Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/06/26 - - Negative Declaratic.lll "" . PROJECT NAME: Palomar Villas PROJECT LOCATION: 568 Palomar Street, Chula Vista, CA ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-290-18 PROJECT APPLICANT: Muraoka Enterprises CASE NO.: IS-00-17 DATE: June 12, 2000 A. PROJECT SETTING On-Site Land Use The vacant site was formerly developed as a mobile home park. All of the facilities associated with the park have been removed with the exception of some concrete slabs and ornamental trees (e.g., palm and eucalyptus). The site is enclosed in a chain link fence. A curb cut to Palomar Street was left in place when the site was vacated. Surroundin~ Land Uses The "Country Church" sanctuary and classrooms are located to the east. Multi - family residential units are located east of the church, and to the north of the project site. A community shopping center (Genesis Square) is located west of the site. A mobile home park is located across Palomar Street to the south. The T -intersection of Palomar Street and Orange A venue is located immediately west of the site, and south of the shopping center. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the construction of a 20-unit apartment complex on a vacant 0.96-acre site. ,Four two-story, five-unit buildings would contain the 20 apartments. Each unit is a two-level, two-bedroom, two-bath unit with an attached two- car garage. A central driveway provides access to the garage units and three guest- parking spaces located in the center of the project. A fire truck turnaround is provided at the end of the driveway. The existing ornamental trees would be removed. The project landscape plan includes a mixture of trees, shrubs, and turf throughout the common use areas. 1 ,- - C. COMPLIANCE" H ZONING AND PLANS The subject property is zoned R3 (Apartment Residential) and designated RH - Residential High (18-27 dulac) on the City's General Plan. The project is also located in the Montgomery Specific Plarming Area. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the site as High Density Residential (18-27 dulac). The proposal is consistent with the Zoning, General Plan, and Specific Plan designations, and with the City's environmental plans and policies. The zoning designation would permit a maximum of 28 units (1 unit per 1,430 sq. ft.) to be constructed on the site. The site plan includes 10,734 sq. ft. of open space (537 sq. ft. per unit) which exceeds the zoning ordinance requirement of 400 sq. ft. per unit. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Transportation and Circulation The proposed 20 apartment units would have a minimal effect on traffic patterns and volumes on the adjacent streets. The trip generation rate per unit is 6 trips per day. The City Engineering Department estimated that an additional 120 trips per day (ADT) would result from the apartment project. Palomar Street operates at level of service (LOS) "c." The additional 120 ADT would not change the LOS on Palomar Street. The currently proposed project includes a City requested redesign to move the entrance driveway further to the east. This redesign minimizes traffic conflicts at the signalized intersection of Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. The City Engineering Department review of the site plan concluded that the proposed on- site circulation is adequate. The project would be required to install a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Palomar Street frontage per City engineering standards. Forty on-site enclosed parking spaces (two per unit) are proposed. Three guest-parking spaces are included in the proposed Site Plan. The total on-site parking of 43 spaces complies with City parking requirements. No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created by the proposed multi-family project. No traffic related impacts would result. 2. Noise The 20-unit apartment project and associated traffic would not result in a measurable increase in noise. There are no severe noise generators in the vicinity of the project. No significant impacts would result from construction and occupancy of the apartment project. 2 - - "". 3. Public Services The proposed project could potentially result in increased enrollment in the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater Union High School Districts. The Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District recommend annexation of the project site to a Community Facilities District. However, under State law the payment of school fees minimizes the impacts to school facilities to a level below significance. No mitigation measures are required. E. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO A VOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS No project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. I agree to implement the mitigation measures stated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Mitigated Negative Declaration. N/A Name, Title Date F. CONSULTATION 1. City of Chula Vista: Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner Anthony Chukwudolue, Engineering Department Khosro Aminpour, Engineering Department Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department Bill Ullrich, Public Works Doug Perry, Fire Marshall Duane Bazzel, Planning Division Beverly Blessent, Planning Division Garry Williams, Planning Division Kim VanderBie, Planning Division Applicant's Agent: Muraoka Enterprises 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code (1997) Montgomery Specific Plan 3 - - G. 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 negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. 0~/L?~~, tjJéljlJð Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi ~ Date Environmental Review Coordinator 4 - - Case No.IS-OO-17 "". ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Muraoka Enterprises 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Muraoka Enterprises 1425 Second Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 4. Name of Proposal: Palomar Villas 5. Date of Checklist: May 23,2000 Potentially Potentially Significant Less tban Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 tï:I zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 tï:I policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 tï:I (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 tï:I an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed project consists of the construction of a 20-unit apartment complex on a vacant O.96-acre site. The subject property is zoned R3 (Apartment Residential) and designated RH (Residential High) on the City's General Plan. The project is also located in Montgomery Specific Planning Area. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the site as High Density Residential. The proposal is consistent with the Zoning, General Plan, and Specific Plan designations, and with the City's environmental plans and policies. The surrounding area is developed with urban uses; no agricultural uses are present. The proposed project would not change the physical arrangement of the community. No mitigation is required. II. POPULA TION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 z population projections? (\.1:· home pjannmg' keah,tempIJ.(e'ckhst.tcm) pagel - - Potentially ",. Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure) ? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ housing? Comments: The proposal is an infùl project located on a vacant site zoned and designated on the City's general plan for multiple family residential. The development of this site with an apartment complex would not result in the inducement of substantial growth in the area or in the displacement of existing housing. No mitigation is required III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 ~ either on or off the site? 1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 ~ 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? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: There are no known geophysical conditions present that expose people to geologic or earth hazards. The site was previously graded and developed with a mobile home park. The site would be regraded to provide adequate drainage towards Palomar Street. The maximum depth of cut would be I '/2-foot and the maximum depth of fill would be 2 feet; 750 cu.yds. of material would be imported to the site. No erosion or sedimentation is anticipated to result from grading of the site. No mitigation measures are required. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 ~ or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 ~ (\1:' home'plannmg' keah\template'ckltst. tem) page2 - - Potentially . Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181 alteration of surface water quality (e. g. , temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The project is located on a vacant parcel previously improved with roads and concrete pads for trailers and car parking. The site is essentially flat and requires minimal grading. The site currently drains to Palomar Street and no change in drainage pattern is proposed. Development of the site with a 20-unit apartment complex would result in a negligible increase in surface water run-off. The project is located in a fully developed urban area and would redevelop a former mobile home park. An 18" storm drain is located on the south side of Palomar Street and a curb inlet is located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Palomar Street. The Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 14.20) requires the implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drain facilities. Development of the site would not impact groundwater quality or alter the quantity of ground waters. No adverse impacts to water resources have been identified, and no mitigation measures are required. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 (~1 : home 'p Ianni n g' kel th 'template'.c k lIst, tern) page3 - - PotentiaUy ,". PotentiaUy Significant Less than SignñlC3nt Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan and Regional Air Quality forecasts. The project would generate 120 average daily trips (ADT). The proposed apartment complex would not substantially affect regional air quality. The project would not alter air movements, humidity, or climatic temperature. The use and occupancy of the site as multi-family residential units would not create objectionable odors or expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 181 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 181 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 181 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 181 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposed 20 apartment units would have a minimal effect on traffic patterns and volumes on the adjacent streets. The trip generation rate per unit is 6 trips per day. The City Engineering Department estimated that an additional 120 trips per day (ADT) would result from the apartment project. Palomar Street operates at level of service (LOS) "C." The additional 120 ADT would not change the LOS on Palomar Street. The currently proposed project includes a City requested redesign to move the entrance driveway further to the east. This redesign minimizes traffic conflicts at the signalized intersection of Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. The City Engineering Department review of the site plan concluded that the proposed on-site circulation is adequate. The project would be required to install a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Palomar Street frontage per City engineering standards. Forty on-site enclosed parking spaces (two per unit) are proposed. Three guest-parking spaces are included in the proposed Site Plan. The total on-site parking of 43 spaces exceeds the Municipal Code parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit. No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created by the proposed multi-family project. No traffic related impacts would result. (\1: home planmng kelth,template cklisLtem) pag~4 - - Potentially ".. Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 181 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e. g. , 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The site is fully developed and is located in an urbanized area. There are no sensitive plant or animal species on-site. No biological impacts would result from the proposed use of the site. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed uses would be consistent with energy conservation plans and would not require any non-renewable resources. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ~ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? (:-'1:' home'planmng' ke,tJ¡ 'template'ckllSt. tern) page" - - Potentially ",0 Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Hazardous materials would not be used on-site. There are no known potential health hazards in the vicinity of the project site. Highly flammable plant materials are not included in the proposed landscaping plan. The General Plan Public Safety Element designates Palomar Street as an Evacuation Route. The project would not interfere with emergency response plans. No significant impacts would result from construction and occupancy of the apartment project. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The 20-unit apartment project and associated traffic would not result in a measurable increase in noise. There are no severe noise generators in the vicinity of the project. No significant impacts would result from construction and occupancy of the apartment project. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 181 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The City Fire Marshall reported that the project would not result in an impact to fire services. Police Department recommendations concerning "defensible space" design have been incorporated into the project design. School fees would be paid at the building permit stage in accordance with provisions of state law. The Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District recommend annexation of the project site to a Community Facilities District. However, under State law the payment of school fees minimizes the impacts to school facilities to a level below significance. No mitigation measures are required. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 0 181 the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards ° a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 181 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 1\1 home'plannmg kenh,templateckhsuem) paget> - - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard would be met, since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 5- minute response time. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project is within two miles of a fire station. No significant impacts would result. b) Police 0 0 0 181 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 units 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. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: This threshold standard would be met for the proposed project. No significant effects would result. c) Traffic 0 0 0 181 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Palomar Street operates at LOS "C" and the project would not adversely affect the LOS. d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population east of 1- 805. The proposed project is not subject to this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed project is located west of 1-805. The Threshold Standard does not apply. e) Drainage 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Department has determined that off-site drainage capacities will not be affected by the proposed project. t) Sewer 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering (\1:· hom.planmng· kelth·.template·ckhst. tern) page 7 - - Potentially ",' Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Standards. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The City Engineering Department has determined that sewer facilities are adequate to serve the project. g) Water 0 0 0 ~ The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be 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: The Sweetwater Authority has determined that adequate water services are available to serve the project. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 ~ b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ~ distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~ e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 ~ f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: The Sweetwater Authority (SW A) reports that water service is available to the site from a to-inch main located in Palomar Street. Fire flow requirements have been determined to be adequate by the Fire Department and SW A. The proposed apartment project would not require the installation of new systems or cause alteration to existing facilities. As noted in Sections IV and XII above, storm water and sewer facilities are adequate to serve the site. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) Stormwater Permit is not required for this site because it contains less than five acres. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 t8I public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 i81 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 ¡g (\1:' home'planmng' keith' template'.ckhsuem) pageS ,- - Potentially ",' Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 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) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Design Review Committee approval of the project design is required. Standard and site- specific conditions would be included in the design review approval. No adverse aesthetics impacts are anticipated because the site would not obstruct a scenic vista or view and it does not front on a scenic route. Implementation of City Code standards would minimize light and glare produced by the design of the project. No adverse impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? 7e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: There are no known cultural resources in the project area. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 181 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no known paleontological resources on the site or in the adjacent area. The extent of grading is limited; therefore, no potential impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 181 0 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 181 0 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 1\1: home'planntng'ke¡th'template',ckhst.tem) page9 - - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact plans or programs? Comments: The project is consistent with the city's General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. Lauderbach Park (an existing neighborhood park) is located north of Palomar Street and east of 4th A venue. Impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 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 or California history or prehistory? Comments: The vacant site is located in an urbanized area and was previously developed with a mobile home park. No sensitive plant or animal resources or historical/archaeological resources are present. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Constructing a multi-family residential project on the site would not affect long-tenn environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181 individually limited, but cumulatively 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urbanized area and redevelopment of the site would not result in cumulative environmental effects. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No adverse effects on human beings are anticipated from redeveloping the site as a multi- family residential project. (,\1:' home'plannmg:kelth 'template\ckhst tern) pagelO - - "". XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No project revisions or mitigation measures are required. 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. N/A Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] N/A Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Property Owner's Name] N/A Printed Name and Title of [Operator if different from Property Owner] N/A Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] XXI. ENVIRONMENT AL 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 following pages. OLand Use and Planning 181 Transportation/Circulation 181 Public Services o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality 181 Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance (:-1: homeplannmg keIth, template'ckhst.!em) pagel I - - :XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd 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 0 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 fmd that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and 0 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 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. I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 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. ~/~~~ Ú/; o/t!)O Da~e Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista (,...1: 'home'planmng' keith' template\ckhsttem) pagel" "'- ...- ~ \ \ \\ ~\ r- ~ ~I C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT MURAOKA ENTERPRISES PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 568 Palomar Street ADDRESS: Request: Proposed construction of a townhouse complex consisting of 20 units, (4) 2 story 5-unit buildings. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: Each unit is a two level 2 bedroom, 2 bath with a NORTH No Scale IS - 00-17 2-car attached aaraae. h :\home\planning\hector\locators\isOO 17 .cdr 02/09/00