HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/11/17Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO
PROJECT APPLICANT:
CASE NO.:
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
MJK Chula Vista
201 Broadway
567-041-1600
MJK Real Estate Holding Co., LLC
IS-03-035
October 21, 2003
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: November 17, 2003
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
A. Project Setting
The 0.32-acre project site, comprised of one parcel located in the urbanized central western
portion of the City of Chula Vista, is located at the southeast comer of Broadway and "E"
Street at 201 Broadway (see Exhibit A -Location Map). The project site is a relatively flat
square-shaped site with access off of Broadway and "E" Street and alley access off of "E"
Street. The project site currently contains an unoccupied gas station consisting of a service
station building with one bay, two metal canopies over previously located fuel islands and an
accessory building that once was used for storage. The project site is identified in the General
Plan within the Chula Vista Urban Core and "E" Street is identified as an existing Urban
Core Gateway. The land uses surrounding the site of the proposed retail and restaurant
complex are as follows:
North: Auto Service Center
Northwest: Gasoline Service Station
South: Automobile Parts and Supply Store
East: Alley and Medical Office
Southeast: Single-Family Residential
West: Commercial Center
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of the demolition of a vacant gasoline service station and the
construction of a new one-story 3,048 square-foot commercial building to accommodate a
restaurant and retail use. Proposed on-site improvements include an 18-space parking lot,
sheltered outside patio area attached to the restaurant facing Broadway, enhanced landscaped
and site improvements creating a strong corner identity, new lighting and trash enc]osure
(See Exhibit B -Site Plan). Off-site improvements include the removal, replacement and
realignment of driveways as well as curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along
i
RETAIL
~.` BUILDING
$jR~
. ~
3
O
m w F gS
m Z F~~
p yL
N
O
2 ~ ~
TG \\\1\/\\`
%iT
VACANT qq~ y
LOT ~O t~cE A~~rrrs 7G
VACANT 9 ~\ ~~
LOT ~~ uueisms NN
Yl asrr ~®
MOBIL
HOME
FEASTER cwn~u ~ ~R
~° PROTECT
ELEMENTARY coRREU I„,~;E
SCHGa. ~R,ER II ~ ~' LOCATION
. s,~E~j m~ m~
p0 ~y
e ~ ROYAL ~~ p! n~ro p
VISTA zoRE ~ yp
INN ~
Y
FOOD STORE HOTEL unc~RO n~irto Z G
SHOPPING v C
CENTER RmTa q Z yG \
MOVE YA TG
TRApER
Z
N1fOODLAVMI
COLONIAL
APARTMENTS
O VISTA ~~
VILLAGE
Y APARTMENTS S,~R~EZ
~~ >F'
9G
Q o~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~uECa r.MJK CHULA VISTA PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 201 BROADWAY
Request: Proposing to demolish existing building and
l
ith
NORTH
SC/LLE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale IS-03-035 rep
ace w
one-story restaurant and retail space.
Related Case(s): DRC-03-85
Exhibit A
w
.Ib
m
~^
i
1
10d 9916-Z6Z-8S8 slaaliyaiy p oiPn1S WH Lq:B £OOZ 'ZZ ~agolap '6epsaupa/N
Broadway and "E" Street. In addition, a 4-foot dedication along the site frontage of "E"
Street required by the City Engineer will be provided. The proposed project is subject to
Design Review approval by the Design Review Committee.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The project site is within the CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Zone and CT (Thoroughfare
Connnercial) General Plan designation. The CT Zone allows for the proposed retail and
restaurant land use. The project has been reviewed preliminarily by the Design Review
Committee and design modifications have been incorporated into the development plans that
include building articulations, separate identifications for each store, building mass breakup,
site plan redesign, strong corner identification, and creation of a signature Gateway project.
D. Public Comments
On October I, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-
foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended October 10, 2003.
No written comments were received.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the 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 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Air Quality
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed project
will result in an increase in air pollutants during both the construction and operational phases
of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during demolition, grading and construction
activities. Although air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are
potentially significant, they are considered short-term 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 consistent with the Thoroughfare Commercial designation of the
project site under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan. Therefore, the proposed change of
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 affecting substantial number of people
would result from the proposed restaurant use, as compliance with APCD and County Public
Health regulations are required. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in
any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts and no mitigation measures are
required.
