The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/01/14 Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Main Street General Plan Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: Main Street, between I-S05 & Heritage Road PROJECT APPLICANT: City ofChula Vista CASE NO.: IS-02-18 DATE: December 20, 2001 A. Proj ect Setting The project setting consists of an existing roadway segment of Main Street between 1-805 and Heritage Road (Figure 1). The project site is located in the Otay Valley Redevelopment (OVR) Area created in 1983. The OVR covers approximately 771 acres of light industrial, commercial and entertainment uses, The street right of way is located in a fully urbanized area in the southeast portion of the City within proximity to the City limit boundary with the City of San Diego, Existing conditions along Main Street include primarily light industrial warehousing and business park uses on the north side, with auto park, service station and vacant properties on the south side. Residential properties are located along Main street immediately east of 1-805 off of Brandywine Avenue. Existing cross streets include Oleander Avenue, less than a Y. mile east of Oleander Avenue; Maxwell Drive, approximately % mile east of Brandywine Avenue; and Nirvana Way, approximately 1/8 mile east of Maxwell Drive (See attached figure). B. Project Description The proposed project is an amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan to reclassify Main Street, rrom 1-805 to Heritage Road from a 6-Lane Major Street to a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. The subject segment of Main Street is approximately1.75 miles in length. Six-Lane Major Streets are primarily designed to distribute localized trips and can accommodate up to approximately 40,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) at LOS C. Typically, major signalized intersections are spaced no closer than one-quarter mile intervals. A raised median is required to separate the two directions of travel and to improve the visual appearance of the arterial corridor. Access to and rrom abutting properties is typically controlled, but not restricted, Full access median openings are permitted on these facilities only at locations specified by the City Engineer and under conditions established by the City, Parking on these facilities is typically allowed. If bike lanes are provided on either side of these facilities and parking is to be retained, an additional 10-feet of right-of-way will be required to allow for a 10-foot widening of the roadway cross section. Right-of-way necessary for a 6-Lane Major Street is l28-feet. J:\Planning\EDALlA\ISchecklist\IS-02-18 Main Street GPA NegDec2.doc 1 -------- Six-Lane Prime Arterials are designed to move traffic between major generators and can accommodate up to approximately 50,000 ADT at LOS C. Typically, major signalized intersections are spaced at one-half mile intervals. A raised median is required to separate the two directions of travel and to improve the visual appearance of the arterial corridor. Access to and from Prime Arterials from abutting properties is typically restricted. Should a property have frontage only on the Prime Arterial Facility, driveway access is limited to right turns in and right turns in and right turns out at locations deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. These access driveways may require additional roadway width to provide for acceleration and deceleration lanes. Prime Arterials also provide landscaped buffer areas. Parking on this facility is prohibited with the exception of emergency parking. Bike lanes are provided according to the routes identified in the bicycle plan. Right-of-way necessary for a 6-Lane Major Street is 128-feet. The proposed reclassification would accommodate future traffic volumes on this roadway segment at full build out of existing General Plan land uses by maintaining the current characteristics of the roadway. The reclassification would not result in any physical changes to the environment or in any land use changes. The change in classification does not result in the need for any additional right-of-way. As a 6-Lane Major Street or a 6-Lane Prime Arterial, the roadway segment is already built to its ultimate width within 128 feet of right- of-way with development on both sides. A review of current conditions along this portion of Main Street indicates that existing features of the roadway, including signal locations/spacing, median break locations/spacing and prohibited street parking already match those characteristics of a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. The requested change in classification would grant the City Engineer the authority to prohibit on-street parking, limit and specify median access and signal locations, and restrict the location and spacing of full access signalized intersections, thereby maintaining the current characteristics of the existing roadway. As a 6-Lane Prime Arterial, Main Street would accommodate up to 59,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) at build out, which is consistent with the City's General Plan. C, Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project involves an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to reclassify a segment of Main Street from a 6-Lane Major to a 6-Lane Prime from 1-805 to Heritage Road. The proposal does not include a specific development proposal; therefore, it is consistent with General Plan and the surrounding commercial and limited industrial land uses. Specific development proposals within this amendment area would be subject to separate environmental review. D. Public Comments On November 5, 2001 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public comment period ended November 15,2001. No comments were received. E. 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 J:\Planning\EDALIA\ISchecklist\IS-02·18 Main Street GPA NegDec2.doc 2 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. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts N/A G. Consultation 1. City ofChula Vista: Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Environmental Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Patricia Beard, Community Planning Alex AI-Agha, Engineering John Schmitz, Development Planning Frank Rivera, Engineering Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Richard Preuss, Police Dave Kaplan, Engineering Mark Stephens, Advance Planning Bill Ulrich, Public Works/Ops Jim Geering, Fire Marshall Joel Chew, Public Works/ Ops Carolyn Dakan, Building Division Mary Hoffmockel, Parks and Recreation Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department Applicant's Agent: City of Chula Vista 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997 3. Initial Study This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available ITom the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. 