The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/05/13Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NU.: DATE: A. Project SettinK Rancho Del Rey Library Northwest Corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero 642-39]-06-00 City of Chula Vista IS-02-40 April 29, 2002 The approximately 4.0-acre project site consists primarily of a previously graded pad area within the southeastern portion of a 14.3-acre property located at the. northwest corner of East "I I" Street and Pasco Ranchero (see Exhibit A Location Map). 'fhe subject propcriy contains a City of Chula Vista fire station immediately north of the proposed library site. The portion of the subject property to the west of the project sits and fire station consists primarily of undisturbed native vegetation, the majority of which is identified as part of the 100°% C onservation Area -Habitat Preserve in the Draft City of Chula Pista Mzrliiple ~S'peczes Conservation Program ~Siebar~ea Plun. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the tbllowine: North: City of Chula Vista fire station South: East "H" Street and single-f~nily residential beyond; church to the southeast East Multi-family residential and YMCA facility West: Natural open space f3. Project Description The proposed project consists of the submittal of a grant application to the State of California for the partial funding of the. design and construction of a planned two-story, approximately 36,000 square-foot City of Chula Vista public library branch, as well as the construction and operation of this facility (see Exhibit B -Conceptual Site Plan). Vehicular access to the project site would be via driveways on Paseo Ranchero and East "H" Rtreet. Approximately 190 on-site surface parking spaces are proposed. Two entrances into the library building are proposed, one on the north side of the building with a vehicular drop-off area and the other at the southeast corner of the building adjacent to the northwest corner of East "H" Street and Pasco Ranchero, in close proximity to an existing Chula Vista Transit bus stop. Roadway striping un Pasco Ranchero, north of the East "II" Street intersection, would be modified in order to create a center rivo-way ]eft-turn lane primarily to minimize the queuing of northbound vehicles behind vehicles waiting to turn into the library site. The proposed 04/26/02 driveway on East "H" Street would be right-in/right-out only with a deceleration lane (approximately 150 feet with a transition of approximately 120 feet). A tentatively planned pedestrian pathway along the western boundary of the fire station, and partially within an existing San Diego Gas and Electric Company easement, is addressed in this document. Although this pathway would improve pedestrian access between the library and the planned YMCA Teen Center immediately north of the fire station, it is not a critical element of the library facility; therefore, it might not he constructed concurrently with the initial development of the library facility and might never be constnicted at all. C. Compliance with Loning and Ylans 1lnder the Rancho Del Key Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Planned Community District Regulations, which implements the General Plan and serves as the zoning regulations for this SPA, the project site is designated OS-2 (Open Space - 2 District). Public and quasi-public uses, including public libraries, arc permitted uses within the OS-2 District. D. Public Comments On March 29, 2002, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500- tbot radius of the project site. The public comment period ended April 8, 2002. No comments were received. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An hritia] Study conducted by the Cily of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guide]ines. Water Construction activities and operational activities associated with urban development generate various pollutants that enter municipal storm drainage systems through both storm water and non-storm water runoff Transported by runoff, these pollutants eventually feed into and pollute natural water bodies. The City of Chula Vista is a Municipal Copermittee under the Febniary 21, 2001, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No. CAS0108758 ("Order"), which regulates the treatment of urban runoff prior to its discharge into municipal storm drainage systems. Appropriate erosion control measures will be required during construction to prevent the discharge of sediment into the storm drainage system. In addition, the proposed library parking lot is a Priority llevelopment under the Order and, therefore, is required to comply with the Standard urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans and Numeric Sizing Criteria through the implementation of permanent, post-construction best management practices (BMPs), consisting of non-structural (i.e., maintenance practices) and/or structttra] (e.g., biofiltration, mechanical filtration devices). Compliance with the Order through the implementation of 2 oa/2~/o2 appropriate I3MPs, as specified below in Section F, would mitigate this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. Biological Resources Although the project site consists predominantly of a previously graded, vacant pad area, the tentatively planned pedestrian pathway along the western boundary of the fire station would encroach into native vegetation and the site is adjacent to native vegetation. To assess the potential direct and non-direct impacts of the project to sensitive biological resources, a biological resources survey and impact assessment was conducted by RECON. Although the previous]y graded pad area contains no sensitive biological resources, RECON identified native habitat, Dicgan coastal sage scrub, immediately west of the pad area. Multiple Speczes C'nnservalion Program The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan that addresses the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities in San Diego County. The MSCP is a subregional pla,i under the Califurnia Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 199E An MSCP subregional Plan was prepared fur the subregion, an area encompassing 12 jurisdictions and 582,243 acres. The MSCP subregional Plan is implemented through local Subarea Plans. The Dru/t City u~Y'bula L"isle MSCP Subarea Plan (October 2000) identifies the majority of the Die~gan coastal sage scrub adjacent to the proposed library development area as part of the proposed 100 °% Conservation Area Habitat Preserve of the Chula Vista Subarea. ,Serzeitire 6b'ildlife Species Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers, a federally listed as threatened bird species, were conducted by RF,C'ON on .tannery 31, February 7, and February 14, 2002, in accordance with l~.S. Fish and Wildlile Service guidelines. One pair of gnatcatchers was ohserved foraging within the coastal sage scrub to the west of the project site; a pair of gnatcatchers was also observed in this area in 1999 during previous RECON surveys. One other sensitive wildlife species, Cooper's hawk, a California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern, was observed by RECON on-sites. Although Cooper's hawks were observed foraging on-site, suitable nesting habitat for this species is not present on-site or in the adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat. Other sensitive wildlife species with moderate ur high poluntiul to occur on-site or within the adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat but were not observed by RECON include San Diego horned lizard, coastal western whiptail, [3elding's orangethroat whiptail, red diamond rattlesnake, white-tailed kite, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and southern mule deer. The quino checkerspot butterfly is a federally listed as endangered species. The quino checkerspot's habitat is restricted to sunny openings on clay soils formed from gabbro parent materials and the larval host plant, dot-seed plantain, is required to support this species. Vegetation communities used by this species include open coastal sage scrub and chaparral, and grasslands. Much of the coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site is too