Geology and Soils
According to the Phase I Environmental Assessment Study, prepared by Ninyo and Moore,
dated May 23, 2003, the site is underlain by late Plestocene-age Bay Point Formation with
marine sandstone deposits. Based upon preliminary review, the project would not be located
on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property. A formal soils study will be required by the
Building Division during the building permit process.
According to the Engineering Department, a formal geological study is required during the
preparation of the final grading plans. Due to the previous development and minimal grading
required for the proposed project, no significant geological impacts are anticipated. A fonna]
soils report is also required by the City Engineering Department with the preparation of the
final grading plans to determine existing soil conditions and provide foundation and
pavement recommendations as well as any soil remediation that may have been required.
The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts
downstream. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with
the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The
implementation of appropriate water quality best management practices (BMPs) during
construction would be required in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). All portions of the development area disturbed during
construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance
with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with
SUSMP requirements would be ensured by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading
permits for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the
drainage system would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Due to the period of inactivity of the service station, in order to assess the potential hazards
associated with the project and potential impacts from previous gasoline station use, a Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Phase II ESA were prepared by Ninyo
& Moore, dated May 23, 2003, and October 13, 2003, respectively. The results of these
ESAs are summarized below.
The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site identified the following results: a) hazardous
substances, petroleum products and unknown substance containers were not observed;
however, based upon historical data, previous environmental reports and prior use of the
facility, hazardous substances, hazardous waste and petroleum products were previously used
at the project site; b) roof mounted product piping was observed and it was unknown if
residual oil products still remained; c) evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) were
not observed during the site visit; however, the nine USTs known to be previously located on
the project site are discussed below; d) superficial staining observed on the concrete floor of
3
the service area of the building during the site visit appeared to be from past battery storage;
e) superficial staining was observed in the soiUgravel area north of the existing building near
the former USTS site; f) evidence of previous hydraulic lift equipment and clarifiers or sumps
were observed in the service bay area of the existing building; however, according to Conoco
Philips, the equipment removal was completed prior to 2001; f) information indicating
whether or not soil sampling was conducted at the time of the hydraulic lift and clarifier
removal was not available; g) wells, such as water supply and groundwater monitoring
wells, were not observed during the site reconnaisance.
Previous Underground Storage Tanks (USTS)
As noted above, the site previously contained nine USTS; environmental site assessments,
remediation plans and activities conducted in the past pertaining to these USTS are
summarized below:
Two 4,000-gallon fuel USTS and one 2,000-gallon UST were installed at the site in the mid-
1940's and removed from the site in 1967. Due to the inactivity of the vacant UnocaWnion
76 service station and because records were not found indicating sampling conducted in the
vicinity of the original USTS removal of 1967, Phase I and Phase II ESAs were conducted on
the site by Bryant Geoenvironmental Inc., (BGI). The Phase 1 ESA concluded that there
were no significant adverse environmental conditions noted on the property. The Phase II
ESA found no evidence of soils impacted by fuel-related hydrocarbons.
One 550-gallon waste oil tank and two 9,950-gallon fuel tanks were excavated and removed
from the site on August 6, 1990. Soil samplings were collected and analyzed. A December
1995 letter from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) stated
that based upon reviewed documents associated with site investigation and remediation
programs and associated activities with the related USTS, no further action was required.
The letter further stated that if a change in land use is proposed, the owner of the site must
notify the DEH for application review and approval prior to any development (see "Change
of Land Use" below).
One 500-gallon waste oil UST was removed from the site on June 25, 1996. The tank
closure and site clearance was completed and no further action was required by the County of
San Diego DEH.
Two 12,000-gallon fuel USTS and product piping were removed from the site on December
15, 2000. No odors or leakage were discovered at the time of the excavation. The tank
closure was completed and no further action was required by the County of San Diego DEH.
Hydraulic Hoists/Clarifiers
Based upon the findings and recommendations of the Phase I ESA (Ninyo and Moore, 2003),
a Phase II ESA was requested by the City of Chula Vista Environmental Section to determine
whether or not contamination associated with the former hydraulic hoists and clarifiers
exists.
Ninyo and Moore conducted four soil borings and collected four soil samples on August 21,
2003, drilling to a maximum depth of 10 feet below ground surface on the project site; two
borings were drilled at the approximate locations of the former clarifiers and two additional
borings were drilled at the approximate locations of the former hydraulic hoists.
