HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/10/14Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
PROJECT APPLICANT:
CASE NO.:
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
Aqua Clean Carwash/Lube Center
Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road
594-120-2400
Lou Brito
IS-02-32
October 02, 2002
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: October 14, 2002
DATE OP FINAL DOCUMENT:
A. Proiect Setting
The 0.57-acre, unoccupied project site is located at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and
Ridgeback Road (refer to Exhibit A). The triangulaz-shaped, relatively flat site has been previously
disturbed with pre-grading but never developed. The majority of the property consists of bare dirt
with same non-native vegetation. Surrounding land uses consist of the following:
North
East -
South -
Southwest -
West
B. Project Description
Fitness Club
Otay Lakes Road
Commercial Shopping Center
Apartments
Professional Office Building
The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of afull-service car wash facility with
small convenience store; 2-bay lobe facility and car detailing shade structure (Exhibit B). The
proposal includes a vacuum station near the northern property boundary, a car wash building adjacent
to Otay Lakes Road, and a detailing shade structure adjacent to the western property line. Proposed
improvements include a 17-space paved parking lot, perimeter and interior landscape treatments,
exterior wall lighting and lighting standards, perimeter fencing, and drainage improvements. the
proposed business hours of operation are from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the summer months and
5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during winter months. The only business operations that would not occur
within a partially or completely enclosed building are the detailing area, drying area and vacuum
station. The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit to be considered by the Planning
Commission and Design Review of a Precise Plan by the Design Review Committee.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The property is zoned CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and designated CR (Retail
Commercial) under the City's General Plan. Carwashes and lobe facilities are permitted uses with a
conditional use permit and design review of a precise plan. "The proposed use of the site is consistent
] 0/02/02
with the Zoning classification, General Plan designation, and the City's adopted environmental plans
and policies.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that Che proposed project would not result in a significant environmental
effect. Therefore, 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.
Transportati on/C ire ul ation
A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project by Rick Engineering Company, dated August
5, 2002, in order to assess the potential impacts of the proposal to the surrounding street network
and to determine the adequacy of on-site circulation for emergency vehicles and truck deliveries.
The results of this analysis are summarized below.
Existing Conditions
The primary access roads into the proposed project area are Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road.
The main access road to the project site is Ridgeback Road. There are two signalized intersections
near the project site; Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road and Otay Lakes Road/East "H" Street.
Otay Lakes Road is a classified as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial; currently, there are two lanes of travel
in each direction fronting the site. Under existing conditions, this segment of Otay Lakes Road has
a capacity of 30,000 average daily trips (ADT) at Level-of-Service (LOS) C. The existing traffic
volume on Otay Lakes Road north of Ridgeback Road is 29,100 and south of Ridgeback Road is
29,500, which equates to LOS C. Ridgeback Road, a Class III Collector with one lane of travel in
each direction currently operates at LOS A in the project area.
Peak hour turning movements at the project area intersections were conducted during 7:00 - 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. Consideration was given to conduct the peak hour analysis to coincide
with the opening and closing periods of the nearby school. After careful review of the 24-hour
roadway machine counts, it was determined that school opening would be captured during the a.m.
count period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and the school dismissal occurs much earlier (2:30-3:30 p.m.) and is
less intensive than the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street system. Therefore, the calculated peak
hour within the count period of both intersections was utilized in the analysis and considered the
worst-case scenario. According to the traffic study, [he signalized intersection of Otay Lakes Road
and Ridgeback Road is calculated to currently operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and
LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. The signalized intersection of O[ay Lakes Road and Eas[ "H"
Street currently operates at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Existing Conditions Pkrs Proposed Project
SANDAG's Vehicular Traffic Generation Rate for a prototype full service car wash is 900 ADT
per site plus 40 ADT per tube stall. According to SANDAG and the [TE Trip Generation Report
(6`" Edition), an important traffic-related occurrence indicates that 50% of [he trips arriving at a car
wash station are "pass-by" trips already on the street system. The proposed project is estimated to
generate 980 ADT with 40 a.m. peak hour trips (20 inbound/20 outbound) and 90 p.m. peak hour
2 10/01 /02
trips (45 inbound/45outbound), half of which would be new trips on the street system, or 490 ADT
with 20 a.m. peak hour trips (10 inbound/10 outbound) and 44 p.m. peak hour trips (22 inbound/22
outbound).
According to the traffic study, the signalized intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road
is calculated to continue to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m.
peak hour with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project. All roadways within the
project area are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of project
traffic.
Existing Plus Proposed Project and Approved and Pending Projects
According to the traffic study, the signalized intersections and roadway segments within the project
area are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of the proposed project as well
as approved and pending projects. Based upon the City of Chula Vista's significance criteria, no
significant direct project traffic impacts are anticipated to result under this scenario.
