HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2004/02/02Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Oxford Street Neighborhood Park
PROJECT LOCATION: 690 Oxford Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-200-5900
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista General Services Department
CASE NO.: IS-04-011
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: January 27, 2004
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
A. Project Setting
The 5.21-acre project site is located in an urbanized area of the central western portion of the
City of Chula Vista. The site consists of a single parcel within the Southwest Redevelopment
Area, along the north side of Oxford Street, east of Industrial Boulevard, and west of
Broadway (see Exhibit A -Location Map). The physical address of the site is 690 Oxford
Street, an address that is shared by the San Diego County Health and Human Services facility
located immediately west of the site. Oxford Street terminates in a cu]-de-sac to the west of
the project site east of Industrial Boulevard. The San Diego Trolley (San Ysidro Southern
Line) and Interstate 5 are west of the County facility, and Naples Street is situated to the
north of the abutting Harborside Elementary School. The project site is within the COP
(Administrative and Professional Office/Precise Plan Modifying District) Zone and IL
(Limited Industrial) General Plan designation. The site is currently vacant; metal pipes in the
southwestern comer appear to be the remnants of an irrigation system or afire-prevention
system that may have serviced former on-site structures. On-site utilities include a
north south trending, 54-inch diameter reinforced concrete storm drain pipeline along the
eastern property line; a fire hydrant near the southwest end of the property on Oxford Street;
a second fire hydrant near the northeast corner; and an underground electrical vault on the
southern property line at Oxford Street. The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a
general 2 percent slope towards the northwest and southwest. Mounds of soil, trash and
debris including concrete rubble, metal and wood fragments, broken asphalt, automobile
tires, and landscape waste are scattered over the site. A chain link fence surrounds the site.
The land uses surrounding the site are as follows:
North: Harborside Elementary School
South: Oxford Street, Palomar Commerce Center
East: Broadway Plaza (Costco Warehouse and assorted commerciaUretail development)
West: San Diego County Department of Health and Human Services facility
1
~~ •~
\\ ~ S S~
vY ~11~5
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PRaECr CITY OF CHULA VISTAI
nPPUawrGENERALSERVICESDEPARTMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
nooRESS: oxFOao s iNOUSTRiAL sLVO.
Request: Proposing a Design Review for development
of a new neighborhood Park.
NORTH SCALE:
No Scale F~~E NuMaER:
IS-04--011 Related Case(s): DRC-04-28
j:\cherylc\locators\Iocators04\is04011.cdr 10.23.03
Exhibit A -Location Map
The surrounding area beyond the abutting properties contains residential (single family,
multi-family, trailer park), commercial, and light-industrial development.
B. Project Description
The project consists of the development of a new neighborhood pazk. Proposed on-site
improvements include a 150-foot by 300-foot multi-purpose field, basketball courts,
playground areas, picnic areas with picnic tables and barbeques, a skateboard area, restroom
building, trash receptacle area, and an open space area that could serve as a small
amphitheater for performances and community events (see Exhibit B -Site Plan). Multi-use
pathways would be lit. Approximately 30 parking spaces are proposed, accessible via an
access driveway along the west edge of the site. Pedestrian access from Naples Street to the
north along the east edge of the school and the park site would be provided, extending south
to Oxford Street. Landscaping is planned to buffer the park from the commercial areas to the
east and south. Any missing/damaged sidewalk improvements along the property's frontage
will be constructed/replaced where necessary.
C. Compliance with Zonine and Plans
The project site is within the IL (Limited Industrial) General Plan designation, and is zoned
COP (Administrative and Professional Office/Precise Plan Modifying District).
D. Public Comments
On October 30, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within 500-
foot radius of the proposed project site. The public comment period ended November 10,
2003. One letter with written comments was received, from the Chula Vista Elementary
School District. The letter noted that the District highly encourages good visibility
throughout the park and installation of sufficient lighting to discourage people from
congregating in the area after hours. Community meetings were held at the adjacent
elementary school on November 24, 2003, at 6:00 pm, and on December 5, 2003, at 8:30 am.
E. IdentiScation of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant
environmental effect, there would not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared in accordance with Section ] 5070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Air Ouality
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed project
would result in an increase in air pollutants during c onstrnction, but not during long-term
operation. Fugitive d ust w ould b e created d uring s ite grading and construction a ctivities.
Although air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are potentially
significant, they are considered short-ternr in duration since construction-related activities are
a relatively short-term activity. Dust control measures required to be implemented during
grading operations would be 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 air quality impacts to below a level of significance.
The proposed project is less intensive than the land use designation for the project site under
the adopted Chula Vista General Plan. Therefore, the proposed land use and its intensity of
development have been included in regional air quality projections and plans. The project
would not conflict with or violate any applicable air quality plans or standards. No
objectionable odors would result from the proposed recreational facilities. The proposed
project would not result in any long-term local or regional air quality impacts and no
mitigation measures are required for these issues.
GeoloQV and Soils
A Geotechnical Investigation report, dated April 11, 2002, was prepared for the site by
Geocon. This report is available for review at the office of the Planning and Building
Department and is summarized below.
