Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/06/05 -, - Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Main Plaza Residential & commercial A Mixed-Use Village Community PROJECT LOCATION: 1667, 1689 & 1695 Broadway APN 622-112-13 & 14 & 622-11-38 PROJECT APPLICANT: Avalon Communities, LLC Rodrizguez + Simon Design Associates, Inc CASE NO: IS-00-47 DATE: May II, 2000 A. PrQject Setting The subject site is located at the northeast comer of Broadway Avenue and Main Street. The subject site location and vicinity are presented in Attachment A. The project site includes 3 developed parcels with a total area of approximately 4.54 acres. The parcel located at 1667 Broadway is currently developed with an auto audio business. The most northern parcel is located at 1689 Broadway and is currently developed with a 50 unit trailer park, the Twin Palms Trailer Park. The southern parcel at the comer of Broadway and Main Street is currently being utilized for 2 used auto sales lots. The project is located in a fully urbanized area. Topography at the project site is relatively flat and generally the same elevation as adjacent streets. Surrounding land uses include the following: North: Residential (Mobile Home Park) South: Commercial (Gas station, motel, and auto sales lot) East: Commercial (BIMBO distribution center) West: Commercial (retail center) B. PrQject Description The proposed project is a mixed-use residential commercial facility consisting of 106 affordable housing units and 15,000 commercial square feet. The commercial space will be located on the first floor of a three-story building located near the southwest comer of the site. The second and third floors will have 16 units. The remaining 90 units will be located in 16 buildings distributed throughout the northern portion of the site. The proposal is a redevelopment project that will .- 1 I - - provide 51 multiple family units affordable to low income families and 55 units affordable to moderate income families. The proposed project integrates high density housing with commercial uses. The project is located near a major transit corridor, affords commercial tenants and employees an opportunity to live in proximity to the work place, and places commercial uses within walking distance to residential uses. The project design, including lighting, landscaping, and parking is subject to review by the City's Design Review Committee. C. Compatibility with Zonin&. General Plan. and Sectional Plannin~ Area Plan The subject property is zoned CC-Central Commercial Zone and designated C-Commercial on the City's General Plan. The project is also located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and the Montgomery Specific Planning Area. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the site as CMO -Commercial Mercantile & Office Commercial. The project contains an 18% density bonus for an additional 16 units to the 90 units (22du/ac) allowed under the current Zoning and General Plan designations. The proposed mixed-used development is consistent with the Zoning, General Plan, Specific Plan, and redevelopment area designations. D. Identification of Environmental Effects As indicated on the attached checklist the proposed project does not result in any potentially significant impacts. E. Miti&ation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects As indicated on the attached checklist no environmental factors were identified as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated", therefore mitigation is not required. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Miguel Tapia Community Development Leilani Hines, Housing and Community Development Brian Hunter, Community Development Benjamin Guererro, Community Development Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Planning Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineering Frank Rivera, Engineering Adv. Plng! Wastewater Harold Phelps, Development Planning Beverly Blessent, Development Planning Doug Perry, Fire Marshall Richard Preuss, Police Crime Prevention .. 2 - - Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Technicon Engineering Services, Inc (4/26/00) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Technicon Engineering Services, Inc (1/26/00) Traffic Impact Analysis, Darnell & Associates, Inc. (5/11/00) 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 Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City ofChula 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:'-1'/? 7 P?17tJrJ arilyn . . Ponseggi Environment Review Coordinator 3 - - II I I \\ ~ I LJ :::-JJ I I I \ \-! U" l Ì"---Ëß1:tD,.,. to: I - I ~ _,.-, ,- l- I- - I- l..-I I 11/1111 I-- _ - t: l..-[ 1111111111111 i LIT /I , f--- I- \ 1\ -~ aIBaIB L "" ~ T TT ~I I , 1- ~ ~ 1\ \ \ \ \ V r- ~ I -~ I ~ \. '$~EHEI- - EEBEEB íTllll )~ I ) 'Il-nl I 111111 III I ~ \\ \\\ .II. "IIT.II. U L i i ¡...... II I I I II err I I [ I I I ~ I=t ~ ~ I - ¡...... -¡... ~ f= =t T ì l I o i- I-~ -I- ~ I- -¡... r- ~ Ö ::: 1=R =¡... t= I ~ ~ 1= -I- [:i: Y, = I- -¡... I "' :<. ffJt~, '" I s ~ ' / , I- ~ l- I'-- I ~ t // -~ I r- I I Of ~ I . MAIN STREET 1- -L I I -~.J C - - - - - - - - I--- - - L I I FAIIII E STREE ~ I 1 L ! I I \\ i II I I I ! I \\ j \ 1\ r--- - '--- I LOCATOR PROJECT AVALON COMMUNITIES LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPUCANT: ' INITIAL STUDY PROJECT 1689 Broadway ADDRESS: Request: Proposed construction ofa 15,000 sq.ft. mixed-use commercial building and 106 affordable housing units .- SCALE: FILE NUMBER: with 181 residential and 75 commercial parking NORTH No Scale IS - 00-47 spaces provided. h:\home\planning\hector\locators\IS0047.cdr 05/17/00 ATTACHMENT A -- I -, - Case No.IS-OO-47 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: A valon Communities, LLC Rodrizguez + Simon Design Associates, Inc 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 854 W. Adams Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90007 4. Name of Proposal: Main Plaza Residential & commercial A Mixed-Use Village Community 1667, 1689 & 1695 Broadway APN 622-112-13 & 14 & 622-11-38 5. Date of Checklist: May 11,2000 Potentially Potentia1ly Significant Less than Significant UDIess Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ~ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 ~ (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 ~ 0 an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed mixed-use residential & commercial facility located at the northeast corner of Broadway & Main Street consists of 106 affordable housing units and 15,000 commercial square feet. The subject property is zoned CC-Central Commercial Zone and designated C- Commercial on the City's General Plan. The project is also located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and the Montgomery Specific Planning Area. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the site as CMO -Commercial Mercantile & Office Commercial. The project contains an 18% density bonus for an additional 16 units to the 90 units (22du/ac) allowed under the current Zoning and General Plan designations. The proposed mixed-used development is consistent with the Zoning, General Plan, Specific Plan, and redevelopment area designations. (H: \home\planning\edalia \18-00-4 7 deist. doc) 1 I - - Potentially PoteatiaUy SigDiftcaDt Less than SigDifi<aat U..1ess SigJIific:2..t No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact The project site is currently occupied by the 50-unit Twin Palms Trailer Park at 1689 Broadway, 2 used car sales lots at 1695 Broadway, and an auto audio business located at 1667 Broadway. The proposed project will result in a similar physical arrangement of land uses with a mixed-use residential and commercial building and 106 residential units. The residential/commercial building will be located in the same general vicinity as the used car sales lots and the residential units will be located at the northern portion of the lot where the trailer park exist today. The parcel containing the audio business will be landscaped as part of the recreational area. The proposed residential component of the project will provide sufficient housing opportunities for displaced households of the trailer park. No mitigation is required. ll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 ¡! population projections? 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 project consists of the redevelopment of an approximately 4.54 acre site located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Main Street. The site is developed with a 50 unit Trailer Park (Twin Palms Trailer Park) located at 1689 Broadway, 2 used car lots located at 1695 Broadway, and an audio business located at1667 Broadway. The project will replace the Trailer Park, auto sales lots, and audio business with 106 multiple family residential units and a 15,000 commercial square feet. 51 of the new units will be affordable to low income families and 55 units will be affordable to moderate income families. In compliance with State Redevelopment Law, the developer will provide a relocation assistance plan, which specifies appropriate assistance for the temporary and permanent relocation of all affected households. It is anticipated that 40 or the 50 trailer park households will require some form of relocation assistance. Residents of 10 mobile homes have waived their rights to any relocation assistance. The developer will be responsible for all relocation expenses resulting from the proposed project. No mitigation will be required. m. 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? ."" (H: \home\planning\edalia \lS-OO-4 7 cklst.doc) 2 - - PoteøtiaUy PoIeatiaUy SiplficaRt Less tIuuI SigJIlficaRt UIÙeS5 SipificaRt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181 either on or off the site? f) Changes in déposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 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 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: Implementation of the proposed project will result in minor disruptions and overcovering of soil during construction of the mixed-use project. These facilities will be constructed in an area currently developed with a trailer park, 2 car sales lots, and an audio business. A preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation was conducted for the proposed project by Technicon Engineering Services (April 26, 2000). The referenced geotechnical study covered parcels 622-112-13 & 14. The referenced geotechnical study evaluated the subsurface conditions and provides preliminary geotechnical engineering design parameters and recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. Existing and potential geologic hazards at or near the subject site were also evaluated Based on field and laboratory investigations the referenced geotechnical study concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed construction with regard to support foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, and pavements provided the recommendations contained in the report are followed. No identified active faults are located on or near the subject site and the subject site is not located in an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Compliance with the applicable recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report will be required by the Engineering Department as a standard requirement of grading permit approval. No mitigation measures are required. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 181 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181 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 (H: \home\planning\edalia \15-00-4 7 cklst.doc) 3 - - PotentiaJly PoteøtiaJJy SipilkaDt Leos iliaD Sipilkaøt UDIess SigøJficaDt No lmpad Mitigated Impad Impact water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 I:!!I of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 I:!!I 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 I:!!I groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 I:!!I i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 I:!!I waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 I:!!I otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: According to the City Engineering Department existing off-site drainage facilities adequately convey water. As a standard condition of approval, the Engineering Department will require the applicant to prepare drainage information that identifies the method to be used to convey on-site surface water. Section 14.