Year 2012 Analysis
In order to analyze future forecasted traffic within the project area, average daily traffic volumes
were taken from the 2010 SANDAG Series 9 regional model. Once [he volumes were calculated
an additional two years were added to derive the 2012 volumes. Based on the City of Chula Vista's
significance criteria a significant cumulative impact was identified in the year 2012 scenario with or
without the proposed project at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street and the
project area segments of Otay Lakes Road. According to [he Engineering Division, [he proponent
will be required to dedicate additional needed right-of-way a]ong the property frontage for a future
6-Lane Prime Arterial as specitied on the proposed site plan. A mitigation measure requiring the
applicant to pay the applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) for the proposed
project would lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the proposal to a level of less
significance, since the TDIF program will fund the roadway improvements necessary within eastern
Chula Vista to mitigate the traffic impacts of planned future growth in this territory.
Queuing/Truck Tarrting Analysis
A progression and queuing analysis of the project driveways and the intersection of Otay Lakes
RoadBidgeback Road was conducted to determine the affects of inbound/outbound project traffic at
the intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road. The driveway spacing to the signalized
intersection is about 110 feet to the most easterly driveway (outbound only) and 200 feet to the
westerly driveway. For this analysis, the results from the Synchro and SimTraffic software package
were utilized to calculate the 95'x' percentile queues. "fhe Sim Traffic software package uses the
parameters inputted in the Synchro software to record simulations of the analyzed condition. Queues
from the Sim Traf(c software package were then reported. Based on the results of the progression
and queuing analysis, no significant increase in yueues were calculated at the eastbound and
northbound left-turning movements and southbound right-turn movement due to the relatively small
amount of peak hour project traffic.
Additionally, an analysis was conducted to determine adequate on-site circulation for fire and
delivery trucks. "1'he truck turning template showed the proposed site plan to provide adequate
ingress/egress and un-site circulatiun fur delivery and fire trucks.
3 10/0 I /02
Water/Drainage
The project site is beyond the limits of the 500-year floodplain and is not in proximity to any bay or
ocean; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water related hazards would result from the
proposed development.
The proposed grading and development of the previously graded, vacant site would result in changes
in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. The preparation of a
final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and
improvement plans and appropriate, properly designed drainage facilities will be installed a[ the time
of site development. Surface runoff will be collected on-site and discharged into the existing Ciry
storm drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are anticipated to
result from the proposed development. Based on the planned storm water drainage methodology,
the size of the proposed development, and the location of the project site relative to natural water
bodies, the project would not result in any changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters.
A Hydrology Study was prepared by Registered Civil Engineer Joel G. Morrison dated July 1,
2002. Street frontage along Otay Lakes and Ridgeback Roads will continue to sheet flow out to the
street as it currently does. The improvements (building, parking areas and landscaped treatments)
will drain in a northwesterly direction to the existing private storm drain pipe. Anew 24-inch x
24-inch concrete drain box will collect this water and connect to the existing private storm drain
pipe facility. The drain box will contain a fossil filter or equivalent in accordance with permanent
best management practices requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The car wash
area and tunnel will retain all drainage on-site.
The project site is within the service area of the Otsy Water District. The operation of the
proposed carwash and lobe facility is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the
consumption of water otherwise available for public consumption. No changes in the quantity of
groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected to result from the proposed
development of the project site.
The proposed car wash area would contain a water reclamation system to conserve water and to avoid
the discharge of pollutants generated by the car wash operations into the storm drain system. The
reclaimed water would be recirculated and filtered by use of a barrel screen and a separator;
pollutants would be periodically removed and properly disposed of by a licensed hauler. In
accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health standards and regulations
for water reclamation systems, wastewater from this system would be discharged into the City's
sanitary sewer system.
Car lobe facilities can create significant water quality impacts unless mitigated to a level of less than
significance. The proposed lobe facility would contain an underground work environment, a modular
underground lubrication system made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic that would be permanently
sealed before being placed in the ground to prevent oils from seeping into the ground. All waste oil
and oily rags would be picked up, recorded and disposed of by a licensed oil removal firm in
accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health standards and
regulations.
4 10/01/02
All grading operations would be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). Short-term erosion of the cut and fill slopes would be
reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of temporary desalting and erosion control
devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These devices may include desalting basins, berms,
hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring. Protective devices would be provided at every storm
drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. Erosion control measures
would be installed as required by the City Engineer.
Compliance with NPDES Order No. 2001-O1, through [he implementation of appropriate
construction and post-construction best management practices (BMPs), as outlined below in Section
F, would mitigate potentially significant water quality impacts to below a level of significance.
Air Quality
Based upon the limited amount of site grading that wuuld be necessary to accommodate the proposed
development and the projected amount of new project-generated traffic, 490 average daily trips, the
proposal would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. The proposed project would potentially generate sufficient
construction vehicle emissions and dust during construction-related operations to result in a short-
term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. Fugitive dust would be created during
construction operations as a result of clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Dust
control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board.
Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potentially
significant impact to below a ]eve] of significance.
Geophysical
The anticipated volume of soil ro be excavated to accommodate the proposed tube facility is 270
cubic yards; the maximum excavation depth for this facility is approximately 9 feet. Standard
engineering requirements and engineering design would ensure that soils-related impacts would not
result.