Seismic Hazards. There aze no known (mapped) "active" faults crossing or located in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. The closest regional faults considered capable of
producing earthquakes of magnitude 4 or greater are the Rose Canyon fault zone (7.5 miles
to the north), Coronado Bank fault zone (13 miles to the west), and the Elsinore Fault-Julian
Segment (45 miles to the northeast).
The La Nacion fault zone trends north-south in a band approximately 2 miles wide. The
closest trace of this fault occurs approximately 0.25 mile to the east of the project site.
According to the geologic literature, the La Nacion fault zone has not been active within the
last approximately 11,000 years, and is therefore considered "potentially active." This fault
zone is not considered to contribute significantly to the seismic hazazd at the project site.
For facility planning and siting purposes, the potential for fault rupture is generally
considered to be significant along active faults and to a lesser degree along potentially active
faults. The potential for fault ground rupture at the site is considered to be low because no
active or potentially active faults are known to cross or be located near the site.
The project site is in Seismic Zone 4. The site will likely experience m oderate to severe
ground shaking in response to a lazge magnitude earthquake occurring on a local or regional
active fault during the expected lifespan of the park facilities.
Liquefaction. Liquefaction hazards are considered low, due to the depth of groundwater and
high relative density of the formation that underlies the project site.
Landslides. The site is relatively flat with a gentle 2 percent slope overall. No hazards
associated with landslides or slope instability are expected.
3
Soil Erosion. The disturbance of soil during constmction grading activities could result in
potentially significant siltation impacts downstream. Best Management Plans (BMPs) will
be implemented during constmction to prevent pollution of the storm water conveyance
system. These standard measures will prevent downstream impacts.
Soils. According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the site by Geocon
Consultants, dated April 11, 2002, the site is underlain by upper Pleistocene-age Bay Point
Formation starting at depths of approximately 3 to 5 feet. This formation is a lagoonal and
nonmarine sandstone. Near-surface soils include undocumented fill. Trash and debris on the
site and occurring in the fill will be removed from the site in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis report,
dated M arch 1 4, 2 002, was p repared for the s ite b y G eocon. T his r eport i s available for
review at the office of the Planning and Building Department and is summarized below.
The report noted the presence of metal pipes and a buried structural concrete slab with
footings in the southern portion of the site. These remnants maybe associated with a former
structure that reportedly housed a hemp rope manufacturing facility from approximately
1929 to the late 1960s, and a furniture manufacturing facility during the 1960s and 1970s.
Soil sampling indicated surface soils had low levels of organo-chlorine pesticides below
USEPA Region ]X Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for residential soil and Total
Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs). Mitigation measures for these issues are presented
in Section F.
Based on the field reconnaissance, database research, and soil sampling conducted, the
following conclusions were made in the Phase I environmental site assessment:
^ Adverse recognized environmental conditions were not observed on-site.
^ The potential for the existing presence of impacts to the site from hazardous
substances/wastes on-site or on properties in the vicinity is considered to be low.
However, anomalies associated with the former on-site structure may exist beneath
the site and mbbish currently on the surface. Also, soils had detectable levels of
organo-chlorine pesticides. Mitigation measures for these conditions are presented in
Section F.
^ Based on the presumed depth and flow of groundwater in the area and the apparent
distance and status of the listings of the properties listed on the regulatory databases,
significant adverse impacts from adjacent properties are not expected at the site.
Hydrolo~y and Water Quality
The project site is located within the Otay Valley Hydrologic Area of the Otay Hydrologic
Unit. Project construction would involve overall site grading to remove and replace
unsuitable soils and remnant buried stmetures/utilities. Without adequate Best Management
4
Practices, pollution of downstream receiving waters could occur during constmction. The
project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Planned pavement and park stmctures
would increase impervious area and potentially increase runoff A drainage study
demonstrating the amount of flows that may be contributed by the project and the adequacy
of existing storm drain facilities to handle the flows will be prepared prior to the completion
of final grading and improvement plans.
Groundwater levels at the site are low, and impacts to existing groundwater quality or
quantity are not expected. Based on the Phase I environmental site assessment conducted for
the property (Geocon 2002), groundwater was not encountered in soil borings advanced to a
maximum of 25 feet beneath the ground surface.
There is no defined drainage on the site. No alteration of an existing stream or river would
occur.
The site is within Zone X (outside of 500-year floodplain) pursuant to Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) Panel 2152, and no structures that would contribute to flooding are proposed.
No impacts associated with on- or off-site flooding would occur with the proposed project.
Existing off-site drainage facilities consist of curb inlets and storm drains located along
Oxford Street and the eastern edge of the site. The project would be designed such that post-
developed flows will not exceed pre-developed flows, in accordance with City Engineering
Division requirements. In addition, the project will be designed such that flows are directed
away from neighboring properties.