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drain facilities. The subject site is not located in a flood plain; therefore, no water related hazards to people or property are anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project. No adverse impacts to water resources have been identified. No mitigation measures are required. v. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 I:!!I an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 I:!!I c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 I:!!I or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 I:!!I e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 I:!!I non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The mixed-use project integrates high density housing with commercial. The project is located in proximity to mass transit, affords commercial tenants the opportunity to live in proximity .'" (H: \home\planning\edalia \15-00-4 7 cklst. doc) 4 I - - PoteatiaUy PoteatiaDy Siplflcaat Less tban SigDific:aDt Unless SigDiflCaDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact to the work place, and places commercial uses within walking distance to residential uses. The proposed project does not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The majority of the proposed project site is dedicated to residential uses with approximately one- third of the site dedicated to commercial uses. The commercial component of the proposed project is designated for commercial mercantile and office uses. By nature permitted commercial uses in this Specific Plan designation do not result in the creation of objectionable odors or the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. The residential or commercial uses will not create a substantial increase in stationary or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality. No mitigation is required. Grading and construction of the proposed building and parking lot would temporarily create dust and emissions associated with activity from construction equipment and vehicles. These short-term emissions are not considered significant impacts. Standard Engineering conditions of approval for grading and dust control serve to minimize impacts to a level less than significant. No mitigation for short-term emissions is required. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e. g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 r8I bicyclists? f) 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 r8I 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: A Traffic Study prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc. (May 11, 2000) indicates that the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. The referenced traffic study concludes that the proposed project will generate approximately 1,448 daily trip, with 85 occurring in the morning peak and 139 in the evening peak. Crediting the difference for existing uses as traffic already in the circulation system, the proposed project generates a net increase of approximately 718 daily trips, 46 morning and 63 evening peak hour (H: \home\planning\edalia \IS-OO-4 7 clclst.doc) 5 -- I -, - . Poteatially PoI..tiaDy SlpIfic:ant Less than SigDJficaDt Unless SigDJf"lCAnt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact trips. The daily PM peak hour traffic on Broadway north of Main will operate at LOS A with or without the proposed project. The daily and PM peak hour traffic on Main Street will operate at LOS B or better with or without the proposed project. The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the referenced report that the highway segments adjacent to the project and the intersection of Broadway and Main Street will operate at acceptable level of operation and that there are no project significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. The City of Chula recently improved Broadway and Main Street. These improvements (CIP No. ST961, dated March 25, 1998) should be sufficient and additional right of way and improvements are not required. The project is not a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program because it does not result in an equivalent of 2,400 or more ADT or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips. The project is consistent with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposal does not produce hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. The project is a mixed-used residential commercial facility designed to reduce the number of automobile trips taken by residents. The project is located within major transit routes. The project is not located in a major flight zone or near a major body of water. The project driveways on Broadway and Main Street operate at acceptable levels of service with a restricted configuration of right-in/out only. Project design will be reviewed by the City's Design Review Committee, which will also address internal circulation and parking. Vll. 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 cQrnmunities (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)? 0 0 0 181 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The subject site is located in a fully urbanized area and is currently developed with residential and commercial uses. The site is fully paved with no native habitat and minimal ornamental vegetation. No animal or plant species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local State or Federal resource conservation and regulatory agencies are known to be present in this area. The project does not result in any adverse impacts to biological resources; therefore no mitigation is required. .- (H: \home\planning\edalia \IS-OO-4 7 cklst.doc) 6 I - - PoteatiaJIy PoteDtially Sip1ficant Less ÙIaD Significa.ot UaJess SigDif'ICaDI No Impact MitigJlted Impact Impact Vill. 