The project site has been previously graded; according to the Engineering Division further grading to
accommodate the proposed development would require a grading permit. Appropriate erosion
control measures would be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and
would be implemented during construction. The implementation of water quality best management
practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with NPDES Order No.
2001-01. All portions of the development area disturbed during construction would either be
developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the City Municipal Code,
Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110.
Although grading operations would be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista
Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended), significant erosion impacts could occur during
excavation and construction operations due to disruptions of the soil. Soil erosion could result in
sedimentation in the storm drain system resulting in a significant impact unless mitigated to a level
of less than significant. Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Order No. 2001-O1 and the implementation of BMPs during and after construction
to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment into the storm drain system would be required.
5 10/01'02
Soils erosion impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of
the mitigation measure contained in Section F below.
Noise
A Noise study was prepared for the proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering,
Inc., dated May 9, 2002. The identified noise generators associated with the proposed development
consist primarily of vehicles and pedestrian activity, vehicle deliveries, roof mounted HVAC
systems and operation of the quick tube, vacuum station and car wash facility. No public address
system is proposed.
The closest noise receptor to the site is a two-story office building to the west. Other surrounding
land uses include x vacant lot to the north, Otay Lakes Road and single-family residences beyond to
the east, Ridgeback Road and a commercial center to the south and apartments to the southwest.
'The office building to the west would not be significantly impacted by the facility because of the
buffering created by the placement of the building and the distance separation from the major noise
generators. Based upon the expected level of attenuation and anticipated noise levels to be generated
by the proposed equipment, sensitive receptor property line noise levels would range between 41.1
dBA Leq-h for the proposed dryer/blow system and 55.6 dBA Leq-lt for the vacuum system.
These levels would be below the impact thresholds of the City's Noise Ordinance. Additionally,
during daytime hours, especially during the peak traffic hour, the noise generated by the various
activities of the facility would be non-impactive compared to the existing traffic noise levels along
Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road.
No significant noise levels are projected to be generated by the proposed project; therefore,
compliance with the applicable thresholds of the City's Noise Ordinance is anticipated.
Hazards
The proposed project includes a lobe facility that would contain an underground containment
system for waste oil. The proposed system is a three-compartment system that would not allow
any oils to seep into the ground. Related work of the car wash and lobe facility could contain
storage of hazardous solvents and materials normally associated with such facilities. However, as
a standard condition a business plan that identifies the type, location, storage and use of any
hazardous materials shall be filed with the City Fire Department and County of San Diego
Environmental Health Department. The proponent is required to have all waste oil and oily rags
picked up, recorded and removed by a licensed oil removal firm. Conditions of approval
requiring compliance with local, state and federal environmental regulations and the proposed
design of the project would reduce any significant hazardous impacts [o a level of less than
significance.
According to the traffic study prepared by Rick Engineering, dated August 5, 2002, a
yueing/truck turning analysis was completed. It was determined the site plan reflected adequate
on-site circulation for emergency vehicles. According to the City Police Deparhnent and Fire
Department, the development of the commercial building would not interfere with existing
emergency response or evacuation plans. No significant queuing or truck mrning impact would
result from the proposed project.
6 10/O1; 02
E. Public Comments
On June 27, 2002, 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 8, 2002. One written comment was
received during the public review period. The concerns expressed in the letter dealt with traffic
circulation, noise and the removal of waste products from the car wash and Tube facility. These issues
are addressed above in Section D.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Tran sportati on/Circul ation
1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee for the proposed
project prior to building permit issuance.
Water/Drainage
2. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the final grading
plans comply with the provisions of Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management
practices.
Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the
grading or construction plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to permanent, pos[-
construction water quality best management practices (BMPs). If one ur more of the approved
past-construction BMPs is non-structural, then apost-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction; compliance with
said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Air Quality
4. Dust reducing measures shall include watering of graded surfaces in accordance with the most
stringent County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and California Air Resources Board
rules and regulations and the restriction of all construction vehicles and equipment to travel along
established and regularly watered roadways at specified speeds.
5. During construction, stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne shall be covered or
watered in accordance with the most stringent County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District
and Califomia Air Resources Board rules and regulations.
6. 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 of construction-related dirt and
dehris.
Z In accordance with Califomia Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of
aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or ~f 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,
] 0/0 I i 02
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.
8. Construction equipment shall be tuned prior to the start of construction and shall be maintained in
proper working order in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pollutant-emitting
construction equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, shall be used as practical.
9. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25
miles per hour.
