Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2004/08/02Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROJECT APPLICANT: CASE NO.: DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: Allen Gas and Truck Stop 3205 Main Street 629-060-60,61 & 65 Latif Audis Zoura IS-00-50 July 15, 2004 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: AllgUSt 2, 2004 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Project Setting The1.74-acre project site is located on the southeast corner of Main Street and Beyer Way. The project site address is 3205 Main Street. The project site is comprised of three parcels located in the urbanized southerly portion of the City of Chula Vista (see Exhibit A-Location Map). The project site is relatively flat, with vehicular access from both Main Street and Beyer Way. The project site currently contains aone-story 1,944 square-foot automobile service station with two existing vehicle repair service bays, a convenience store and a 1,248 square-foot canopy covering two fuel dispensers and a 465 sq. ft. canopy covering one fuel dispenser. The project site is within the ILP (Limited Industrial Precise Plan) Zone and IL (Limited Industrial) General Plan designation. The land uses surrounding the site are as follows: North: Auto Repair/Auto Body & Paint shop/Retail Strip Mall South: Fourth Avenue right-of--way/Muffler shop East: Automobile Sales/Construction Storage Yard West: Liquor Store/Animal Shelter B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of the expansion and refurbishment of an existing automobile service station, convenience store and canopy area. The proposal consists of the construction of 1,967 square-feet of additional convenience store area (to include a mezzanine area), five (5) new vehicle-fueling dispensers, three (3) diesel-fueling dispensers, five additional canopies covering the proposed fuel dispensers (canopy sizes range from 465 sq. ft. to 1248 square-feet). See exhibit B showing site plan. The exterior of the existing structure will also be refurbished to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Two new additional roll-up doors will be placed on the existing service garage bays. ~ -. -, ~c,~ i {~ ~~' ', -` ~! 1 - t ~ ~ ~ D~L AO ~ i E i ~~-' i~ ' ~ i ~ ~ i _ _ AL ~, RU ~- i 1 t= 1, Y " > ~~ ..' ~ ~-7 _ ~ FRES6K? ~ i m ~ } - a~~ , ~ ice--1 z, ~ -c l~ l : °dTFI AU .I: ~_ j•t~i, D% ~= air (,' I 4 ~l.~_ 1S 1~ ~~I M ,° `' w 1 1 I `a`te `wi Il C'1 ~ L -~.r '~` 'j\fJ. I vJ ~. N .~. f ~ 1` s ~ ~~ ~{ ~'.L~.--1 ~' ~..I ~ 1 ~~~er t~ ~~ ~ 1_j ~ r t ~ { 1- V ~~ _~ '~~..y1W_ _~-'` ~ { ~. d Karst - II l d aw ST _ -~ szt--vas ,, .~ ,~ ,,,>~- `' R ~ ~~ _ 1 1 "~~ 1 N` Ay L - W` ~ ~ ~~~ ;: 4 ~ , ~~~~E 7~. ~ ~ a~ W ,rr O ~ I ~ ~.+ - `' -- F ~~5 . 1-v~.r'~A + °~~' z t ~ F ~„ -~ ~} ~t~ ~- .. - ! h f- FN F`"- - - ~ f PONTI;.,EY ~ _ A4 _ ~ ~;~ 1t ,~. j;{CgUA ~= 5C --~ s: r~ Y. N LL ~'~ 1;;+:' I MNNYA :i ~ Uk 14 4Ll'N~T~~ w ~i ~~ - - I I Vo~~ - EXHIBIT A N ~~ LU J Q `J J1 Z I..L Q Z U_ (qo Twenty-four automobile parking spaces will be provided along with two truck parking spaces for a total of twenty-six on-site parking spaces, which will exceed the zoning ordinance requirement for parking spaces. Additional proposed on-site improvements include enhanced landscaped treatments, new lighting, and trash enclosure. Anew underground storage tank for diesel fuel will be installed. A limited variance to the landscape buffer requirement is being requested on two locations in order to accommodate two existing fuel pump dispensers. In addition to refurbishing the two existing driveways, the applicant proposes to install four additional driveway approaches in order to better accommodate truck and automobile traffic circulation. Off-site improvements include removal, replacement and realignment of driveways, and new curb, gutter and sidewalks along Main Street and Beyer Way. The applicant will be required to provide half-width street improvements along Main Street and Beyer Way property frontage including installation of raised medians along both streets. The new raised medians will be provided with landscape features. The proposed project is subject to the approval of Design Review by the Design Review Committee, administrative approval of a Special Use Permit and minor variance from landscape setback requirements and a lot line adjustment. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the ILP (Limited Industrial Precise Plan) Zone and IL (Limited Industrial) General Plan designation. The Limited Industrial Zone allows for the proposed automobile service station/convenience store with a Special Use Permit and Design Review. The proposed 24 off-street parking spaces exceed the requirements of the Municipal Code. D. Public Comments On June 22, 2004, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended July 2, 2004. One written comment from the Sweetwater Authority was received. Sweetwater Authority concerns regarding soil testing and underground storage tanks are adequately addressed in Section E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Former Underground Storage Tanks. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect, there would not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Air uality The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed project will result in an increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during demolition, grading and construction activities. 