Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2004/04/19Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: Pharos Plaza 1030-1034 Broadway 618-110-11 and 618-110-12 Yharus Development Group, LLC TS-03-034 March 29, 2004 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: April 19, 2004 DATE OF FTNAL DOCUMENT: A. Project Settin¢ The project site is a partially vacant 1.23-acre site consisting of two parcels, located at 1030-1034 Broadway. The site is located in an urbanized area in the central western portion of the city of Chula Vista within the Southwest Redevelopment Area (see Exhibit A -Location Map). The project site was previously developed with a mobile home park including aone-story residential triplex building contsimng three rental units and accessory structure. Currently, the project site contains the one-story triplex building, broken asphalt foundations, disrepaired paving and fencing- Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following: North: Commercial Shopping Center, Self-Storage and Apartments South: Professional Office and vacant lot East: Broadway/Commercial retail uses West: Single-Family Residences B. Project Description 1'he proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing one-story triplex building and the construction of 30 residential condominium units within three separate three-story buildings and a detached two-story 5,000 square-foot professional office building fronting Broadway (see Exhibit B- Site Plan). The total proposed parking is 77 spaces (74 spaces on-site and 3 spaces on-street); 60 residential spaces and 17 office spaces. The redevelopment of the project site would include landscape treatments, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking lot, nght of way improvements, retaining walls and fencing along the perimeter of the property. The proposed grading quantities are estimated ut 1,020 cubic yards cut and 1,520 cubic yards fill. The project includes retaining walls with decorative five-foot high-capped wooden fencing on top in accordance with the City's Design Manual guidelines, along the western and northern perimeters, and separates fencing continuing around the southern and northern perimelers. The proposal requtres approval of Design Review, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map and Rezone from CTP to CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and al] necessary redevelopment actions by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial/Precise Plan) Zone and is designated MCO (Mercantile and Office Commercial) under the Montgomery Specific Plan and CR (Retail Commercial) under the Chula Vista General Plan. The proposal includes the rezoning of the site from CTP to CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan), allowing for the proposed mixed-use development subject to the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.36 with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project would be consistent with the proposed zoning and existing General Plan designation of the property. D. Public Comments On March 9, 2004, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on March 18, 2004. No written comments were received; however, oral comments were received from two persons regarding aesthetics/privacy to adjacent single-family residential properties, building bulk, and parking on side streets, traffic and density issues. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Aesthetics There are four parcels which abut the project site to the west; two are vacant and two contain single- family residences. The closest single-family residence to the project site is situated approximately 54 feet from the northwest corner of the project site. Within the CC (Central Commercial) Zone, no building shall exceed three and one-half stories or 45 feet in height when located adjacent to any C-O or residential zone. The western fapade of the proposed three-story 35-foot high residential building nearest to the western property line would be set back 15 feet from the property line. The project site is separated from the single-family residential properties to the west by an existing five-foot high chain link fence and portions of disrepaired wooden fence. A five-foot high decorative capped wooden fence (above retaining walls in certain locations) is proposed along the project's perimeter. Therefore, a portion of the proposed residential building would be visible from the rear portion of single-family residential properties to the west. To achieve a greater degree of vegetative screening of the proposed residential buildings from the west, new 24-gallon Carrotwood, 36-mch box Southern Magnolia, 24-inch box Evergreen Pear, and 24- inch box Chinese Flame trees would be planted in between intermittent moderate sized shrubs along the western property line. The proposed mixed-use professional office/residential project as proposed would be an allowable land use within the proposed CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) zone. The proposed five-foot high decorative wooden fence, retaining walls, new trees along the western property line, and 15-foot rear yard setback would screen and minimize the intrusiveness of the proposed three-story residential buildings relative to the single-family residences to the west. Given the location of the site on an established, intensively developed commercial comdor, and the relatively moderate hetght and bulk 2 of the proposed structures, the impact of this change would not rise to a level of significance under the California Environmental Quality Act as implemented by the City of Chula Vista. The proposal includes downward-facing, non-spill exterior lighting within parking areas, and along portions of the site perimeter. The proposed lighting would comply with the lighting regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and, therefore, would not result in a significant lighting impact. Air Ouality Based upon the relatively minor amount of site grading that would be necessary to accommodate the proposed development, the amount of project-generated traffic that is anticipated and the consistency of the project with the City's General Plan, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would potentially generate sufficient construction vehicle emissions and dust during construction- related operations to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. Fugitive dust would be created during construction operations as a result of clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. Geology and Soils The project site has been previously graded and developed with a mobile home park and multifamily residential units. The preliminary grading plans specify 1,020 cubic yards of cut and 1,520 cubic yards of fill, which would require a grading permit. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will he 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 Fault 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 water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-O1. 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 BMPs and NPDES Order No. 2001-O1 would he required and would be monitored by the City. 'T'herefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage system would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead mid Asbestos Rerr:oval The existing triplex building, accessory structures and broken foundations on-site (1030 Broadway) that are proposed to be demolished potentially contain asbestos and lead-based paint, which could be released if not properly abated. To mitigate this potentially significant impact, prior to any demolition activities the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint will be determined and if present, abatement 3 shall be performed by a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 -Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The mitigation measure contained in Section F below would mitigate potential impacts associated with the release of asbestos and lead to below a level of significance. Hydroloeyand Water uali The proposed project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. Public drainage system facilities consist of a 60-inch con-egated metal pipe (CMP) and a 66-inch reinforced corregated pipe (RCP) along Broadway. The conceptual grading plan indicates the installation of storm drain facilities necessary to collect and carry site drainage to the existing storm drain along Broadway. No sheet flow is proposed to Broadway or adjacent properties. A final drainage study, that includes existing plus developed drainage conditions, will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans. Properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. Due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a "Construction Stonn Water Management Plan" (CSWMP) prior to the issuance of any permit such as a Construction/Improvement Permit is required. Compliance with provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality BMPs would be required. Water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall be designed to minimize discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage system. Preliminary proposed BMPs include storm 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 best management practices (BMPs) will be required to be incorporated into the final grading plans. Based upon the project design with proposed conceptual BMPs, conditions of the Precise Plan that include compliance with the NPDES Permit requirements, and standard engineering requirements, storm drainage and water quality impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Noise Eilar Associates prepared [he "Pharos Plaza Acoustical Analysis Report" for the proposed project, dated March 19, 2004. This report is available for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department counter and is summarized below: Existing Conditions The partially vacant project site fronts Broadway with parking allowed along both sides of the street. According to the City of Chula Vista Engineering Drvision/Transportation Section, this section of Broadway carries a traffic volume of approximately 20,450 average daily trips (ADT). The primary noise source affecting the proposed development consists of vehicle traffic traveling along Broadway. The existing noise level at the eastern property line adjacent to Broadway is 69.2 decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level ((dB CNEL), which is attributable primarily to traffic noise. The City of Chula Vista has not adopted any specific numerical noise/land use compatibility levels to establish significance criteria. However, as a matter of policy, the City employs the noise standards 4 set forth in the Noise Element of the City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan as guidelines for the purpose of CEQA analysis. The City's exterior noise level standard for noise- sensitive areas, which include residences and outdoor recreational areas, is 65 dB CNEL. The City's exterior noise standard for office development is 70 dB CNEL. E,rterior Conditions Plus Proposed Project Future traffic volumes were based upon a buildout traffic model run in March 2002. The future projected buildout traffic volume along Broadway, south of "L" Street, is 25,300 ADT. The project site will be subjected to future traffic noise generated from automobile and truck traffic along Broadway. Based upon this projected traffic volume, the overall future traffic noise level at the eastern property line, adjacent to Broadway, is estimated at 70.2 dB CNEL. According to the City's CEQA thresholds, residential outdoor use areas shall not exceed 65 dB CNEL. The future traffic noise calculations show that with the development of the proposed office and residential structures, all of the proposed outdoor use areas (courtyards, barbeque areas, patios, and balconies) will be exposed to noise levels ranging from 39.8 to 60.7 dB CNEL. Therefore, based upon the results of the acoustical analysis, no significant exterior noise impacts are identiSed. Future Interior Conditions With Proposed Project State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24) requires that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dB CNEL or less for multi-family units. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the residential structures, building construction plans will be required to reflect any special design consideration (i.e., mechanical ventilation, enhanced glazing with the wall and window assemblies) as deemed necessary to attenuate interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL. Tra n snort a ti on/Tra f fi c The proposal is projected to generate 340 average daily vehicle trips (ADTs). Based upon the projected level of project traffic generation and the level of service of the surrounding street network, 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. The primary access street in the vicinity of the project site, Broadway, currently operates at acceptable level of service (LOS) A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. Access to the project site is proposed from the existing driveway on the northern parcel. Parking Based upon the Chula Vista Municipal Code parking ratio requirement for professional office of 1 parking space per Z00 square feet of gross floor area, and the parking ratio requirement for multi- family dwelling units of 2 parking spaces per each residential unit, the required parking for the proposal is 77 spaces. Proposed on-site parking is 74 parking spaces; the applicant requests that the additional 3 required parking spaces be allowed to be provided on-street (Broadway), which requires approval of a Precise Plan. Staff concurs that the reyuired findings can be made to support the proposed minor parking deviation, establishing that no significant impacts would result. Therefore, no significant parking impacts are anticipated to result from the proposal. 5 F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Sienificant Impacts Air Quality The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable demolition, 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 of construction-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 [he 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 demolition, grading, or building activities that can potentially become airborne. Construction equipment 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The following hazards mitigation requirement shall be shown on all demolition plans as a note. 6. Asbestos and lead-based paint abatement shall be performed by a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 -Standards for Demolition and Renovation. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning and Building Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Jeff Steichen, Planning and Building Brad Remp, Planning and Building Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Garry Williams, Planning and Building Miguel Tapia, Community Development Frank Rivera, Engineering Beth Chopp, Engineering Sandra Hernandez, Engineering Anthony Chukwudolue, Engineering Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Ben Herrera, Engineering Dave Kaplan, Engineering Joe Gamble, Building & Park Construction G. Edmonds, Fire Department Richard Preuss, Police Department -Crime Prevention Applicant: Pharus Development Group/Carlos Madrazo Others: Sweetwater Authority Chula Vista Elementary School District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Acoustical Analysis Report/1030-1034 Broadway-Chula Vista, Eilar Associates, March 19, 2004. 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Marilyn R. F. PonseggJ Environmental Review Coordinator Datc: P\Nlanning\MARIA\Initial Study\IS-03-033DraRMND.doc -\ `_ ~~ _ ~' ~ i~ S -- ~` ~- -~ ` = ~ / _ i ~-,~-- v ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~` i i / ~~ ~ - i VILLA MARINA Y' APARTMENTS _ _- USS 5~ _. 1 ~\ O ~°~ ~ ~'~~~, ~n _ - , ` .-` 1 1_._ ~ ~ ~ ,~ _- r ,-- ~-~-, ,~ ~- ,y PROIECT ~ ~~~ ~~ ~, =LOCATION ~, ~, i L 3 \ ~- ~ -~. ~v_ ~~EO e{~R J ~ ` y~ i ~ ~i a~ ~ ~I° ~ -_~- ~_.~ It \~ ~ ~-- ~ ~, o~. ~, ~ ,k,~o~, ~` `,o _ t -L \ ~' ,~ \,~R \--\~ ~~\ $ '', ~ Sj ~ ~ , ~ \ _ a ~~ ~~ T`v- N l PRICE BAZAAR/ HOME CLUB CENTER ~ ~ WESTERN APARTMENTS - DENTAL \ OFFICE \ \ -; , ~ ,\ ~\ \ ~~ > ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: PHARUS PLAZA INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ADDRESS: tp3p~t034 BROADWAY Request: Precise Plan for 30 condominiums, of retail, NORTH SCALE. No Scale FILE NUMBER: IS-03-034 and 5,500sq ft of professional offices. Related Case(s): PCM-04-01, PCZ-04-01 jlcherylc\locators\Iocators04\is0334.cdr 03 09 04 ->r~ , 1-' i; i - / 1 1 ~ A -. GREENBRIER APARTMENTS ~ ~, ,r~ ~~ ~ y .v ~ ' y, ~ v ~ = , ~ v _ _ r~ SUUTHBAY ' - BAPTIST CHURCH , i ~ _% ~ CAMELOT \ APARTMENTS _~C \ ~~ --~ 4 ~' ~ ~ 1 ~~~ `~ ~ , V ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ' , ~ t PEAR ~~ TREE y-t ,,, ~~ ~ ~ ~` ~k ~ ~ -~ I'1 `. ~ ~ . ~ APARTMENT _ S \ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ,,, - ' ` ~ ~, - ,_- ~.r ~ ~ ` -" ' \ m ~` ;c VIVA ~ ` \ Z NAPOLI v~ '.~ ~t ~~'~ ~ APARTMENTS \~~ _ ~° ~~ i// v ° _~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N\ /~ \ ~ - ~ ' \ ~O C 11 ii'~ ~1 ~ ~ } ~ ~-l _- i \ i ,\'iA ~.~~~..~ ,~ L` ii ~ - .1 C , ~i~1 ~ _ /' /~ VILLA \ ~ ' S-' / SEVILLE 1 ~ ~ i , L NPP~E'S~ ~ f 1~ /)._, - ~-- Exhibit A w .~ k w ~' ~. ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Pharzts Plaza - IS-03-034 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Pharus Plaza project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-034). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Air Quality 2. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator, and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-034 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 Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration [S-03-034, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. J:V'Iarming~N(ARIAUnitial StudyVIS-03-034MMRPtext.doc d E E 0 u 0 d m a E p U d a I O N 4 `~ ~ Na K Q a -- ~ o 2 a a c O 0 .°_ ~`a 4l cu C ~ E a ~~ z a z a 0 r' ~ Z o 0 Q O U ~i r m z ~ 7 Q Q ~C~ G d R d N ~. C O I ~ t p O Z u m R "j W N N N m C ~ a. ~ `m d ~~ m ~ ~ ~ N G C O~ ~ v W - ~ C p U W ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ LLy 'r -n o-TS qU 7'~ 6UO C V 0 x x p» ~ p ~ 9 N U 0 V c ro ~ ~-~ y ro c m vin mo9 v ~~'Q tb O° ~ ~ m o ~ U < Sao 3 i ~ ~ ~ o m b m m m ~ ~ ~ Qa m N C C m N p O +n' ~ m N O ° c o'E ~ 3 0 E9oo', TN ..C - n ry " W ? U O ~ N p ~ C N v ~_nnN~U NN_roOd ~'- of d « ~ ~ ~vn >, o p ~ o ~ O ~ N _ C ~ m°°s= n 9 a N 3 A }- N _ m N U ~ m ~ 6 ia~ --- - 0 .~ 4 G _-~ c c o o ~ N y ~ T~ O rn U m ° c y 3°' ~~ m c y.