Geophysical
10. Prior to the commencement of grading, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be
installed. These devices may include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes and
shoring. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from
entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and
improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10/01/02
G. Consultation
]. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista
Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building
Paul Hellman, Planning and Building
Kim Vander Bie, Planning and Building
Sohaib Al-Agha, Engineering
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Ralph Leyva, Engineering
David Kaplan, Engineering
Majed Al-Ghafry, Engineering
Jeff Moneda, Engineering
Applicant:
Lou Brito
Other Agencies:
Otay Water District
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study and comments
received in response ro Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgement
of the Crty of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth
A~veYnue~, C/h'ula/~V,ista,CAy 91910. /
,"`wF7'~'[•~l/ ~'I,KIt` ~ • Date: 0~~°?j ~
Marilyn . F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
J~Plnnnino~M ARIAUni[ial Smdy4S-ill-}2MND.doc
1 ~~~ 1 ~~2
PROTECT
LOCATION
BONITA VISTA
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
TIARP,
CONDOMINIUMS
SONRISA
sD~aE
CASEMENT
\\
~~ l~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~,
~ ~ ~; ', v y
~~ ~ ,
RISEN SAVIOR \~\'~ ~~~' ~ ~ ~~'-j,
EVANGELICAL l` ~~~,~ \ \ `, ~ ~~
LUTHERP,N ~ `.` '~ ~ ~ , ,
CHURCH ~ ~~~~ \\\ ~,~/
V ! 1 ~ ~,~ ~~~ t
`,~
i
Y_--~ ~ ..
~__y:
---°, -r
NORTH ISLAND
FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION
~yti)~
;Ti~C1 L'iLll
DISCOVERY
[COMMUNITY]
PARK
~~"~~'~ SERENA
,~ ~` ~'~„
C>' /.C ~-
BONITA VISTA
~-. - HIGH SCHOOL
4~`,
~CK a~ r- ~j ~
/~ . qY ~,
BONITA HILLS ~ ! _~FS
APARTMENTS ~ ) ~
- - t `~` ,~O~O`\\\~
' ,, Z / ~
,-%- " ~
~ `,~ ,~:
~- 1
~~ BONITA POIM ~~
~i PLAZA ~\ i )
SPA 1 ~/` ,
,~ ~~~ EucnLmlUS `' ~ ~ ~ ~
`ti RIDGE II Y,-~ St i~\
•~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT
LOU BRITO PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
ADDRESS: COfner Of Otay Lakes and f-adyekYridc kdTad Request Proposal for a full service car wash,
convenience store and offices. (2) bay tube
NORTH
SCALE.
NO Scale
FILE NUMBER:
IS-02-032 facilities and a (4) bay car detailing building
Related Cases: DRC-02-40, PCC-02-49
j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\is02032.cdr 06.26 02
~'x'.E~grT' A
~~,
)~i
~/ ~ ~
e x
~~ ~~
~~ I
\\\
~~ v \
/ n 9~
NN WW
4
4++
6 N
~N6 N
N
Z ~d ~ V
~ .J A
~ a
~
N
N i
J ~ iNq i
= o vN
O
m N
6 d
JN N
J
s O
lm O
~ ~ O
~
m
W W W
Nt
Z
6
W
i
U•
W 6
Oy `
Z ~O O ry
N
}I
~
~-O
V
_
~
~
~ mm~ `a
4 -
!~~yvW
~'
a
W
`Y~ ~
~~ ~W Z
zl
a
w
0
~ ~H
~~
~A
4
~~
3~
-3-
~i
`\~
,3'
ZZ
~~
m_T g°
b
Jam' O
d
W O~
b
~~ ''
z
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Aqua Clean Canvash/Cube Center - IS-02-32
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Aqua Clean Canvash/Lube Center project. The proposed
project has been evaluated in an initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA
Guidelines (IS-02-32). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation
measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 reyuires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation ofmitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Transportation/Circulation
2. Water/Drainage
3. Air Quality
4. Geophysical
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall he responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures
specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-32 shall be provided by the applicant to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Signiticant Effects, of Mitigated
Negative Declaration IS-02-32, which will be implemented as part of the project. hi order to
determine iC the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification
are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying
that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the
verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column.
J APlannfng\MARIAAInitful Study~IS 0? 32MMRPICet doe
d
a
{Q
H
N
a
E
E
0
U
a ~'
d ~ :'.
v
6 N
O ~
U '~ _
F'
y m
C m
C
C
Y O
W ~
c~ m'
«~ m'
«o ~'
«d m
mn `m
mn
=
na c
n10 aci c
a'0m m
~` c°
acp c y
n=^
(~ ~
~ c mE
~~`
~ c mE
~~_
~ m°'
U~ m=O1
Ua° cm m
~a°
~ `
° `
°
¢!~ m n!~ a ¢c ¢r J ¢r o
a, adU aao aw aUm avm
O a~ x
a
z
o o Wa
`o
x
x
x
F O1 N
C U U
Q' E .+
F a X X X
O
W > U
LL
~ !' <~
Z
a
'
n
v
Z
C
`o o
`~ ¢
~E ~~
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
_ ~ lp
O N `J U U U U
6
O
L = y
~ =
d
6
¢
~ ~
d
~ C O
D - _ - _
Z > - >,
-
' n m
t ~ d m
i
O m o in ~ n
~
Z o
O L
T«3 do ~~c m~a~ood
L- ° c -o 0 0 o a ...m ~
VO
C
ff' c
~ `o o m-o
N
a
a
N
O c~
n E'~ O
O
.E2yU2 NL
So a
LSO
'°c`° mo ~
9:
o
~-
m~ o
>~ J
`~c4d~-~.
