Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/03/13 - - negative Jeclaration SCANNED PROJECT NAME: Main Square ~ -/ ;(-¿1Â flJ--" Date PROJECT LOCATION: SEC of Fourth Avenue and Main St., City ofChula Vista ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 629-050-08 PROJECT APPLICANT: Sam Sepehri, Corporate president CASE NO.: IS-00-12 DATE: March 7, 2000 A. Proiect Setting The project site consists of a vacant 1.13 acre parcel located on the south east corner of Fourth Avenue and Main Street in the city's southwest redevelopment area. The site has been cleared of all vegetation. The site is zoned ILP (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) . The Chula Vista General Plan designates the site for Limited Industrial development. The . surrounding properties also contain the same general plan and zoning designation. The area surrounding the site is fully developed with commercial and mini-warehouse development with the exception of property located beyond F ourth Avenue to the west which is presently used to grow seasonal strawberry crops. Main Street and Fourth Avenue are designated as four-lane major arterials by the City's Circulation Element. B. Proiect Description The applicant proposes to construct a 22,500 square foot industrial building to be used for minor auto repair. The proposed project when completed would operate 10 hQurs daily and 6 days a week. Fifty-one parking spaces will be provided along the front perimeter adjacent to Main Street. The proposed building will be setback along the southerly property line, adjacent to existing mini-warehouse storage buildings. New landscaped areas, totaling approximately 5,400 sq. ft. will be provided essentially along the perimeter of the project site with special emphasis along Main Street frontage. The landscaped area will include groundcover, shrubs and trees. The proposed auto minor repair uses will be subject to local, state and federal regulations as applicable. Discretionary actions include approval by the Design Review Committee and the Redevelopment Agency. A:\lIb\linda\is9807,neg Page 1 ~ ~ ft, -.- P"""': _ ....;: -;;: city of chula vista planning department ~~~ - ______ _ ____ ef'Ivlronm""n'!!I ,....,1....... ..t"tl"" ("H'" A V,qA - - C. Compatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The site is zoned ILP (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan). The Chula Vista General Plan designates the site for Limited Industrial development. The proposed minor auto repair shops are in compliance with the Zoning designation and General Plan designation. 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. l. Public Services Impact Fire The nearest fire station is located about 2 miles from the project site. The estimated response time is less than five (5) minutes. The response time complies with the City Threshold Standards for fire and medical response time. The applicant will need to coordinate standard inspections with the fire department with respect to the proposed uses. This standard 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 physical environment as outlined below. Police The Police Department indicates that they will be able to provide current levels of adequate service to the proposed project. 2. Utilitv and Service Svstems Soils The Engineering Division indicates that a Soils Report will be required with the first submittal of the grading improvement plans as a standard Drainage The Engineering Division indicates that existing off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. As a standard condition of approval, the A:\llb\linda\is9807.neg Page 2 - - Engineering Division has requested that the applicant prepare a drainage study to identify the method to be used to convey on-site water surface runoff. On-site drainage facilities will also incorporate pollution prevention as a standard condition of approval. Coordination with regulatory agencies may also result in requirements for a stormwater industrial permit. Sewer Sewage flows and volumes are currently being adequately maintained. The Engineering Division indicates that the proposed project will comply with the City Engineering Standards. The Engineering Division indicates that the Salt Creek '·::1 Trunk sewer will provide additional capacity to the area to ensure adequate capacity and flow. The City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department may require a wastewater industrial permit through their standard review process. 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 "F" 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 öfMain Street and Fourth Street. The project is associated with an Average Daily Traffic of 450 one-way trips. 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. The applicant will be required to make standard street dedication and improvements along Main Street (3 ft.) and Fourth Avenue (10 ft.) frontages. Biology On one field visit of the site in the month of December, environmental staff observed the presence of a burrowing owl. Several visits later the burrowing owl was not seen. A representative from the U.S. Department ofFish & Wildlife Service was contacted by staff in order to determine the status of this species. The representative indicated that this species was not covered by the Endangered Species Act, but that it was protected under the Migratory Treaty Act. The recommendation by the Service staff was to continue to check to see if the bird was observed or detected. The Service indicated that this bird was migratory and that it was probably stopping by to forage. Subsequent visits to the site resulted in the bird not being observed and the Service A: \lIb\linda \is9807 ,neg Page 3 - -, recommendation was to proceed with the project without any further studies since the site is located in the midst of a highly urbanized and trafficked area and did not represent viable habitat for this species. Hazards The applicant shall obtain appropriate permits and clearance from the County of San Diego Health Department, Hazardous Material Management Division regarding proper disposal of used oils and by-products. 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 permitting process. 3. 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 help properties in the southwest redevelopment area. E. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Benjamin Guerrero, Community Development Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering Frank Herrera, Planning Brad Kemp, Building Division Doug Perry, Fire Marshal Richard Preuss, Crime Prevention Brian Hunter, Community Development Chula Vista City School District: Dr. Lowell Billings Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wright Applicant's Agent: Sam Sepehri, President, Main Square Corporation 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code A:\llb\linda\is9807 .neg Page 4 - - 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. J:2~~ Date: 3·ß·OO Brian Hunter Planning & Environmental Manager A:Illblhnda\is9807.neg Page 5 - - Case No. IS-00-12 ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Main Square Corporation 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 23 Spinnaker Way Coronado, CA. 9211 8 (619) 429-0186 4. Name of Proposal: Main Square 5. Date of Checklist: March 3, 2000 Potentially Potentially Significant L....than Significant Unless Significant No 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 fann1ands, 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 Limited Industrial Precise Plan (ILP) and designated for Research and Limited Industrial use by the City's General Plan. The proposed project would require review by the Design Review Committee. No adverse impacts or conflicts with the zoning or General Plan are noted. A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 1 - -, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure )? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181 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 potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? 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 deposition 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: No adverse impacts regarding soils or geophysical conditions are noted. A soils report and compliance with the applicable recommendations will be required as a standard condition of grading pennit approval. No mitigation will be required. IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in: A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 2 - - Potentially Potentially Significant Les. than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 subject site is located in a fully urban setting and represents infill development. On- site drainage facilities design would need to take into consideration, pollution prevention from auto repair shops to the stonn water facilities. The City has existing stonn drainage facilities that would result in proper conveyance of stonn waters. No adverse impact regarding stonn waters is noted. The Engineering Division is requesting that drainage facilities be incorporated in the design with the first submittal of the grading and "" improvement plans as part ofthe standard requirements for new construction. Existing off-site drainage facilities adequately convey water per City Engineering Division. 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 A: \ltb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 3 -- - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Un Ie.. Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 project does not propose any operations that would violate air quality standards or contribute additional pollutants in the air. The proposed minor auto repair operations .. would ensure that vehicles are functioning at their peak perfonnance and thus minimize impacts to the ambient. No mitigation will be 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., fann 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 0 181 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 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The Engineering Division estimates that the combined proposed land uses will generate approximately 450 one-way vehicular trips per day. Main Street and Fourth A venue will provide the primary access to the project site and both are classified by the City's Circulation Element as four-lane major arterials. Based on Engineering analysis both roadways presently have the capacity to handle traffic generated by the proposed project and maintain a Level of Service "C", thus meeting the City's Traffic Threshold Standards. No mitigation will be required. A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 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 0 181 0 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 is cleared of all vegetation. There are presently no native plants or sensitive animal species. On one field visit of the site in the month of December, environmental staff observed the presence of a burrowing owl. Several visits later the burrO\ving owl was not seen. A representative from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was contacted by staff in order to determine the status of this species. The representative indicated that this species was not covered by the Endangered Species Act, but that it was protected under the Migratory Treaty Act. The recommendation by the Service staff was to continue to check to see if the bird was observed. The Service indicated that this bird was migratory and that it was probably stopping over to forage. Subsequent visits to the site during the months of January and February resulted in the bird species not being observed and the Service recommendation was to proceed with the project without the need for any studies since the site is located in the midst of a highly urbanized and trafficked area and did not represent viable habitat for this species. 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? A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. fnn Page 5 - -, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Comments: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted. 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 shall comply with all applicable standard required pennitting processes administered by local, state and federal agencies. Compliance with established standard procedures will ensure that people will not be exposed to accidental health hazards. The project proponent will need to obtain a letter of clearance from the County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Management Division regarding the proposed minor auto repair shops. 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 tenn nature of the noise, the proximity of major arterials and the commercial/industrial 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 A: \llb\linda\is9808ck, frm Page 6 - - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Schools? 