~ a~ iw aw o vo p N N ~ d --- a N m d c ip N C C U 0. N ~- - U L O? O QI ^ E O m n Y c~ (d T N _C 9 m m e m m o o p c ro ro.9 E c~ J. N T?O N~N•`~'G I'~'mNO'J N~NCJ QUf p o and a>Nm ° pm n nocm ~ ~3 N C O O COI O'~ ~ p tO ro 6 O m ro 6 N ~y~ lJ 5. U ro c - ~ » m' 'a .c n o d 0'9 m o o-x 5~ ~'m ~~ o m 9~ m N n m~ 4~ N N C o m N O L ro~ ~ L C O C g9« c 70 0~°9~~ o.. ~ m ~~- m O.UrO~ LO)N ~OYib iP ',OO CO ~'~ c w a; m ro amio~ ~ omaro+mm~m°'on Edaum 'O (d U L (O N U N N O C VC N ~-°il 9- n° N~ CONjNN ~~L ~~A ro"pO~~b ytP'E '% O N n u~ N'O ~~ d 0.9 cO c c tmn N 3 Y O Y~ d j N°~ fO C U U~ J m O L m L(f 9 6 (1 0 E .% N C O C [0 C L N d 3 O C N 6~ .r p t ro m y E v N 9 4~ N A ~~` "d . c J~ m ~a py-~i°oa o~m°- c°pa- 8 6 6 E i 9 a .. m m U) - N N O ~. r 0 oo~Es= cNEEm~----- N O L m U N ~ E N ~ N d° a C N N D d N y ~ N ~a c 9 ~ 9 tO c ~' m m m u L ° p 9 i m N 9 ` N n d 'o ~ n N N 0 a N ~O . p ~ ~ O m.. 0 9 y N 9 a ~»4pm C N N N O.O c ~ 9 6'N nm._g~oN ~ m ~ ~ a E n E ~^_m O ~ m c ° ~ 7 N pU N N N ~ N.J N %H~ N ~ U m ~ ~ ro m C ? ~ r p~ N E p p ~ q.X ~ u "~o;EB°c ~ m -- 3 O N USa ~? G U d A p O On. U, y O O d O N y~ L N - (0 N E N m N e 3 rn m 3 3'S "~ o~. m C O (21 C N i~ A ry6ry ~ O C~ Y N 4 d Q LE r 0 J d 6 N C d v ~ ~ m m m a ~ ~ ~ a~~ n o~ L U Q ~ ' N b CDs=~~ °~a ` ° 9 ~ O i~ ¢`) y ~ O p.~pp v= ~0 ~ U a O a a G s m mad V+~a N ~ N j, T a f p0 O a `b a N N N [3 „ C y1 a 9~ P d c N C r p O U r C ~O A~ ] mE 66-'~~~c ~% q so a r°~ mUN ,n O~ ~ N 9 N ro ~ ~ ~.y t Nn 0 0 O~ fl h Q d i p C d O q~ G~ o N N d O N~ Q ~ m L~ 6a- Q r '^ e w A ~ \{ // ?i~ir CnY (% ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHUtA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: Carlos A. Madraza Pharus Development Group, LLC 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 629 Third Avenue, Suite F Chula Vista, CA 91910 (6l9) 407-4014, ext. 12 4. Name of Proposal: Pharus Plaza 5. Date of Checklist: March 29, 2004 6. Case No.: IS-03-034 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) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ^ ^ ^ ^ but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ^ ^ ^ ^ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ^ ^ ^ ^ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views 1 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than I$$ne$: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact in the area? Comments• a-b) Landscape treatments along Broadway are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Montgomery Specific Plan landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to Broadway create a positive image. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public, and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway. c-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitii?ation: No mitigation measures are required. li. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant [o the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultuml 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-agricultuml use? Comments: a-e) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources or designated farmland. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: ^ ^ ^ ISSUeS: 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 precursurs)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Comments: a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. 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 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3 Issues: and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporate) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ^ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ^ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ^ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? D Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ^ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ 4 Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The project site was previously developed with a mobile home park and currently one small building occupies the south comer of the property. Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, the project site is designated as a development area; based upon a field inspection by City staff, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. Non-native weeds exist on the unpaved portions of the project site. b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no sensitive natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. c) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no wetlands are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. e) No biological resources would be affected by the proposal and no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would result. f) The proposal is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan since the project site is within the designated development area pursuant to the Plan. Miti¢atlon: No mitigation measures are required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ^ significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ^ sigmificance 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? 5 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSUOS: Signitcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ^ ^ ^ ^ outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) No historic resources are known or are expected to be present within the project impact azea. Therefore, 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 a mobile home park and residences, and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be 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 low potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan EIR. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading for the proposed project, the potential for impacts to paleontological resource or is considered to be less than significant. No unique geologic features are present on the site. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area 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: ii. iii. 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? Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ^ Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ ^ liquefaction'? 