In addition, the project will comply with the requirements of the Development and
Redevelopment Storm W ater Management Requirements Manual I n a ccordance with the
Manual, appropriate construction and post-constmction best management practices (BMPs)
will be required to be implemented. Permanent storm water requirements will be
incorporated into the project design, and shown on the plans. Design plans will include
design concepts that reduce mnoff and prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain
system, such as minimizing impervious surfaces, directing rooftop mnoff to landscaped
areas, and other Pollution Prevention Design Features. Dumpster areas will be designed to
prevent contamination of rainwater and discharge of polluted mnoff.
In accordance with state regulations, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board for coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit because the site is larger than 1 acre. An NPDES
General constmction Permit and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will] be
required. As required by local regulations, The project will comply with the Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria of the NPDES
Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01. A Water Quality Technical Study will be prepared to
demonstrate compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit, including SUSMP and Numeric
Sizing Criteria requirements.
5
Noise
Based on the estimated project traffic generation of approximately 260 average daily trips,
the project is not expected to generate significant traffic-related noise levels. The proposed
uses of the park would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity.
During construction, significant short-term noise impacts to the neighboring Harborside
Elementazy School, anoise-sensitive use, could result. Noise produced during construction
will vary with the equipment being used and the phase of construction (for example, grading,
paving, and structure construction). Earth-moving (grading) activities are often the noisiest
phases of construction, because backhoes, tractors, graders, and large trucks can generate
noise that exceeds 90 decibels (dBA) at 50 feet from the source. As a general rule, noise
decreases by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance for a flat site. A sound level of 90 dBA
at 50 feet would be approximately 84 dBA at 100 feet, and 78 dBA at 200 feet from the
source. According to the project engineers, clearing the site should take about one week,
grading should take about two weeks, and trenching for removal of the storm drain along the
eastern edge of the property should take a maximum of two weeks.
Permanent and temporary classroom and administrative buildings are located on the
Hazborside Elementary School property, immediately north of the project site. School
buildings are located just north of the northern boundary of the project site. Due to the close
proximity of school buildings, and the fact that a significant degree of construction activities
on-site would occur during school hours, it is anticipated that construction noise associated
with the project would potentially disturb normal classroom and administrative activities to
some degree. The creation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels
adversely affecting noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity is considered by the City to be
a significant impact pursuant to CEQA. Because substantial construction noise associated
with the project would not be generated in close proximity to school bui]dings on a
continuous basis throughout project construction, and due to the temporary nature of this
impact, it has been determined that this impact would be reduced to below a level of
significance by erecting an 8-foot high temporary noise bamer generally along the northern
boundary of the project site prior to the commencement of grading and the maintenance of
this barrier throughout the entire duration of heavy construction activities. A properly
designed and constructed temporary 8-foot barrier would provide an average reduction in
construction noise levels at the buildings of approximately 5 decibels. This mitigation
measure is contained in Section F.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Ouality
The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading,
improvement, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not
be deviated from unless approved in writing by the City's Envirorunental Review
Coordinator:
6
1. During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as
practicable to reduce the re-suspension 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.
2. 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
site clearing, grading, or building activities that can potentially become airborne.
3. 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.
4. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour.
5. 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.
6. Stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne shall be covered or watered
as necessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum extent practicable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following hazards and hazardous materials mitigation requirements shall be shown on all
applicable grading, improvement, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise
appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in writing by the City's
Environmental Review Coordinator:
7. If anomalies such as underground piping, septic tanks, etc., are discovered during
grading or other site improvements, they shall be evaluated by a qualified consultant
and handled accordingly.
8. If soils containing residual concentrations of pesticides and total petroleum
hydrocarbons are moved off-site, the materials shall be sampled and disposed of or
handled according to applicable laws and regulations.
Noise
The following noise mitigation requirement shall be shown on all applicable grading,
improvement, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not
7
be deviated from unless approved in writing by the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator:
9. An 8-foot high temporary noise barrier shall be constructed generally along the entire
northern boundary of the site prior to the commencement of site clearing and grading.
The bamer shall consist of one-half inch sheets of plywood on both sides of a 2-inch by
4-inch wood frame, or other barrier materials acceptable to the Environmental Review
Coordinator. T he b arrier s hall b e free o f c racks a nd h oles, a nd n o g aps s hall o ccur
between the barrier and the ground. The bamer shall be maintained in place throughout
the entire duration of heavy construction activities to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
G. Consultation
1. City of Chula Vista:
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Majed Al-Ghafry, Engineering
Michael Maston, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Jim Holmes, Engineering
Stan Donn, Planning and Building
Others:
Susan Fahle, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Applicant:
Patricia Ferman, General Services
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989.
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis, Oxford
Street Property- Chula Vista, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc., March 14, 2002.
Geotechnical Investigation, Oxford Court Property - Chula Vista, California, Geocon
Consultants, lnc., April 11, 2002.
Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials
Production-Consumption Region, Special Report
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1982.
in the Western San Diego Coutny
153, California Department of
8
San Diego County Important Farmland 2000, California Department of Conservation,
Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of
this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date:
9
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Oxford Street Neighborhood Pm•k IS-04-011
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Oxford Street Neighborhood Park. The proposed project has
been evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-04-011). 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):
I . Air Quality
2. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3. Noise
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
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-04-011 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 IS-04-011, 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.
d
e
e
0
IU
N
m m
~ c
Iv .
d
9
O R
O-d
a~i
r
Q
~ n
a
a
c .~°-
rnR
~ °
w E m
rL t' >
ro o
~ a
~ Z
0 C
Z O
~ O J
Z N -
} ~ L ']~
c
c g
fl, a, m
3 ~ C C
~ C-p '~
am ~~
M1 m
O
u
O N
U C
X
Y
r
N
m
C
M
r~
O ~
3
O
.~ ~2
L lZ--"~
C
l6 i
6 N
m
ma,m
~ ~ ~ c
'- c ~ 'e`n
5 ¢-mw
0
U
~ N
U G
C
I N
a
~ L {
m ~ o ~ ~' ~ 5
N N Oy d <C,
6 7 N N
N~ 7 O N d C ~
'O 6 Vi ~ ~~ ~p O
C ~ ~N~pp N O ~
'O NyNN ` V 7 C
C 0 3 $i N c O
o~~~~ooo
~ v O ~°,, ~ L ~i6 N
N ~ G y 9
7. Cp N 9 V ~ ~ ~ d
U L R .~ E N G 'O
J O~ N /' (0 7 7 N C
Q C 3 O.O O U m
I~ ~ g_-
Q
~~
N
N
L.~ (6~ NO ~~p77~E
[6 ~„OWpN O.C dN'bO
d O N d1 N N C F~ tN0 9
yy pp~~ O
N N O" Fi O- L C y ~~ N d C G
m rn is ,. a •• ca_ c m~~ m v -°%
~d.~~~°'2mx~,NE~o
` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ Y N G ~ Q
E v 4. O N N G U
O~~ Q~~ N ~~ O O N N
~~ 6 N N~ ~N C N~ E p N L.
O ((1 O U O.N V r 0~..• Q1 ~ O y N N
UU N 6 N~ O N C cd O y R5 v ~i
N "O ~ ~ O .~L.' ~ V C
y
cU ~ -
N
w
m
a
R
H
Y
C
d
E
C
C
p
U
a
m
N
n m m
E c D
o -
U
d
a -c° rn c ~ m c m
c _ m c _ m c _ m c _ m c
r C m C m
N C Ql C m
Gd m.C ~N mc_~ me ~N m~~N
N U C a .C U C :p C U C 'O C U C 'O C
d ~. C= m d C = Od C= m d C- m
~ a a
' a
` a
'
mw
a ¢
m
w ¢
mw Q
m
w
O
a
z '~ o
F o ._
o cu x x x x
a ~
~ i... >
a x x x x
(7
Z
O
F w C c
o c
O c
o c
O
Z O O U ~ U ~ U ~ U
~ o~ aUiQ amain a~io_ aria
Z L w
N ~ U C U C U C U C
~
Q QN O.N d Vl ~. U1
c ° a~ ~ ~ a
°
c' ~
g
mo
d~
~ 3 .
E
- m o N
~ m ~
~
`oa
? 3~
4nm
-O c
~t~ da>.
mn ~
mEmn-mo
N
° ~
pdrpic
a~
Viri.
~OOCU ° at c
i ~
~m
3m~
N a>
~T
y .
~mc°2~a
~ c
oa t
ai
~
~ a~ '6 c .
~
co.c_a~
`
N -' ~ v m
N ~a~` acv a mt rnd ° o.n 3 a ~ S E E
N p N E O N~ N N N c O c c N '= - c> ~~ O~
c C m~
E a~ E N Q N ~O C
J a
C m T
d d= N C N
~ '
~
~
C N
m N
~ N y ~ .N ~ N N L m m
m to N
~ ~ O U~
O _ U N vl tO c E U C L l9 N N N
°' O- cy
E 4 c-a~
m or.moygma~c mpa~
_
c.
4 a u~'m m m
m
~ w X m o
3 o rn~ 0 3'w
a E~ c o
ai
' N
a c
u ~ aO ~ a~ d ~ N d a
i
> a ~ c o c ~`" N
a
m m m c~
i
o
o a ~ o~ m
~ ~
n E aai ~°
n ~ ~ E n..
-.
- ~ m a
i d .~ ~
c ~ .
~ m t.5 3 ~ Q ~o ~ a n ~ ~.~ x ~ ~ ~ ° a~i m E ~
U E N E o m m ~ w w Q a a rn E d a a a cn ~ 3 m `oa
c y
o
«. ~
R tll O
O) A Z
i+ N
M V ~ (D
~,
a
r
d
N
F
c c c
_~ _~ _~
~m
~ ~m ~m
~
m = °
U C .- ~ .c m
U C ._ m c °
U C .-
'QC"O
' 'QC~
' 'QC V
n~
~ am
S o.~~~
¢am ¢dm ¢am
Y
N M
.,~ N
N C N C
°v °v
a a
C C
y y
'C C '~ C
DU X X DU X
V
N V
N
C C
~ O : O
d U X X a U X
~ ~
F F
c
O c
O c
O
U ~ U ~ U
d Q N p N p_
U C U C U C
N N N
~ ~ ~
N m T
C C O ~ U
N
~ O
O
O
n.c w
' O
~°
a
n ~
O N O O 'O N N~ O
~
ac
~ ~
o~ t ~
m
a' nJ ~,
V~ ~
.
