HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/07/15INITIAL STUDY
AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECWRATION
IS-02-35
TELEGRAPI'1 CANYON ROAD WIDENING
Lead agency:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
JUNE 2002
Table Of Contents
Section
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
1.1 Project Need and Objectives ...................................... 1
1.2 Project Description Summary ..................................... 1
1.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Authority To
Prepare a Negative Declaration .................................... 2
1.4 Other Agencies That May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Preliminary Environmental Review ............................. 2
1.5 Public Review Process ........................................... 3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................... 4
2.1 Project Location ................................................4
2.2 Environmental Setting ........................................... 4
2.3 Project Characteristics ........................................... 7
2.3.1 Project Components ....................................... 7
2.3.2 Project Construction ..................................... 18
3.0 MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ..... 19
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................ ........... 21
5.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......... ........... 34
5.1 Aesthetics ......................................... ...........34
5.2 Agriculture Resources ............................... ...........35
5.3 Air Quality ........................................ ...........36
5.4 Biological Resources ................................. ........... 40
5.5 Cultural Resources .................................. ...........42
5.6 Geology and Soils ................................... ...........43
5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................... ........... 47
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................... ........... 50
5.9 Land Use and Planning .............................. ...........54
5.10 Mineral Resources .................................. ...........54
5.11 Noise ............................................. ...........55
5.12 Population and Housing ............................. ...........57
5.13 Public Services ..................................... ...........58
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project i
Table Of Contents
5.14 Recreation ....................................................59
5.15 Transportation/Traffic .........................................60
5.16 Utilities and Service Systems .................................... 63
5.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................... 64
5.18 City Thresholds ...............................................65
6.0 REFERENCES .....................................................68
6.1 References and Bibliography ..................................... 68
6.2 Technical Studies ..............................................68
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................. 70
ATTACHMENT A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
APPENDICES (under separate cover)
Appendix A Dudek & Associates, Inc. Phase I Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Traffic Study
Appendix C Dudek & Associates, Inc. Noise Assessment Letter
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Map ................................. .................5
Figure 2 Vicinity Map ................................. .................6
Figure 3a Proposed Roadway Improvements ................ ................. 8
Figure 3b Proposed Roadway Improvements ................ ................. 9
Figure 4 Concrete Channel Modifications ................. ................ 10
Figure 5a Photographs of Project Site ...................... ................ 11
Figure 5b Photographs of Project Site ...................... ................ 12
Figure 6a Landscape Concept Plans ........................ ................13
Figure 6b Landscape Concept Plans ........................ ................ 14
Figure 6c Landscape Concept Plans ........................ ................ 15
Figure 6d Landscape Concept Plans ........................ ................ 16
Figure 6e Landscape Concept Plans ........................ ................17
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Uista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project ii
1.1 PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Chula Vista (City) operates and maintains circulation infrastructure within the
jurisdictional boundaries of Chula Vista; an incorporated City located seven miles south of
downtown San Diego. The City has identified increasing traffic volumes in the eastern
portion of the City, while prevailing speeds are declining. In addition, the construction
schedule For SR-125, a regional north/south freeway proposed east of I-805, has been delayed
resulting in increased traffic volumes along City surface streets. The Telegraph Canyon Road
improvement project is one of six capacity enhancement projects being evaluated by the City.
The purpose of the project is to increase the roadway capacity and decrease traffic congestion
in accordance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance threshold standards For traffic
congestion.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The project would consist of widening the westbound side of Telegraph Canyon Road from
three lanes (one right only, one shared through/right, and one through only) to four lanes
(two right only and two through only). With the future widening of the northbound on-
ramp by Caltrans, the northern through only lane would be converted to a shared
through/right lane. The addition of the lane would occur on the north side of the road for
approximately 1,200 feet (0.2 mile) from the I-805 northbound on-ramp to a point
approximately 1,000 Feet east of Halecrest Drive.