1~/ f?.nwr ~. Date: /o'¿!dO/O/ I Maril R, F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator J:\Planning\EDALIA\ISchecklist\IS-02-18 Main Street GPA NegDec2.doc 3 CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I OTAY LANDFILL :!! 0 '" - - PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF SAN DIEGO CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (!) APPLICANT: CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 276 FOURTH AVENUE Request: Proposal for an amendment to the Circulation Element ADDRESS: of the General Plan to change the Main Street roadway SCALE: FILE NUMBER: classification from a 6-Lane Major Street to a 6-Lane Prime Arterial between 1-805 Freeway and Heritage Road. NORTH No Scale GPA·02-Q4 Related Case: 15-02-018. h :\home\plann ing\locators\GPA0204,cdr 10/30/0 1 Case No.IS-02-018 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Same as Above 4. Name of Proposal: Main Street Circulation Element Amendment 5. Date of Checklist: December 20,2001 Potentially PotentiaUy Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 iii zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 iii policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 iii (e.g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 iii an established community (including a low· income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed project is an amendment to the Circulation Element ofthe City of Chula Vista General Plan to reclassify Main Street, ITom I-S05 to Heritage Road ITom a 6- Lane Major Street to a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. The subject segment of Main Street is approximatelyl.75 miles in length. The proposed reclassification would accommodate future traffic volumes on this roadway segment at full build out of existing General Plan land uses by maintaining the current characteristics of the roadway. The reclassification would not result in any physical changes to the environment or in any land use changes. The change in classification does not result in the need for any additional right-of-way. As a 6-Lane Major Street or a6-Lane Prime Arterial, the roadway segment is already built to its ultimate width within 128 feet of right-of-way with development on both sides. Page - I A review of current conditions along this portion of Main street indicates that existing features of the roadway, including signal locations/spacing, median break locations/spacing and prohibited street parking already match those characteristics of a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. The requested change in classification would grant the City Engineer the authority to prohibit on- street parking, limit and specifY median access and signal locations, and restrict the location and spacing of full access signalized intersections, thereby maintaining the current characteristics of the existing roadway. As a 6-Lane Prime Arterial, Main Street would accommodate up to 59,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) at build out, which is consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts to land use plans and environmental plans or policies would result, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, PotentiaUy II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the PotentiaUy Significant '""'.... SignifieRDt u."" Slgnifkant N. proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not result in additional population. The proposed reclassification of Main Street to a 6-Lane Prime Arterial does not induce substantial growth. As a 6- Lane Prime Arterial, Main Street would accommodate up to 50,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) at build out at Level of Service (LOS) C, which is consistent with the City's General Plan. Main Street is already built to the ultimate right-of-way width of either a 6-Lane Major Street or a 6-Lane Prime Arterial and therefore does not result in the extension of major infrastructure or the displacement of existing housing. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, PotentiaUy III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or PotentiaUy S5gnißcaDI '""'.... Significant U'"'" SignifkaJlt No expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Import 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? 0 0 0 181 Page - 2 e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? t) 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: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any geophysical changes. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. potentiaUy PoteDliaUy Signiflcant Less tban IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: SignißcaDt UDIeu Significant No IlDpact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181 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 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, groundwater quality, or public water supply. Page· 3 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Pot..tIoDy V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: PotentiaÐy SIgnificant Less thaD S'J.gDifkant u.... SigDifkant No Impoct Mitigated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 III 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 III c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 III or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 III e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 III non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposed road reclassification would result in improved roadway conditions by increasing the flow of traffic (limiting start/stop traffic), prohibiting on-street parking, and by limiting the placement of access points along Main Street. The resulting improvements in roadway conditions would therefore result in less stationary sources of emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Potentially VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Potentially Signitkanl Loa .... Significant Unless SignUkaDt No the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Impoct Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 III 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 III sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 III nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on·site or off·site? 0 0 III 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 III bicyclists? t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 Ii< alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 Ii< h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 Ii< Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Page - 4 Comments: The proposed project is an amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan to reclassify Main Street, from 1-805 to Heritage Road ftom a 6- Lane Major Street to a 6-Lane Prime Arterial. The subject segment of Main Street is approximately1.75 miles in length. Six-Lane Major Streets are