The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2005/02/21Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: Sycamore Estates 1655 Sycamore Drive 624-032-47, 624-032-14, 624-032-48 Norton Construction IS-04-034 January 31, 2005 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: February 21, 2005 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: PREPARED BY: Mary Venables, Associate Planner A. Project Setting The approximately 2.1-acre project site consists of three parcels located within the urbanized area of Chula Vista at 1655 Sycamore Drive (See Exhibit A-Location Map). The project site is relatively flat and contains two existing single-family residential structures. The land uses that surround the project site consist of the following: North: Single-Family residences, church, and Los Ninos Park across Walnut Drive. South: Single-Family residences. East: Single-Family residences. West: Church and Single-Family residences. B. Proiect Description The proposed residential infill project consists of a ten-lot subdivision to accommodate the construction of ten single-family residences ranging from 1,8] I sq.fl. to 2,217sq.f1 in area. (See Exhibit B-Site Plan). The proposed lot sizes average over 7,000 sq. ft. each and the proposed density of 4.9 dwelling units per gross acre is consistent with the low-medium residential General Plan designation of the property. The proposal requires the demolition of two existing single-family structures. C. Comnliance with Zoning. and Plans The project site is located in .the R-1-P7 (Single-Family Residence 7,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zone and RLM (Low-Medium/8-12 dwelling units per acre) General Plan designations. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and the Chula Vista Genera] Plan. D. Public Comments On January 19, 2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period closed on January 28, 2005. There was one inquiry from the public to view the proposed map however there were no environmental issues of concern voiced. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the Gity of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Air Ouality The proposed residential infill project will result in a minor increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of the project. Air quality impacts resulting from construction related operations are short-term in duration. Dust control measures are required during grading operations and will be implemented in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The project would not generate any substantial additional traffic and is consistent with the residential designation of the project site under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and Zoning regulations. The residential land use designation has been included in regional air quality projects and plans and will not conflict with or violate any applicable 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. Bioloeical Resources Dudek & Associates prepared a biological resource survey and a Biological Constraints Letter dated June 3, 2004, for the project site. No vegetation communities, plant, or wildlife species considered sensitive by the City, California Department of Fish and Game, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were observed onsite or anticipated to occur. Therefore, no sensitive biological resources present onsite are expected that would constrain development of the site. Hydrology and Water Quality Based upon review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the drainage of the project site. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of the project grading plans. and appropriate erosion control measures will be identified and implemented. The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could impact the storm drain system. Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans to be implemented during construction. The proposed project is subject to 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. In addition, the project shall implement construction and post- construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts No Mitigation Measures are required. G. Consultation 1. Tndividuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Power, Planning and Building Department Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Department Marisa Lundstedt, Planning and Building Department Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department Sohaib AI-Agha, Engineering Dept. Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Dept. Beth Chopp, Engineering Dept. Sandra Hernandez, Engineering Dept. Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Dept. Patricia Ferman, General Services Landscape Architecture Lynn France, Administration Special Operations John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department Richard Zumwalt, Planning and Building Department Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District Mark Dodero, RECON 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 3 City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, February 2003. Biological Constraints Letter for Sycamore Estates, Chula Vista, Califomia, Dudek & Associates, June 3, 2004. Drainage Study, Sycamore Estates, Chula Vista, California, May Group, Inc., November 4, 2004. Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for Sycamore Estates, Chula Vista, California, October 28, 2004. 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. 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 T\Planning\MaryV\tiycamorr Estates\IS-04-034ND.doc Date: 4 ____ '. -- - T- u{ _ ,' ~` wVr>culark u~ ~ . ; n r .. ~ .. ... __-~ i - r ~ ;~~~- -~"r - _^, _, ~_. _ -- - -- -- __i I ----- ~ . -- -- - - i - --T - ... - ---; i ~ ~ ,: ~~I--~ ~ fi _ ~:.- ;~ta Fw Po1 ~~ ~-~--1- - ~ ~~ , ~~ ,~ z_ ; ~J ~,,,\ , I ~-y !~ _ ~ t r <3 r/ ( ~ / - , I l,~ _ ~' f ` ~'- t I __ -~ -, ( ~, `_I_ ~ ~ j'- I i. ~ ~~ I < V II I n c i`c' ~ ' V ~~~~ / ~'' ~--r-T ~ , ~' , r < - i - - ~ ~ - - ~. ~ ~/ '~~_-~! 11 { ~ / `i ~l t "" ~, f~ ~ _ -_--_ I i fYtnir: SY __ ~ ~~~ ~~~1 ~ Lr _- Ct ~-~ ~- - ~ ~ LEGENQ `_ ~\ __~ I ~~ r ~ - _. ; ----- --> i T1 i : Q Project Location 1 EXHIBIT A -LOCATION MAP cao: srnuonau srxneoL 011HM B.ZNDMY.. _.... _~ FY<)I. L9E _.. _.__ _ _ moan ru Qox 131 uxlESS ozNwwr,T s~owx ) ,~ ~e _ __.... _.. _ _ , snxn mo. uEV.na. __ I~z nx91z u.[.. ._. ~'~~ mrrc ao~._. _. __ )N pTOI__ . .................. ..........._ .NN PfMN (YF 9[ElS 1 S 8). ml@ o-6n._ -9 ml w1n rmc'c._..vNm o-n .,. - -.-~___ xn onuN aEUralr - me w..maw o-9_....... .__--3~=-' rzN uN~ -NNw- Imu+c..._.._......._......_. --ew+- E N1LR.1Ni ._ ._..... .._., ro. iR.Ei NOII. _ .__. __. M 3 1~`Bp0}j 1~0~ i+..ez' 'Jm _ )_ ~-K~ nay-r...-cans .uF I io a ~.~roNn ~~ ~~~ OO~ti~~ I E 35 r Ix. ~NC - Ner ~~ ..Im (io ec 1na.rtn) I mT. r .a To 9c I'~° r ~T~\ ~-~:3ue- ~_~ . _~ ~, ` ~ ~~ i 1 e' i~ »--,. ~~~~pF 4,~ 1 vs m ~E 71 J tE. lanm Im*. w.Tm snwa uT. n x amuxm 70 n~ LOT TA9UNTION TABIE M' _ *_ ~N 3~. 