U a
h~ C y
do oc yNN `m3~ OI J E N ry
.`ood~n c
IQ (0
c3Ua
a
~
- ray
o'o
¢ oN
o~`o~m
--wa ¢om m aac m
my d~~~`°ccE
E
m
- oU~- N
°'c i0s~`m m
~pOE
F.
C¢ £m
.: ¢ N Q« ~
a
fL
:O O O O m C W N N~ 5 U
'~ O» 9~ T a
L N C
~ m m 'E m~ z ~m
' D o~ `0 m¢ N o~ w E o a
m
«
U
~ m~ m m ~ 1°
" in > o U
U
J m n ~
o.°o-a'o
O a
O
2m
om
~m
U
U u ~E ~
y
C O O ~N
mo
L O
V O OI
~~ N d N O) O C
=
C 0)
C O
~
1
0 `
y C - O
"O N
J O N yl O C ry O
~'
N L
N
m .
m
o m~ co 3 O N
Y O
6
¢
o L c v~ E 3° c'C
`
` O' -O
c E d J m m OI
N
~
E ~a ` .°
~ nL
V m ~m~-
m C m•.•o a
c E °m o
r
O i E¢
N O¢ N N
m ~ d a
- S Q N 9 d .
of
y eLG W !n y
C
B N
N~ N d
~ S O~ p
: N
(0
c `~ O O~ N¢ O O C d K N V O C N 3 y C ~~ 9
Ta
~ -o £ m ai ~ m~
m m,Z°m ~~a Y~i?c4 o
=
~ N 3Umv>, o`oE °m
~«
N >~ ~°
N C
¢U _
L U _d C N
O O
~~ ~ N A ~r- N
N- O C
O d V O¢ ~p >O O N O O
D! d N C N V
O U O N L~
J
Ca ~ ~ C
N. L O N
J
i j
d Q)« ryp NE ¢'" N
L
N N
`N _N U~
0
L
U N
N
wE:
m C U C N ` U
>>oW Nm C t0
O ~ N
N ~ p
`°w.3U5 m
dEo- N D O~ C ~
Eda
°a 0
`
-' O~
v~3~
o .
ccE
m
hm~~a o°" c
N~>.~3n.5Y£~DO m
O1m ~m ~~ m
0'~'om°
C U E d t N p O
O L S E~~
O
O O ~ L. U C O N y N = T N a N
-.
n
¢no °i ~
~ O
m E
my a~ N
-
E~ac
ooop'o ~°`=mE w ° _
`° J-p~m cL
magi~~o Ny o=~ m
°m ¢E
~ ~ma ~ o
c5°mm wNa`~N°~o'a° m
U U d °QJOad
t0 O = O1'~~o0
O
~ sm'S `m oo~~omm °-«mmom E2mm m~
`
` ~ >jm Ni ~°m¢ ~o1°°~~
I- Fla ~ dw 3U ~'E a
U o.~z 3
o v, ¢S n~ Q ONtnKOa~N O ¢~OfL
c
oz
m
~ J
~ N
(V
('l
V
LLl
V
til
a
0
ro .
!cam
m m'
~n o
`a ~
a.V m
Q
O~
C Lf
7 Q'
c
9
7 m d
C
9 M9 ~~
c C~C°
~W'w
j 9 n a a ,no d a°. U ~O
co'
~
~ "nmm 44 o-p
`-cn Qaa
4 a ~ ~ V
o~>
c ~ X
M
a
r
d
R
r
x
U
a
N
G
d
N
d A a
(n mm
O ~O C~ U y
y
O J m£ y p ~ 6 N
b'~
c
~
Lo
d-' u mm~
ma
o..-'
~E
o f u
c ° n~~ m m n
mNN ,,n
d
NmdO1°'n'm
E o~ da
n~ °-o
~
d
~ y m o -
,
N~ N N
d c> N 6 N.7 ~ a, N
V ~~ 0
4 N U Q m O ~~ p m d c d j~ m C y
m C N d Y C
~+ ~
O N 7 N
r
: N N m=
` .
o
N p 4 X_ rl ~ y~ N i O,~ O N
C
?
° R 0 9
n Up U N
N m O C n c_ ~` C
'OU mm m~6+
dN~Nm
N
a
~' n N Q C 7N
~.'
-
O d N a
7 O °. ~~ ° N
N
m
_
~ m d d m ~ o m ami R ~ g m E~~ a o °3 L
.
~ `
m a m m a
N U
L ~ °' E
o a d~ 4 0 o f m c
m
C m m 0° N N a' 3 m'O
L
O
4 =
Y
yN C /'G C N
Q- p
~' O O
C~ 9 0 0 9 (
~
i N
O
C
6 N m
~
O O N ~ m N°° m d O] t6 9 m
C
~ N C p C m N N N E i N 9 6 3?
