Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/04/17 . . - - negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Jack In the Box /Gasoline SaleslMini-Mart PROJECT LOCATION: NEC of Bay Blvd. and "J" St., City of Chula Vista ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-330-15 PROJECT APPLICANT: Travis Engineering CASE NO.: IS-00-13 DATE: March 27, 2000 A. Proiect Setting The project site consists of a vacant 1.8 acre parcel located on the north east corner of Bay Boulevard West and "J" Street in the city's Bayfront specific plan. Surrounding uses are as follows: North: office professional building: East: Interstate 5; South: a vacant site; West: industrial development (BF Goodrich). The project site is zoned I (Industrial). The Bayfront Specific Plan designates the site for Visitor Commercial. The project site has been cleared of all vegetation and therefore there is no viable habitat for any sensitive animal species. There is also an existing cement lined drainage ditch east of the project site that would help convey storm waters away from the site. Bay Boulevard West and "J" Street are designated as Class I Collectors by the City's Circulation Element. A B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of the construction of a drive-thru restaurant,- a three island gasoline service station and convenience grocery store. The proposed project when completed would operate 24 hours and 7 days a week. Forty-two parking spaces will be provided along the front perimeter of the proposed drive- thru restaurant and convenience store. New landscaped areas, totaling approximately 795 sq. ft., will be provided essentially along the perimeter of the þroject site with special emphasis along Bay Boulevard West and "J" Street frontage. The landscaped area will include grass turf, shrubs and trees. The applicant proposes to install underground fuel tanks and ancillary equipment which will A:\llb\linda\is9807.neg Page 1 ~~~ -.- r...;¡: _ -.;: ...;;: ~- - - city of chula vista planning department - OTY Of 1 . ~ - - be subject to local, state and federal regulations as applicable. Discretionary actions involve approval by the Design Review Comminee, the granting of a sign variance by the Zoning Administrator and the approval by the City's Redevelopment Agency. C. Compatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The current zoning on-site is I (Industrial) and the site is designated as Visitor Commercial by the Bayfront Specific Plan. The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning designation and the Bayfront Specific Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. Public Services Impact Fire The nearest fire station is located about 2 miles from the project site. The estimated response time is less than seven (7) minutes. The response time complies with the City Threshold Standards for fire and medical response time. The applicant will need to obtain a permit from the fire department with respect to the installation of underground fuel tanks, fuel lines and related electrical systems. This review process will be coordinated with other Regulatory Agency review processes to ensure that no aspect of the proposed project will have an adverse impact on project site soils, underground water table or the surrounding residents and the physical environment. Police The Police Department indicates the Average Response Time for Priority 1 calls is 4 minutes, 47 seconds. This is just slightly above the Threshold Standard of 4 minutes and 30 seconds. The response time for Priority 2 calls is 6 minutes and 21 seconds, and this does comply with the Threshold Standard. The Police Department will be able to provide adequate service to the proposed land uses. A: \llb\Iinda \is9807 .neg Page 2 II . "- - 2. Utilitv and Service Systems Soils - geotechnical A geotechnical soils report dated September 28, 1999 was prepared by Giles Engineering & Associates, Inc for the project site. The Soils Engineer indicates that this is a standard report with recommendations that can be made part ofthe review process. The report indicates that clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the static groundwater table. A telephone conversation with the Project Manager for Giles Engineering, confirms that the upper crust soils of the site are extremely hard clayey soils. The soils report indicates that the results of the liquefaction analysis indicate the non- cohesive granular soils below the water table are subjected to liquefaction under the assumed seismic event as is the case with any development under similar circumstances in seismically active Southern California. Standard recommendations for site development and design of the building foundations are included in the report and will become standard conditions of the grading and construction permitting process as confirmed by the City Engineering Division. No mitigation is required Soils - underground installation of fuel tanks The applicant shall obtain appropriate permits and clearance from the County of San Diego Health Department, Hazardous Material Management Division and the Regional Water Quality Control as applicable regarding installation of underground fuel tanks and ancillary fuel lines and equipment. The County of San Diego Health Department has a specific program outlining the installation of fuel tanks and is prepared to assist the applicant as part of the permitting process. The City Fire Department and Building Division will also be involved in the standard regulated permitting process. No mitigation is required. Drainage The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps show the project site to be within the 500 year flood plain. The 100 year flood is contained in the adjacent cement lined channel east of the project site. The Engineering Division indicates that the existing off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve 'the proposed project. As a standard condition of approval that will adequately address the 500 year flood plain issue, the Engineering Division has requested that the applicant prepare a hydraulic study with the first submittal of grading improvement plans to identify the method to be used to convey on-site water surface runoff. A: \Ilb\linda \is9807 .neg Page 3 'f . --. --. Water The Sweetwater Authority indicates there is currently no water service to the project site. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement for water facility improvements with the water Authority and obtain a "Will Serve" letter prior to the issuance of a building permit. Sewer Sewage flows and volumes are currently being adequately maintained. The Engineering Division indicates there is adequate sewer capacity to serve the project. The applicant, as a matter of record, will need to provide EDU calculations to .complete their DRC application and comply with the City Engineering Standards. No mitigation will be required. Streetsffraffic The Threshold Standards Policy requires 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 at signalized intersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "Fit during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempt from this policy. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Policy for the immediately affected intersection of Bay Boulevard West and ItJ" Street. OFF-SITE CIRCULATION A traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for this project analyzed on-site circulation of gasoline trucks, drive-thru lane circulation, fueling positions, vehicle capacity and off-site traffic impacts to two intersections. The two analyzed intersections were "J" Street and Bay Boulevard West (a four-way stop controlled inersection) and "J" Street and the 1-5 bound southbound off-ramp (signalized with a two-phase signal). The project will generate approximately 3,122 "driveway" vehicle trips per day. The traffic study indicates that a significant number ofvehic1es will be already traveling on the adjacent roadway. The total new traffic to be added to the roadway system by the project is estimated to be 1,678 trios on a daily basis. The morning peak hour traffic would involve 66 inbound and 65 outbound trips. The evening peak hour traffic would involve 65 inbound and 63 outbound trips. The study determined that the intersection of "J' Street and Bay Boulevard West would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "A" in the morning peak hour, and at LOS "B" in the evening peak hour. The Intersection of"T' Street and the 1-5 southbound off- ramp will operate at LOS "B" in both the morning and evening peak hours. The A: \llb\linda \is9807 .neg Page 4 ." I - - project will not cause unacceptable operating conditions at either intersection and will continue to comply with the City of Chula Vista Traffic Threshold standard of LOS "C" or better for both intersections. ON-SITE CIRCULATION Fuel trucks approaching the site from the east via "J" Street, will enter the project driveway located on "]" Street. The underground tanks will be accessible from this driveway. The refueling would not interfere with customers approaching the site for fueling purposes or using the convenience store/drive-thru restaurant. Tank re- fueling activities would typically occur outside the project's peak hours of operation. The driveways as proposed would adequately service the site. Adequate stacking of vehicles utilizing the drive-thru restaurant has also been provided. The Engineering Division indicates that the .overall project has been found to be consistent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan and General Plan Traffic Element. However, as standard conditions of approval additional street dedication and improvements along Bay Boulevard West and "J" Street frontages will be required by the Engineering Division. 3. Air Qualitv The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding the installation of a vapor/fume recovery system for the proposed fuel tanks. 4. Aesthetics The proposed project will be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC). The proposed site plan, architectural design, landscaping and lighting plans will be subject to review by Planning and the DRC to ensure the proposed project will complement surrounding development and comply with the Bayfront development plan. E. Mitigation Necessarv to A void Significant Effects NO MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED Name, Title Date A: \lIb\linda \is9807 .neg Page 5 -.- . I , - -, F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Or2:anizations City of Chula Vista: Benjamin Guerrero, Community Development Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering Ralph Leyva, Engineering Brad Kemp, Building Division Doug Perry, Fire Marshal Richard Preuss, Crime Prevention Brian Hunter, Community Development Marilyn Ponseggi, Planning Division, Env'l Sec. Chula Vista City School District: Dr. Lowell Billings Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wright Applicant's Agent: Karl Huy, Engineering Consultant 2. Rocuments Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Traffic Impact Analysis, Jack-In-The-Box, Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. (3/00) Geotechnical Engineering Exploration & Analysis, Jack-In- The-Box, Giles Engineering & Associates, Inc. 9/28/99 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 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. ræ~~ Date: 3,~ B Hunter' Planning & Environmental Manager A: \llb\Jinda \is9807 .neg Page 6 ." Ii - - Case No. IS-00-13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Jack In The Box 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: South Gate, CA. 90280 (562) 928-0100 4. Name of Proposal: Jack in the Box Restaurant & Service Station/Convenience store 5. Date of CheckJist: March 22, 2000 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Signifiant \,jnl... Signific.ant :So Impact ~Iitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181 an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The vacant site is zoned Commercial (C) and designated for Visitor Commercial use by the City's General Plan. The proposed project would require the granting of a Conditional Use Permit and sign variance and review and approval by the Design Review Committee and Redevelopment Agency. No impacts or conflicts with the zoning or General Plan are noted. A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 1 " - POkntially POlenti.lly Signifiunl Les'lh.n Sipific.ant Unless Significant No Imp.c, Mitig.ted Impact Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 t8I population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 t8I 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 t8I housing? Comments: Project implementation would not contribute to local population growth nor displacement of existing housing. No adverse impacts are noted. III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potentialimpacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 t8I geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 U 0 t8I overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 t8I features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 t8I any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 t8I either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 t8I 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 t8I 0 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: A geotechnical soils report dated September 28, 1999 was prepared by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. for the project site. The report indicates' that highly compact clayey A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. fnn Page 2 .'" 'I! - - Potentially Potentially Sicnificant Less than Sienifiant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact soils are found in the upper crust (8-12 ft.) of the project site. The report indicates that potentially liquefiable soils exist below the water table under the assumed seismic event as would be the case with any development in similar circumstances in seismically active southern California. The applicant shall comply with the standard report recommendations for site development and design of the building foundations intended to reduce potential post-seismic liquefaction induced settlements. The applicant shall also comply with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements as applicable through the permitting process. The Engineering Division indicates that it is standard practice for the applicant to comply with the geotechnical report recommendations and also it is standard practice for the soils engineer to be present during grading and construction activities. The Engineering Division will ensure this process is followed by making it as standard condition of the grading permit. No mitigation will be 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 related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 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? f) 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 Engineering Division indicates that the project site is located in a 500-year flood boundary as delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 3 .- " - .-, Potentially Potentially Si&nilicant Less than Significant Unless Sipificant No Impact Miti¡:atod 1m pact Impact The City has storm drainage facilities adjacent to the project site that would result in proper conveyance of any potential flood waters. No adverse impact regarding flood waters is noted. The Engineering Division indicates that on-site drainage facilities need to take into consideration pollution prevention measures to prevent pollutants from restaurants and gas station from entering storm drainage systems. A stormwater industrial permit may be required from the State Water Resources Control Board. A wastewater industrial permit may be required from the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department. The Engineering Division will not require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) nor a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESS) due to the size of the project site. As a standard condition of the grading permit the applicant will be required to implement Best Management practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems. No adverse impacts are noted. No mitigation will be 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 0 181 0 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The applicant will be required to obtain permits from the County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Material Division as necessary regarding the underground fuel tanks for the proposed gas station. The applicant will also need to obtain a permit from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regarding the installation of a vapor/fume recovery system for the proposed fuel tanks. No mitigation will be required. VI. TRANSPORT ATION/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 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? A: \lIb \Iinda \is9808ck. frrn Page 4 ."" t - - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Signific.nt Unl... Significant No Impoct Mitigated Impact Impact 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 0 181 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 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 181 0 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for this project on March 6, 2000. The traffic study analyzed on-site circulation of gasoline trucks, drive- thru lane circulation and off-site traffic impacts to two intersections. The two analyzed intersections were "J" Street and Bay Boulevard West (a four-way stop sign controlled intersèction) and "J" Street and the 1-5 bound southbound off-ramp (signalized with a two-phase signal). The