The soil samples from the former clarifier and hydraulic hoist areas were analyzed for
petroleum hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel and other fuels using the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) test method of the Department of Health
Services (DHS) for Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT).
Concentrations of TPH-E were detected above their method detection limits in the four
samples at concentrations not exceeding 41 milligrams per kilogram. However, Ninyo and
Moore states that these concentrations are below action levels, which City staff confirmed
with the County of San Diego DEH (personal communication with Laurie Apecechea on
October 9, 2003).
The concentrations of TPH-G, TPH-D, VOCs, and PCBs were not detected above their
reporting limits. Concentrations of metals detected did not exceed their respective
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) as set forth by the 2002 United States Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals document. (PRGs) are
conservative screening values used to assess whether additional assessment or remediation
may be warranted to protect public health. Therefore, no further soil investigation,
remediation or mitigation for petroleum hydrocarbons related to the former clarifiers and
hydraulic hoists are necessary.
Change of Land Use
On July 29, 2003, Ninyo and Moore submitted a change of land use application to the County
of San Diego DEH, Voluntary Assistance Program Section. In response, a letter from the
County of San Diego DEH/Land and Water Quality Division dated September 10, 2003, was
received by the applicant. Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, the County DEH
deemed that the proposed change of land use is acceptable and site clearance was given.
Lead m:d Asbestos Removal
Demolition of any structure may create potential asbestos and lead-based paint hazazds.
Prior to any demolition activities, asbestos and lead-based paint abatement shall be
performed by a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance
to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 -Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The
mitigation measure contained in Section F below would mitigate potential impacts associated
with the release of asbestos and lead to below a level of significance.
5
Hydrology and Water Quality
Based on the City of Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
post-construction pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include trash,
debris, oil and grease. Per the requirements set forth in the SUSMP, best management
practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated into the project to treat runoff generated by the Water
Quality Design Storm having a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The City Engineer
will ensure that the requirements of the SUSMP will be met prior to the issuance of
grading/improvement or construction permits for the proposed project. Based upon the
requirements of the SUSMP and the City's adopted Storm Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual, construction and post-construction project-related water quality
impacts would be less than significant, due to the requirement to incorporate appropriate
BMPs into the project, as described below. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Constnrction BMPs
According to the Engineering Department, due to the size and existing condition of the project site,
the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and and the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board will
not be required. However, the applicant shall be required to complete Form 5504
"Construction Storm Water Management Plan" (CSWMP) prior to issuance of grading,
improvement and construction permits. During construction, BMPs from the California Best
Management Practices Handbook will be used, which have been frequently used on job sites
and have been proven effective. Examples of construction BMPs include silt fences,
sandbags, and hay bales, which are strategically placed around curb inlets, catch basins, and
driveways in order to prevent silt and sediment from entering the storm drain system.
Post-Construction BMPs
Proposed post-construction BMPs include reducing the imperviousness of the site by
utilizing landscaping throughout the site to allow for increased in£ltration. Landscaping is
proposed around the perimeters of the project site, within the interior parking area and
borders along the building elevations. Landscaping improvements to meet the City
requirements is needed thus increasing the proposed nine percent of the project site. All trash
container areas shall be designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas and be screened or
walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.
Required post-construction BMPs will be subject to the approval of aproject-specific water
quality study by the City Engineer and may, therefore, vary to some degree from the
proposed BMPs described above. However, the overall result must be the same regardless of
the specific BMPs approved. The City Engineer will take all necessary steps to ensure that
the approved BMPs will be implemented and will be sufficient to treat site runoff prior to
exiting the site and entering the public storm drain system in accordance with the applicable
established water quality standards.
Transportation/Circulation/Parking
The proposal is projected to generate 335 average daily one-way trips. Based upon the
projected volume of traffic generation, the preparation of a traffic study was not required.
6
Broadway (4 Lane Major) adjacent to the project site currently operates at level of service
(LOS) A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. "E"
Street (Class I Collector) adjacent to the project site currently operates at LOS A and is
projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development
Required off-street parking for the project is 18 spaces pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal
Code; 12 spaces for the restaurant use (based upon a maximum of 30 non-fixed seats) and 6
spaces for the retail space. Proposed off-street parking is 18 spaces to be provided on-site.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air ualit
The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable
demolition, grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and
shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental
Review Coordinator.