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: No substantial increases in the use of fossil fuels (electricity, oil. natural gas, etc.) or in water consumption is anticipated. The proposed residential units will be constructed in accordance with current Title 24 State Energy regulations and will result in more energy efficient residential units than the existing Trailers and buildings currently on-site. The proposed project site is fully developed and does not contain any mineral resources and will not have an impact on mineral resource production. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181 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? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed project is a mixed-use commercial residential facility that does not result in a substantial risk of an accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation. The proposed uses do not create any health hazard or potential health hazard. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Technicon Engineering Services (January 26,2000. The referenced study covered parcels 622-112-13 & 14. According to the referenced assessment the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes (row crops) from at least 1941 to the early 1960's. Based on the length of time since the property was used for agricultural purposes, it is not anticipated that environmentally persistent pesticide residues would be present in the near- surface soils located at the site. (H: \home \planning\edalia \15-00-47 cldst. doc) 7 I - - PotattiaDy PoteatiaIly Siplficaat Leu tIwa SipificaDt UaJess SipificaDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Building Deparnnent records indicate that septic systems were associated with the subject site as late as 1998. City records contain numerous complaints regarding sewer leakage and septic backup at the trailer park. The presence of septic systems is not anticipated to pose an adverse impact to the subject site due to their anticipated use for domestic purposes only. Development of the site will require connection to the Cities sewer system and the existing sewer system is required to be properly abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the City's Building Division and Appendix K (11) of the 1998 California Plumbing Code. The referenced assessment contains a review of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health records. No records of underground storage tanks, hazardous materials handling, or reported incidents involving hazardous materials spills or leaks are on file for the subject site. Based on a site inspection, no evidence of existing or fonner underground fuel storage tanks or aboveground fuel storage tanks were observed at the subject site. No evidence of bulk chemical storage was noted at the subject site. No evidence of improper storage, handling, or disposal ofbazardous materials was noted at the subject site. Based on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the proposed project does not result in the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards. x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposal consists of the redevelopment of a 50 unit trailer park, 2 used car sales lots and an audio business with 106 multiple family units and a 15,000 square foot commercial facility. The proposed land uses do not result in a significant increase in existing noise levels or in the exposure of people to severe noise levels as defmed in Chapter 19.68 of the Municipal Code (Performance Standards and Noise Control). 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 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The project does not generate the need for additional governmental services. The City Fire and Police Departments have indicated that adequate service levels can be maintained. Appropriate school fees will be paid as required by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. .- (H: \home\planning\edalia \15-00-4 7 cklst.doc) 8 -, - pocaatiaDy Potftlûally Siplflcaøl Less IIwI Sip1fiaa1 UIÙeSS SigDificanl No ImpaCl Mitigated ImpaCl ImpaCl As stated in the traffic study prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc., dated May 11, 2000, the City of Chula Vista recently improved Broadway and Main Street. These improvements (CIP No. ST 961 dated March 25, 1998) should be sufficient to accommodate the proposed use. Additional right of way and improvements are not necessary. The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the findings of the traffic study. No additional mitigation will be required. 0 0 0 181 XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 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 the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1.4 miles away and would be associated with a 3 to 4 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: According to the Fire Department, the nearest Fire Station is Station #5, located at Oxford and Fourth Avenue. The approximate response time for service is 3-4 minutes. 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 does comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Chula Vista Police Department indicates that current level of police services can continue to be provided to the project area. 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 ofI-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 does comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with the Traffic Study conducted by Darnell & Associates, Inc. that the intersection of Broadway and Main Street located in western Chula Vista will operate at acceptable level of operation and that there are no project significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. .'" (H: \home\planning\edaIia \IS-OO-4 7cklst. doc) 9 - - PomrtIaI1y PocmtiaDy SipillcaDt Less thu Significant UaJess S'.gnific..... No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 ¡! The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population east of 1- 805. Comments: The proposal is located west of 1-805. The Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard does not apply to projects west of 1-805. 