project is associated with a total generation oD,122 "driveway" vehicle trips per day. This number is the projected number of trips projected to enter and exit the site at the proposed driveways. The study indicates that a significant amount of the traffic associated with the proposed project will involve traffic which is already traveling on the adjacent roadway. The total new traffic to be added to the roadway system by the project is estimated to be 1.678 trips on a daily basis, with 66 inbound and 65 outbound trips in the morning peak hour, and 65 inbound and 63 outbound trips in the evening peak hour. The majority of the traffic is assumed to come from and return to the east via J Street. The study determined that the intersection of"]" Street and Bay Boulevard West would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "A" in the morning peak hour, and LOS "B" in the evening peak hour. The project would contribute 1 second of delay or less at this intersection. The intersection of "J" Street and the 1-5 southbound off-ramp will operate at LOS "B" both in the morning and evening peak hours. The project will not cause unacceptable operating conditions at either intersection and will continue to comply with the City of Chula Vista Traffic Threshold standard of LOS "C" or better. Fuel trucks approaching the site from the east via "J" Street, will enter the project driveway located on "]" Street. The underground fuel tanks will be accessible from this driveway and adequate manuevering area exists to allow re-fµeling without impeding access to this site. Additionally, tank re-fueling activities will typically occur outside the project's peak hours of operation. The City ofChula Vista Engineering Division concurs with the conclusions of the traffic A: \lIb \linda \is9808ck. fun Page 5 'I - -- Potentially Potentially Sicnilicant Less than Sicnilicant Unless Sicnilicant No Impact Miticated Impact J mpa« study prepared by Kimley-Hom. The Engineering Division concurs that "J" Street and Bay Boulevard West have the capacity to handle traffic generated by the proposed project and maintain a Level of Service "C" or better. The project will not require traffic mitigation but will be subject to standard right-of-way dedication and improvements for Bay Blvd. West and street improvements along "f' Street, as well as widening and improvements to the intersection. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Wquld 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 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The project site is located in an urbanized area and has been cleared of all vegetation. Environmental staff have conducted field visits and have found no sensitive plant or animal species on-site. No impacts to biological resources are noted. No mitigation is required. 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: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted. A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. fnn Page 6 .'" ·t; - - Potentially Potentially Sipilicant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitiealed Impact Impact 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 0 181 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed project will comply with all applicable required permitting processes administered by local, state and federal agencies. Compliance with established standard procedures will ensure that people will not be exposed to accidental explosions or health hazards. The project proponent as standard procedure will need to obtain a letter of clearance from the County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Management Division regarding the placement of underground fuel tanks associated with the proposed gasoline service station. No adverse impacts are noted. No mitigation will be required. 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: Temporary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short term nature of the noise, the proximity of Interstate 5 freeway and the commercial nature of the surrounding area results in less than significant impacts. No adverse impacts are noted. No mitigation will be required. 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 A: \llb\linda \is9808ck.frm Page 7 \f - .-. Potentially Potenti.lly Sipificant Less th.n Sicnificant Unless Significanl No Imp..t Mitig.ted Imp.'1 Imp..t d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new Governmental services will be required to serve the project. No adverse impacts are noted. Fire and police protection can adequately be provided. Appropriate school fees will be paid. Street dedication and improvements along "J" Street and Bay Boulevard West will be made in accordance with City Standards. No 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) FireÆMS 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 tnf:' 1"1i'qrcst fire station is 3 miles away and would be associated with a less than 7-minute If ,pOlbl: time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department indicates that adequate fire service and protection can be provided to the proposed project site. b) Police 0 0 181 0 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I 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 is located in an area where police ART complies with these Threshold Standards. Comments: Crime Prevention personnel are available to assist the applicant with security recommendations. No adverse impacts to Police service are noted. The Police Department indicates that they will continue to provide current levels of service to the project area. No mitigation will be required. c) Traffic 0 0 181 0 The Threshold Standards require that all SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL SEGMENTS 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. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with A: \llb \linda \is9808ck. frm Page 8 ."" I - -, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Si~nificanl No Impact Mitigated Impac. Impact freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project wiIl comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Division concurs with the conclusions as found in the trafic study prepared by Kimley-Horn (3/2000)indicating that the current Level-of- Service (LOS) "C" or better enjoyed by"]" Street, a four-lane major arterial, would remain the same with approval of the proposed project. d) ParksIRecreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll ,000 population. This standard does not apply to the proposed project. Comments: No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities are noted. 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 Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Cornmcnts: Off-site drainage capacities will not be affected by project approval. f) 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 Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Sewer capacities will not be adversely affected through project implementation. The existing adjacent sewer lines are adequate to serve the proposed project as determined by the Engineering Division. EDU calculations will be prepared by the applicant. g) Water 0 0 0 181 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 will 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: Water quality standards would not be affected through project implementation. The project area will be serviced by the Sweetwater Authority. The applicant will need to A: \llb\linda \is9808ck.frm Page 9 , - - POlmtially Potontially Sicnific.ant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Miticaled Impact Impact obtain a "Will Serve" letter from the Sweetwater Authority prior to the issuance of any building penn its. The Authority will detennine if there is a need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. XIll UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems. or substantial alterations to the following utilities: h) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 g i) Communications systems? 0 0 0 g j) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 g facilities? k) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 g I) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 g m) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g Comments: The proposed uses will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. No mitigation will be required. XIV AESTHETICS: Would the proposal: n) 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? 0) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 g scenic route? p) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 ~ 0 q) 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? r) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 g Comments: Approval of the project design and landscaping is subject to a discretionary Design Review process. This process will help ensure that the project.design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Bayfront Specific Plan. No mitigation will be required. XV CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. fnn Page 10 ."" 1 - - POlenlially POlential1y Significant La.. Ihan Significant! Unless Sienificant No Impact Miligatod Impact Impact s) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? t) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? u) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? v) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? w) 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 identified cultural resources within the project area. XVI PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 181 destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no paleontological resources within the project area. xvn RECREA TION: Would the proposal: x) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? y) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 z) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 plans or programs? Comments: There are no recreational facilities that will be adversely affected by the project. The proposed project will complement the Marina Park facility nearby. XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. z) 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 A: \lIb \Jinda \is9808ck. fnn Page 11 .. ì - -- Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Signifiant Unl... Significant 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: As the site is an existing developed site within an urbanized area, no sensitive plant or animal resources will be affected. aa) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-tenn, to the disadvantage of long-tenn, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long-tenn environmental goals. bb) 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 ot: ,;,¡rent projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: There are no incremental impacts associated with the project. cc) 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 to human beings is anticipated from project approval. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGA nON :MEASURES: NO MITIGTION MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED xx. ENVIRONMŒNTALFACTORSPOTENTMLLYAFFECTED: NONE CHECKED 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. o Land 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 A: \Jlb\Iinda \is9808ck. frm Page 12 .'" ~! - -., o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the f81 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 NEGA TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: I) 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 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 0 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 detennination. ~~\~ March 27. 2000 Date Brian Hunter Planning & Environmental Manager City of Chula Vista A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 13