6 V O n
A
Y
nn°.-o
U N
m N
e ~a> om o9m n
a O~ U'~
'N ~~ O O p O N N
D~ c m
N O O
9 '~ r .~ O~ d (.) U
~'3~~ C ~ CNEE d~'y~
N N O O d
7 O E U
no
d
a L - .~ y
N N y C L
4 y ~"
N E ° ~ E o.U
in~ ~ 9 7,w=
c .-
Yt i4 N O N G :b O
.y ma c.io `~ o
N 9
~ NN ~ ~ C b °~ U
L U C C~ E t m
t6 ~'oa N
614~~ NE N9~y
4 ~ 9~ N i ~ N
U r
O G J m Z~ d
rC OU U ry O c~ O
J C G Y v m O C
~o ~`O racy m
N Ur m~O
E d N C 9 o N N
° rp~9 N n'ND~C
~>, ocm~nEmam
o myna---.~--
n`_ o ~-
O
Case No.IS-02-32
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1
Name of Proponent:
Lou Brito
2.
3
4.
I.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Name of Proposal:
Date of Checklist:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
640 Albion Street
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 698-6775
Aqua Clean Carwash/Cube Center
October 1, 2002
Potentially
Pulenlially Signircam Less Ihan
Significant Unless Significam No
Impacl hliligaced Impacl lmpad
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project'?
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including alow-
income or minority community)?
Comments:
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
a) Under the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the project site is designated CCP
(Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and is zoned CR (Retail Cotmercial); carwashes and
lobe facilities are permitted uses in [his zone with a conditional use permit and design review
of a precise plan.
b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies.
Furthermore, the proposed development would not encroach into the Draft City of Cllula
Vistn Multiple Species Corasen~ation Progrnm Subarea Plnn Habitat Preserve area.
c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in
agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources.
d) The proposed development of a car wash and tube Facility would not disrupt or divide the
established adjacent Rancho Del Rey community or surrounding commercial and
professional office environment.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required
Potentially
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
II Pntentialy Significant Less than
. Significant Unless Significant Nu
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ^ ^ ^
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ^ ^ ^
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ^ ^ ^
housing?
Comments:
a) The proposed car wash and tube facility would have no effects upon regional or local
population, as it is a commercial land use and not a housing development.
b) The proposed car wash and Tube facility would not directly or indirectly induce population
growth, as it is a minor retail conunercial land use.
c) The vacant project site does not contain any housing development.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
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
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Signilirnnt Unless Significant
impact Mitigated Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No
Impact
,_
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic ^
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
See Mi tigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Vio]ate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air yuality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
-3-
^ ^
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
Potentially
Potentially sigairrnm Le»tnaa
Significant Unless Significam No
Impact nfitigated Impact Impact
^ ^ ® ^
^ ® ^ ^
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ^ ^ ^
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? ^ ^ ^
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or ^ ^ ^
non-stationary sources of air etnissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Pvtenliall}.
Potentiauy signifieant ress man
rJ7e pYOl10S(Ll /'ESRlr Z/1: Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ^ ® ^ ^
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ^ ^ ^
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ^ ^ ® ^
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ^ ^ ^
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ^ ^ ® ^
bicyclists'?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ^ ^ ^
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ^ ^ ^
h) A "large project" under the Congestion ^ ^ ^
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments:
See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potemially
Paentlafiy Significant lz.c than
~YOjJOSC7I Y2SUIr 1R //71pt2C(S r0: Significant Unless Significam Nn
Impact Mitigated Impact Iv~pact
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of ^ ^ ^
concern or species that are candidates for
listing'?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ^ ^ ^
trees)?
-4-
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ^ ^ ^
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ^ ^ ^
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ^ ^ ^
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning ^ ^ ^
efforts?
Comments:
a) No endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for
listing are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
b) No locally designated species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed
development area.
c) No locally designated natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development area.
d) No wetland habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development
area.
e) No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development area.
f) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will be created as a result of the
proposed project as the development site is a designated development area in the Draft City
of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Polentiaay
Pohnlially Significant Less Than
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES sfgn;fi[aat uale„ $igni~cam No
.
Would the proposal: Impact MitigateA Impact Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ^ ^ ^
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ^ ^ ^
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource ^ ^ ^
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments:
a) The project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
5-
b) The proposed facility would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency
regulations. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result in the
wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
c) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, [he
State of California Department of Conservation does not designate the project site for
mineral resource protection.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
IX. HAZARDS. WOUId the prOpOSRI 1L7VOIVe
' Potentially Signilcam Less Than
. Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ^ ^ ® ^
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency ^ ^ ® ^
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ^ ^ ® ^
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ^ ^ ^
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ^ ^ ® ^
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
Potentially
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Pntentialy signireant Less man
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Nitigated Impact impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ^ ^ ® ^
Comments:
See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
Putentially
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Pmemiaiiy Significant Lis mnn
ail effeCL I4pOn, Or resalL al a Yieed fOr neW Or Significmtl
Impact Unles's
Mitigate) Significant
Impact No
Impact
altered government services in any of dle following
areas:
a) Fire protection? ^ ^ ® ^
6-
b) Police protection? ^ ^ ® ^
c) Schools? ^ ^ ^
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including ^ ^ ® ^
roads?
e) Other governmental services? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed car wash and lobe facility
would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection
services.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed car wash and tube facility
would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police
protection services.
c) The proposed car wash and Tube facility would not induce any population growth; the project
would not result in any adverse impacts to public schools, as it is a minor retail commercial
project.