dense to support the 3 04/26/02 yuino checkerspot. Although there are openings within the coastal sage scrub that may support dot-seed plantain, the surrounding development and consequent disturbances in these areas, such as litter, trash dumping, and foot traffic, make it unlikely that these areas would support this species. For these reasons and because the project site and adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat are not within the Year 2002 yuino checkerspot butterfly survey area, no flight surveys for this species are recommended by RECON. SensUive Plurzt Species One sensitive plant species was observed by RECON within the coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the site, San Diego County viguiera (California Native Plant Society List 4 species). Because the biological surveys were conducted before the blooming period and emergence of annual species, the potential exists for rivo state and federally listed plant species that were not observed to occur within the impact area of the tentatively planned pedestrian pathway, San Diego thormnint and Otay tarplant. Direct chid Indirect Pruject lrnpucts With the. exception of the tentatively planned pedestrian pathway, project construction would not result in any direct impacts to sensitive biological resources. However, even if the pathway is not constructed, noise generated during project construction activities could indirectly impaot the pair of gnatcatchers which occupy the coastal sage scrub to the west of the project site if construction occurs during the ~ratcatcher breeding season (February 15 through August 15 pursuant to the nraft Cite of Chula Vistu A1SCP Subarea Plan). Compliance with the gnatcatcher construction noise mitigation measure contained in Section F below would mitigate this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation measures addressing additional potentially significant indirect impacts (i.e., lighting and im~asivesl to the sensitive biological habitat areas adjacent to the project site are contained in Section F below. If the construction of the pedestrian pathway is pursued, a spring survey of the impact area will be required to determine the presence or absence of two state and federally listed plant species with the potential to occur within the Diegan coastal sage scrub, San Diego thornmint and Otay tarplant if any individuals of these species would be impacted, then appropriate mitigation would be required, as specified below in Section F, which would mitigate this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. The loss a few individual specimens of San Diego County viguiera would result from the construction of the pedestrian pathway; due to the small number of individuals that would be impacted and the low sensitivity of this species, mitigation for the habitat that supports this species and the inclusion of this species in the on-site revegetation areas wuuld be sufficient to mitigate for the impact to this species. Based upon preliminary engineering design, construction of the pedestrian pathway at a width of up to 16 feet (plus three-foot transition areas on both sides of the pathway) could be accomplished with no permanent or temporary construction encroachment into the proposed MSCP Habitat Preserve, including the realignment of the eastern portion of the San Diego (ias and Electric Company access road that would be displaced by the pathway. At a width of 16 feet, the total construction impact area ibr the pedestrian pathway would he 0.4-acre, d 04/26/02 consisting of 03-acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat and 0.1-acre of disturbed habitat. Following construction, 02-acre of the impact area would be available for potential habitat restoration to satisfy a portion of the mitigation requirement; the remainder of the mitigation requirement would need to be implemented off-site. The mitigation obligation for this impact is anticipated to he between l:l and 2:1, to be accomplished either partially on-site and partially off-site or entirely off-site. Mitigation for such impacts is typically accomplished through habitat restoration and/or habitat preservation. The actual mitigation requirements li.e., quantity and method) for impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat will be determined by the agency that possesses the authority to permit the "take' of gnatcatcher-occupied habitat at the time such authorization is sought. It is anticipated that the. City will have several mitigation option to choose from; in this case, the actual mitigation program will he dependent upon the mitigation option that the City elects to implement. if the construction of the pedestrian pathway is pursued, either concurrently with library construction or subsequently, then mitigation for impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat would be required, as specified below in Section F, which would mitigate this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. Noise The average daily traffic volume along the segment of Fast "H" Street fronting the pruject site is approximately 45,000 vehicles. The desired maximwn interior noise level for noise sensitive uses is typically considered to be 45 decibels (d13) Community Noise F,quivalent level (CNEL); C'NFL is a weighted 24-hour average noise level. Based on the traffic volume level along Fast `H" Street and the close proximity of the proposed library building to this roadway, vehicular noise cuuld potentially reach undesirable levels within the library building. However, based upon the conceptual building design and typical building features incorporated into public facilities of this type, achieving the reyuired level of Hoist attenuation is not anticipated to he problematic. In order to ensure that vehicular noise would not result in interior noise levels in excess of the desired maximum sound level of 45 dB, the preparation of an acoustical analysis will he required prior to tinal building design and prior to the issuance of dre building permit for the library building. Because the proposed library would not be utilized 24 hours per day and because the desire is to maintain vehicular noise levels within the library building at 45 dB or Icss throughout the entire period of operation, CNRL is not the appropriate sound measurement standard for such a facility. Rather, the building should he designed to ensure an interior sound level of no more than 45 dB Leq during the daily one-hour peak vehicular noise period. The recommendations of the acoustical analysis will be required to be implemented through linal building design and construction, as specified below in Section F. F. Mitigation Necessary to ~woid Significant Impacts Water 1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the C ity Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans and specifications comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Qraality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management practices. i Ud/26/02 2. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any building permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the final plans and specifications comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to permanent, post-construction water quality best management practices (BMPs). If one or more of the approved post-construction BMPs is non- structural, then the Library Director shall prepare apost-construction BMP plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction; compliance with said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Biological Resources 3. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any grading permit for the construction of the pedestrian pathway along the western boundary of the fire station, focused spring surveys for San Diego thornmint and Otay tarplant shall be conducted within the area of impact, and all required local, state and federal permits/authorizations shall be obtained and associated mitigation requirements met for impacts, if any, to San lliego thornmint and Otay tarplant, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. 