that storm water No Impact ^ ^ u 19 ISSUCS: Less Than Potentially Signincant Less Than Significant With Significant Im act Mitigation Im act P Incorporated p No Impact 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 Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. h) Water ^ ^ ^ ~ The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constmcted concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and constmction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments• a-h) The project would not induce population growth. Therefore, the project will not exceed or conflict with City of Chula Vista thresholds related to libraries, police services, fire and emergency medical traffic, parks, sewer or water. The proposal will improve an existing open concrete channel by installing a 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe to better convey storm water. Projected storm water flows and volumes will not exceed City Engineering Standards and will be consistent with the City of Chula Vista Drainage Master Plan. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project. Mitieation• No mitigation measures are necessary. 2U Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant lm act Mifigation Im act p Incorporated p No 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) The project site is currently developed and located within an established residential community. The site is within the designated development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no sensitive plant or anima] species or cultural resources on the site (BEC August 2005). The Biological Assessment prepared by BEC identified minor temporary impacts to disturbed wetlands and CDFG jurisdictional wetlands. Acquisition of wetland mitigation land will reduce biological impacts to a less than significance level. 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 will be associated with the project. Acquisition of wetland mitigation land will reduce impacts to less than significant. c) The proposed project will not result in environmental effects that will substantially affect human beings. ~l XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures necessary to avoid significant impacts are listed below and will be made a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-OS-006: 1J Prior to the commencement of work, the City of Chula Vista shall obtain the required petmit from the Califomia Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and streambed alteration impacts. 2.) Prior to commencement of work, impacts to CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and hydrophytic vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 of equivalent habitat consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Wetlands Protection Program. This land shall be purchased by the City of Chula Vista at an approved mitigation bazilc. 3.) Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July 31, a preconstmction survey must be performed by a qualified biologist to determine the presence/absence of nesting raptors and migatory birds. The pre-construction survey must encompass the construction impact area including adjacent areas within 500 feet of the project site. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the star[ 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 nests(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 City's Environmental Review Coordinator prior to initiating any construction activities. Noise levels at the active nest must be reduced [o below 60 dBA Leq. 4.) In order to minimize construction related erosion, the applicant will be required to prepare an implement a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and obtain a waste discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This stormwater plan will be prepared by the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of work pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 and the City of Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Stormwater Management Standazds Requirement manual (November 26, 2002). 5.) In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant will be required to prepare an implement a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP). This stormwater plan will be prepazed by the City of Chula Vista prior to commencement of work pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 and the City of Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Stormwater Management Standazds Requirement manual (November 26, 2002). A waste discharge permit shall be obtained from the RWQCB. 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 Declaration with the Cou Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance w~ u ppr val and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. ~~ I Ii ~~ Rdb~rto Yand~, Civil Engineer Date 22 Signature of Applicant Date (or authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) 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 ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Air Quality ^ Paleontological Resources ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Cultural Resources ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance ~3 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. I 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 EIIt 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 J:\Plamm~g\BcnG\Imhal Study\IS-OChecklisLdoc ?4