The City of Chula Vista discretionary action is anticipated to be the City Council's
consideration of a financing agreement with certain developers to construct the proposed
improvements, construction of the proposed improvements, and the acquisition of private
properties (gas station properties) as determined to be necessary to accommodate the
expansion of the roadway right-of-way. Discretionary permits anticipated are identified in
Section 1.4.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Roatl Widening Project t
1.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
AUTHORITY TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
The City is the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, and is responsible For approving the
construction of the Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project. The City has determined that
a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be
prepared in compliance with CEQA. This finding is based on the Initial Study/
Environmental Impact Discussion (Sections 4 and 5 of this document), prepared for this
project. As provided for by CEQA §21064.5, an MND maybe prepared for a project subject
to CEQA when the project will not result in significant environmental impacts that cannot
be mitigated.
This draft MND has been prepared by the City as the lead agency and in conformance with
815070, subsection (a), of the State CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the
Initial Study/Environmental Impact Discussion is to determine the potential significant
impacts associated with the proposed Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project and
incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate
the significant or potentially significant effects of the project.
1.4 OTHER AGENCIES THAT MAY USE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This MND is intended to be used by responsible and trustee agencies that may have review
authority over the project. An encroachment permit will be required by Caltrans to allow
encroachment into the I-805 right-of-way during construction. Modifications to the existing
trapezoidal concrete channel structure are proposed. The preliminary design includes
modifications on the south side wall of the channel. Based on these potential requirements,
and based on the analysis in Section 4, Environmenta( Checklist and Section 5, Discussion of
Environmenta/ Impacts of this document, permits may be required from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 2
1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with CECW, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this
MND to contact affected agencies, organizations and persons who may have an interest in
this project.
In reviewing the MND and Initial Study/Environmental Impact Discussion, affected public
agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in
identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the
significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated.
Comments may be made on the MND in writing before the end of the comment period. A
30-day review and comment period From July 1 to July 30, 2002 has been established, in
accordance with g15105(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public
comment period, the City will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining
whether to approve the proposed project.
Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 5:00 PM, July 30,
2002:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: Paul Hellman
Environmental Projects Manager
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula vista .Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 3
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the incorporated City of Chula Vista (City) approximately 7 miles
south of San Diego. Within the City, the Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project is located
in the Sweetwater Community Plan Area (see Figures 1 and 2J. The proposed road widening
would occur on the north side of the road for approximately 1,200 Feet (0.2 mile) from the
I-805 northbound on-ramp to a point approximately 1,000 feet east of Halecrest Drive.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Chula Vista is comprised of three characteristic areas generally progressing east
from the shore of San Diego Bay to the mountains. The coastal area extends from the
bayfront to approximately I-805 and is a low flat plain not broken by canyons and streams.
The second is the low rolling hills east of I-805 and extending generally to the area of the
Otay Lakes. In this area of higher elevation water courses have cut through the mesa and
created rolling hills and smaller mesas. In the region more than a dozen of these streams and
rivers provide a strong geographic definition to communities. Two of these rivers, the
Sweetwater and the Otay, generally form the northerly and southerly boundaries of the City.
The third area is the mountain Foothills. Most of the these areas, as well as the mountains
themselves, are located east of the general plan area of the City. Mother Miguel Mountain
is in the northeast portion of the City, the smaller San Miguel Mountain is located
immediately east of Mother Miguel. Rock Mountain is just north of the Otay River and,
though much smaller than Mother Miguel, is unique in that it exists separated by several
miles from the foothills of the San Ysidro Mountains to the east.
The proposed project is located within the low rolling hills east of I-805 and along Telegraph
Canyon Creek in Chula Vista. Telegraph Canyon Creek runs adjacent to Telegraph Canyon
Road, and is one of the many small streams in the City that carries intermittent drainage
From natural watersheds and developed areas to the sea. Telegraph Canyon Creek drains to
San Diego Bay. Portions of the creek channel have been lined through developed areas. There
is a potential for substantially increased flows in this channel due to new development in the
eastern areas of the City. Adjacent to the proposed project, Telegraph Canyon Creek is a
trapezoidal concrete channel structure located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 4
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening FIGURE
Regional Map ~
I nG
IL
~P
_~ T
~; .' `~
'..