2 Although air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations would be potentially significant, they are considered short-term impacts since construction-related activities are a relatively short-term activity. Dust control measures implemented during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potentially significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. The project would not conflict with or violate any applicable air quality plans or standards. No objectionable odors affecting substantial number of people would result from the proposed expansion of an existing automobile service station/convenience store, as compliance with APCD and Department of Environmental Health regulations are required. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts and no mitigation measures are required to address long-term impacts. Geology and Soils Pursuant to the "Report of Soil Investigation (for) Allen Gas and Truck Stop, 3205 Main Street, Chula Vista, California", prepared by C.W. La Monte Company, on June 30, 2001, the City Engineering Division states that there are no anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions. Due to the previous development of the site and minimal grading required for the proposed project, no significant geological impacts are anticipated. A formal soils report will be required with the preparation of the final grading and building plans to determine existing soil conditions and provide foundation and pavement recommendations. The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts downstream. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The implementation of appropriate water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction shall be required in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Chula Vista's "Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual (Manual). All portions of the development area disturbed during construction will either be developed or shall be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with SUSMP and Manual requirements shall be ensured by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage system will be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Former Underground Storage Tanks On January 5, 1994, as part of a service station upgrade, a total of four underground storage tanks were removed. This action required oversight and permitting by the County Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Program (DEH). 3 Three of the underground tanks were used to store fuel and one underground tank was used to store waste oil. No release of fuel into the soil was detected from the three underground storage tanks used to store fuel. However, laboratory results of soil samples collected adjacent to the underground tank containing waste oil yielded Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons concentrations of up to 30,000 ppm. In February of 1995 and under contract to Chevron, Applied Geosciences Inc. (AGI) conducted a remediation effort to remove the contaminated soils. AGI excavated an area measuring 3 feet by 3 feet to a depth of 4.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the location of the former UST containing waste oil. Soil samples collected after the removal of the contaminated soil samples collected in the vicinity of the UST indicated TRPH concentrations ranging from less than the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) to 1,100 mg/kg. The sample collected from a depth of 4.5 feet bgs did not contain TRPH above the MDL of 10 mg/kg. The soil sample with the highest TRPH concentration contained non- detectable concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethybenzene, xylenes (BTEX), halogenated volatile organic compounds (HVOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In December 1999 and January 2000, TRC Alton Geoscience (TRC) advanced a total of seven borings to maximum depths of 30 feet bgs. Soil samples collected from the vicinity of the underground waste oil tank did not contain TRPH concentrations above the MDL. TRPH and MTBE were detected in groundwater at very low concentrations of 700 parts per billion (ppb) and 2.2 ppb, respectively. On October 12, 2000, the County of San Diego DEH indicated that the site might be eligible for closure once additional data was provided. On July 11 and 12, 2001, in an attempt to satisfy the County of San Diego DEH, SECOR International Incorporated, an Environmental Firm, advanced three boreholes in the location of the former waste oil underground tank. Three twelve-inch diameter holes were cored through the concrete/asphalt of each location. A total of five soil samples were collected, yielding low TRPH concentrations ranging from 13 ppb to 34 ppb. After reviewing the data submitted, the County of San Diego DEH concluded that based on the limited extent of soil contamination and the minimal MTBE concentrations in groundwater, the residual contamination at the site does not pose a risk to impact any sensitive receptors in the vicinity. On May 7, 2004, the County DEH issued a letter of "No Further Action" required for the petroleum release at this project site. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also reviewed the determination by the County DEH and concurred with the County's decision and determined that the corrective action protects both existing and potential beneficial water uses per the RWQCB Basin Plan. H d~gy and Water Ouality Based on the City of Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and the Storm water Management Manual, post-construction pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include gasoline, trash, debris, oil and grease. Per the requirements set forth in the SUSMP, best management practices (BMPs) shall be designed to treat runoff generated by the Water Quality Design Storm having a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per 4 hour prior to discharge to public storm drainage systems. The City's adopted Storm Water Management Manual contains specific requirements for various types of developments. The City Engineer will ensure that the above requirements will be met prior to the issuance of grading improvement or construction permits for the proposed project. Based upon the requirements of the City's Storm Water Management Manual, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP), construction and post-construction project-related water quality impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The proposed construction and post-construction BMPs are discussed below. Constrtction BMPs According to the Engineering Division, due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the prepazation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Boazd will be required. The applicant will also be required to complete Form 5504, "Construction Storm Water Management Plan" (CSWMP), prior to issuance of grading, public improvement and construction permits. The NPDES General Construction Permit requires all construction projects involving one or more acres of land disturbance to be covered under the Permit. During construction, BMPs from the California Best Management Practices Handbook will be required to be implemented, which have been frequently used on job sites and have been proven effective. Examples of construction BMPs include silt fences, sandbags, and hay bales, which are strategically placed around curb inlets, catch basins, and driveways in order to prevent silt and sediment from entering the storm drain system. Post-Construction BMPs Pursuant to the City's Storm Water Management Manual requirements for fueling dispensing areas consist of the following: I) install a hanging roof structure/canopy, 2) fueling areas must drain to the project's treatment control BMPs prior to discharging into the storm water conveyance system, 3) install proper pavement with cement concrete or smooth impervious surface, 4) create appropriate sloping to avoid ponding and separate with a grade break that prevents run-on of urban runoff, 5) meet minimum concrete fuel dispensing area requirements , 6) install filter inserts in catch basins that include oil absorbing media that prevent discharge of oil and grease to public storm drains, and 7) provide periodic replacement of filter materials and oil-absorbing media, as necessary to maintain effectiveness. Final required post-construction BMPs will be subject to the approval of aproject-specific water quality study by the City Engineer. The City Engineer will take all necessary steps to ensure that the approved BMPs will be implemented and will be sufficient to treat site runoff prior to exiting the site and entering the public storm drainage system in accordance with the applicable established water quality standards. The proposed off-site improvements will include creation or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Permanent structural treatment Best Management Practices may be required for off-site improvements per the National Pollutant Dischazge 5 Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) requirements. Transportation/Traffic Based upon the projected volume of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development, the preparation of a traffic study was deemed necessary by the City Engineering Division. This study is available for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department and is summarized below. According to the "Revised Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Expansion of the Allen Diesel Truck, Gas and Convenience Store located at the Southeast Corner of Main Street and Beyer Way, Chula Vista, California," prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc., dated April 23, 2004, the proposal is projected to generate 3,520 average daily trips (ADTs), with 246 trips generated in the AM peak hour and 282 trips generated in the PM peak hour. With credit for existing service station land uses, the net increase in area wide traffic attributable to the project is 2,620 new daily trips, 182 new morning peak hour and 200 occurring in the evening peak hour. Traffic Snj`etV The project proposes three points of access off of Main Street and 3 points of access off of Beyer Way. All access points will operate with acceptable delays and levels of service. Significance Criteria The criteria utilized to determine if a traffic impact at an intersection or street segment is considered significant is based on City of Chula Vista standards. Both project specific and cumulative impacts can be significant impacts. The applicable significance criteria utilized in the project traffic impact analysis are as follows: Signalized/Unsignalized Intersections A project specific impact to a signalized or unsignalized intersection would result if both of the following criteria are met: 1. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. 2. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. Cumulative impact if only condition #1 is met. Street Segments A project specific impact to a street segment would result if the following criteria are met: l . Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F for 1 hour. 2. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume. 3. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. 6 Cumulative impact if only condition #1 is met. Existing Conditions Street Segments Main Street (4 Lane Major) adjacent to the project site currently operates at level of service (LOS) A. Beyer Way (Two lane Class I Collector) adjacent to the project site currently operates at LOS B. Signalized Intersections The signalized intersection of Main Street and Beyer Way operates at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Third Avenue operates at LOS C during both AM and PM peak hours. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Fourth Avenue operates at LOS B during both AM and PM peak hours. Existing Plzts Project Conditions Street Segments Main Street (4 Lane Major) adjacent to the project site is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. Beyer Way (Two lane Class I Collector) adjacent to the project site is projected to operate at LOS B after project development. Signalized Intersections Al] intersections analyzed are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during both peak hours under existing plus project conditions. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Beyer Way will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hours and LOS C during the PM peak hour. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Third Avenue will continue to operate at LOS C during both AM and PM peak hours. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Fourth Avenue will continue to operate at LOS B during both AM and PM peak hours O f Site Tragic Conclusion The project does not have direct or cumulative impacts on study roadway segments or intersections in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, no off-site traffic mitigation measures are required. OrrSite Circulation The project proposes a total of six (6) driveways, three on Beyer Way (two of these exist) and three on Main Street (two of these exist). The new driveway on Beyer Way is located at the southernmost property line and will accommodate large trucks and provide direct access to the diesel fuel stations on the eastern side of the project. The new driveway on Main Street on the eastern end is a modification to the existing driveway with a new driveway, which serves the eastern parking area. The driveways can operate with a single exit lane, while utilizing existing lanes on Beyer and Main without requiring additional improvements. The driveways located closest to the intersection of Beyer and Main operate as right in/out only. All other driveways operate without restrictions and achieve acceptable levels of service. Project driveways provide adequate circulation for large trucks entering and exiting the site, with appropriate turning radii. Parking aisles are designed with adequate room for vehicles to enter and exit stalls without significantly conflicting with other on-site traffic movements. Driveways and internal circulation are designed to accommodate on-site traffic without vehicles stacking or obstructing through traffic on adjacent streets. The project circulation will not significantly impact any intersection or roadway segment in the vicinity of the project and no mitigation measures are required. Parking Based upon the Chula Vista Municipal Code parking ratio for retail use of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of floor area, the required off-street parking for the proposal is 15 spaces. The proposed off-street parking will consist of 24 vehicle parking spaces plus two large truck parking spaces; therefore, the project would not result in any significant parking impacts and no mitigation measures are required. Infi-astructesre/Street Improvements In accordance with City policy, the applicant shall be responsible for the bonding and construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and raised median improvements along the Main Street and Beyer Way property frontage. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air ualit The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable demolition, grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. 1. During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material. Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily ofconstruction-related dirt and debris. 8 2. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area, and the load shall not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. This measure shall also apply to the transport of any materials associated with demolition, grading, or building activities that can potentially become airborne. Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working order and shall be periodically tuned in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pollutant- emitting construction equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, shall be used as practical. 4. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. 5. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-generating activities as necessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible. G. Consultation I. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department John Mollen, City Attorney's Office Benjamin Guerrero, Planning and Building Department Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department Stan Donn, Planning and Building Department Garry Williams, Planning and Building Department Frank Rivera, Engineering Department IChosro Aminpour, Engineering Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department David Kaplan, Engineering Department Sandra Hernandez, Engineering Department Jim Geering, Fire Department Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District James L. Smith, Sweetwater Authority 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 88-2, May 1989. A Fuel System Demolition Report, Station 18-GI{R, located at 765 E Street, Chula Vista, Califomia, TRC, Apri123, 2002. Revised Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Expansion of the Allen Diesel Truck, Gas and Convenience Store located at the Southeast Comer of Main Street and Beyer Way, Chula Vista, California, Darnell and Associates, Inc., April 23, 2004. A County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health/Site Assessment & Mitigation Program, Underground Storage Tank System Closure Report, May 13, 2004. Report of Soil Investigation Allen Gas and Truck Stop, 3205 Main Street, Chula Vista, California, C.W. La Monte Company, June 30, 2001. 