primarily designed to distribute localized trips and can accommodate up to approximately 40,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) at LOS C. Typically, major signalized intersections are spaced no closer than one-quarter mile intervals. A raised median is required to separate the two directions of travel and to improve the visual appearance of the arterial corridor. Access to and from abutting properties is typically controlled, but not restricted. Full access median openings are permitted on these facilities only at locations specified by the City Engineer and under conditions established by the City. Parking on these facilities is typically allowed. If bike lanes are provided on either side of these facilities and parking is to be retained, an additionall0-feet of right-of-way will be required to allow for a 1 O-foot widening of the roadway cross section. Right-of-way necessary for a 6-Lane Major Street is 12S-feet. Six-Lane Prime Arterials are designed to move traffic between major generators and can accommodate up to approximately 50,000 ADT at LOS C. Typically, major signalized intersections are spaced at one-half mile intervals. A raised median is required to separate the two directions of travel and to improve the visual appearance of the arterial corridor. Access to and ftom Prime Arterials from abutting properties is typically restricted. Should a property have ftontage only on the Prime Arterial Facility, driveway access is limited to right turns in and right turns in and right turns out at locations deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. These access driveways may require additional roadway width to provide for acceleration and deceleration lanes. Prime Arterials also provide landscaped buffer areas. Parking on this facility is prohibited with the exception of emergency parking. Bike lanes are provided according to the routes identified in the bicycle plan. Right-of-way necessary for a 6-Lane Major Street is 12S-feet. The proposed reclassification would accommodate future traffic volumes on this roadway segment at full build out of existing General Plan land uses by maintaining the current characteristics of the roadway. The reclassification would not result in any physical changes to the environment or in any land use changes, The change in classification does not result in the need for any additional right-of-way, As a 6-Lane Major Street or a 6-Lane Prime Arterial, the roadway segment is already built to its ultimate width within 128 feet of right-of-way with development on both sides. A review of current conditions along this portion of Main Street indicates that existing features of the roadway, including signal locations/spacing, median break locations/spacing and prohibited street parking already match those characteristics of a 6- Lane Prime Arterial. The requested change in classification would grant the City Engineer the authority to prohibit on- street parking, limit and specify median access and signal locations, and restrict the location and spacing of full access signalized intersections, thereby maintaining the current characteristics of the existing roadway. As a 6-Lane Prime Arterial, Main Street would accommodate up to 59,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) at build out, which is consistent with the City's General Plan, Page' 5 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Si¡;nUic:ant Legtha. Significant U...... Signiflcaut No proposal result in impacts to: IPlpact Mitigated Impact Impart a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 III concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g., heritage 0 0 0 III trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 III oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e,g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 III vernal poo!)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 III 1) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 III efforts? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to biological resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. PotentiaUy Potentially Signifkant Less than VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Slg:nißcant u..... Significant No Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 III plans? b) Use non· renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 III inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 III protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans or inefficient use of non·renewable resources. The site is an existing street and is not designated for mineral resource protection. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, PocentiaUy IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Poteutially Significant Less tban SignifieRnt Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 III hazardous substances (including, but not Page· 6 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 flanunable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any risks to humans or possible interference with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Potentially X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Less tbaD Significant Unl", Signif1caDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any noise impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Potentially XI. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have Potentially SignÜlcant ..... than Significant UnIo" Significant No an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to public services, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, PotendaUy Potentially SignÜlcant Less than Signmcant UnIo" Significant No Page· 7 Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 0 0 181 the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the City's Threshold Standards. Potentlaßy PotentlaUy Significant ""'than SignUkant U""," SignUkant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 determined that this threshold standard will be met because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and EMS Master Plan. Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to fire services. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Potentially Potentially Significant LessthaD Signlßcant Un"" Significant No Impact Mitigated Im"",t Impact 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. Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to police services. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less lhan Significant U""'" SignifICant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Traffic 0 0 181 0 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 "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2, West ofl-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen, Comments: The 2000/2001 Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) showed this segment of Main Street operating at LOS A. The proposed reclassification of Main Street from a 6-Lane Major Street to a 6- Page - 8 Lane Prime Arterial would result in an improved level of Service (LOS) because intersections would be spaced further apart, street parking would be prohibited, median openings would be limited and access to abutting properties would be restricted. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Poteutially PotentiaUy Slgniftcanl "" thaa Signlftcant u..... s_, Na Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805, Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in the demand for additional park and recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, PotentiaUy potentiaUy Significant Leutbun Significant U"'u Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Drainage 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to storm water flows and volumes. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant U..... Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact t) Sewer 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to sewage flows and volumes, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Page - 9 Potentially Potentially SignUkaDt Loa .... Significant U...... Sipifkant No Impart Mlllgated Impart Impart g) Water 0 0 0 II!I 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 pennit issuance. Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to the storage, treatment, and transmission of water. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Signincant Less than SigniÐcant Uo",," Significant No the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 II!I b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 II!I c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 II!I distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 II!I e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 II!I t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 II!I Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to utilities and service systems, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially PoteDtiaUy Signiftcant Loa .... SipißcanC UnIe" SigniflcaDC No XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impart a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 II!I 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 II!I scenic route? Page· 10 c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? D D D I!!I d) Create added light or glare sources that could D D D I!!I 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) Produce an additional amount of spill light? D D D I!!I Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any aesthetic impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the PotentiaDy Significant Less than SignifiCIIDt u."", Significant N. proposal: Impact Mitigated Import Impact a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or D D D I!!I the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or D D D I!!I aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a D D D I!!I physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or D D D I!!I sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan D D D I!!I EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially Potentially SignifICant Less than Significant Unless Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the D D D I!!I proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any Page - II new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to paleontological resources, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less thaB Signifkanl Un"" Significant Nn 1m""" Mitigated Impact 1m""" a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 l1'li regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 l1'li c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 l1'li plans or programs? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to recreational facilities or opportunities. Mitigation Measnres: No mitigation required. PotendaUy XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Significant Less thaa Slgniflcant Un"" SignllIC8Dt Nn SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for Impact Mitigated Impact 1m""" 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 l1'li 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 proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction or physical changes and therefore does not result in any impacts to biological resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Potentially Potentially SigulftcaPI Less than Significant Unless Significant Nn Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 l1'li short·term, to the disadvantage of long·term, environmental goals? Page· 12 Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any new construction, The reclassification would accommodate future traffic volumes based on current General Plan designations. Therefore the proposed reclassification does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. Mitigation Measnres: No mitigation required. Potentially Potentially SignUtcant Less thaD Significant U""'" SignificaDt No Impact Mitigated Impoct Impact C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 III 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 proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any development or changes to surrounding land uses. As such, the proposed project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Uol~ Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impacl d) Does the project have environmental effects, 0 0 0 III which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed project is the reclassification of an existing roadway that does not include any development activity, changes in land use or physical changes to the environment and therefore will not cause adverse effects on human beings, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required, Page - 13 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: 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 company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinatør. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approvaL Printed Name and Title of Property Owner Date (or authorized representative) Signature of Property Owner Printed Name and Title of Operator Date (if different from Property Owner) Signature of 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. 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 o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Paleontological o Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources Page· 14 XXII. DETERMINA nON: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, . and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D 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 at D 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 environment, D 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. 0~V~~' /~/ø?~O) Marilyn ,F. ponseggi \ / ate Environmental Review Coordinator Page - 15