0 0 0 ~ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 ~ roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ~ 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 Main Street and Fourth Avenue will be made in accordance with City Standards. No mitigation will be required. 0 0 0 ~ 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 ~ 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 2 miles away and would be associated with a 5-minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department indicates that nearest fire station is located within 2 miles and adequate fire service and protection can be provided to the proposed project site. b) Police 0 0 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 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 is located in an area where police ART data for priority I and Priority 2 calls is currently unavailable. Comments: The Police Department indicates that current police service can continue to be provided to the area where the subject site is located. Crime Prevention personnel are available to assist the applicant with security recommendations. No significant adverse impacts to Police service are noted. No mitigation will be required. c) Traffic 0 0 ~ 0 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "c" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west ofI-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck.fnn Page 7 -" - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Division has detennined that the current Level-of- Service (LOS) "C" enjoyed by Main Street and Fourth Avenue, four lane major arterials, would remain the same with approval of the proposed project. The Engineering Division reviewed traffic data for Main Street and Fourth Avenue and concluded that these would be adequate to serve the proposed project subject to standard dedication of necessary R.O.W. and widening of both Main Street and Fourth Avenue to City Engineering standards. No mitigation will be required. d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 ~ The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO 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 ~ The Threshold Standards require that stonn 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 will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Off-site drainage capacities will not be affected by project approval. t) 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 Plan(s) 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 will be evaluated by the Engineering Division as necessary ,. at the design stage of the project. The Salt Creek Trunk Sewer will eliminate any potential capacity problems. No mitigation is required. 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 will comply with this Threshold Standard. A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. fnn Page 8 .- - Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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. 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 distribution 0 0 0 ~ 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 proposed uses will not generate a need for new systems or cause alteration to the aforementioned utilities. The existing sewer lines along Main Street currently have the capacity to handle the proposed sewer per the Engineering Division. The Salt Creek Trunk sewer will provide additional capacity in the future. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 14.20.120 requires the incorporation of storm water pollution prevention measures into the proposed auto repair facility. A storm water industrial permit may be required from the State Water Resources Control Board. A wastewater industrial permit may also be required from the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department. No mitigation will be required, since these would become standard conditions of project of approval once a determination is made that these will be required. XIV AESTHETICS: Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 ~ 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 ~ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 ~ d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 ~ increase the leyel 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? A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm Page 9 - .-. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Approval of the project design and landscaping is subject to a discretionary Design Review process. No mitigation will be 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? e) 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 0 0 0 181 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no identified paleontological resources within the project area. XVII RECREATION: Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 c) 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 proposed auto repair operations. A: 'llb\linda \is9808ck. frrn Page 10 - - Potentially Potentially Significant Le.. than Significant Unle.. Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 site is presently vacant and cleared and graded of all plant materials. The site lies within a fully urbanized area and does not represent viable habitat for any sensitive animal species. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long-term environmental goals. 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: There are no incremental impacts associated with the project. 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 to human beings is anticipated from project approval. A: \llb\\inda \is9808ck. fnn Page 11 - .- XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: 5 NO MITIGA nON WILL BE REQUIRED xx. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: NONE 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 D Public Services D Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems D Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics ". D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise D Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance A: \llb\linda \is9808ck, fnn Page 12 -- -, XXI. DETERMINATIûl.: 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 NEGA TlVE DECLARA TlON will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but D : 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 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D 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. ~~~ March 3. 2000 Brian Hunter Date Planning & Environmental Manager City of Chula Vista A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. fnn Page 13