,
Y
~s f ~:
i `
. y~
c
~^ 1
,
~5*~p •j
~\ N.I
i
~~ ~ r a
~ , „ __
1 ~ - _ s.
al J n. ~l ~ { ~~ ~__ ~.. ..~
_ ,
l
1
~
~ {
y ~~ '
~
1 ~ ~~ ~ I ~~ V
~
`
r- v \
4f~d"~
1
~, . .
~'~
2see it ~.
5 I
C4
J//'~ \ d ~s
~
,y
~
4
l~ ~1~
' b
~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I
.
,
'S ~ ~1 ~~. F J4~
'. ~
`
~ .. .
,
/P'~' ~
` ; I
~ ~
l -Il -l ~
S
;
.
".
VO
t.. ~
9J1 .; aw
Ice J
~~`~- ~
~ ~ ~~
~
%`
.
w 1 ~ t. ..
~ y. . 1 r I t
I px
'-
.. ~ -
y V
~
~,/ = " gyp.:.` _
ra
tr: ~
j
p
~ ~,a~ Ce ,
~ ~
~ \.
~ ~
~; t. ~ ,1 I i
.r ~ r ~ r. l ~ ~ I
~ I
;t;~ .~
~~1 ~ttY ~ I ' ./ ` ,
yW r~ J s. ,i ,~ _ ~- .. - ~ I t
~~~e ~
~ ~ 1,.,:9
o' ~ r
~< ~
i
rL~ 1 ar
5h tirh • ^: ~ ~"
~ .,Cz1..ysrt
~~-.=~~ ~~ ^f I _ ~~.
1 , I Sch~~
p. ~ •. ~ ~ ,~ ~ 1
I ~ ~:~ ~.Lr ~;
i ~. I 1 -~
I~ I
'~---~-_ a •- -- ' r- '~ .
9
\~ l _i '1 7 ~,. ,
~ -~--.~F- -.k al. ,y.. ,_~-..e ~.
.~i •-~ -f
y I.
BASE MAP SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, NATIONAL CITY Quadrangle
I '~ ;~` ', ~.,~
~, ~ i ~r
~~ ~ ~~
i ~' ~` ~,-- - ;',, ~ ' ~' r c
I
i
~. ~ ,.P 0681-~ i ,
_v ~ _... ~ ..:. ... \ ~. i
/ ~
_ ~ J ~, .-,
.: fig, - . ~ 17
4
~ !.
~ ~ '\
- Z ~,.~i ~~ -_
J w,_.
i 'I
=! ,. ~'. I , I~t n.
- i
_ _ _ ~.
1 1
_. . _ _ ;. ~ r, ,
~:; -
•arav~gt`EV~ ` I s
rte .• ~.
~~~ °ZQQQ~
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening FIGURE
Vicinity Map 2
~ ;
;
e
The proposed project site is approximately 1,200 Feet of public right-of-way, portions of a
drainage/street easement, and a small area within two commercial establishments (gas
stations). The project site is surrounded with commercial and residential use.
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
2.3.1 Project Components
The project consists of construction of an additional westbound lane to Telegraph Canyon
Road from the I-805 northbound on-ramp to a point approximately 1,000 feet east of
Halecrest Drive (see Figures 3a-3b). The geometry of the improvement would change from
three lanes (one right only, one shared through/right, and one through only) to four lanes
(two right only and two through only). With the future widening of the northbound on-
ramp by Caltrans, the northern through only lane would be converted to a shared
through/right lane. The width of Telegraph Canyon Road right-of-way along this area would
be increased by up to approximately 10 feet.