0 0 0 ¡! e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: There is an existing 48" reinforced corrugated pipe storm drain under Main street and 4' x 4' reinforced concrete box culvert crossing Main Street at the intersection of Broadway. The Engineering Department has determined that these existing off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. An adequate storm drainage system shall be incorporated in the project design and will be reviewed by the Engineering Department with the submittal of grading improvement plans. f) Sewer 0 0 0 ¡! The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Based on a sewer study prepared by Walsh Engineering and on the evaluation of sewer system data currently available, the Engineering Department has determined that the proposed development will have a less than significant impact on the existing sewer system adjacent to the proposed development. g) Water 0 0 0 ¡! The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project does comply 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 project proponent is required to submit a will serve letter from the servicing water district. Water quality standards would not be affected by this project because the site is fully developed and minimal earthwork is required to develop the site. .'" (H: \home\planning\edalia \IS-OO-4 7 cldst. doc) 10 -, - Pot...tiaDy PoteDtiaDy SignificaDt Less !haD SigDIficant UDiess SigDlficaDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 g b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 g c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 g distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 g e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 g t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g Comments: According to the Engineering Department existing sewer system adjacent to this development and off-site drainage systems are adequate to serve the proposed project. The existing land uses currently located on the proposed site are on septic tanks. The proposed project is required to connect to the City's sewer system as an Engineering Department standard condition of approval. An on-site storm drainage system is required to be incorporated in the project design to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The design of on-site storm drainage system shall be submitted with grading improvement plans. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 g 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 g scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 g d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 g 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 g Comments: The project is not located on or near a scenic corridor. The proposal is a redevelopment project that results in the elimination of blight. The project design including lighting and landscaping is subject to a discretionary process by the City's Design Review Committee. No mitigation is required. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 g the destruction or a prehistoric or historic ."" (H: \home \planning\edalia \15-00-4 7 cklst.doc) 11 - - Poteaüa1ly Poteatially Siplfiaat Less tIwI Sipifiaat UDIess SigDificaDt No Impact MitigJlled Impact Impact archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ~ aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 ~ physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ~ sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 ~ EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposed project is located in a fully urbanized area. There are no identified cultural resources within the project area. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 ~ proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The proposed project is located in a fully urbanized area. There are no identified paleontological resources within the project area. The project will require minimal grading and is therefore not likely to encounter fossils. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~ c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or 0 0 0 ~ programs? Comments: The project is located in proximity to a new municipal recreational facility, the ûtay Recreation Center. The project will be adequately served by the existing recreational facility and does not interfere with existing parks and recreation plans or programs. ~.MANDATORYFThIDmGSOF 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 ~ 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 . .- (H: \home\planning\edalia \15-00-47 ddst. doc) 12 - -, .-- PoteøûaDy PoteøûaDy Sipificaut Less tUD Sigaificaal UaJess S'¡gaIfIcaat No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 project site is located in an urbanized area and is presently developed with a 50 unit trailer park, 2 auto sales dealerships, and an auto audio business. Neither sensitive plant nor animal resources, nor historical or 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 the mixed-use residential & commercial project will not affect long-term 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 located in a fully urbanized area and redevelopment of the site will 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 mixed-use residential and commercial project. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: N/A 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 companyOs authority to and do agree to the mitigation measure.s .- (H: \home\planning\edalia \IS-OO-4 7 deist. doc) 13 - - 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. Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Property Owner's Name] Printed Name and Title of [Operator if different from Property Owner] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. OLand Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o 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 o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance XXII. DETERMINA TION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 181 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 .'" MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (H: \home\planrung\edaha\IS-OO-47ckhst.doc) page14 - .- 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. ~/ý~. -m~ /~/~ Si ture Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista .- (H: \home\planmng\edaha\IS-OO-4 7ckhst.doc) pagel5