4. Prier to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any grading permit for the construction of the pedestrian pathway along the western boundary of the tire station, all required local, state and federal permits/authorizations shall be obtained and associated mitigation requirements met for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher- occupied Dicgan coastal sage scrub habitat, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Impacts to coasta] sage scrub habitat are projected to be 0.3-acre; mitigation requirements shall be based on the actual impact area, to be precisely determined based on final grading and improvement plans. If deemed applicable by the Environmental Review Coordinator, no permanent or temporary construction impacts shall be permitted within the MSCP llabitat Preserve Area. 5. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans for the pedestrian pathway along the western boundary of the fire station, the Environmental Review Coordinator shall ensure that San Diego County viguiera has been appropriately incorporated into the landscape plan for portions of the impact area that will be revegetated. 6. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of airy grading or building permit, the Environmental Review Coordinator shall ensure that the maximum permissible construction impact area is delineated on the plans and that the plans and specifications include a note requiring orange construction fencing along this boundary for the duration of construction. 7. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any grading or building permit, the Environmental Review Coordinator shall ensure that the plans and specifications include a note regarding the construction noise restrictions outlined in this measure during the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, between February l 5 and August 15. During the gnatcatcher breeding season, noise levels generated by 6 04/26/U2 project-related construction activities shall not exceed 60 decibels (dB) Leq (one-hour) within any area containing an occupied nest or, if no occupied nest exists, within the area occupied by a potential breeding pair in order to prevent construction noise from negatively impacting breeding success. Where the ambient noise level is greater than 60 dB Leq (one-hour), the ambient noise level shall not be exceeded as a result of project- related construction. If an occupied nest or potential breeding pair is identified during a pre-construction survey, noise mitigation techniques, such as temporary noise walls or berms or modifications to construction activities, deemed necessary to attenuate construction noise levels within affected areas to 60 dB Leq (one-hour) or less shall be formulated by a qualified biologist and qualified acoustician and shall be implemented during the breeding season. The qualified acoustician shall monitor the success of any noise attenuation measures that arc implemented; where a violation of the noise level limit is identified, the acoustician shall immediately notify the Environmental Review Cuordinator so that construction activities can be halted or reduced to avoid further exceedauces of the limit until suflicient alternate or modified noise attenuation measures, if any, can be implemented. 8. Prior to the approval of any impruvement plans or the issuance of any building permit, the Environmental Keview Coordinator shall assure that exterior lighting will be adequately directed and shielded, if necessary, to prevent light spillover into sensitive biological habitat areas, wherever feasible mid consistent with public safety. Consideration should be given to the use of law-pressure sodium lighting. 9. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any huilding permit, the F,nvironmcntal Review Coordinator shall ensure that no invasive non-native plant species will he introduced into areas immediately adjacent to sensitive biological habitat areas. Noise l0. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the library building, the preparation of an acoustical analysis will be required to address the effects of vehicular noise on interior sound levels, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Building Official 'fhe measures identified in the acoustical analysis that are necessary to ensure that vehicular noise does not result in interior noise levels in excess 45 decibels Lcq (daily one-hour peak vehicular noise period) shall be iurplemenled through final huilding design and construction, to the satisfaction of the Environmental RCV1eW Manager and City Building Of[icial. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Shauna Stokes. Library Department Frank Rivera. Public Works Department-Engineering Division Jeff 1v~Ioneda, Public Works Department-Engineering Division 7 04/26/0? Kirk Ammerman, Public Works Department-Engineering Division Matt Little, Public Works Department-Engineering Division Greg Tscherch, Public Works Department-Engineering Division Ralph Lcyva, Public Works Department-Engineering Division Majed Al-Ghafry, Public Works Department-Engineering Division Bill Ullrich, Public Works Department-Operations Division Jeff Codling, Public Works Department-Operations Division, Chula Vista Transit Rod Hastie, Fire Department Joe Gamble, Building and Park Construction Department John Schmitt, Planning and Building Department Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building Department Others: Otay Water District Chula Vista Elementary School District Metropolitan Transit Development Board RECON LawCxandall _'. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Final Environments Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 88-2, P&D Tecluiologies, hie., May 1989 Rancho Del Rey Sectional Plamring Area I Plan, 1987 Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October 2000 Revised Biological Resource and Constraints Report for the Rancho Del Rey Library Site, RGCON, March 2002 Report of Gcotechnical Investigation, Proposed Fast Side Library, LawCrandall, March 2002 Addendum No. 1, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East Side Library, LawCrandall, April 2002 x o~iz6ioz 3 initial Study This environmental determination is based nn the attached Initial Study, any comments reccivcd on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgemenC 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. ~~/~.~. ~ d7"+~Q_ _ Date: `~ 9 Cj,~ NTarily^ . F. Ponseggi ~ ----- Environmental Review Coordinator 9 04/26/02 OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE \. 1~ L - - - ~S 4EL~E ~` ,_, X_- / ~ \ } ~ - __ -~ 1 PROTECT ~: = T . _ _i . ~~ ~ LOCATION ~_, j~~~~71 J~.~f~~ =~ l~~l ~s1T CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT CITY OF CHULA VISTA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: ENGINEERING DIVISION INITIAL STUDY PROJECT Northwest corner of Paseo Ranchero ADDRESS. and east "H" Street Request: Proposed construction of a 36,000 square foot libra in the Rancho Del Re al th N rth t f ry y e o wes corner o NORTH scALe No Scale raE NurnRER: IS-02-040 Paseo Ranchero and East "H" Street. /, YMCA OP C ~,PG ~ ~r P Y, "" ~~\ ~ ~F PPS OR "~\ // MAR6RISAS ~:=" OPEN ~~NpU APARTMENTS ~~ <~<\,y~ SPACE / ~ FIRE ~~ ~ ~ %~\ STATION i ~ Y"~1 ~/i i ~ 1 \ / j s- CHURCH 1 ~,- ~ ~\` y ` ~~~1~~~ ~~~~~~ 1 ~~lo(~~ ~~~~~l~~~~ c\DAIFILES\locators\IS02040.cdr 03/28/02 EXHIBIT A -LOCATION MAP o ~\ ~ ~. ~~ r ~~ ~` ~ A a' \ ~~ v \ ~ j tY ,O j j .~ . ~, W ~` ~ s `\ cn ~~ ~ o \ Q ~ , -' ~ sl ~ \\' ~ r v~ \~ ~ `~ ~ = ~ a- \ >+„ s Z "'`---~ ~_ r - ~ 4 T~ r ^~ f °' m / ~ ~ ~ \~s i l~ ~ ''~-~ '_. j ~ ~~ f ~ \ ~~ T ~ S W ~ ~ ~ J ~L ~ ~: • V t ¢ ,~ ~~ ~ ~' ~~ ~, }- . ,aC~ '~'.1. J/~ F ^~ ~' _~ ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Rancho Del Rey Library IS-02-40 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Rancho ne~l Rey Library QS-02-40). The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are adequately implemented and monitored. 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: 1. \~/ater 2. Biological Resources 3. Noise MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator for the Cily 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 o1' the Environmental Review Coordinator. 