d) The proposed car wash and tube facility is a minor retail commercial project and will not
create a significant impact to existing public facilities, create the need for additional public
facilities or alter the maintenance of such facilities. An equestrian trail easement exists
outside the proposed project boundary, along the eastern side. The equestrian trail easement
originates in Bonita and travels through the Rancho Del Rey SPA, extending south. The trail
traverses along the eastern boundary outside of the proposed project site, within a landscaped
area. The proponent has committed to enhancing the landscaped treatments along the Otay
Lakes frontage and maintaining the equestrian trail, thus improving an existing facility.
e) As a private facility, the proposed car wash and lobe facility does not require the need for
governmental services. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result
in a need for new or expanded governmental services.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Pmemially
Potentially Slgnificanl Less than
Signiflesn[ Unless Significant No
Impact -Iitigaua Impact Impact
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact ^ ^ ® ^
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project would not adversely i mpact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
~-
a) Fire/EMS
Polemially
Fotemially Significant Less lhav
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigate) Impact Impact
^ ^ ® ^
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of
the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met,
as the car wash and Tube facility is less than three miles from the nearest fire station and
would be associated with afour-minute response time. The proposed project would
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Fire/EMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department.
Therefore, no significant impacts to fire services are anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Police
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significan( Unless
Impact hfitigaled
^ ^
Less Than
Significant No
Itnpacl Impact
® ^
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 al] Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less.
Comments: The Police threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department.
Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Isliagatcd Impavl Impact
c) Traffic ^ ^ ® ^
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 [he day.
2. Wes[ of I-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: According to the traffic study, the proposed project would generate 980 average
daily trips (ADT). Based on the results of the traffic study, the LOS "C" or better traffic
threshold standard would be met on [he Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road project area
street segments with the proposed development.
Mitigation: Future development and traffic impacts for future buildou[, in accordance with
8-
[he General Plan, are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
d) Parks/Recreation
Polentiaay
Potentially Signiricmt Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
^ ^ ^
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 project is located east of I-805, however, the park pad obligation will not be
required as the project is a commercial land use. The parks and recreation threshold standard
does not apply.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Drainage
Potemiwy
Potentially Significant Less than
Signifi<ant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
^ ^ ® ^
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 will include a new 24-inch x 24-inch concrete drain box
that will collect project water and connect to the existing storm drain facility. According to
the Engineering Division, a drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the
preparation of final grading and improvement plans and properly designed drainage facilities
will be installed at the time of site development. Surface runoff will be collected on-site and
discharged into the existing City storm drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's
storm drainage system are anticipated to result from [he proposed development. According
to the Engineering Division, the proposed project would comply with the drainage threshold
standard.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less thaw
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Afitigmed Impart Impact
f) Sewer ^ ^ ® ^
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvetents consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: No new sewer service would be reyuired to serve [he proposed project.
-9-
Proper engineering design of required sewer improvements to serve the project would
ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Water
Potentially
Pomntially Significant Less than
Signifcant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
^ ^ ® ^
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are no[ 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 bui]ding permit issuance.
Comments: No new water service would be required to serve the proposed project. The
project site is an in-fill site within a developed area. The project site is within the service area
of the Otay Water District. Pursuant to correspondence received from the Otay Water
District, dated February 21, 2002, the project may be serviced off the existing 12-inch main
on Otay Lakes Road and the 10-inch main on Ridgeback Road. Project impacts to the
District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would rntenrauy Signiucant Less than
Signircant Unless Significant No
the proposal result In a need for' new systems, or Lnpacl nrtigatea Impact Impact
substararial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ^ ^ ® ^
b) Communications systems? ^ ^ ® ^
c) Local or regional water treatment or ^ ^ ~ ^
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ^ ^ ® ^
e) Storm water drainage? ^ ^ ® ^
f) Solid waste disposal? ^ ^ ® ^
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and
service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and connections to
such utilities and systems that are necessary in order to adeyuately service the proposed
-lo
carwash and lobe facility would be implemented by the City, subject to the approval of the
appropriate utilities and service providers. No significant impact to utilities and service
systems would be created as a result of [he proposed project.
b) See XIII.a.
c) See XIILa. The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. Pursuant
to correspondence from the Otay Water District, dated February 21, 2002, the project may
be serviced from existing potable water mains.
d) See XIII.a. According to the Engineering Division, there is an 8-inch sewer line running
easterly along Ridgeback Road that connects to an 8-inch sewer line running northerly along
Otay Lakes Road. City Engineering staff has determined that existing sewer mains are
adequate to serve the proposed project.
e) See XIII.a. There are three curb inlets existing at the intersection of Ridgeback Road and
Otay Lakes Road. The adequacy of the existing storm drainage facilities to serve the project
will be determined at the time of detailed engineering design; any improvements to the storm
drainage system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the applicant.
fl See XIILa.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unlcs Signifirant No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: nnpact M1litigateJ Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the ^ ^ ^
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 ^ ^ ® ^
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^
d) Create added light or glare sources that could ^ ^ ® ^
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'? ^ ^ ® ^
Comments:
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site.