c N N m
N
a~
~
0 c d'~ C C D C ~ (6 O)~ o
N U
Ol
?~y.o~ u~E:?~u f
~~'~n~o~.oQV Ja~o~ym
R o acv
~ ~J~y~n
° a~ a~o_oooo~~LYo ~
v
r
~
J
T~
2 rn>°'
UOU c
~o~`0~
O i
>,,o
~'t°3 Uoc
o
>
N~ O J U ~
O O C O O N N S. L~ 3 0 O -o O> c 0
C N O- ~ U J Q N O. O) ~ C ~ O N O- C N O N (0 J d N U U
Q N N d~ 'C N O E N Q C d~ ~~ ~ h >, N~ N N ~'O O N j
~
Z u~Ndt °'~O
m°U~ .coo°i~
din ~t v~Em~mL
Q ~ N L j U
C C
'C f0 N~ =
O'O L .J~. C C F- tL/1 C N N L °' ~ ~~ ~~ N f6
N O
Y O
m
y
~ C
C L E~ C N t C N
C
~~ -O
N
>
O N C -O S]
U O
L
-O
O r E C O O N ~~ N
J ~
E
~ _
V
~ p l0 ~~ N ~~ y C
0
O N C U l
O
>
~
Qa ~
j
O
U N N
L (0
'
:
N~N ~
(
N
N
~~~.
0
~NQI O]L
LWL
~~ B-a
C
mo_mmc O
N
N°-~m~3 N
N
~
~
m~=~-oa~~ooa~domo~ >
QW
F ~v~io~~° ~oLE`o~ LLl
y c
¢wa~i°moN`o~HtYmYmw
fQ~
2 ~ Z
r o~ rn
v
m
a
d
\1/~
:fir:,
CnV OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM cHUtA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista
General Services Department
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: 1800 Maxwell Road
Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619)397-6206
4. Name of Proposal: Oxford Street Neighborhood Park
5. Date of Checklist: January 26, 2004
6. Case No.: IS-04-O1 I
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially Wilh Less Than
I$$nes' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista> ^ ^ ^ ~
b) Substantially damage scenic resoun es, including, but ^ ^ ^ ~
not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ^ ^ ^ ~
quality of the site and its surroundings?
1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
I$$ne$: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ^ ^ ~ ^
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area.
Comments•
a) The site does not offer scenic vistas.
b) There are no scenic resources on the site, and the area is not in proximity to a designated scenic
roadway. The project proposes access via an unsignalized driveway off of Oxford Street. Landscape
treatments are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code landscape and site
architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure
that aesthetic impacts to the adjacent road corridors and neighboring properties are not significant.
c) The project site is located within an established urbanized area, which includes commercial areas to
the east, northeast, and south; a public elementary school to the north; and an attractive, modern public
building to the west. The site itself is vacant and degraded visually by piles of rubble and debris. The
proposed project is anticipated to have a demonstrable positive impact to the neighborhood, creating
landscaped borders along the site edges, and park facilities including a large open field and picnic areas
within the site.
d) Security/operational lighting is proposed for the walkways, basketball courts, and skateboarding
area. The multi-purpose field would not be lit. Lighting must comply with Chapter 17.28
(Unnecessary Lights) and Section 19.66.100 (Glare) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The light
sources within the park would be required to be directed and/or shielded in such a manner that they will
not constitute a public nuisance for residential property owners. Based upon the proposed lighting plan,
no impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In
detenrvrting whether impacts to agricultural
resottrees are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural
land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (199
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and fatmlarrd. Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
I$$ne$: Signincant Mitigation Signilican[ No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Convert Prime Fazrrilaud, Unique Farniland, or ^ ^ ^ ~
Fatntland of Statewide Importance (Fanrilarrd), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Familarrd
Mapping and Monitoring Prograrrl of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricrtural 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 Familand, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
a-c) The project site is within Urban and Built-up Land on the San Diego County Important Farmland 2000
map, and contains no desigrrated farmland. The project site is not in current agricultural production, is not
adjacent to property in agricultural production, and contains no agricultural resources.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
IILAIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
marragement or air pollution control district maybe
relied upon to make the following detemvnations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quaGtyplan?
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)?
^ ^
^ ~
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISSUCS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ~ ^ ^
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ^ ^ ^
number of people? ~
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitillation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
N BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ^ ^ ^ ~
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Crarne or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ^ ^ ^ ~
habitat or other sensitive natural cornmuruty
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Depamrxnt of Fish
and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ^ ^ ^ ~
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
4
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife comdors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ^
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ^
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
Less Than
Signitcant No Impact
Impact
^
^ ^ ~
a and b) The project site is located within the area identified as Development Area in the City of Chula
Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Based upon the Subarea Plan and
a site inspection by City staff, no sensitive natural communities are present within or immediately
adjacent to the proposed project area.
c) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and a site inspection by City staff, no wetlands are
present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project area.
d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and a site inspection by City staff, no native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately
adjacent to the proposed project area.
e) No biological resources would be affected by the proposal and no conflicts with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources would result.