6 Potentially ISSneS: Significant Impact iv. Landslides? ^ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ^ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial ^ risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ^ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Comments• a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. bc) Due to the previous development of the site and minimal grading required for the proposed project, no significant geological impacts are anticipated. The earthwork quantities proposed include 1,020 cubic yards of cut and 1,520 cubic yards of fill. The submittal of a soils report will be required prior to the issuance of wading and construction permits to determine existing soil conditions and to provide foundation and pavement recommendations. Mitigation: No mitigation measwes are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: al Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal ofhazardous materials`? ^ ^ ^ ^ 7 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ^ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ^ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use ^ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ^ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan`? h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of ^ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ^ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H Issues: Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Miti>ration: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Wuuld 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 goundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? PotenBally Significant Impact 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 ofthe ^ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface mnotf in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place stmctures within a 100-year flood hazard area which Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ^ ^ ^ No Impact 9 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSn CS: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would ^ ^ ^ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted mnoff? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Dec]aration, 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 envirorunental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ^ ^ ^ plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ 10 Issues: Comments: Less Than Significant Potentially Wkh Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The proposed commercial project would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and, therefore, would not disrupt or divide an established community. b) The project site is within the CT (Thoroughfare Commercial/Precise Plan) Zone and MCO (Mercantile and Office Commercial) azea within the Montgomery Specific Plan and designated CR (Retail Commercial) under the General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable caning regulations under the proposed CCP (Central Commercia]/Precise Plan) zone. 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 Habitat Preserve azea of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Miti¢ation: No mitigation measures are required. ~. 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? O ^ C Comments: a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the re~non or the residents of the State oY California. 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. Mitisation: No mitigation measures are required. 71 Less Than Signifcant Potentially With Less Than I$$UP,$: Significant Mitigafion Significant 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 ^ ^ ^ groundborne 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? 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? No Impact ^ n ^ ]2 Issues: Comments• a, c and d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels. f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the proposed development would not expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels. Mitisation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F YII. 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, ^ ^ ^ ^ necessit<ting the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ ^ necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a-c) Based upon the size and nature of the proposal, no significant population displacement or population growth inducement is anticipated. Although existing housing would be displaced, the proposal would result in a net increase in housing. Miti¢ation: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: 13 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than tSSneS: Significant M1ti[iga[ion Significant Nolmpac[ Impact Incorporated Impact 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 ofwhich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: a. Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ b. Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ c. Schools? ^ ^ ^ ^ d. Parks? ^ ^ ^ ^ e. Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ ^ Comments: a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fue protection services can continue to be provided to the site without an increase of personnel; however, the installation of a fire hydrant on-site is required. The Fire Department's estimated time of arrival is within 5 minutes. The applicant is required to submit plans for a fire sprinkler system prior to building cons[mction, to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building construction. 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 Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no si}plificant adverse impacts to public schools would result. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees for the proposed commercial office space and residential development. d) The proposal would not induce population growth and thus would not create a significant demand for neighborhood or regional parks or 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. 