3. Initial Studv 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator 1:\Nlann ing\6enG\AI IenGas0050MN D.doc Date: 10 ~~1// :±~: ~~n a ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHULA VISTA 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: 6. Case No. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Latif Audis Zoura City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3205 Main Street Chula Vista, CA. 91911 (619)585-0881 Allen Gas and Truck Stop July 14, 2004 IS-00-50 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitrgafion Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ^ O ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 1 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a-b) As designated in the City's General Plan, the project site is within the Montgomery Specific Plan Area and Southwest Redevelopment Area. Landscape treatments along Main Street and Beyer Way are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Montgomery Specific Plan landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to Main Street create a positive image. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public, and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway. c) The project site is located within an established urbanized area of Southwestern Chula Vista. Surrounding land uses consist of commercial/retail uses to the north, east, south and west. The proposed project consist of the expansion of the existing gasoline service station by providing an additional eight new service islands (16 new vehicle fueling spaces) and the construction of a 1,967 square foot convenience store. The commercial project would not result in a change in the service station commercial character of the project site nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic impact to the adjacent commercial land uses. Proposed improvements are anticipated to have a positive aesthetic effect on the comer of Main Street and Beyer Way. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the surrounding area but would rather enhance the current condition of the area. d) Compliance with the glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) that is ensured through the building permit process, no substantial glare, direct or slry- reflected glare or light, would effect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the protect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Famtland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ^ ^ ^ a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ^ ^ ^ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 2 Less Than Significant Potentially Wilh Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Comments• a-c) The project site is neither in current agicultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources or designated farmland. Miti ation: No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ^ ^ ^ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ^ ® ^ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ substantial number of people'1 Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, (MND) Section E. Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the MND would mitigate potentially significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. 3 Potentially I$$nCS: Significant Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ^ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ^ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ^ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signi7cant Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ^ ^ ^ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ^ ^ ^ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat No Impact 4 Issues: conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site involves an existing developed use. Less Than Significant Potentially Wiih Less Than Signi6can[ Mitigation Signifcant Impact Incorporated Impaf[ Na Impact b) There are no sensitive natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. c) No wetlands are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. d) No native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. e) No biological resources would be affected by [he proposal and no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would result. f) No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is fully developed as are surrounding properties. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ^ ^ ^ of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ^ ^ ^ of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ^ ^ ^ resource or site or unique geologic feature? 5 Less Than Significant Potentially Hrlth Less Than Issnes: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ^ ^ ^ outside of formal cemeteries? Comments• a) No historic resowces aze known or aze expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resowce as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) Based on the level of previous distwbance to the site, and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the proposed project, the potential for impacts to archaeological resowces is considered to be less than significant. c) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resowces in the City's General Plan EIR. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading for the proposed project, the potential for impacts to pa]eontological resowce or is considered to be less than significant. No unique geologic featwes are present on the site. d) No human remains aze anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project. Mi6gafion: No mitigation measwes are required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as de]ineated ^ ^ ^ on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ® ^ iii. Seismic-re]ated ground failwe, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ^ iv. Landslides? ^ ^ ^ 6 Issues: b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Signincant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ^ ^ Less Than Signineant No Impacl Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ^ ^ ^ or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial ^ ^ ^ risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ^ ^ ^ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ ^ ® ^ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ ^ ® ^ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ^ ^ ^ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed 7 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issnes: Significant Mitigation Significant lmpact Incorpora[eA Impart school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ^ ^ ^ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ ^ ^ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ^ ^ ^ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ^ ^ ^ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALTfY. Would the project: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to ^ ^ receiving waters (including impaired water bodies No Impact 8 issues: pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in significant alterntion of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste dischazge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? Potentially Significant Impact ^ Less Than Significant With Mitigation ]ncorporated Less Than Significant Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the ^ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the ^ ^ ^ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface mnoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ^ ^ ^ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? fl Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed ^ ^ ^ the capacity of existing or planned stotmwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. No Impact 9 Less Than Significant Potenfially With Less Than Is$Ues: Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpact Impact incorporated Impact Miti ag tion: No mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ^ ^ ^ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the genera] plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ^ ^ ^ or natural community conservation plan? Comments• a) The proposed commercial project would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and, therefore, would not dismpt or divide an established community. b) The project site is within the ILP (Limited IndushiaUPrecise Plan) Zone and II. (Limited Indusnial) General Plan designations, within the Montgomery Specific Plan and Southwest Redevelopment Area. The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations, General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan. c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 10 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issnes' Signiticant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ^ ^ ^ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. b) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection. Mitigation: No mitigation measures aze required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ^ ^ ^ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ^ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ ^ ^ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ^ ® ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 11 Less Than Significant Potentially Wkh Less Than I$sUes: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ^ ^ ^ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ^ ^ ^ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a, c and d) There are no sensitive receptors within the surrounding area of this existing service station. b) It is not anticipated that persons will be exposed to excessive groundbome vibration or noise levels, as there will not be any heavy industrial equipment or machinery operated on-site beyond short-term construction activities. e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use aiq~or[; therefore, the project would not expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels. f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ^ ^ ^ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastmcture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ^ ^ ^ necessitating the constmction of replacement housing 12 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than I$sUes: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact lncorporateJ Impact elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ^ ^ ^ the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments• a-c)No residential development is proposed that would induce substantial population growth in the area or require substantial infrastmcture improvements. No permanent housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or person would occur as a result of the proposed project. Based upon the size and nature of the proposal, no population growth inducement is anticipated. The project is an allowable retail use per the Zoning Ordinance and is in compliance with the General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: a. Fire protection? ^ ^ ^ b. Police protection? ^ ^ ^ c. Schools? ^ ^ ^ d. Parks? ^ ^ ^ e. Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ 13 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fue protection services can continue to be provided to the site without an increase of equipment or personnel. The Fire Department's estimated time of arrival is within 5 minutes. The applicant is required to submit plans for a fue sprinkler system prior to building construction and is required to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building construction. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fue protection services. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. c) The proposed project would not induce population gow[h; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees for the proposed new commercial building. d) Because the proposed project would not induce population gowth, it would not induce significant population growth and thus not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities. e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ^ ^ ^ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ^ ^ ^ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 14 Issues: Comments• Less Than Signitcant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for neighborhood or regional pazks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. b) The project does not include the conshuction or expansion of recreational faci]ities. According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Mitigation: No mitigation measures aze required. XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ^ ^ ® ^ relation to the existing h~affic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ^ ^ ^ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ^ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ^ ^ ^ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ 15 Issues: f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Potentially R,ith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ^ ^ ^ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or progrdms ^ ^ ^ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigafion: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ ^ ^ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ^ ^ ^ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ^ ^ ^ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ^ ^ ^ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ^ ^ ^ provider, which serves or may serve the project that it No Impact 16 Less Than Signitcant Potentially with Less Than IssnC$: Signincant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact incorporated impact has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landtill with sufficient permitted capacity ^ ^ ^ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ^ regulations related to solid waste? Comments• a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project. b) See XVLa. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would be necessary. c) No construction of new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary. d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to information provided by the Sweetwater Authority, the project is serviced by an existing 1 inch existing potable water main. No new or expanded entitlements are anticipated for the proposed project. e) See XVLa. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law. g) The proposal would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste. Miti atg ;on: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. THRESHOLDS WiU the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ),SSU¢S: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact A) Libmrv ^ ^ ^ The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 3Q 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B)Police ^ ^ ^ a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" wgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or less. C) Fire and Emergency Medical ^ ^ ^ Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measwed annually). D) Traffc ^ ^ 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) "D" may occw during the peak two hows of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak how. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from thts Standard. E) Parks and Recreation Areas ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres No Impact ~~ 18 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than 1;SS71CS: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities/I,000 population east ofI-805. F) Drainage ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engneering Standards. G) Sewer ^ ^ 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. H) Water ^ ^ ^ 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. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. No Impact 19 Issues: Comments• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mittgation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) The project is not a housing development; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occw as a result of the proposed project. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed expansion project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold standards would occw as a result of the proposed project. c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be provided to [he site. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occw as a result of the proposed project. d) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, with the addition of projected generated traffic, all roadway segments and intersections within the study area are estimated to continue to operate at level of service "C" or better in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standazds. e) Because the project site is located west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable. f) A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the final grading and improvement plans and drainage facilities designed in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering standards will be installed at the time of site development. The applicant proposes new and improved drainage facilities incorporated within the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards will occw as result of the proposed project. g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of a 10-inch sewer line running westerly along Main Street and an 12-inch sewer line running southerly along Third Avenue prior to reaching Beyer Way on the west side of the project site. The Engineering Department has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer 'T'hreshold standards will occw as a result of the proposed project. h) Pwsuant to information received from the Sweetwater Authority, on June 23, 2004, there is an 8-inch water main located on the south side of Main Street, and there is currently an existing 1-inch domestic water service currently line serving the project site. Project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. 20 Less Than Significant Po[endally with Less Than ISSUes: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 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 of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 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 project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which ^ ^ ^ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The project site is currently developed and is located within an established wbanized area,. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultwal resources on the site. h) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, no significant direct project impacts would result from implementation the project. No cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable futwe projects have been identified and none are contemplated. c) See the "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" discussion in Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.. 21 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-50. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date Date 22 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 previous pages. ^ Land Use and Planning ^Transportation/Traffic ^ Public Services ^ Population and Housing ^ Biological Resources ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Geophysical ^ Energy and Mineral ^ Aesthetics Resources ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Hydrology/Water ^ Hazards and Hazardous ^ Cultural Resources Materials ® Air Quality ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Paleontological ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources 23 XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 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, 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 Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but ^ at ]east 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, 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. Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 1:\Nlanning\nenG\AIIenGaslS 00-SOChecklistdoc 24 d H A R L w C 01 •°- a ~ ~a m m A n '~ ` ~ .c U .c U .~ U s Ci .c U o w. a• ~ w O ro w O ro w O~ w O w O ~ Z' ~ Lam` v`•i Lam` ~ ro ~ y ~ L~'y`~ V> U 7 U> U> . U> eo m ,- .. ~ .O N '~ '~ '~ '~ '~ " O O O O O = ~ a ^ a ~ a ^ w ^ w e e: o_ ~ o~ o cp o~ o z,~ ~' S ~ n c c " ~ C C q N ~ C q C N UC7 UC7 UC7 UC7 UC7 L G ~O o_ ^ v O N O O O O O _ L C `d w w w ~ " ~ °1 d . .. a a. a a a : n O O O O O . v ~ ~ `v \a~i v v v ~ .. 3 3 3 O O O O O ~ ~ a~"i o a a~"i o c c o~ E ~ o~ a"i o~ m Pr ~ W ~° Cc~ m v o' ;a cp 3 eu w bL T G L>. C C~ v+ C v ~ -+ A U -+ ~ U ~c U R~ G ~c c 0 ~ + U O R O ~ . CL 0 , v q O d N ~ v~ ~ v~ . U ~" ~ ~ W v O O- C ~ m N ~ v~ (~ ~ ~ y v C cp ~ o ~ a ~ ~.C ~ ° ~ ~ R b° c U C U G w ,~ " U o ~" C q U C U c .x ~ C y b x o p 3 p 3 g N u W q '+ ~ v p 5 C v .d .d u •p C T v O~ y v .b .' ' U R.~c ':.o Q,~> ~ ~ 4 a d a ~ a. ~° d E W d w ,L O 0 0 •p +' a~ ~~ L r. v ~ G "S m~ s b9 .~ C v C m O L N p O C 7 ~ c~!! c .~ a N J ~ 50 ~~ ~ N ~ E G~ 0. v. A N x u O .N N E~ x id id y .o v> o ~y o u~ ... G~ ." 3 y N 3 G O b ¢' O ~ _ .~ '~..~ O ~ id Y T'p v ..C, O G ~n ~ t i ~., Y C v ,~ .o C C u ~ 0.~ u O t 3 5` E C. F ~ ~, ~ ° ' c w `G° c° " 0. o q E m , 7 ' 'O A ~ o O C o '^' R. w y O O u ' O C o0 ~ •d .C v .~ 'C m R' ~ ~ . ~ ^ y ~ G p ~ ~ N w p O LL ~ 4J ~O N d~ a ~ u C. a. C y ~. G p C ~ s' 3 ~ ti+ 'w O y a> 'O ' d O d o cu 'L N m v C O O a -o v m y + C . N A O b O L L ~ v ~~ C E v ^ a i ~ 00 ~ A O .ti L ~ O b m '~^ O NO O ~ ~.. 'O k 'Y ~ ¢' C p w u emu ~ b ~ C G . + . O ~' ~ O O O ~ 0 t-i ~ `^ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ro U O C C O~ O N v 0. y ~ O ~' id O E ~ ~ r ~ a 7 ~ C ~ O O C n C, ~ ~~ J m a v p id 7 'p _ 0 :3 K~ O w O m 0. v ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ w O O 3 R. ~ ~ H ~ o y P ~ C P O u ' s u C C _°: m P. w . G o ^ i u uo i ~ t ~' o ° a v v a ~ a~i m y ? tl ~ b ti "j 1 ~ o q v ~' v " ~ c •ti a ~ .. v ~'• m `" .~ > ° ~ coo ~ o C ~ v ? . .o .-. a ? c d 0 3 p E u o >~ °p m u ro F a ftl U o ° ~ ~ r° y . d o , . . ~ c i n, v F L~. A U q ~ O ~ i ~_ ~ V Y F ~ O ~ ~ tl y ~+ o ~ a v .~ ~ J G r O Y I ~ j G ~ Y Y OY N d ~~ C' 0 .Y M Rz r V H d ~ a d ! 0 Y a 5 .~, 0 d a 0 I ~ 0 0 o. I+ ,ti _- ""_ _~ o ~_~ wi .- N N T q ~ ~ 3 ~ O G w o on p G o N ~ ~ $ ~ 7 J cl ar ~ Gam- ~ y cya ~ ~ ~ ~d ~' a ~ v ~afli 0 oP O A^P'~ .o A U y O CG A t~.+ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~~ N y i N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .y A N [: n O ~~o.b ~~ A N v '6V' 0., h a i ~"~ ~ C: w m b