Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2004/12/20Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: PROJECT APPLICANT CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT Serrano Family Tentative Parcel Map 669 E. Naples Street 639-160-4700 Serrano Family/Jose Luis Serrano IS-04-001 December 7, 2004 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVAT[ON COMMISSION MEETING: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: PREPARED BY Maria C. Muett. Associate Planner A. Proiect Setting The vacant 1.3-acre project site is located at 669 E. Naples Street, within the urbanized area of Eastern Chula Vista, non-planned community area (Exhibit A- Location Map). The project site s]opes downward in a northerly direction at a 21% gradient. The overall difference in the elevation of the project site is approximately 38 feet. The site has been disturbed previously over the entire length of the site; by the construction of 18-inch reinforced concrete storm water drain pipe in 1987. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows: North: Elks Lodge South: Across E. Naples Street/Single-Family Residences East: Single-Family Residences West: Vacant Parcel and Single-Family Residences B. Project Description The proposal consists of subdividing the 1.3-acre project site into four individual 10,000 square-foot lots for future development of four single-family residences (currently proposed at 2,500 to 3,000 square-feet). (Exhibit B -Site Plan). C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The proposed project site is within the R-I-10 (Single-Family Residential/Minimum Lot Size 10,000) Zone and RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density/3-63 dwelling units per gross acre) General Plan land use designation. The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations, Genera] Plau and the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. D. Public Comments On February 20, 2004, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended March I, 2004. The issue of concern related to biological resource impacts. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Enviroiunental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project could have a stgnificant environmental effect; however, mitigation measures described in Section F below have been added to the project to reduce impacts to a level below significance. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be reyuired. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Air Quality Short-Term The proposed project will result in a marginal increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during grading and construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting Irom construction-related operations are considered short-term in duration since constnuction-related activities are a relatively short- term activity. Dust control measures reyuired during grading operations would be implemented in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term construction-related atr quality impacts to below a level of significance. Long-Term The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed residential infill project is consistent with the residential designation of the project site under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and Zoning regulations and would not generate any substantial additional traffic or associated air quality impacts. 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 yuality impacts. Biological Resources A biological resource survey report was prepared by Filar Associates, dated May 1 S, 2004 and a Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey was conducted by Eisenhart Biological Consulting for the proposed project. Al] habitats and plant communities were examined with attention to the potential use of the project site by the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and the 2 Orangethroat Whiptail Lizard. The biological resource study is available for review at the City Planning and Building Department and is summarized below. Surve>> Results The project site is overwhelmingly dominated by Chrysanthemum plant species. Native plant species biological resources identified on the site include very small remnant patches of California encelia, scattered areas of lemonadeberry and approximately 200 square-feet of disturbed, low quality coastal sage. ]n total, these native species found onsite du not total more than Q1 acre of native vegetation and are largely isolated and not contiguous with adjacent natural vegetation. (Figure 3, Biological Resources Map). No mammals were discovered on the project site other than evidence of a wood rat nest. Bird species noted on the project site included Bushtit (six common bushtits distinctive from California gnatcatcher), White crowned Sparrow and a House Finch. No amphibians or reptiles were identified on the project site during the survey. No rare or endangered species are expected to inhabit the site. During June and July 2004, Eisenbart Biological Consulting conducted focused protocol surveys for the coastal California Gnatcatcher on the protect site. These surveys were conducted in compliance with the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. The results of the focused protocol gnatcatcher surveys indicated that no gnatcatchers were detected onsite. No direot or indirect impacts to gnatcatchers are anticipated. impacts to coastal sage are addressed through the attached de minimus exemption, (refer to Attachment A). This exemption has been prepared in accordance with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of California Department of Fish ~ Game (CDFG) guidelines. Based on the assumption that the agencies will concur with the de mmimus findings, the biological resource impacts arc considered to be less than significant. As condition of the project, all new cut and fill slopes will be required to be revegetated with native plant seedlings or native plant container material. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the landscape plant palette shall be subject to the coordinated review and approval by the Envirorunental Review Coordinator and City Landscape Architect. See Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Water Quality Implementation of the project could result in potential silt discharge into the storm drain system. 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 pursuant to the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01. In accordance with the Municipal code, the SWPPP and NPDES permit requirements, the project will be also be required to implement water yuahty Best Management Practices (BMPs). Such measures shall be designed to minimize discharge of pollutants into the stone 3 drainage system. Preliminary proposed BMPs include stone drain inlet protection system, source control, protection of stockpiles, protection of slopes, protection of all disturbed areas, protection of access, and perimeter containment measures including landscaped treatments throughout the project site. Construction and post-construction water quality BMPs will also be required as a part of the project grading plans. Final required post-construction BMPs will be subject to the approval of aproject-specific water quality study by the City Engineer. The City Engineer will ensure that the approved BMPs will be implemented and will be sufficient to treat site runoff prior to exiting the site and entering the public storm drainage system in accordance with the applicable established water quality standards. No impacts to water quality are anticipated. Implementation of a stormwater plan and BMPs will reduce water quality impacts below a level of significance No significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. HydroloKy Based upon the review of the project, the Engineering Deparhncnt has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the drainage of the project site. As part of the project design, an existing on-site storm drain system will need to be relocated. This minor relocation will have no overall impact to the existing drainage system. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of the project grading plans. In accordance with City standards, post-developed flows 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 significant hydrology impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality 1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator: • During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material. Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily ofconstruction-related dirt and debris. • In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area, and the load shall not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. This measure shall also apply to the transport of any materials associated with grading, or building activities that can potentially become airborne. a • Construction equipment shall be shall be maintained in proper working order and shall be periodically tuned in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pollutant-emitting construction equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, shall be used as practical. • Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. • All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-generating activities as necessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible. Biological Resources 2. All new cut and fill slopes will be required to be revegetated with native plant seedlings or native plant container material. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the landscape plant palette shall be subject to the coordinated review and approval by the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Landscape Architect. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department Marisa Lundstedt, Planning and Building Department Steve Power, Planning and Building Department John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Department Sohaib Al-Agha, Engineering Department Frank Rivera, Engineering Department Alex Al-Agha, Engineering Department Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Department Beth Chopp, Engineering Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department Ben Herrera, Engineering Department Michael Maston, Engineering Department Tonya Talavera, Fire Department Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District Otay Water District 5 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 88-2, May 1989. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003. Biological Resource Survey Report, Eilar & Associates, May 18, 2004. Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey, Eisenhart Biological Consulting, dated July ]0, 2004. 3. Initial Studv 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 H. Attachments Attachment A - De Minimus Findings Attachment B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program J ~Plannfng\MARIAVInitial titudyVIS-04-0OIBMND.duc Date: (7 PROJECT LOCATION t 7elegraUh Cpnyon Ra a ~? r Inargo Cony~n Rd 5 CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Exhibit A NORTH No Scale IS-04-001 Rebated cases: LOCATOR PROJECT Serrano Family PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 669 East Naples Street Request: Proposal to subdivide a parcel into 4 SFD lots. ADDRESS. SCALE. FILE NUMBER: J:\planning\carlos\locators\is04001.cdr 12.06.04 -- s 4 y ; 3 i~~~~~f~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~s~~ g g y 1 ~ ~ f :~,. ;n ,~ ~, , 0 4I x ~~i~~~ ~~1~~~~ a ~°~~,~ Etlt~~~~~ ~4~e~{~$ 5 I"~_--~- 9 Y~ A ~ `~ ~ _ V 1 ~i I ti ' ~r ~. N ~"' 6 ~_ a A. . ~1 NC I ., ,.