During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as
practicable to reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement over such material. Approach routes to the construction area shall be
cleaned daily 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 demolition, 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.
Hazards and Hazardous Waste
7
The following hazards mitigation requirement shall be shown on all demolition plans as a
note.
6. Asbestos and lead-based paint abatement shall be performed by a licensed and
registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance to all applicable
local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 -Standards for Demolition and Renovation.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Department
Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department
John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department
Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department
Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department
Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department
Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department
Gary Williams, Planning and Building Department
Xavier Del Valle, Community Development Department
Frank Rivera, Engineering Department
Alex Al-Agha, Engineering Department
Jeff Moneda, Engineering Department
Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Department
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department
Ben Herrera, Engineering Department
Majed Al-Ghafry, Engineering Department
Jim Geering, Fire Department
Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office
Others:
Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Laurie Apecechea, County of San Diego Department of Envirommental Health
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989.
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No.
88-2, May 1989.
8
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Former Unocal 76 Service Station, 201
Broadway -Chula Vista, California, Ninyo & Moore, May 23, 2003.
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 201 Broadway -Chula Vista,
California, Ninyo & Moore, October 13, 2003.
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 judgment of
the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Date:
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
N
L
d
E
E
0
U
r
6Y
A
r
9
O.
E
~~
m
G T
C G
N d
la
~ I
G O
~ U
G
E_-
Y 7
0
i
j s3
m
Z >
0
Q
~~
v,
c °'
m
m c
W u W
Sw 2
uo
a Q
sCJa
K
K
c
L~
U d
~ N
a~
c o
a
9 -
C-
N ~ N
.
Q
~
~'7 d 79 ~
N 9 C R gj Nam
~5U m
cm°o
`
m ~ o, ~ 3 n
0
d p
0> L
m d rn~ ~K
~ 5
~ oa£ ~m
~
C
i ~ N C C
0
E O O O G
~ N
~
~
Cy1a
Sfl
~ ~ O ~ N
~.p C N Z
' U
_ a
~ O
N a L
~ ~ N d
a n 7.
'~ c n
4 - O N
C
~ -O C N ~ C
a ~~~.
cL nc Qm?
-
r N
~
C Z
~
m
@O
R
rL
d ap
~ ~ c
~ w „ o'w
u`~ aw
O
V/
U y
~ N
~ a c
U ~
N
d O
U
~~
a=
n cp
NS~no .~°.c`m °'~°u5 s'm Awl's Edm
~ G 3 7> G~ C N E E N i~ ..
C n O d E C
9 ~ N ~GpC ~ NL
~ a ~ "O N ~ N N O~ p. N~
'c cFi~ ro m'~ 5c-a,~'~d
'iSO~ ~~my_Eo ~cR~~a E~4~~~~'ppnN
~jdC NQ~N N~d `r6c ON'OC.9 OCmNN
'~V nN ~ p O~ OyQ U E u N~ 6 4 ~ L 6 N j i3 O'
N N U T U (0 V C N@ Y C~ m~ ~ ~ E p6j N 7 Nq
N J N N d C~ C 61 f0 O A Q QV N t4 O. O Cf C 3
~addm ° oio mi6ndmmEn aa~ cn N~`0md
N 6 N N D ~iC 'i E O N 9 X L d~ "7 L N G d V L
9 m~LCQ s'c~° Yc~3m ~~ ~ar._.. ~ d cE~3 `c°33a
6 N t0 a 7i N 6~ p G C 9 i6 Ti Q O '~ E~-~ O
N U O A L N C CU
~'.~ 0 d N C U U .~ J N .: N d ~ d Oq j 3 O R ~_ :a 6
A N C p C ro N N N E rv' N .O 2 j 0~5 U N ~y d ?YJ N
C J N C~ 9 9 >_ s N 0 9 0 7 N d" 0 0"0 ~ y N N
V 6
C N j b .q~ 61 N N E y N r~ L U O
'~ y N+' ordmnE~.~
Qua E«_ ~"'
C N N O O y
N
bfl
N
a
d
m
_V
O
N
Q]
?. ~ .Z.' O
_ ~ _ ~ r
c ~
~ c rn E
~ c m
`n ~rn ': ~a c a
A
n c
aw o
w
¢ao
a
WJ
G N
X fC
0-U
X @~
a-o K
r o
;;i g
F-
d N
U U
C
O O ' C
O O
L V
U ~ L
U ~
N N ~ N
a C a C
N N 9 N
L ~ O O1 .-
Ot C~
3` y~ ~ j d t9 W
a DC _ C ry C
- N l0 6 j= O
N
d J 9 Q 9 t0 L n O 10 U 0-' N
s~ N d N
N W N h O` O
C Y
a d O
'~. C
w rn ~
~ ~ I a O W d
E ~ m r 4
~~
c
ai
~-~
' -
m d
~
° m
~ m
E
E
a
a
,
E ~
~ o
o
o
°
0 4 ~ 8 d m m 9" m
~
ry c
N y
C N -
Vl ~ r. N t0 a w
p B O O
C N [0 ~ fl -O U
~
O
N N~~_ O O ~ d UO C C O
c
o
o
` E
oc
~
mo
o d E m N 3~Q
am a
a s a~ `o
~
p~ C J T
a ~p
o y E o (0 O
E C N9 U-~. O
h
o
~° m~ d
y o m w m A
p
U S E U 9C N Z' t0
N O D U
°"
p~
>
L N 3 U
m E t6= c-o
d ~
~.