~ No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result because the project is a
designated development area pursuant to the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Less Than
Significant
Issnes: Potentially Wkh Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
V. CULT'LTRAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^
significance of a historical resource as defined in ~
~ 15064.5?
6) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ~ ^
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
tog 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ^ ^ ~ ^
paleontological resouree or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human mrrlairls, including those ^ ^ ^ ~
interred outside of fomlal cemeteries?
6
Issues:
Comments•
Less Than
Significant '
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a and b) According to the Chula Vista General Plan EIR, the project site is assigned a moderate
potential for archaeological resources. Based upon the extent of previous disturbance to the site and the
relatively minor amount of grading proposed, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are
anticipated.
c) Based upon the Geotechnical Investigation for the property, the site is underlain by the Bay Point
Formation starting at depths of approximately 3 to 5 feet. The Bay Point Formation is a lagoonal and
nonmarine s andstone f tom t he upper P leistocene geologic e ra, h as b een n oted t o p roduce 1 arge a nd
diverse assemblages of well-preserved marine i nvertebrate fossils and rare vertebrate fossils, and is
assigned a moderate paleontological resource sensitivity rating. The City utilizes the following
Sensitivity Rating Volume and Depth Thresholds for grading in paleontological resources:
High > 1000 cubic yards and >5 feet deep
Moderate >2000 cubic yards and > 5 feet deep
Zero-Low Mitigation Not Required
General site grading is not expected to exceed 5 feet in depth. Deeper excavation that may be needed
to remove buried remnant facilities, undocumented fill, and unsuitable topsoils would occur in fill and
not in undisturbed formational material. Significant impacts to fossils would not occur during
earthwork activities.
d) No human remains are known or are expected to be present on-site, and therefore, are not
anticipated to be disturbed as a result of the project.
MitiEation: No mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the
project:
aj Expose people or stnicttu~s to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued bythe State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault> Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 4?.
^ ^ ^ ~
^ ^ ^ ~
Less Than
Potentially Significant
With
Less Than
ISSneS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ p ^
~
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, inchldixtg ^ ^ ^
liquefactioa> ~
iv. Landslides? ^ ^ ^ ~
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ^ ^ ^
topsoil> ~
c) Be located on a geologic utlit or soil that is ^ ^ ^
unstable, or that would become unstable as a ~
result of the project, and potentially insult in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ^ ^ ^
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ~
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ^ ^ ^
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ~
disposal systems where sewers are not available
forthe disposal of wastewater?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Sec tion E.
Mitisation: No mitigation measures are required.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ ^ ^
environment through the routine transport, use, or ~
disposal of hazardous materials?
8
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISSUPS: Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
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
Govemrnent 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
airpon, would the project result in a safetyhazani
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
emergencyevaccuationpIan?
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?
No Impact
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ~
9
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitieation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
VIII. I IYDROLOGY AND WATE R QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to ^
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following constnrction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ^
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g, the production rate of pre-elosting nearby
wells would drop to a level which would no[
support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been grutted)? 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 resuk in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ^
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a 100-yEar flood hazard area which
Less Than
Significant
Impact
^
No Impact
^
^
^
^
10
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISSlleS: Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact IncorporateU Impact
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or snlrctures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or damp
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would ^ ^ ~
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physicallydivide anestablished 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 caning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ^ ^ ^
plan ur natural conununityconservation plan?
No lmpac[
^
^
^
Il
Issues:
Comments:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signincant
Impact Incorporated Tmpact
No Impact
a) The proposed park would enhance the character of the surrounding area, and would be connected to the
residential areas to the north by providing an access path from Naples Street along the eastern school
boundary into the park and through to Oxford Street. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or divide
an established community.
b) The project site is within the COP (Administrative and Professional Office/Precise Plan Modifying
District) Zone and IL (Limited Industrial) General Plan designation. The project has been found to be
consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and the General 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 Habitat Preserve area of the adopted Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Mitis:ation: No mitigation measures are required.
R MINERAL. RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ ~
resource that would be of value ro the region and
the residents of the state?
h) Result in the loss of availability of a locall}Fimportant ^ ^ ^ ~
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments•
a) The project site is located in an area identified as MRZ-3 (areas containing mineral deposits the
significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data) on Plate 29 of the Mineral Land
Classification Map. The site is also within areas identified by the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research as urbanized or projected to urbanize by the year 1990 on Figure 4 of the Mineral Land
Classification Special Report 153.
b) Pursuant to the Chula Vista General Plan EIR, the State of California Department of Conservation has
not designated [he project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
12
Issues:
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Signitcant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact ]ncorporated Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ^ ^ ~ ^
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ^ ~
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ~ ^
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ~ ^ ^
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ ^ ^ ~
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f] For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ^ ^ ^ ~
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitiisation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substanfi.d population growth in an area, ^ ^ ^ ~
13
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISSn¢S: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorpora[eJ Impact
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastnrcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ^ ^ ^ ~
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ ~
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Comments•
a) No housing development is proposed as part of this project. Substantial population growth is not
anticipated, nor is the need for substantial infrastructure improvements. Based upon the size and nature
of the proposal, no population growth inducement is anticipated.
b and c) Because no housing currently exists on the project site, no displacement of housing or people
would occur.