~ :-~~ ~ pi ~~ -9 ~(~ ~:-- ~+ ~ ~ ~`f 4 R 1 ~ ,~ r r UV -={ 1 ni flNJd~ _s .c {1 ~: _ 's ~ ~, ~_- 6 a t' ~,. .,~ Y f 1 ~~ a~~ ~ ta~~ n C w ~~ H~9B4 g a~~} ~Jy~d~d 543~~ A~ t4 ~ ~~ ~ I o~~ ~ daW'~ ~ `;-t Y w>,ycu ^ y- _,`;~, ~ ~. d~ ,~~ ~ +w~ ON yd191 r u n;,; ;, d F fj) C t {~ I i ~' ~ ~ ~ i,; ~~ sb ^ > ~~t 4 P-- f ~'~ '. ~~~,~- ;~ ,. A ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ r 1 4 ;, g ,.. ~ FINDINGS TO SUPPORT ISSUANCE OF EXEMPTION FROM A COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) LOSS PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPF.CIF,S ACT FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 1.3 ACRE INTO FOUR INDIVIDUAL LOTS (10,000 SQUARE FEET) - 669 East Naples Tentative Map CSS- OS-001 Introduction: As a result of the joint letter from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game dated February 2, 1995, certain projects of small scale (less than 1 acre), that have minor impact to coastal sage scrub habitats and are not within "core" habitat areas, are exempt from the 5% limit in the interim habitat loss (Special 4(d) Rule) process. This exemption is based on the findings that are listed in this document and are established in the above noted letter dated February 2, 1995. Proiect Description: The proposed project consists of subdividing the 1.3-acre project site into four individual 10,000 square-foot lots for future development of single-family residences (currently proposed at 2,500 to 3,000 square-feet). The proposed project site is located in the R-1-10 (Single-Family ResidentiaUMinimum Lot Size 10,000) Zone and RLM (Residential Low- Mcdium Density/3-6 dwelling units per gross acre) General Plan land use designation. ect Location: The project site is located at 659 East Naples Street, in the City of Chula Vista (APN 639- 160-4700) (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is currently vacant and non-occupied. The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista. The surrounding land uses include the Elks Club to the north, and single-family dwellings adjacent to the project site along the east and west boundaries, plus single-family dwellings on the south side across the street on Naples Street (Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). F,nvironmental Setting: Introduction Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc conducted a biological survey for the project site in 1992. Based on this survey, it was concluded that Diegan Sage Scrub habitat was located on the northern third portion of the property and within a narrow strip along the western border. The report concluded that sensitive plant or vertebrate species were nol expected with the possible exception of the Orangethroat Whiptai] and Ashy-spike Moss. Attachment A Recent Survey Results Eilar Associates completed a recent biological survey report, dated May 18, 2004, describing the current biological resources located on the project site. All habitats and plant communities were examined with particular attention given to the potential for the use of the site by the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and the Orangethroat Whiptail Lizard. According to the report, the project site slopes downward in a northern direction with a 21% ~adient. The overall differentia] in elevation of this property is approximately 38 feet. To the north is a large, relatively open space lot associated with an existing Elks Lodge. This lot is fringed with dense ornamental trees and large shmbs, along with narrow bands of Coastal Sage Scmb (CSS) habitat. Disturbed areas of the project site are the result of constrnction of an 18-inch reinforced concrete storm water drainpipe in 1987. This buried pipe and head wall serves as a conveyance for storm water from E. Naples Street and was required as an improvement of an adjacent subdivision development. Other disturbances on the site include placement of fill and disposal of landscaping materials. The project site is overwhelmingly dominated by Chrysanthemum plant species. Native plant species biological resources identified on the site include very small remnant patches of Califomia encelia, scattered areas of lemonadeberry and approximately 200 square-feet of disturbed, low quality coastal sage. In total, these native species found onsite do not total more than 0.1 acre of native vegetation and are largely isolated and not contiguous with adjacent natural vegetation. (Figure 3, Biological Resources Map). The survey indicates that the project site is utilized more by mammals than birds. Areas with native vegetation were more extensively used by the wildlife observed or detected on the property; a wood rat nest was observed near the remnant stand of coastal sage scmb. No amphibians or reptiles were identified on the project site during the survey. No rare or endangered species are expected to inhabit the site. Notable insects such as butterflies were not observed on the site. During June and July 2004, Eisenbart Biological Consulting conducted focused protocol surveys for the coastal California Gnatcatcher on the project site. These surveys were conducted in compliance with the Coastal Califomia Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Gmdelines. The survey did not detect any gnatcatchers within the survey area. Impacts to Coastal Safe Scrub (CSS Habitat): The development of the project site as proposed will impact less than 0.1 acre of ]ow quality, disturbed CSS habitat. This disturbed community is isolated and not contiguous with a larger stand of natural plants adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the results of the focused protocol Gnatcatcher surveys indicated that no Gnatcatchers were detected onsite. No direct or indirect impacts to gnatcatchers are anticipated. Interim Coastal Saee Scrub Habitat Loss Permit Findines (City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section ]7.30.054 (d): I'he following findings have been made based on the information, which describe the condition of the site and the proposed mitigation for the impact to CSS habitat. The habitat loss, as proposed for issuance under this exemption is consistent with the "interim loss criteria" in the November, 1993 State Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) Conservation Guidelines (as specified in items a. through d. below) and, if a subregional interim take process is established in a form approved by the City of Chula Vista at the time of the issuance of the Loss Permit, consistent with such approved subregional interim loss process. a. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance, will not, on the date of issuance, when considered cumulatively with all other loss of CSS occumng since March 21, 1993, exceed 5% by acreage of then existing CSS within the region. The NCCP Conservation Guidelines have indicated that a 5% loss of CSS is acceptable within any individual subregion during the preparation of a subregional NCCP or it's equivalent (i.e., MSCP Subarea Plan). The loss of less than 0.1 acre of CSS combined with the current losses of Diegan coastal sage scrub within the San Diego region do not exceed 5% of the existing CSS habitat. b. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance, will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values. The area where the loss is proposed is not a part of any planned preserve as shown on the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The loss of less than 0.1 acre of low quality CSS habitat will not preclude the connectivity of high value habit areas due to the location of the project and its small size. Additionally, the nearest preserve area is located approximately 824 feet or 0.16-mile from the project site. c. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance, will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NCCP. The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan designates the site for development The proposed project is fully consistent with the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. d. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance, has been minimized and mitigated in accordance with Section 4.3 ("Interim Mitigation") of the "Southern Califomia Coastal Sage Scmb Natural Communities Conservation Planning Process Guidelines," dated November 5, 1993, and thereafter, to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed project would result in the disturbance of isolated patches of disturbed CSS habitat for a total impact of less than O.l acre. These isolated patches of CSS are considered low quality habitat and do not contribute to the long-term viability of CSS habitat within the area. Given the small size, disturbed nature of the habitat, as well as the negative Califomia Gnatcatcher survey results, no mitigation is necessary. Additionally, the loss of the small isolated patches of CSS cannot be feasibly further reduced given the already small nature of their existing size. Conditions: The following conditions are proposed for the proposed project 1. All new cut and fill slopes will be required to be revegetated with native plant seedlings or native plant container material. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the landscape plant palette shall be subject to the coordinated review and approval by the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Landscape Architect. The Applicant shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents and elected representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, arising directly or indirectly from the City's approval and issuance of the Exemption from a CSS Loss Permit, including any claims for eminent domain or inverse eminent domain, and any loss that may be suffered as a result of implementing or conditioning of this Exemption from a Take Permit. Ageed to by: Project Applicant/Representative Date: ~ ,~ - ~'- ~ Comments regarding this exemption of a parcel map for the development of a 1.26-acre lot adjacent to E. Naples Street should be directed to Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator at (619) 585-5707, or Marisa Lundstedt, Enviromnenta] Projects Manager at (619) 409-5922, or to the above address. ~a~~~ ~ ~~ James D. Sandoval, Director of PI ~ ng and Building Attachments: Figure I, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Aerial Photograph Figure 3, Biological Resources Map Distribution: Therese O'Rourke, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service David Mayer, California Department of Fish & Game Jose Luis Serrano, Applicant/Representative J ~\Plannmg`.MansaV 50401 0551 uss.doc ATTACHMENT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Serrano Family Parcel Map - IS-04-001 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Serrano Family Parcel Map project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an ]nitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Cdy/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-04- 001). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3]80 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or si~iifcant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Biological Resources 1~10NITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator, and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. Evidence in written fom~ confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-U4-001 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Si~rificant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-OOI, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of vertfication are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. .P\Planning\MARIA'Jnibal Study\IS-04-OOIMMRP[zxt-doe N d E E 0 U O d d c E 0 I U ~i N ~ > D ~~ T U G O N G~q d Na U L I d {~ n~ q W a N R N L ° ~ pU X drt J1 c ~? w v b C Q f (~ r Z a Q ~, N G N N~ y ¢f 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ t O R ~ N O U L C G d 0~ N~ " N - p ~p a y q ~ J C N d C G~ 0 mm E G L N G ~~~ d N T 2 ~> a'y d d ~ O d~~ T C T S ? ~° G G M d~ O X tV 4 C .- t0 10 i0 ~ , ~ ~~ G 4 N N n d 9 d ~ C ~ d JAI m ~Z O dc-~'L~~.~ E~ -N d aom m5 n N G~ L~ d N d jp O C N ro L j d N Gd ~ N= 9 U ~~ -s 3 lp G N y d Np STp~G fi d C, Nry N r N p N C ~~ 3 `° D w Q O °~ ° d ~' O- O~ ~~ °' 1~ Opmp N ~~y 6 9 yo ~ G E V O t0 l6 N N C~ _N ~ d G N" J O ~a~~ m ~ mmscST Um RCN m~E~~IS a,nm"' c mcmE,. G rnm°°'c_ ~~pp N~~yym= dQ~G ~~:~S m.