-_,
U"~ C N J C
L
O) ~ a T y~ U A
O
~ L m o o :- c~ c a E N
doo'N OO
> C C OI W.
~ .3c to(~~~°~~'O I
O O
~ A~
d O
C
~ O
N_ N
E
L N
~ N
j N N N 4
l o a C
~: O C N
(0 N" O r
3 N O D
C
.
3 m
E
3 3> 0
U
N
n n
N m ¢ a
~
a
i
Q S 3 c
?
a
4
Q
y
y
Q
a
m
a
m
0.
. i~::
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHU A VISTA
1. Name of Proponent: MJK Real Estate Holding Co., LLC
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: 4913 Convoy Street
858-268-3500
4. Name of Proposal: MJK Chula Vista
5. Date of Checklist: October 15, 2003
6. Case No. IS-03-035
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Signincant
Potentially With Less Than
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact [ncorporated Impact
L AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^ ~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ^ ^ ^ ~
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ^ ^ ^ ~
quality of the site and its sunoundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ^ ^ ^ ~
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
1
ISSUCS:
Comments•
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
[mpac[ Incorporated Impact
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site.
No Impact
b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, the project area is within the Chula Vista Urban Core and
"E" Street is identified as an existing Urban Core Gateway. The project proposes access via
unsignalized driveways along Broadway and "E" Street. Landscape treatments along Broadway and
"E" Street 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 Broadway and "E" Street corridor are positive. The project site
contains no scenic resources and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway.
c) The project site is located within an established urbanized area of Central Chula Vista. Surrounding
land uses consist of commercial/retail uses to the north, south and west, and a medical office and
single-and multi-family uses to the east and southeast. The proposed project consists of a change of
land use from a vacant gas station to restaurant and retail uses that would not result in a change in the
retail commercial character of the project site nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
impact to the neighborhood. Proposed improvements along the site's street frontages include
sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, realignment of driveway accesses along Broadway and "E"
Street, and landscaped pedestrian pathway from Broadway to "E" Street along the west and north
corners of the site. On-site improvements include parking lot improvements, new landscaping and
decorative hardscape throughout the project site, building at the comer of Broadway and "E" Street
with outside dining areas facing Broadway are anticipated to have a positive aesthetic effect.
Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings.
d) Compliance with the glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
ensured through the building permit process. These regulations dictate that no substantial glare, direct
or sky-reflected glare, would effect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area nor shall be
visible at the lot line of an establishment or use.
Mitii;ation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ^ ^ ^ ^
Farmland of Statewide hnportance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ^ ^ ^ ^
a Williamson Act contract?
2
Issues:
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
^ ^ ^ ^
Comments•
a-c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural
production and contains no agricultural resources or designated farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ^ ^ ^ ^
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ^ ^ ^ ^
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ ^
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ ^ ^
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ^ ^ ^ ^
number of people?
3
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ^ ^ ^
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ^ ^ ^
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ^ ^ ^
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ ^ ^
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife 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?