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
perfomlance objectives foranypublic services:
Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ ~
Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ~
Schools? ^ ^ ^ ~
14
Less Than
Significant
Potenfially With Less Than
IS$Ue$: Significant Mitigation Signitcant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Parks? ^ ^ ^ ~
Other public facilities? ^ ^ ~ ^
Comments•
1) According to the Fire Department, through the proposed project design and the proximity of fire
hydrants, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed
project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
fire protection services.
2) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided
upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed park would not have a significant effect upon or
result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services.
3) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to
public schools would result.
4) The proposed project would provide a new park amenity in an area currently in need of such resources.
Therefore, the project would have a beneficial effect on parks.
5) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services beyond routine maintenance of the new park, and would continue to be served by
existing public infrastructure.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ~
^ ~
15
IS$neS:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially kith Less Than
Signincant Midgadon Signincant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Comments•
a and b) The project would have a beneficial effect on recreational facilities in the local area, providing
an amenity in an area in need of such resources.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ^ ^ ^ ~
relation w 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 rrtarragement 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 m
location that resulu in substantial safetyrisks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due m a design feature ^ ^ ^ ~
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ~
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ~
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ^ ^ ^ ~
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
16
ISSUfS:
tumours, bicyt le racks)?
Comments:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Signincant Mitigation Signitcant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a and b) According to the City's Engineering Division, the park is estimated to generate approximately
260 one-way trips per day. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Oxford Street, A Class II Collector, would
increase from 5,990 ADT (in 2003) to 6,250 ADT with the proposed project; therefore, Oxford Street
would continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) A. No significant impacts to streets or
intersections beyond Oxford Street are anticipated based upon the minimal traffic generation from the
project and the existing operations of these facilities.
c and d) The project would not affect air traffic or create traffic hazards.
e) The City Engineering Division has found the existing street improvements including the driveway
are adequate.
f) The project will provide adequate parking for the recreational facility. The project will meet ADA
requirements for accessibility and parking. The County of San Diego currently has an access easement
on the western edge of the project site within the C'ity's property. The County constructed a portion of
their parking lot beyond the limits of this easement area, within the project site. The full extent of the
project site will be used for the park, with the access driveway and landscaped parking spaces along the
western edge. Therefore, the existing parking used by the County on the City's property will no longer
be available for use by the County facility. However, because the County facility has sufficient parking
on their site, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
g) The project would not affect alternative transportation plans.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ ^ ^ ~
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the constmction of new water or ^ ^ ^ ~
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the constnution of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
17
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
I$SntaS: Signincaat Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Require or resuh in the construction of new storm ^ ^ ^
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ~
facilities, the consmction 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) Resuh 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 addaion to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ^ ^ ~ ^
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ^
regulations related to solid waste? ~
18
Issues:
Comments•
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service
systems. Wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be
exceeded due to the proposed project. An existing 15-inch sewer main runs westerly along Oxford
Street. According to the City Engineering Division, the line is adequate to serve the proposed project.
b) See XVI a. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities would be necessary.
c) The average natural slope of the site is 2 percent. Existing off-site drainage facilities consist of curb
inlets and storm drain pipelines located along Oxford Street adjacent to the proposed project. On-site
storm drainage facilities constructed to provide appropriate drainage for the park would be confined to
the site and connect to the existing 54-inch storm drain in the northeast corner of the site.
d) The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence
from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from existing 8-inch AC potable water
main in Oxford Street. An existing 1 %-inch meter was installed for the parcel in 1969. Although the
meter was pulled due to inactivity, the service is still existing and active. No new or expanded
entitlements are anticipated for the proposed project. Project impacts to the Authority's storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant.
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 proposed project would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste.
The design specifications will mandate appropriate disposal of waste during construction. Trash
receptacles meeting municipal and other regulatory agency design standards would be provided and
properly maintained.
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A. Library ^
The Qtyshall constttut 60,000 gross square feet (GSF
of additional library space, over the Jttne 30, 2000
GSF total, in the area east of Intezstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the Gty will not fall below the citg
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
^ ^ ~
19
Less Than
Significant
Potentially ~yith Less Than
ISSUCS: Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
facilities are to be adequatelyequipped and staffed.
B) Police ^ ^ ^
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority
One" emergency calls within seven (~ minutes and
maintain an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergencycalls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (~ minutes and mlirrtain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and EmergencvMedical ^ ^ ^
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the aty
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annuall}).
D) Traffic ^ ^ ^
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C' or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" tray 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 conurnurity parkland with
appropriate facilities / 1,000 population east of I-805.