14 Issues: XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Impact ^ ^ a) Because the proposal is small, it would not induce significant population growth and thus not create a significant demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities, or alter or deteriorate existing recreational facilities in the area. b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Miti¢ation: 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 15 ISSUOS: 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 pazking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mifi¢adon: No mitigation measures 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 constmction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigafion Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated impact ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ 16 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ^ ^ ^ ^ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ^ ^ ^ ^ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ^ ^ ^ ^ provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ^ ^ ^ ^ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ^ ^ regulations related to solid waste? 17 Issues: Comments• Less Than Signitcant Potentially Wkh Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project. b) See XVLa. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would be necessary. c) No construction of new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary. d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweerivater Authority, the project may be serviced From existing potable water mains. No new or expanded entitlements would be necessary to serve the proposed project. e) See XVLa. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law. g) The proposal would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A) I,ibrarv ^ ^ ^ ^ The City shall construct 60,000 Boss 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. 78 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issnes: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact B)Police ^ ^ ^ a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and 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 (measwed annually). D) Traffic ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that all interseotions must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occw during the peak two hows 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 Recreatton is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facihhes/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. No Impact 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSUOS: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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 offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. No Impact 20 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) 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 mixed use project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Thueshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can be provided to the site. The Fire Stations that will provide services to the proposed project are Stations 1 and 5 with estimated time of amvals from 3-5 minutes. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medical T}u-eshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, with the addition of projected generated traffic, all roadway se~rlents and intersections within the study area are estimated to continue to operate at level of service "C" or better in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standards. e) Because the project site is located west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable. f) A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the final grading and improvement plans and drainage facilities designed in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering standards will be installed at the time of site development The applicant proposes new and improved drainage Facilities incorporated within the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project. g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of two 8-inch sewer mains running southerly along Broadway. The Engineering Division has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project. h) Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority, dated August 6, 2003 and March 19, 2004, there is an 8-inch water main located on east side of Broadway and there are currently two domestic water services currently serving the project site. As noted in the March 19, 2004 letter project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. 21 Less Than Signincant Potentially With Less Than I$$ue$: Signincant Mitigation Signincant No Impact Impact Incorporated ]mpaet XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ^ ^ ^ ^ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ^ ^ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental ef2ects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects ofprobable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which ^ ^ ^ ^ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) 'fhe project site is 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 anima] species or cultural resources on the site. b) As described m the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. No cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable futwe projects have been identified and none are contemplated. c) Sec the "flazards and Hazardous Materials" and "Air Quality" discussions in Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; all identified potential impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. 22 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table t, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-034. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. ~+iAfltJ~ ~dewP~nT bncx,p Lt,C C,4t24FJ~ itAA~zf}zU Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) a 29 Sig atuv of phcant Date iorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator Date (if different from Applicant) 23 XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. ^ Land Use and Planning ^Transportation/Traffic ^ Population and Housing ^ Biological Resources ^ Geophysical ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Hydrology/Water ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Cultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Paleontological Resources ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance ~4 XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the ^ environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ^ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, ^ and an Environmental Impact Report is required. 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 ]egal 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 J'\PlanningVvIARIAVmnal Study\IS 07-034Checklislduc ~5