No Impact
^
^
^
^
^
4
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially ~Yrth Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
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:
No Impact
^
a) The project site was previously developed with afull-service gas station. Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan the project azea is designated as a developable area; based upon a field inspection by City staff no
candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed
development area.
b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subazea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no sensitive natural
communities are present within or inunediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
c) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no wetlands are present
within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no nafive resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed
development azea.
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 since the project site is a
designated development azea pursuant ro the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
MitiQa6on: No mitigation measures are required.
V. CULTURAL, RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ^
significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ ^
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
5
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
ISSUeS: Signincant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorpora[e~i Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ^ ^ ^ ^
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ^ ^ ^ ^
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments•
a) No historic resowces are known or are expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resowce as defined in Section 15064.5 is
anticipated.
b) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for cultwal resowces in the City's General Plan EIR.
Based on the low potential for resowces, the level of previous distwbance to the site, and the relatively minor
amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the proposed project, the potential for impacts
to archaeological resowces is considered to be less than significant.
c) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resowces in the City's General Plan
EIR. Based on the low potential for resowces, the level of previous distwbance to the site and the relatively
minor amount of additional grading for the proposed project, the potential for impacts to paleontological
resource or is considered to be less than significant. No unique geologic featwes are present on the site.
d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measwes are required.
V[. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ ^
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
6
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Vyith
Less Than
Issn es: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ^
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ ^
liquefacton?
iv. Landslides? ^ ^ ^ ^
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ^ ^ ^ ^
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ^ ^
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial ^ ^ ^ ^
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ^ ^ ^ ^
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a signiScant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials'1
^ ^ ^
7
issues:
Less Than
Significant
Po[endally with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ^
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ^
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use ^
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ^
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of ^
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Impact
^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
8
ISSUOS:
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction, 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 ofpre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? Result in a potentially
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the ^
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the ^
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a 100-yearflood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
^
^
^
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Potenfially with Less Than
I$sUe$: Significant Mitigation Signincant
Impact Incorporated Impact
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would ^ ^ ^
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section
Miti>;ation: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ^ ^ ^
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ^ ^ ^
plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact
^
^
^
^
10
Issues:
Comments•
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a) The proposed restaurant and retail project would be consistent with the character of the surrounding azea and,
therefore, would not disrupt or divide an established community.
b) The project site is within the CT (Thoroughfaze Commercial) Zone and CT (Thoroughfaze Commercial)
Genera] Plan designations. The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations
and the Genera] 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 azea of the adopted Chula Vistu MSCP
Subm-ea Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
n
^
Comments:
a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the
region or the residents of the State of Califomia.
b) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California
Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
11
Issues:
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signincant No Impact
Impact incorporated 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 groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ^ ^
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ^ ^ ^
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ ^ ^ ^
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ^ ^ ^ ^
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
12
ISSUES:
Cnmmentse
Less Than
Signifcant
Po[enBany With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
(a, c and d) Due to the distance between the project site and nearby single-family neighborhood to the east and
buffering created by the proposed commercial building, the development of the project is not anticipated to result in
any significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, compliance with
the noise control ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which regulates the maximum one-hour average
sound level that can be generated at the property line, is mandatory for any activities occurring on-site.
b) It is not anticipated that persons will be exposed to excessive groundbome vibration or noise levels, as there will
not be any heavy industrial equipment or machinery operated on-site beyond short-term construction activities.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project azea to excessive noise
levels.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not
expose people working in the project azea to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
13
ISSUES:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially Wi[h Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a) No housing development is proposed that would induce substantial population growth in the area or require
substantial infrastructure improvements. Based upon the size and nature of the proposal, no population growth
inducement is anticipated. The project is an allowable retail use per the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance
with the General Plan land use designation.
b) Because no housing currently exists on the project site, no displacement of housing would occur.
c) Because no housing currently exists on the project site, no displacement of persons would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. PLiBLIC 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 govemmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
perfomrance objectives for any public services:
Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ ^
Police protection? ^ ^ ^ ^
Schools? ^ ^ ^ ^
Parks? ^ ^ ^ ^
Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ ^
14
ISSUCS:
Comments:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a) According to the Fire Department, proper fire truck taming radius and circulation has been planned; therefore,
adequate fire protection 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 aze in
operation to improve fue services and response times throughout the City. The proposed project would not
have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. The City
performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a
need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds
will continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public
schools would result. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school
fees for the proposed new commercial building.
d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not induce significant population
growth and thus not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park
facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure.
YIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase [he use of existing neighborhood and ^ ^ ^ ^
regional pazks 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 p ^ ^ ^
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
15
Issues:
!'nmmnn4c.
Less Than
Significant
Potenfially with Less Thaa
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No Impact
a) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional pazks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include the constmction or expansion of recreational facilities, which would have an
adverse impact on the environment. According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the
project site is not planned for any future pazks and recreation facilities or programs.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ^
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ^
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
^
^
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ^ ^
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ^ ^ ^ ^
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ^
16
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISSlleS' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ^
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ^ ^ ^ ^
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ ^ ^ ^
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ^ ^ ^ ^
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm ^ ^ ^ ^
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ^ ^ ^ ^
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
17
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact IncorporateU
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ^
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Impact
^ ^
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ^ ^ ^ ^
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ^ ^
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments•
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service
systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would
result from 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) See XVLa. No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities
would be necessary.
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 potable water mains. No new or
expanded entitlements are anticipated for the proposed project.
e) See XVLa. and b.
f) 1'he City of Chula Vista is served by regional landtills with adequate capacity to met the solid waste
needs of the region in accordance with State law.
g) The proposal would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
18
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Issues: Significant Si nificant
Mitigation g
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Stmrdards?
A. Library ^ ^ ^
The City shall construct 60,000 Boss square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30,
2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
B)Police ^ ^ ~
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain
an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and Emergency Medical ^ ^ ~
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic ^ ^ ~
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day a[ 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.
No Impact
^
19
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ISS-P.S: Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
E) Parks and Recreation Areas ^ ^ ^
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities/1,000 population east of I-805.
F) Drainage ^ ^ ~
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standazds.
G) Sewer ^ ^ ~
The Threshold Standazds require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and Ciry Engineering
Standards.
H) Water ^ ^ ~
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standazds are not jeopardized during growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee off-set progam the City of
Chula Vista has in effect at the rime of building permit
issuance.
No Impact
^
20
Issues:
Comments:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No Impact
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 commercial retail 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) 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 aze 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 a 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 Traffic Engineering Section, based upon the project traffic generated, all roadways
segments and intersections within the study area are estimated to operate at levels of service "C" or better
in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standards.
e) Because the project site is located west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable.
f) A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the final grading and improvement plans and drainage
facilities designed in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering standazds will be
installed at the time of site development. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's
Drainage Threshold standazds will occur as result of the proposed project.
g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of a 12-inch sewer line running southerly along Broadway
on the west side of the project site and an 10-inch sewer line running southerly along East Park Lane (private
road) on the east side of the project site. The Engineering Department has determined that these facilites are
adequate to serve the proposed project. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse
impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority, dated June 30, 2003, there is a 12-inch
water main located on the east side of Broadway, and a 16-inch water main located on the north side of "E"
Street. Their records indicate that there is one existing water service to the property. The Authority and the
City work together, through the Water Management Program, to ensure that the existing water facilities are
adequate to meet the added demands prior to the issuance of any building permits. Project impacts to the
Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant.
21
Less Than
SigniScan[
Potentially with Less Than
ISStIeS: Signincan[ Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrnde the ^ ^ ^ ^
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ^ ^
limited, but cumu]atively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which ^ ^ ^ ^
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
a) The site is currently developed, 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 lmown 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 "Hazards" discussion in Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; potential impacts
associated with the demolition of existing buildings and improvements containing asbestos-containing
materials would be mitigated to below a level of significance_
22
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-03-035.
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 shall indicate the Applicant's and/or Operator's
desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
~ y I D /.~Ay-n P~o~~~ ~ ~2
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Owner's N_ ame]
Signature of A~ut~h/ori~-zed Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
/d 22 d
Date
Date
23
NXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"
as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
^ Land Use and Planning
^ Transportati on/Traffic
^ Public Services
^ Population and Housing
^ Geophysical
^ Biological Resources
^ Energy and Mineral
Resources
^ Utilities and Service Systems
^ Aesthetics
^ Agricultural Resources
^ Hydrology/Water
^ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
^ Cultural Resources
^ Air Quality
^ Paleontological
Resources
^ Noise ^ Recreation
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
24
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but
at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental
Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
[ find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
1~~PlanningAMARIAAInitial StudyVIS-03-039ChecklisLdoc
Date
25
^