Drainaee ^ ^ ~
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volumes not exceed Gty Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Draurage Master Plan(s) and Gty
Engineering Standards.
No Impact
^
?0
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISSUOS: Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
G) Sewer ^ ^
~
The Threshold Standards rerniim that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed Qry Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvernenu
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and Qty Engineering
Standards.
I-~ Water ^ ^ ^
The 'Ilu~eshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
conaurEntly with planned growth and that water quality
standards are no[ jeopardized during growth and
constnrcrion.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee off-set program the Qty of
Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pemut
issuance.
No Impact
21
ISSUCS:
Comments:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporate) Impact
No Impact
a) The project is not a housing development; 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 park project would not have a
significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No
adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c 1 According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can
continue to be provided to the site. As of September 2003, additional fire stations such as Fire Station
4 and Fire Station 7 on the eastern side of the City have been developed and are in operation to improve
fire services and response times throughout the City. The proposed project would not have a
significant effect upon or result in the need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse
impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
d) According to the City Engineering Division, the park is estimated to generate approximately 260 one-
way trips per day, which would not adversely affect the Level of Service on Oxford Street or other streets or
intersections in the vicinity. Based upon the project traffic generated, all roadway segments and
intersections within the study area are estimated to operate at levels of service that are 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.
However, the proposed park would add a neighborhood park, which is beneticial.
f) New storm drainage facilities will be constructed on-site to provide appropriate drainage for park
facilities. The storm drains will connect to the existing 54-inch storm drain in the northeast comer of the
site. 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. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or
City's Drainage Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
g) The proposed project lies within the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer Basin. The sewer facilities serving
the project site consist of a 12-inch sewer running along Naples Street, and a 12-inch sewer running along
Oxford Street. The Engineering Division has determined that these faeihties are adequate to serve the
proposed project. Therefore, no new sewer facilities will be required, and no adverse impacts to the City's
Sewer Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority, there is an 8-inch water main
located in Oxford Street. Their records indicate the project can be served from an existing water servlce for
the parcel. Project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less
than signitcant. No adverse impacts to the City's Water Threshold standards would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
22
Less Than
Signitcant
Potenfially with Less Than
ISSneS: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Dces 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 tare or endangered plant or animal or eL'rtvnate
important exartlples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Dces the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ^ ~
limited, but cunnrlatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
increxr~nral 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) Dces the project have environmental effects which ^ ^ ^ ~
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directlyor indirectly?
Comments:
a) 'fhe site is currently vacant, 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
animal species or cultural resources on the site.
b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated
to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. No cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current
projects and probable future projects have been identified and none are contemplated.
c) See the discussion in Sections E and F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Potential impacts associated
with air quality, hazardous materials, and noise during construction would be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
23
FP,OM :Landscape Rrch. Di~.~ision FAX N0. :5193975295 Jan. 27 2004 11:3aRM P2
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoicl
Significant Tmpacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of
Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-011.
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 io the
mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Rcvicw 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.
Patricia E. Ferrriitn. Landscape Planner II. Project Manager
Printed Name and'I'itle of Applicant
(or auth~o~ri~zed r~epres'entative)
Signature of Applicant Aate
(or authorized rcprescnta[ive}
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
24
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 "Potential]y 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
^ Geology and Soils
^ Mineral Resources
^ Public Services
^ Utilities and Service Systems
^ Aesthetics
^ Agricultural Resources
^ Hydrology and Water
Quality
^Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
^ Cultural Resources
^ Air Quality
^ Threshold Standards
^ Noise
^ Recreation
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
25
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 anal}zed 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 analyse onlythe effects that rerxrairr 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 analysed 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 detennuration.
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
26
PS/2S-7atAN .,v u.L'.
C{7NN~'c.CT[Ni:~ TG
NAPLES Sr
!~
t
i
~~
F
F
~„
SKATE64ARD
PLAY AREA
r ELDEST='(i,',;
CU'~NECTIC~,.%
A4EA --±
i
i
t
*',
i L:NK r~NC.;.
~..OATCr7
84' x 50'
Mut~-s~PUa~os~ ~trt..D
t ~o• x 3oc>'
l I
~ouNrr OFFICES
,~
I
3
C.'riAIN LINK FENCE
`.'lr:vL ccA.rE~ --
x SO'
FuTtiRE LOCATIOM1}
FOR RESTROOM
J
~-
Ptct~tlc
' AREA
Plcrtlc
a
R ~
~ ~
s
u
1
G.a~so
..~, FUTURE
WALMh.42T
r----
h~/~~ nT
' !~.
1 \\
~ h~ `~, .(~~ AV\``
A Qi
~W N~t
~ 1. L 1 .c. L L a. L ~i ,'L
rJN-STf2E'="~; 1~tCRKING C2~i SPACES}
O?CFOF2D $Tk2EET -~-1~._arvT;~i~ a~~a.=
r r F ^' r ~ i r r ~ r r r
Exhibit B -Site Plan LAN6SCAPE ARCHITECTURE SECTIOF
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMEN-
fir roc ("u~ u n t/icTF