b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are
designated scenic roadways. The project proposes access via two unsignalized driveways
along Ridgeback Road; a full access driveway and an outbound only driveway from the
intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road. Landscape treatments along Otay
Lakes Road are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code,
(Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110) landscape and site architectural requirements and design
review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to
these scenic roadways are not significant.
c) The vacant project site is within an urbanized area and contains overgrown non-native
vegetation. The development of a car wash and lobe facility on the project site would not
have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Proposed improvements along the site's two
street frontages, including landscaping, decorative hardscape, and maintenance of an existing
equestrian trail, would have a positive aesthetic effect.
d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be
designed and installed, with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not
spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and
surrounding commercial, office or residential areas.
e) See XIV.d.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potemially
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the rotentiany sign;ficant Less man
hYO~OSQI: Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigated Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction or ^ ^ ^
a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects ^ ^ ^
to a prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ^ ^ ^
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ^ ^ ^
the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the Ciry's General Plan ^ ^ ^
EIR as an area of high potential for
archaeological resources?
Comments:
a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected [o be present within the
impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below.
b) No buildings or structures are present within the impacC area of the proposal and no
prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area.
-12
See XV.e. below.
c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values.
d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal.
e) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for cultural resources in the City's
General Plan EIR. The project site was previously pre-graded for a previous project that
was never completed. The proposed project includes a Tube center that will require
excavation of approximately 9 feet and 7 inches for the work bays and containment system.
The anticipated volume of soil to be excavated for the Tube bays and containment system
would be 270 cubic yards. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the
relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the
proposed car wash and tube faci]ity, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is
considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
rnlemiauy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significam No
Impact Miligaled Impact Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the ^ ^ ^
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments:
The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resources in the City's
General Plan EIR. Based upon the low sensitivity of the site and the relatively minor amount of
proposed excavation, impacts to paleontological resources are not anticipated to be significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Patentially
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Pumnfiany Significant Imss than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Miligaled Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ^ ^ ^
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ^ ^ ^
c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or ^ ^ ^
programs?
Comments:
a) Because the proposed car wash and ]ube facility is a cominercia] retai] land use, it would
not induce any population growth nor require park pad fees. Thus, the project would not
13
result in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
opportunities.
b) No recreational facilities exist or are proposed on the project site. The proposal would
not affect existing off-site recreational opportunities, i.e., equestrian trails. Use of the
existing equestrian trail that runs alongside the eastern property line of the project site
would not be restricted by [he proposed project. The proponent through project design
has included the equestrian trails in the landscaping treatments and has agreed to maintain
the trail. The proposed project would not create a significant impact to existing
recreational opportunities.
c) 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 are required.
Polenlia0v
Significant Lese than
Pocen[ially Unless Significant No
Signifcant R1itiRaleJ Impact UnVac[
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for
naundutoryfrndings ofsigr:ificunce. If an EIR is
needed, ihis.reclion should he completed.
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 anima] community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
Comments: The site is currently vacant, is within a commercial area, and is within the designated
development area the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea
Plan. The site was previously disturbed with pre-grading. There are no known sensitive plant or
anima] species or cultural resources on the site.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ^ ^ ^
short-term,tothe disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The project would not affect long-term enviromnental goals of the Ciry because the
project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Draft Ciry of Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (dated October 9, 2000). The project site is
-ta
slated for infill development. No significant short-term impacts would result from the proposed
project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) 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 projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: According to the traffic study, under 2012 conditions, the project would result in
significant cumulative traffic impacts unless mitigated to a level of less than significance. According
to the Engineering Department, the proponent will be required to make a dedication of right-of-way,
64-feet from centerline, for a future 6-lane Prime Arterial as noted in the approved site plan.
Additionally, a mitigation measure requiring the proponent to contribute to the Transportation
Development Impact Fee would lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the proposal to a level of
less than significance.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D.
d) Does the project have environmental effects ^ ^ ^
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: No significant effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated to
result from the proposed project. The 0.57-acre site is currently unoccupied and is zoned for
commercial land uses.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
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 Checklist, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-02-32.
_~s
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate that they have 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 the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner's and Operator's desire that the
Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operator shall apply for
an Environmental Impact Report.
i •~-
Printed Name and Title of Property Owner Date
(or authorized presentativej-~
Signat a of Pro Owner Date
(or authorized re esentative)
Printed Name and Title of Operator Date
(if different from Property Owner)
Signature of Operator Date
(if different from Property Owner)
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The enviromnental 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.
^ Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/Circulation
^ Popu]ation and Housing ^ Biological Resources
^ Geophysical
^ Water
^ Air Quality
^ Paleontological
Resources
^ Energy and Mineral Resources
^ Hazards
^ Public Services
^ Utilities and Service
Systems
^ Aesthetics
^ Cultural Resources
^ Noise ^ Recreation
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
i(
XXII. DETERMINATION:
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, 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 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, 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 [o provide a record of this determination.
`a ;'~%'
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
1'~.I'I~nning~MAR1A'~IniGal StudydS0232chklsLdoc
.'~~>'~ai`~02~
~D•ate
^
Page - 17