~:cm a~ c~ o~ ~a m~m ~Ld d'O dr>~ NaUU64 ui L9m GidGTY `G~ l6 N~OE dC O~!~E4 NN :~ m~ gi N'2S y, Q m n °~ E ~ c0 G T N L ~ a m. ~ y a1 0 3 y rJ1n 6 U 9~°Y+ C d 7 D N9°~ t6 t6Gm '"9 p y> ~ 74 u~ °G Z'° m~ q.4 ~ O °, t6 (6 tl 9 N~/" Oi ~ d> m O~ y m 6 cp ~ 4 d ~~ N O ,G O G GA O. N'J bN~~Ury9 OG NEd Cda NON 6b.N U4 d'j. CN~G n°.'ymy~~ ~~~N 6~ dSJEn9 Nd Np,O Cy'inNCd QO Ned and Oi dN_NCOG _m ~~ ~~ ~ N U L L 4 L E ~O ~> N C d Gp ~ ~O EO d 6~ .~ ~ O .O ~ d O G E~ 4 N ~E O~ N N 61 E ib N > ° a = ~ ~ N C N O. N d R 3 N U t0 d m° ~' s b° n O O E~ N N N °G O m d ~4 O N 'LOCO u~od mom; vu>d EE o,~~Som ~3o'u° g3N5 °m~4a.mm ~u~°= ° dc> Gc GLEE od'-tO ~ornE Nm ~aY> R ~om° 334 } LT . N 4 j, ° 0 6 E>~ '~ r y3 d V L ..- d O N °~ n ~- G N 0 d ~ D7 N d N N tO ~ t6 ~ C 3° 4 O O G S N j O N E D O N E 7 p C N 9 L O 4 .. U+ 3 -m F N4 3 0 oz ~ ~ _~_ ~" _ d '~~ ~~o. Ec Nd°-° °_° amen ,o~5`S ci dam, ,G-°° ooo ~~n `J~nn ~~ ~~.°W o N cm~ ~ oaf m ~d~~y a`6d Uo-° _ Y d Q a r 0 m v 9 ~j ~ c m y c o~ E ~ ~ ~ - L n m m aao X U C Q~ O U c ~' m a 0.,-~~ d c t ~~'~ro o ._ Q ~ >O~~CN m -- ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ N'j U O Q ID V a_ W ~ N ~- ALL STN ya°1i~dn~o N N_ ~ ~ ~ N pi y _ > J a c ~ a o m8 c°a (j N 6 ~- ~ ~ N~ O n o 9 6 C C o~d amtO N c0 ~p ; O h L ~ UN ~ C O ~ 0 D ` p t0 ~ ~ O 9 ~ E ~ d o i o5°'^_cU 3 m ~ - '~ ~ c d ~ ~ o ~ - m ~ n o ~ 4 N 0 ti a 4 0 T O h c Q K <. z u, C ro U to a ill // :+wr_: an a ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHUTA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: Serrano Family/Jose Luis Serrano 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent 5675 Vista San Juanico San Diego, CA 92154 (619)227-2551 4. Name of Proposal: Serrano Family Tentative Parcel Map 5. Date of Checklist: December 1, 2004 6. Case No. IS-04-001 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSUES' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) I Iave a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ^ ^ ^ ^ but not limited to, trees, 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`? 1 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a-b) The site is currently vacant and surrounded along the west, east and across Naples Street to the south by single-family two-story residences, with the existing F,lks Club to the north. The project site does not contain scenic resources, vistas or views; however, [he proposed project is situated along a small hillside to the north. The project site is not within close proximity of a state scenic highway. c) The proposal is an infill residential development project. The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its residential surroundings. "I`he project site is slated for residential development according to the General Plan Land Use and MSCP Subarea Plan. d) The proposal shall comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no substantial glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farnand, or ^ ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on [he 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, tonon-agricultural use? ISSUCS: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less'fhan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Comments: a-c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agriculturalresources or designated farmland. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of [he ^ ^ ^ 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 ^ O ^ number of people? Comments• a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration Section E. Miti>;ation: Sec Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. ^ 3 Potentially Issues: Significant Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ^ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia 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 Deparment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ^ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ^ C No Impact ^ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ^ ^ ^ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitai ^ ^ ^ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ^ C 4 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than )iSSU¢S: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact conservation plan? Comments: a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitiaa6on: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. 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 resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ^ ^ ~ resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact ^ 5 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSne$: Significant Mitigation Signincant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those ^ ^ ^ ~ inten-ed outside of formal cemeteries? Comments• a) Based on the previous amount of disturbance associated with the installation of the 18-inch reinforced concrete stoma water drain pipe in 1987 and adjacent site improvements, no impacts to historic resources are known or aze expected to be present within the project impact azea. No substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) Based on the minimal cut and fill slope levels needed to construct the project and the previous site disturbance, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. c) The project site is identified as an azea of low to moderate potential for paleontological resources in the City s General Plan EIR. Based on the relatively minor necessary construction activities and previous site disturbance, potential for impacts to paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant. No unique cultural features are known to be present on the site. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact azea of the project. 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 Bound shaking'? ^ ^ ^ ~ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ^ ~ G Less Than Signincant Yo[entially ~yilh Less Than ISSUOS: Significant Mitigation Significant No]mpact Impact Incorporate) Impact iv. Landslides? ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ^ ^ ~ ^ topsoil? c j Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ^ ^ ^ ~ or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial ^ ^ ~ ^ risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ^ ^ ~ ^ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 7 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issnes' Significant Mitigation Signincant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: (a-e) The project site has been previously disturbed over the entire length of the site with the construction of an 18-inch storm water drain pipe. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit as a standard engineering requirement. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Paint Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns. The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts downstream. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The implementation of appropriate water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). All portions of the development area disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with SUSMP requirements would be ensured by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project. Compliance with the City and regional standards would lessen any potential impact to less than significant. Miti>;ation: No mitigation measures aze required. VII. I3AZARDS AND IIAZARDOUS 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? ^ u H ISSll es: less Than Significant Potentially Wilh Significanl Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 si6mificant hazard to the pubic or the environment? c) For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a pubic 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) hnpair implementation of or physically interfere ^ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significanl No Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Comments• a-h) Implementation of the project would not pose a health hazard to humans. The project site is proposed for residential development according to the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan and adopted MSCP Subarea Plan. The project involves the subdivision of ]and and eventual development of four single-family residences. No significant hazards to human health safety would be created as a result of the proposed project. 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 ^ ^ ^ ~ 9 Less Than Significant Potentially Wilh Less Than ISSUCS: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? h) 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 wanted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the ^ ^ ^ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing dminage pattem of the ^ ^ ^ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface mnoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or 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? ~ Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed ^ the capacity of existing or planned stotmwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted mnotl? No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ lU Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Is$nes: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: See Mitigated 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 land use plan, policy, or ^ ^ ^ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ^ ^ ^ or natural community conservation plan? No Impact ^ ^ ^ 1] Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant potentially with Less "Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The proposed residential project would be consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area and, therefore, would not disrupt or divide an established community. b) The project site is within the R-1-10 (Single-Family Residence/10,000 square feet minimum lot area size) Zone and RLM (Low-Medium/8-] 2 dwelling units per acre) General Plan designations. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations, General Plan and the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore, the project would not encroach into or indirectly affect the MSCP Preserve area. The project site is designated as development azea in the MSCP Subazea Plan. Mitiaation: No mitigation measwes are required. X. MINERAL RESOIIRCF,S. 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 ]and use plan? Comments• a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resowce of value to the region or the residents of the State of Califomia. b) The State of Califomia Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resowce protection. No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitiaation: No mitigation measures are required. 12 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than I$sues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact YI. 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 ^ ^ ~ ^ g~roundbome vibration or groundbome noise leve]s? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ~ p 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? 13 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a, c and d) The proposed small residential infill development is not anticipated to result ht 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 will reduce any potential noise impacts. b) It is anticipated that neighboring individuals may be exposed to minor groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels associated with short-term construction activities. Due to the minimal construction activities associated with this project, impacts related to groundbome vibration and groundbome noise levels are not expected to be significant. Additionally, compliance with the noise control ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.24.050(J7, will reduce any potential noise impacts and enstue that residents would not be disturbed by construction noise during the most noise sensitive periods of the day. e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 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 constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ^ ^ ^ ^ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? l4 I$$n CS: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No impact a-c) The project is surrounded by existing residential development and does not involve the removal of any dwelling units or the extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. Future residential deve]opment of the site is consistent with the General Plan and would not exceed the regional or local population projections. The proposed project would not involve displacement of existing housing or individuals. 