'Che applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming comp]iance with the mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-02-4U to the Environmental Review Coordinator. "fhe Environmental Review Coordinator 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 listed in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 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. lH-\homeAplanning\n~naVS-ul-1149 ~1MRP textducl C E E 0 y ro v n a o V '~ U c L I k7 o m o.d x ~, U o~ O '' p'` ee C C o= ~° a EU r o -~ m x -c p F z z ;_ a ~< ~ G= H ~ V z ___ Q ~, H d O r1 ~, s. N Q ___- 0. N Q ~ ' N . % ~ ~ CO G.5 .L -. G C ~ cCe C C v ' C Y `~ 'O .^ ~ C F ''a '~ al ~ oll R r~ ~ C. ¢a mw ~ ,R ~¢ w w'y , ° X ------ v ---- -- x --- ---_~ ` ° G ~'~ -~ ti a v ~~ ~, S. .+ ^~ U .~ ~ j ~J +N-~ y~y Q6. 'n _________~_- CO n -- ~ ~ N y ~ ~ ' o ° `d ¢ p ~ fl' G C '~ ca (~''x C C v r a C '+ ~ v N N~ °~ dw ~ oli v m ~ b E Y t° ~ ~ V o ~ o °~~' o ° ~ ~ o ~ p,C.~ i6 OL r _ i°. o .','O %'-' P7 "'C.. O y 011 ~i~~_~~S>'+~v o.~C S''vZ ~~~~~ GvX G ~ cp .~.. C ~ = Y : `a ^O C n C '9 ~ O tb vC t U ~ j ~ ~ Q ° E ~ 9 iG G tC C /i V " Y' C `v O (d ~ G R u~ ;% a C~ ;a 7 u 'oD oll C: 6 P' v O 4 :: v M W 6 ~ R~ .. ~_ ~ ~ m b Y ^~ C ° fi. V b N ~ ~ ° ~ K ~ v aCi > N u1 .,. m y c .~ G W r p A v Y G ei ~ ell Q 7 ~? 'U .' o p- ~ ° ~, ~ b ~ N r p p ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~~ U «~-' ~ W ~U n. a•U o ~ 5 ------ a v G =z K W ~ K r 0 O c~3 ~i U M ~ C, v b ~ ro C v m ~ Q C ~p cb C oA Cll ~ ~ ~ G u .C C v .C ~ b C .D ~ C C ~ ~ ~ Q P. 0.cl Q W @ m f. /• o ~ LV x . v-- ~ e o c AU N o >! Y G. V in a ~ a `o ~ M b .^~ `o c ~ O o..a o cry w °' ~ °- ~ ~' o ~ m .~ 5A o % ro .C on w n N G j .].~~ F~~ C O ~` u G 0 N ~ ". i. O G . ~ O d ~ ~.' ° y ro 'm' ~ ° °' b t v ` ro u ~ O ° 0 G G Y v ~, ~ sv. y ~ m L Y ~ of N C C ~ y O ~ [' ° E ~ o o~ " E,° ;Y a ac,Q o ° fib a ~ ~ a ' ° ~ ~ , m .n b . ~, y~ ~ m v w~ ~~ ro Q C Y i^ p i ~y v ~ .;: i v ~ ~~~ ~' ~ v v p % T p 'C v > O G' ro b v N G' .L. v +. ~ .N '- U~ ~~ H C ,d y i v [ C h ' - 4' Y ~ . E ° `s ~ v n .~ ~ 8 c ~ ° 3 t o ~ ~ °' v .° m ~ b v ~ ~ . J ~ ~ > u Y ro 'a s , ~ o ~ ~ Y W c Y w d „ r . m . ~ CG ~ ~ ~ ~ p '" ~ E E W ° ~ . n a . c ~ . . o a .~ o 2 v v , n, R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .' W N ~ O Y ~ L w C r N ~ iJ v N L ~ O C A G a i6 .~ hp~ ~' P. ~ d U ~ V O O. d 0 t y C G~~'a% ~ ~ v O .y y G G ~'~ ~ v 'O ~ C ~ v d ~ C ~ C f. O ? G ~ .D . . ~ 0 ~ 'O v Q ~ b ' ro ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ v ° ~ ~ ,~ ~ S N C6 '" O O 9 v' v , ~ v ~ ~.. t 'S b .Y ~ o in Y . y .~ E ' ` ti ~ cJ ~ 3 o~ ° W~ a v c c row `o " w `~ o ~ m a N v~ ~ ~ ,~ a, W m> R O :/] ~~ .Y O [~ .N. O j', N O b ~ O ~ W q~ d O ~ = i3 'i , L~~ O N R h a ° ~ a. ~...w.b ,n D.~..'w. '-»v' ~ o itwwTJb fl O OAw '_' E v G.CA RG~.. 'o v...v .t d O G G T_ ~ O r C t E , O C G ~ M v O .Q s . C 0 m Y W O O~ J V v u 0 0 ': 'O ~ O O v v 0 0 0. (] C O ;~ G~~ v ~ u ~ O G : l ~ v ~ '^`e ~ V v " ^ C C ~ z (J N cC V N Y j rovec ' G ~ U ,G "' U CU ro G .G i O'7Ni ~, Oqd O OnYdCq cG1 %, ~ .VUr.] N ~~n ,LY_ ~ _ , OC1 N 'O R'- '~'~ ~'"V ~.~ 0 Cl. ,E a o . '~ c a y c . °. ° ° ~ . ~ ° ~ ' ° ' v ro ' ° o v . ~ .~ ~ v ° ° 0 y . v °' ro ~ - m ~ ~ ~ o y v . L ° L m ~ E o U a ~~ ti M ~~ M V u L s a`. .fl x , c - e~ a. ~ , e. =° ~ . a r . a~ ~ - o~ m Y iy ~ d ~' won ~ ~ a m ^~ c G ~ ~~a ~ '6a it ~ C f^rW W C O 1 u U y 5)~ cu u ° v cs Y O p, ~n _ U N M R A G a np' ~, d ~. O ~ G ~-. a~- n v oD N ` N 7 ~ C Y 6 .. ~ N ~ N 9 ~~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~~ ~ N C C t r~ ~ P ~ i° 5Q <3 Gn v 9. p ~~ ~ G o~~ ~ v o° o .R `n.'~. w C v ~s ~ cv `~. ~ G C f G ^. o O ~'- °' GE~TiN~~G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., O ,= ,v ~ N ~ D J. v ~ ~ CI ~ y a N Q p m V :6 __ ___ C J M Q on cn ;fl ~ G^ ~r ~ ~ ____ ___ I _.________ -- o .n ~ Y r ~ ~ M !. t 7. ~~ G ' p ~' -p u O 'N N a ... v _ G ti °~ d "~ N +. ~ WI J ~. ;fj r.~ v ~ ~ aG/~L ____ ~!-rr. .d ~~w~~6 N~~aR'~nrdApo~vd 9 0 ~ N ~ ~, O O ~'^' N G N R N ^A F O B ~ e~ p E~ ^' o f ~+ ,~' O y~ O N O '~ v Y °1 J f '^ u N u' rJ rn fl' G y `^ Y 0 0 ~N .9 7 ,N ~ M J G c ~c~ o s -'~ ',° c o o ~ b C t °*= ~ G E-^ c ~; , d u ~~~~% s w~ -°; r L v = O H ~ ~ ~ "d v ,O+ E G ~ 7 -6 ~ 9 ,~ o ~ N ~ ~ dr ~^ ~. °~ O Wi f. o. v r G N « v ~' N v. 7 is G v M v' 1 7 rn F, v j p P '.~ ~ G R' cC TVJ .~ G o i~ N R N~ ~.'P o .~y M W cil O c5 U p] A~ n CS j~ O~ N o v ~ c ~ v 'Y v v C= '_^. ~ N~ r ~ ~ ': ~ G ~ .- d ~ ~ cs N ~ O 9 a ° o s y, v r N ~ G P ~ .~ ~ v~ by ~ C~ J G r, ~ b0 y~ U ~^ ,^ N i V o~ .d ma y' E .°r y y U 4 ,n ~, W p Q ~ R~~ N k~ `.» ° °> ~ o ~ m' u w Go d o C m'~ ~ Yo °~ ~c 7 o°'i`^ n~QG ~,°u~°'-~.n~~Rro-co ~J~ oG~ of M ~a M'~„ G O~ N n a' nn 7, o G~~ o b ~~ m = $ ec,°~,=ova ~~°.:%'~~,a,~3Tso ~~-~°~TSOi° NE'~N ~o~i.. '~ ~ : y ' ~, ~, ~' G v a o °f' N ~ rn ° N ~ ~O ~ a : p ~ ~ ,~ pal m O G ~ ~ i ~ u 0 o Kn .°.' o~ '~Ur v J 4 ~'6 ' o 'a a v ~ c ~ c .a N e"i c ~ o ,,.. ^, % .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o .~ 'o ,.G Y C~ ~ ~~ v -p G f v ~ v Pry v ^ G ~ ~ 9 'i •N+ ~ oy `~ r O nn 7 G ~ '7 C ~ ',. O .. m .~' ~ U :1' N c3 Q ~.. rJ N ' 6 ' C O V+ > ` CS ], il' ' r //r, C ? ~ ~ ti ' ~Oj ~ ~ li in ~ G O ~ u~ V y on ,r v p d ~, L- y U L. ~ ..- U G yr S .'O V y 'n G a ry c5 R ____ M ,.J ^ ~:y ~+~'. r3 ~- v Y CS ? G vim.. N N ~r ai r V O N ~ ;3 'fl ~ .~ ^,- ~ ¢' C 'o i~ ^3 ~ o G G N ~ N e0 O J p, ~ 'tea' G C D ~ d, v G `. ~ p es y N' f ~ ,fl ~J yr a ~ "' ------_- _~~ m __-- Q c ~-- V -- -1- by ~ Q ~ Q M D ~i o4 N G G ~ ~~ b .N . 2 ~ i ~ ,. ~ 0. 4n f P=- ba ~Q ~ C ~_ y~ ~ d ~ F U 6 O qU c X ~----'_'- j a` ~__ ~_ R r c- o V N y On• 04 A ~ ~ ~ ~ V , n' ~ y p 6. v ~ V ~ n ~ O G N~ N 1 M ~ N Q -~- "p ~~ is p, ~ ~ ~. N N b y v r~"~ "~ v v V. ~ p ~ 6' y C3 y R, y M A N s- ~ N i. V ^r' Q ~ G ~,. 0.b ty, y C .Q O"bn ~ b ci ~4 o y~ Y a''y id o o~ r ~~ C O ~~ 040 ~ .. o G o L ~'~'~~~ ~ ~p G G O i.~p o ~ o~ ~.~ C' ~ V v C 9 = G c3 'O ~ ~ ~ TS F c~ ! O N N a G y m '~ p p O o C y c J 9 v 0 ¢' ~ fcs . N G ~p G O ~ ~ v~ ,.~'.. Obi, L F a C c> v G ^ ._ ~ Y C~ y~ 0 N~ U, y OV N N, OG O ca C .,, i y ;., r- ~ b C' 9 ~ u, ~ y N~ N N '~ L N G ~G n asw~~ N Q ? G J N ~ ,u o . t p w 'rte` G .° a N O n ~ ~ ~ per: c~sw~_-----_- ;, ti ~~ c1 v G y w ~ o Ea o G u ~ Y v .N ~ ~~ ~ ~ w ~a+ V Y„^ N~= J ~ ~ py :r Qy o ~' ° ~ y A y y v n~~ r~ v ~u ~~ ~ ry G a J N_ d v .~ ~~ N~ O~ ~ ~~ 7~~~ y v a~ 3~ ~ i6 Y `~' ~ b y ~ 'J( ~ N ~ ~ U t Q. .O O .p., ~~ d~ ~ C N O r, w ~ G O Ci ~ G ~ r' .o ^ ~ l' ~ b y O ~ Y C V~ G a^ b W .p. G b 9 °U o 'fl N r "O N O~ V~ O N tC v^ PZ -O O ^.~ i O R v 7 ~~ C am. 9 v v ~~ f- w ~ :n ti -~ L 4 'gin 7 w .,y n G ^~', ~~~ ~ 2 ~ '~' 7, v~ ~.. F y N y ~'~ [C 5 Q O D~ N ~~ V E t° G_~_='~ --- Case No.IS-02-40 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista Library Department Contact: Shauna Stokes 2. 3. 4. 5. I. Lead Agency Name and Address: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Name of Proposal: Date of Checklist: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 9L910 (619)476-5376 exL3140 Rancho Del Rey Library April 29, 2002 Potentially Pnlen[lally Sigvifieav[ Less thaw Signifuml Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Woleld the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? h) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including alow- income or minority community)? Comments: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a) l lndcr the Rancho Del Key Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Planned Community llistrict Regulations, which implements the General Phm and serves as the zoning regulations for this SPA, the project site is designated OS-2 (Open Space 2 District). Public and quasi-public uses, including public libraries, are permitted uses within the OS-2 District. h) The proposal would not contlict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore, ilte proposed development would not encroach into the Draft F'ngc - 1 Oily of Chulu Vista ~llulti?ale :4?~ecieS C onservatiorz Program Subarea Plart Habitat Preserve area. c) The project site is neither in agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources. d) The proposed development of a public library nn the graded, vacant project site would not disrupt or divide the established Rancho Del Rey community. Pntenlially II. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would die Ynlemially s1A imam Lr~s man . prOPOSah tiiRvilicant Import Uvless Miti~amd Sigviflcavt Lnpacl No Impact a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ^ ^ ^ population projections? bl Induce substantial growth in an area either ^ ^ o directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ^ ^ ^ housing? Comments: a) The proposed public library would have no effects upon regional ar local population b) "fhe proposed public library would not directly or indirectly induce growth. c) 'I~he vacant project site does not contain any housing. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Woatld the proposal result In or expose people to potential Impacts Imolvlttg. a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? cl Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The dentruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or uff the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? PutentialW Polenti:Jlp tiiFViflcanl Lcvv Ihuv tii6mificant Cnlrss tii6 ificanl Impact ~IitiCatnl Impacf ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Nv Impvtl Pngc - 2 g) Exposure of people or property to geologic ^ ^ ^ ^ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: a) In order to identify the geotechnical conditions and geologic hazards at the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations and for floor slab support, earthwork, and paving, a geotechnical investigation was conducted by LawCrandall. the soil and ground water conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling nine borings to depths of up to 41 feet below the existing grade. Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to cvahmte the pertinent engineering properties of the fom~datiou soils. The project site comprises a relatively level pad located at the head of awest-trending tributary valley. The pad was constructed by infilling the valley and cutting into the valley slopes. As a result of the grading, natural materials are present in cut portions of the pad in the northeastern and eastern corners of the site. Artificial fill up to approximately 19 feet thick was encountered in the exploratory borings. 'Ihe fill consisted generally offine to medium silty and clayey sand with some gravel and cohhle, as well as fragments of sandstone. Based on the consultant's review of aerial photographs and historic topographic maps, deeper fill may be present in the northwestern portion of the site. Alluvial deposits were encountered in one boring as part of the native soils covering the bottom of an intilled natural drainage. The dense formational materials exposed at the surface and buried beneath the fill within the site are part of the Tertiary age San Diego Formation. Ground water seepage was observed in one boring at a depth of approximately 40 feet below existing grade at the contact between the alluvial soils and sandstone bedrock. the closest active faults to the site are within the Rose Canyon fault zone in San Diego Bay, located about 5.4 miles west-southwest of the site. Several of the more highly active faults in southern Califon>ia are included in the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones. 'these fault zones are located approximately 42 and 61 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The San Andreas fault zone, which is considered the most significant fault zone iu California, is located about 90 miles northeast of the site. 'the closest potentially activo fault to the site is the La Nacion, which has been regionally mapped to traverse the eastern boundary of the site along Pasco Ranchero. The La Nacion fault is not currently zoned as active under the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act. Due to the close proximity of the mapped trace of the La Nacion fault to the project site, a fault hazard investigation was conducted by LawCrandall in April 2002 within the proposed building pad area. Based on the bedrock exposures in the trenches, no faults or significant fault-related features were observed. although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, this hazard is common in southern California and the effects of growrd shaking will he addressed through compliance with the applicable building codes and Page - 3 properstnlchlralengineering design. hhc potential for liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, subsidence, landsliding, tsunamis, immdation, and seiches on-site is considered low. b) Proper engineering design would ensure that no such soils-related impacts would result. c) The proposed development area of the site has been previously graded; further changes in topography and ground surface relief features to accommodate the proposed development would be relatively minor. dj No unique geologic or physical features exist within the proposed development area of die site. e) Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and will be implemented during construction. A]l portions of the development area disturbed during construction will either be developed ar appropriatelylandscapedin accordance with the. landscaping and improvement plans for the project. Therefore, no significant increase in soils erosion would result. f) As described ahove (III.c.), no significant erosion or siltation impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed development. gl Seelll.a.abovc. Pule°r:ary IV. WATER. Would the proposal result iu: s~sni0i°°' Imv~rl a) Changes in absorption rates, drunuge patterns, ~ or the rate and amount of surface runoff' b) Exposure of people or property to water ~ related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other ~ alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ~ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction ~ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ~ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? P°lenli811v s~~~rr~~l are.. m°° rlpl¢6S ti1g111r1f301 nuaa~Ama Impurl ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~° Lnparl P:lee-h g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ^ ^ ^ groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ^ ^ ^ i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood ^ ^ ^ waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water ^ ^ ® ^ otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The proposed grading and development of the previously graded, vacant site would result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans and properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time oC site development. Surface runoff will be collected on-site and discharged into the existing City storm drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. b) The project site is beyond the limits of the 500-year tloodplain and is not in proximity to any hay or ocean; there7ore, no exposure of people or property to water related hazards would result from the proposed development. c) Sce Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section li. d) The proposed development of the graded, vacatrt site would result in the creation of impervious surfaces on the site which, in turn, would result in an increase in surface rwtoff. IIowever, the increase in runoff that would result from the project would be nominal in cumparison to the volume of water in water bodies downstream of the site. e) Surface runoff will be collected on-site and discharged into the existing City storm dutiuage system; based on the plamred storm water drainage methodology, the size of the proposed development, and the location of the project site relative to natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters. f) According to the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project (LawCrandall, March 2002), groundwater was encountered at approximately 40 feet below the elevation of the existing pad area. No changes in the yuantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected to result from the proposed development of the site. g) Sec IV.f. above. h) See N.f. ahove. i) Sec 1V.b. abuve. No alterations to the course or llow of Hood waters downstream of t~,~ge - s the site are expected to result from the proposed development of the site. j) The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. The operation of the proposed public library facility is not anticipated to result in a significant