9~ p ~ \9~' O PRELIMINARY TENTATIVE MAP for: SYCAMORE ESTATES CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA WALNUT DR. Ncuo+E vuw. caNNECr I _ _ cw a c~ 72 w m co SCALE: 1" - 30' IDf IM LOT ft..11 48..0 '3 IIO1E5 HO ]]E IAOSC »g MEi 1WE iR01T WfK WS 1 0 ~.0 b. ? 030 19. N" 1x' I 3 xx90 3 ) . I - I$ - 1. 1 . rmo al z ie` - xv 1a I e~x. ii . n+ . _ u xc r 1a _ 0 & bJl 3'_ 1 > 0 zm .Y0.1 z e 0 0 ~T _ Imo' T iaa zs v zm i.nl . e IB' Ci04 MGfC ~ 20. 9 4 Y T m o4 EFI1 iECwuulwm _. ___ _-~ WATE 000T I9 lOT NO ' PPO ElE'/. 9R wILt .aTm rc mECecw asmr - TWICAL LOTORPDINO `\ ~ N9arosn r w.w EXHIBIT B -SITE PLAN \IlI .:fir ~~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHUTA vlsrA 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. Norton Construction City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 9340 Hazard Way, Suite A-1 San Diego, CA 92123 (858)277-5322 Sycamore Estates January 25, 2005 IS-04-034. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Less Than Significant Potentially vim Less Than ISSneS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ^ ^ ^ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments• a-c) The proposal is a residential infill project that involves the demolition of two existing structures and the construction of 10 new single-family homes. The subject site contains no scenic resources, vistas or views open to the public, and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway. The project is compatible with the existing land uses and would not degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings. d) The project will result in a new source of light or glare through the construction of 10 new residences and placement of streetlights. However, the construction of residences on the site will not result in an adverse effect on day or nighttime views in the area and the project will comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting. 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? 2 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Comments: a-c) The project site is neither in current agricu]tural 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) 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? 3 Issues: Comments• Less Than Signincant Potentially with Less Than Signincant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a-e) The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed residential infill project would not generate any substantial additional traffic and is consistent with the residential designation of the project site under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and Zoning regulations. The proposed residential land use has been included in regional air quality projects and plans and will not conflict with or violate any applicable 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. See Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department 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'? ^ ^ 4 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than j SSUES: Significant Mitigation Signifcant Nolmpact Impact Incorporated Impact 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? Comments• a-f) The project site is located within a designated development area under the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. To assess the potential biological resource impacts of the project, a biological survey was conducted and a letter report prepared by Dudek & Associates, INC., dated June 3, 2004. Based on the results of the report, no sensitive biological resources are present or expected on-site that would constrain development. The biological report is available for review at the City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue. See Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wou]d the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ^ significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ^ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5'? 5 Less Than Significant Potentially R~ith Less Than ISSneS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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) The project proposal requires the demolition of two existing residential structures. It has been determined that the buildings are not historically significant and do not meet any criteria for consideration for listing on the City of Chula Vista Historic List. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources are known or are expected to be present within the project impact area and no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site associated with the development of residences and the relatively minor grading necessary to construct the proposed project, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. c) The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan EIR. Based on the minor level of disturbance to the project site and adjacent site improvements including grading and fill level for the proposed project, potential impacts to paleontological resources are considered to be less than significant. In addition, no unique geologic features are present on the site. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 6 Issues: 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 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 unstab]e 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, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 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 Cor the disposal of wastewater? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Signifcant Midgadon Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 7 Issues: Comments• Less Than Signi6can[ Potentially With less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a-e) The project site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone and there area no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the site. Due to the previous development of the site and minor grading required for the proposed project, no significant geological impacts are anticipated. The proposed earthwork quantity includes 5,200 cubic yards of imported fill. The submittal of a soils report is required prior to issuance of grading and construction permits to determine existing soil conditions and provide foundation and pavement recommendations. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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 hand]e ^ ^ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a ^ ^ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 8 Potentially ISSLCS: Significant Impact 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 resultin 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? Comments• less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorpora[eJ Impact ^ ^ No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ a-h) The project proposal involves the division of land and eventual development of ten single- family residences. Except for the two existing structures on the southeast portion of the site, the project site has been historically vacant with no potential for toxics. Project implementation would not pose a health hazard to humans. The project site is designated for residential development according to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and adopted MSCP Subarea Plan. No significant hazards to human health safety would be created as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures arc required. y Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSllCS: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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 constmction, or violate any water quality standards or waste 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 of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ^ ^ ^ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ^ ^ ^ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 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? No Impact ^ 10 ISSUeS: Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 of polluted runoff? Comments: Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ a-f) The proposed infill project will not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements or adversely impact groundwater quality. The potential dischazge of silt during construction activities could impact the storm drain system. Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans to be implemented during construction. The proposed project is subject to 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. In addition, the project shall implement construction and post-construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). See Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ b) Conflict with any applicable ]and 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) ^ ^ ^ ^ ISSUCS: adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any conservation plan or conservation plan? Cnmmrntc~ Less Than Signi7ican[ Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated applicable habitat ^ ^ natural community less Than Significant No lmpact Impact ^ ^ a) The proposed project is consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area and will not disrupt or divide an established community. b) The project site is within the R-1-P7 (Single-Family Residence 7,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zone and RLM (Low-Medium/8-12 dwelling units per acre) General Plan designations. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and the Chula Vista General Plan. c) The project will not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies and will not conflict with the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ^ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 12 Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of Califomia. b) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ^ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or 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 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ 13 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially Wilh Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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: Less Than significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ a, c, d) Due to the residential character of the existing surroundings, the proposed small residential infill project is not anticipated to result in any significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity. Compliance with the noise control ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code that regulates the maximum one-hour average sound level generated at the property line is mandatory for any activities occurring on-site. b) It is not anticipated that persons will be exposed to excessive groundbome vibration or noise levels, as there will not be any heavy industrial equipment or machinery operated on-site beyond short-term construction activities. e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are 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 infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ^ ^ ^ ^ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 14 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSlleS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments• a-c) The project site is surrounded by existing residential development and is zoned R-1-P7 Single-Family Residence Zone. The proposed project would be consistent with the zoning designation. The proposal requires the demolition of two existing residential structures and the extension of public facilities to serve the proposed housing units. However, the proposed project improvements would not induce substantial growth and is consistent with the General Plan. The project does not exceed regional or local population projections and does not displace substantial numbers of people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing. 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 physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ Schools? ^ ^ ^ ^ Parks? ^ ^ ^ ^ Other public facilitics? ^ ^ ^ ^ 15 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) According to the Fire Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. b) According to the Police Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection services. c) The proposed infill project is located in the Rohr Elementary School attendance area that is currently operating at or near capacity. While the project will not induce substantial population growth, it is recommended that the project be annexed to Community Facilities District (CFD) No.10 in lieu of developer fees to help fund any shortfall generated by new construction. d) Because the proposed project would not induce significant population growth, it would not create a demand for additional neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or have a significant impact on existing park facilities. e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and could continue to be served by existing public infrastructure. 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 facilitics which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 16 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mifigation Signifcant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The proposed project will not induce population growth; therefore a substantial increase in the use of neighborhood or regional parks or facilities will not occur or have an adverse impact on existing recreational facilities. b) The project does not include or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities thus no adverse physical effect on the environment will occur. 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 design ^ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ^ ^ ^ ^ 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With less Than I$sne$: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ 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) No significant increases in traffic trips are anticipated to be generated as a result of the proposed project. The Engineering Division has determined that the proposal does not have the potential to result in any significant traffic impacts; therefore, the preparation of a traffic study was not required. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ^ ^ ^ ^ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ^ ^ ^ ^ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 18 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ 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? Comments: 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 Board would result from the proposed project. 19 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Dritiga[ion Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) The existing water service to the project site will be relocated to accommodate the proposed residences. An 8-inch water main will be constructed in the proposed reconfiguration of Sycamore Drive and will be connected to the existing 8-inch water main located in Walnut Drive. As part of the development process, the applicant shall coordinate with the California- American Water District for proper design standards and guidance as required. c) The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could impact the storm drain system. Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans to be implemented during construction. The proposed project is subject to 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. In addition, the project shall implement construction and post-construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the California-American Water Company. Pursuant to correspondence from the California-American Water Company dated January 4, 2005, the project may be serviced upon extension of an existing potable water main, a new fire hydrant and new domestic water service installations. All water facilities shall be installed in accordance with California-American Water standards and specifications. In addition, the applicant shall pay all costs to abandon existing unused services and to relocate and reconnect any existing customer services in conflict with this project. e) The capacity of the existing sewer system within the project area is adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The project will include the removal of an existing 8-inch VCP and construction of a new 8-inch PVC sewer line connection in the proposed Sycamore Drive right- of-way. 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 solid waste. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 20 Less Than Signitican[ Potentially Wi[h Less Than ~StineS' Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Tncorporatea Tmpact XVIL THRESHOLDS Wrll the proposal adversely in¢pact the City's Threshold Standards? A. Library ^ ^ ^ The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city- wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B)Police ^ ^ ^ a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority fwo" 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 No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ 2l Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSUCS: Significant hli[igation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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 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 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 Chrlla Vista has in effect at No Impact ^ 22 Issues: the time of building permit issuance. Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially Wlth 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 tentative parcel map for future development of ten single-family residential units 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 shall be provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. d) The surrounding street segments will continue to operate in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standard LOS "C" (or better) with the projected project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's traffic threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. e) Park pad obligation will be required per City Ordinance (refer to Municipal Code Chapter 17.10). f) Based upon preliminary review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the drainage of the project site. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans. In accordance with City standards, post-developed flows shall not exceed pre-developed flows. Properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 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 capacity of the existing sewer system within the project area is adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The project will include the construction of an 8-inch sewer line connecting to the existing sewer system to serve the proposed residential units. No adverse impacts to the City's Sewer "Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. 23 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially Wi[h Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact ]ncorporated Impact No Impact h) Pursuant to correspondence receive from the Califomia-American Water Company, dated January 4, 2005, the project may be serviced upon extension of an existing potable water main, a new fire hydrant and new domestic water service installations. In addition, the applicant shall pay all costs to abandon existing unused services and to relocate and reconnect any existing customer services in conflict with this project. As part of the development process the applicant shall coordinate with the California-American Water Company for proper design guidance as required. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 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 member 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? 24 Comments: a) The project site is currently developed and located within an established urbanized area, and is within the designated development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site. b) No cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified. c) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as it is a site planned for future residential development. MitiEation: No mitigation measures are required. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: There are no project revisions or mitigation measures necessary to avoid significant impacts. XX. 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 ^ Public Services ^ Population and Housing ^ Geophysical ^ Biological Resources ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Hydrology/Water ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Cultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Threshold Standards ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance 25 XXI. 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. 1 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 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 1.\Planning\MaryV~l'ycamore Es[atesUS-04-f134Sycamore Estates-doc 26