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 facilities? ^ ^ ^ ~ 15 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially ~Vi[h Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorpora[eJ Impact No Impact a) According to the Chula Vista Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site without an increase of equipment or personnel. The applicant is required to submit plans for a fire sprinkler system prior to building construction and is required to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building construction. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) According to the Chula Vista Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result m a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The Ciry performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would no[ induce substantial population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees for the proposed residential dwellings. d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not induce significant population ~owth and thus, not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities. e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIV. 13ECREATION. 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 orbe 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? 1G Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorpora[eJ Impact No Impact a) Because the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth, it would not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities, nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. b) The project does not include or require the constmction or expansion of recreational facilities, therefore, would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ^ ^ ^ ~ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ^ ^ ^ ~ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ^ ~ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 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? ^ ^ ^ ~ ]7 Less Than Significant Potentially Wi[h Less Than ISSUC$' Significant Mi[igafion Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ^ ^ ^ ^ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: (a-g) The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in local area traffic or result in any significant traffic and circulation impacts. Additionally, according to the Traffic Engineering Section, the current Level of Service for E. Naples Street is LOS "A", and with [he proposed project generated traffic will continue to operate at LOS "C" or better. No significant traffic impacts shall occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation: No rrungation measures are required. XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ^ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ^ ^ ^ ^ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could cause signifcant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ^ ^ ^ ^ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1g Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated 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'? ^ ^ 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient pent>itted capacity ^ ^ ~ ^ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ~ ^ regulations related to solid waste? 19 ISSn CS: Comments• Less l han Significant Potentiall}' with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact IncorporaleJ Impact No Impact a) 1'he project site Is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. The wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be exceeded with the proposed project. b) Existing water mains are located along the frontage of the project site fronting along East Naples Street and Pacific Hill Dnvc. The capacity of these existing facilities is adequate to serve the proposed project site. The proposed project will include the construction of an 8" water main to provide water services along the project site frontage. As part of the development process the applicant shall coordinate with the Otay Water District for proper design guidance as required. The capacity of the existing sewer system within the project area is adequate to accommodate the proposed project The project will include the extension of an existing 8-inch public gravity sewer line to serve [he proposed residential units. As part of final design, the applicant will be required to submit a sewer plan for approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a grading permit, indicating the location of individual private sewer pumps and force main laterals. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Otay Water District. Based on correspondence from the Otay Water District dated February 25, 2004, the project may be serviced from existing potable water mains. No new or expanded facilities are needed for the proposed project. e) See XVI.a. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs 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. Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required. YVII. THRESHOLDS 1Vill the proposal arh>ersely impnct the Citv's Threshold Stmidards? A. Library ^ ^ ^ ~ The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 3Q 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 tall below the citywide ratio of 500 _'U Less Than Significant Po[en[ialh~ With Less Than ISSUCS: Significant Mitigation Signifcan[ Impact Incorporated Impact 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 wit}rrn seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. h) 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 ^ ^ ^ 'T'he 'T'hreshold 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)Ihamaee ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and No Impact ^ ?1 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than ISSUOS: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact )ncorporated Impact volumes not exceed City F,ng~ineering 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 Standazds. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. ff) Water ^ ^ ~ The Thueshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are notjeopardi~xd during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee otT--set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. No Impact ?2 Issues: Comments: Less "than Significant Potentially With Less Than Signincan[ Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The project would not mduce 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 four 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 flm fire service demand throughout the City. This increased demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) The 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 [he proposed project. c) Park pad obligation will be required per City Ordinance (refer to Municipal Code Chapter 17.10) f) Based upon the review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the drainage of the project site. As part of the project design, an existing on- site storm drain system will need to be relocated. This minor relocation will have no overall impact to the existing drainage system. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans. hr 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 significant hydrology impacts are anticipated to result from 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 extension of an existing 8-inch public gravity sewer line to serve the proposed residential units. As part of final design, the applicant will be required to submit a sewer plan for approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a grading permit, indicating the location of individual private sewer pumps and force main laterals. h) Existing water mains are located along the frontage of the project site fronting along East Naples Street and Pacific hill Drive. The capacity of these existing facilities is adequate to serve the proposed project site. The proposed project will include the construction of an 8" water main to provide water services along the project site frontage. As part of the development process the applicant shall coordinate with the Otay Water District for proper design guidance as required. ~~ Less Than Significant PoteNially with Less Than 11SIles: Significant Dlitigalion Significant Yn Impact Impact Incorporate) Impact SVIII. MANDATORY FINDfNCS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ^ ^ ^ ^ yualiry of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining ]evels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a mre 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 considemble" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which ^ ^ ^ ^ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. b) No cumu]atively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects, including the residential projects located further west of the project site, 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. Mitigation Measures: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F ~q XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation necessary to avoid Significant Impacts and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigation Negative Declaration IS 04-001. 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 County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. fi~SE lw S~ ~,~r1~~~ LJ Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) ~gnature of Applicant Date (or authorized representative) Priuted Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator Date (if different from Applicant) ZS XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFF,CTED: '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 ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Air Quality ^ Paleontological Resources ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Cultural Resources ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2G XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the ^ environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negafive Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a signitcant 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. [ 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 F,IR 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 Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P~PlanningAMARIAVnitial SNdyVIS-04-OOIChecklfsLdoc Date 7"J ~.. ~ ~i ,- ~~~o~ ~~d ~~ , ~~ y ~___ ~-9.~_ N, q~ \`~ ~~ o z ~ ~ ~ r m tty cv Y a DR Z a~n6i~ I~db2iJOlOHd ldI2~3~ F~ F L Ni<C s, ~ ~' ~>1_ Fx - ~~£~~o ~~a~ e3 P ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ *,~ y aC@@ un8 .~~ ~4 ~ N ~ r ~ ~~~ m •~ ~g ~~ L o L ~ ~ ~~ 2 PF qF qF p$ e f1 M1M1TI Y S .vi ~ y & ~~~& £~ F£ ~' ~ i ~ R ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ € s i ~~~01~ ~ I~II~ .~.._ S a Y c ~ ~&~.~gq~~A ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i5~6~„'~~ u< L 5 q?%%y¢¢ygqgg~pF9~m y~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~^9F~e4~i ~+pnn y$ q¢ g 7g{ ~~P° a i v ~ ~ e~@gg~R~,QL9 o $ u 9 ~g1f4~q' ~ ~~&6 e g ~ k F3q wgm P g ~R~~~~~a~ ~, q~q n~b s~. R i I ~m BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAP FII^k~.~<~<,,,,,~, I,as.Map(~~.hs", J31 N. Willow:rrinK Drirc m Grin it •i,f9')29302J QK~ 9ypp y,pp~ "i 900 BLOCK E. NAPLES ST RAMM CONSTRUCTION APN 639-160-47 puo7w Iws I~`""`"' ~"""` ~ -14~Qf i i