net increase in the. conswnption of water otherwise available lur public consumption. V Putenllally AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Pnlennany Slimlrcam Lecv mnn Significant unless Si~cant Nn Impact lfitigated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ~ ~ ® ~ an existing or projected air quality violation? h) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ~ ~ ~ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ~ ~ ~ or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally'? d;l Create objectionable odors? ~ ~ ~ e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or ~ ~ ® ~ non-stationary sources of air emissions or [he deterioration of ambient air quality'? Comments: a) Based on the limited amount of site wading that will be necessary to accommodate the proposed development and the projected amount of project-generated traffic, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air yuality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. b) 'Ihe proposed development would neither generate a significant amount of pollutants nor expose patrons and employees of the proposed public library to an atypical level of urban pollutants. c) The proposed development and operation of a two-story public library on the project site would not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. d) Neither development nor operation of the proposed public library is anticipated to create any objectionable odors. e) Based on the projected amount ofproject-generated traffic, the proposal would not result in a substantial increase in stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air yuality. Stationary sources of air emissions generated by the proposed library facility would be nominal. P°lenlially TRANSPORTATIONlCIRCLiLATION. Would VI ''"'~°"°Ilr signlrcant Leas man . tiignificant l~nless Signifirnm No she proposal result in. Impact nuegated Impact ImPa°t a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestioli? ~ ~ ® ~ Page - 6 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ^ ^ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ^ ^ ^ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ^ ^ ^ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ^ ^ ^ bicyclists'? tl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ^ ^ ^ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racksl? g) Rail, watefiorne or air traffic impacts? ^ ^ ^ h) A "large project" under the Congestion ^ ^ ^ Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips. ) Comments: a) ~fhe proposed library is estimated to generate 50 average daily trips (ADT) per 1,000 square feet of building area, or 1,800 ADT Far the proposed 36,000 square-foot facility, two percent (36 trips) of which are projected to occur during the A.M. peak hour and 10 percent (180 trips) of which are projected to occur during the P.M. peak hour. Pity staff conducts annual traffic capacity and Level Of Service (LOS) studies, through the use of the. "floating car" method, for all major street segments throughout the City. 1~he studies conducted in 2001 show that Last "H" Street at Paseo Ranchero operates at LOS "I3° or better. In addition, a recent traffic report conducted by Linscott Law & Greenspan for the Eastlake III development shows that the Last "H" Strcct/Paseo Randlero intersection operates at LOS "D" or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Project-added traffic would not significantly impact the LOS of East "H" Street or the East °H" Street/Paseo Ranchero intersection; because no LOS degradation would result, the project would not result in any significant traffic impacts. b) Vehicular access to the project site would be via driveways on Paseo Ranchero and bast "H" Street. Roadway striping on Paseo Ranchero, north of the East "IP' Street intersection, would be modified in order to create a center two-way left-turn lane primarily to minimize the queuing of northbound vehicles behind vehicles wailing to turn left into the library site. The proposed driveway on Gast "H" Street would be right-in/right-out only with a deceleration lane (approximately 150 feet with a transition of approximately 120 teet). No traffic safety hazards are anticipated to result from the project. c) The proposed site plan provides for adequate emergency access from both East "H' Street and Paseo Ranchero. ~~~re - ~ d) "the approximately 190 parking spaces proposed on-site are considered adequate for the proposed facility. e) Two points of entry into the building are proposed, one along the north side and another at the southeast corner of the site. The north entrance would be utilized predominantly by patrons parking on-site as well as those dropped off at this entrance and those walking or cycling from the north. 'Che southeast corner entrance would be utilized predominantly by pedestrians along East "H" Street, including those arriving by bus, and those walking or cycling from the south, cast, and west. Children who are brought to the library from the YMCA facility on the opposite side of Paseo Ranchero, north of Paseo Magda, will cross Paseo Magda at the stop-controlled intersection with Paseo Ranchero, then cross Paseo Ranchero at the signalized East "H" Street/Paseo Ranchero intersection, and most likely enter the building through the southeast entrance. Due to safety caacems, no mid-block crosswalks along Pasco Ranchero are proposed to serve the facility; the existing crosswalks iu the immediate vicinity of the site are considered adequate for safe pedestrian access to the facility. A pedestrian pathway along the west side of the fire station immediately north of the site is tentatively planned; this pathway would provide for convenient pedestrian access from the planned YMCA Teen Center immediately north of the fire station. I Iowever, if this pedesh~ian pathway is not ultimately constructed, sale mid com'enient pedestrian access from the Teen Center would be available via the sidewalk along Paseo Ranchero. f) No conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation would result. An existing Chula Vista Transit bus stop on East "H" Street, immediately west of Pasco Ranchero, would make the proposed public facility conveniently accessible to public transit, particularly in light of the proposed building entrance at the nurthwest corner of the East "H" Street/Paseo Ranchero intersection, in cluse pruximity to the bus stop. In addition, bicycle racks will be provided on-site. g) Nu rail, navigable waters, or aircraft Iacilities exist in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, the proposed decclopmcnt of a public library on the project site would not result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. h) The proposed public library is projected to generate approximately L,800 daily trips, with less than 200 daily peak-hour trips, which is not considered a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program. VII vmrna"ny BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ''"'""'+""> s~.m+`""' '.~,~'""" Significant Unless signJicant Nn ~7YO~10SC1~ YPS1411 U2 1iIlf7C1ClS I0: Impact n7itigated Lnpact Impact al Endangered, sensitive species, species of ~ ® ~ ~ concern or species that arc candidates for listing? h) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ~ ~ ~ treesl7 c) Locally designated natural communities le g., ~ ® ~ ~ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc. )'? Pace - H d) Wefland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ^ ^ ^ vernal pool)'? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors`? ^ ~ fl Affect regional habitat preservation planning ^ ^ efforts? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. b) No locally designated species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section 1r. d) No wetland habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Sectiou E. fl Sce Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section G. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: al Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? h) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will this project impact this protection'? Comments: Ibtcmivlll 1'olentially Significant Less Than Significant I'nlcss Silmificam hnpnn Dlltignted Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Nv Impvcl a) The project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. b) The proposed facility would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy elIScieney regulations. There are no proposed feahtres or aspects of the project that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use ofnon-renewable resources. c) Pursuant to the Environmental Tmpact Report for the Cily of Chula Vista General Plan i tpdate, the project site is not designated for mineral resource protection by the State of California Department of Conservation. Putemially IX. HAZARDS. Would Ute propose! inrnlve: Yaleminny signtrcam Less mnn tiigniricavt Unless SlgniPcavt N:: Imynct ~litignlcJ Impvcl Impvcl Pakc - 9 al A risk of accidental explosion or release of ~ ~ ~ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ~ ~ a response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ~ ~ ~ health hazard? d) Cxposure of people to existing sources of ~ o ~ potential health hazards'? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with Flammable ~ ~ ® ~ brush, grass, or trees? Commments: a) Thera are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would represent an atypical risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. If applicable, a business plan that identifies the type and location of any hazardous materials utilized and/or stored on-site would he required to be filed with the City Fire Department. b) The development of a public library nn the project site would not result iu interference with .ur emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would he created as a result of the development of a public library on the project site. d) No known sources of potential health hazards exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. e) Although the project site contains llatnmable native brush, the library building would he situated approximately 130 legit from the nearest area of native brush and is separated from areas of native brush by the parking lot, the Gast "H" Street driveway, the service area adjacent to the building, and irrigated landscape areas. The proposed site plan provides for a more than sufficient setback between the proposed building and areas of native brush; thereti~re, no significant brushfire hazards would result. ran~mi:di> X. NOISE. Would die pro osal result in: I P raten6ally signfncam sia,acraot i;:d~ss Less Ihaa signfecanl w. Lnpnrl Dlitigated Impa<1 Impart a) Increases in existing noise levels'? h) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ~ ® ~ Comments: a) Increases in existing noise levels associated with project-generated traffic, vehicular- related noise (e.g., alarms, radios, closing of doors), and noise generated by library patrons would he intermittent and ofrelalively short duration; therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant noise impacts. Puec - 10 h) Se~e~ Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section 1;. Pvcen[ially XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Wo{t[d the proposal have P°Iem;auy Signifieanl I,e,~ man Sigmficwt Uvless Significav[ N° an effect ({pOil, Or resllh Ol a need fOr Yield Or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact altered government services in arry of the following areas' a) Pire protection? ^ ^ ® ^ bi Police protection? ^ ^ ® ^ c) Schools'? ^ ^ ^ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including ^ ^ ® ^ roads'? e) Other govermnental services? ^ ^ ® ^ Comments: a) The proposed facility would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need far new or altered fire protection services. h) The proposed facility would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection sernices. c) Iiccause the proposed public library would not induce mry population growth, the project sa~ould not result in any adverse impacts to public schools. d) The proposed public library is a planned facility that is needed to serve existing and future residents of the City of Chula Vista. Whether or not a library is built on the project site, an additional library swill ultimately be built and operated by the City of Chula Vista. The need for the City of Chula Vista to maintain a new library, regardless of where it is constructed within the City, is not considered to represent a significant environmental impact. e) As a public library, the proposal would result in the need for expanded services by the City of Chula Vista Library Department to staff and operate the new facility. As described above (XLd. ), the proposed library is a planned facility that is needed to serve existing and future City residents. The need for the City to staff and operate this new facility is not considered to represent a significant environmental impact. Potenfiaily Ibtentially Significnm Lesc than Significant I!nless Signi~cav[ Nu Lnpact \liligated Impact Impact XIL Thresholds. Wi11 the proposed adversely impact ^ ^ ® ^ the City's 77n'eshoid Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely im pact any o f the seen phreshold Standards. r,m~mian.~ p°~° - 1 t YoLLVlially SiKrulicvnt less than Sib Ificant Unless SignNcavt No Impact Miligaled Impact Impact a) Fire/FMS ^ ^ ® ^ The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and EMS Master Plan. h) Police Potentially Potentiallf tiignificant Lrss than tiignificant Unless tiignificant Nn hnpact Miligaled Impact hnp:ml ^ ^ ® ^ The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police writs must respond to 62.10` of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. c) Traffic rolemian.~ Potentially SiKnificanl Less than SigniPicmrt Unless Sig:dlicavl No Impact Nltigated hnpact Lnpacl ^ ^ ® ^ 1. City-wide Maintain LOS °C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed nn all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. ?. West of I-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. d) Parks/Recreation Yntenfially rnlemiauy sKnire:ml Hess man tiignJic:ml Unless SigniPcanl Kn hnpact Mitigated hnpact hnpact ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighhorhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate ROS. Potentially rnlenrinny Slgnificanl Less mnn tilgniGcvnl Unl ss tiignificant Nn Impvet Miligaled LnPUeI hnpact e) 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 t'aKc - i z Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this'I'hreshold Standard. rm~~cnny Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact hLl[igaled ImpACI Impact t1 Sewer ~ ~ The Threshold Standards reyuire 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. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. g) Water rntennmly Potentially Sig~canl Less than Significant Unless Significant No hnpacl 1litigafed lmpact Impact ^ ^ The Threshold Standards reyuire 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. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also he required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: al ~hhe project site is situated adjacent to an existing City the station. The threshold standard response times can be met for this project. b) It is anticipated that the threshold standard response times can be met for this project. c) Project-added tragic would not significantly impact the LOS of East "fl" Street or the East "H" Sheet/Paseo Ranchero intersection, which currently do not exceed the threshold standards (See VLa. above). d) 'Chc proposed library facility would not induce population growth; therefore, the parks/recreation threshold standard is not applicable to the proposal. el Proper engineering design of required storm drainage improvements to serve the project would ensure that storm water flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards. fl Proper engineering design of required sewer improvements to serve the project would ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards. g) The project site is an in-fill site within a developed community. The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. Pursuant to correspondence from I'~ge - 13 the Otay Water District, dated March 25, 2002, the project may be serviced from existing potable water mains. Project impacts to the Distric t's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. Potentially XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially siF ificant Less Mao Significant Che pYOpOSQT YQSl4h lTd Q need fOY fle1V SySt2YI1S, OY lmpve Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact suFistantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ~ ~ ® ~ b) Communications systems'? ~ ~ ® ~ cl Local or regional water treatment or ~ ~ ® ~ distribution facilities? dl Sewer or septic tanks? ~ ~ ® ~ el Storm water drainage? ~ ~ ® ~ f) Solid waste disposal? ~ ~ ® ~ Comments: a) The project site is iocatcd with an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and connections to such utilities and systems that are necessary in order to adequately service the proposed library lacility would be implemented by the. City.. subject to the. approval of the appropriate utilities and service providers. Impacts of the proposal to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. h) Sce X[[[.a. c) Sce XIILa. The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. Pursuant to correspondence from the Utay Water District, dated March 25, ?002, the project may be serviced from existing potable water mains. d) See Xlll.a. ('ity Engineering staff has determined that existing sewer mains are adequate to serve the proposed project. e) Sce }~IIT.a. 'T'hree storm water drainage curb inlets exist at the intersection of East "H" Street and Pasco Ranchero. The adequacy of the existing storm drainage facilities to serve the project will be determined at the time of detailed engineering design; any improvements to the storm drainage system that are deemed necessary will he implemented by the City. f) See XIII.a. rnnnran. r:n~,:avny significam t.ess Mon Signit'ivan( UNcss Signiflcan[ 90 XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: (mWc( nutigatea ^npaet tmpacf a) Ohstruct any scenic vista or view open to the ~ ~ ~ Page - I4 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? h) Cause the destruction or modification of a ^ ~ ® ^ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^ d) Create added light or glare sources that could ^ ^ ® ^ increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? ^ ^ ® ^ Comments: a) hIo significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site. b) Tn accordance with the City's General Plan, East "H" Street is a designated scenic roadway. Anew curb cut and driveway on East "H" Street approximately ~M100 feet west of the East "H" Street/Paseo Ranchero intersection is proposed, which would require modifications to the existing manufactured slope along the perimeter of the site. The appropriate landscaping treahnent of slope areas along East °H" Street which are disturbed as a result of the proposed development would ensure that aesthetic impacts to this scenic roadway are not significant. c) The development of a public library facility on the graded, vacturt project site, which is lucatcd on a corner of a prominent signalized intersection, would not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect To the contrary, proposed improvements to the site and along the site's street frontages, including above-standard landscaping and decorative hardscape, would have a positive aesthetic effect. d) Proper architectural design will ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting will not be directed upward and will be designed and installed, with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the limits of the developmrent area. e) See XIV.d. rmemiau. XV. CULTURAL, RESOURCES. Wo1e[d t{te r~leneall. si4 irca~;l Less man Significant Unless Significant Yu {J 1"OPOSCI{: Impact MitigaleJ Impact Impact al Will the proposal result in the alteration of or ^ ^ ^ the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site'? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or ^ ^ ~ aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? 1'uge - I S c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a ^ ^ ^ physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values`? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or ^ ^ ^ sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan ^ ^ ^ EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resuurces'? Comments: a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below. h) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area. See XV.c. below. c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values. d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact urea of the proposal. c) The project site is identited as an area of moderate potential fbr archaeological resources in the City~s General Plan I;IR. The project site, situated at the head of a west-trending tributary valley, was previously graded to create the existing level pad area. According to the gcotechnical investigation prepared for the project (LawCrandall, March 2002), the pad was constructed by inlilling the valley and cutting into the valley dupes. Therefore, natural materials are present in cut portions and till materials arc present in infill areas. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that will be necessary to construct the proposed library facility, the potential Ibr impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. r:ne~~~~n.~ rm~::r:aiy ss~m~,~~ ~.~,~ ^:a:: ^::p„<~ nsn~~:~:~a ~:nv:,o~ m:o::r~ XVL PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the ^ ^ ^ proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: a I According to the gcotechnical investigation prepared lirr the project jLawCrandall, March 2002), artificial fill up to approximately 19 feet thick was encountered in on-site exploratory borings. With the exception of two borings in the extreme eastern purtion of the development area, artificial fill was encountered in the remaining seven borings. Excavation within undisturhed geologic formational material associated with the development of the proposed library is anticipated lu he nominal; therefore, signiticant ~~age- is impacts to paleontological resources are not anticipated to result. YVII. RECREATION. Woitikl the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? h) Affect existing recreational opportunities'? c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or programs? Comments: a) Because the proposed public library would not induce any population growth, the project would not result in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational opportunities. h) Nu recreational opportunities exist o^ the project site and the proposal would not affect existing off-site recreational opportw~ities. c) The project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. rm~mimly Vnlrnlinlly Jlymiliennt Lese lMn SiF;Idficanl UNess Si[yilicanl No Impact ~Glipnted Impact Impflcl ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Pare - i ~ XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-40. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. ~11~-i~J.~c~.. `~+yk.LS, F~t)~,.,~L-~~I.,,C ~tr~+tt,ti t%~T 1/cJl~ Printed Name and Title of Property Owner t`1m~~ Date (or authorized representative) Signature of Property Owner Date (ur authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different tram Property Owner) Signature of Operator (if different from Property Owner) Date Date 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 hnpact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Land Use and Planning ^ Population and Housing ^ Geophysical ^ Water ^ Air Quality ^ Paleontological Resources ^ Transportation/Circulation ^ Biological Resources ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Hazards ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Cultural Resources ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance Page - 18 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 he prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on [he 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 adeyuately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it nmst analyze only the effects that remain to he 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 adeyuately in an earlier F,IR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. / ~ / ~(~ ~f ~2 ' '`i'o7 002 arilyn .F. Ponseggi '~ ate Enviromnental Review Coordinator Page - 19