The proposed roadway improvements will require the acquisition of additional right-of-way
from the two gas stations within the project area as determined to be necessary For the
widening of Halecrest Drive to accommodate a second right turn only lane onto westbound
Telegraph Canyon Road and would also involve modifications to the concrete drainage
channel known as Telegraph Canyon Creek (see Figure 4). This major arterial roadway
services a great number of new and old residences within eastern Chula Vista as well as a
variety of other land uses. The theme for Telegraph Canyon Road has been established long
ago and has since been modified by the development further to the east (see Figures Sa and
Sb). This particular section of the roadway proposed to be widened is the older section of
roadway and associated landscaping. The visual enhancements would be consistent with the
theme established further to the east (see Figures 6a rhrouglr 6e).
The proposed landscape concept plan for the project is as follows:
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project
\ \ \
\ `\ \\
\
\ \
\~
\ \
\ ~~
`\ ~ 1
~ /
~ ~ ~ ~,
\,~ \
~ \
\~ ~ \
~` ~
X~~~ ~~~~
\ r. ~.®®
,~
\\ \ \ - _+_ ~~r~\\~
_ `\
\ ~a~~ \
2153
_ _ X
\ \ ~ \ \ _- 1_ 2`0
~\ ~' ~\ 256 4 ~ \,\ -'~- - , _ _ _
~~\ % 299.:1
~\ \ ~ 1 ~
\ \
~y,~ ti~
\
\ \
\
0 75
Scale in Feet
SOURCE: Rick Engineer
\\
~~
~~MITS \ 21~a~
0 /\/ II III// /'
I ~ ~ ~ /~\I 2~'4~t`T~rr l `~'
- -- //~~
m~
M
LL
d
~I
d
51
A
,,,` ~ ;~-
__ -^- _._ _-215`-, -_ - ',__-
-'%214.1 \\~/ _ ~ --~~ \~ ` -
_ -L~-?_~ -~ -_ ,- - ~, _ _
z~
~y~~~s ~~~~'_
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening FicuRE
sed Roadway Improvements 3A
_„
~a
`~. _J 75
0
Scot
cnuRCE; Rick tng~nee
FICaURE
Telegraph Ganyon Road Widening 36
sed Roadway imprpVements
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening FIGURE
Photographs of Project Site 5A
View looking west from the sidewalk along the north side of teiegrapn
Canyon Road and the adjacent concrete drainage channel, approximately
350 feet west of Crest Drive. Photo Date: April 3, 2002
View looking west from the sidewalk along the north side of 7eiegrapn
Canyon Road, approximately 625 feet east of Halecrest Drive. Photo Date:
April 3, 2002
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening FIGURE
Photographs of Project Site 5B
View looking west from the sidewalk along the north side of Telegraph
Canyon Road, approximately 162 feet east of Halecrest Drive. Notice the
two service stations located along this westbound lane. Photo Date: Apri13,
2002
View looking northwest from the sidewalk on the south side of Telegraph
Canyon Road approximately 1,000 feet east of Halecrest Drive. Notice the
mature eucalyptus trees along the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road.
Photo Date: Apri13, 2002
9
A
O
d 6
C
O O
6 >
dV
O 6 ~
N ~
~X y
W -y
r
c s
~'
s o
~~
a
~.`-~_ m ~
W ~{.
D ~ V
u+ (,~
N W
LL
C ~
N •'~_ d"~
D
w
-o
o
[L O
o
c
cC6v ~
~ C
m t=4
~s
d ca
d ~
r ,~
a~
n ~
C Q
L
V
r
c
m
6
E
0
v
G
.~
m
G
c
W
Y
v
2
iW
U
CL
Q
ts'
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening FIGURE
Photographs of Project Site 5B
View looking west from the sidewalk along the north side of Telegraph
Canyon Road, approximately 162 feet east of Halecrest Drive. Notice the
two service stations located along this westbound lane. Photo Date: April 3,
2002
View looking northwest from the sidewalk on the south side of Telegraph
Canyon Road approximately 1,000 feet east of Halecrest Drive. Notice the
mature eucalyptus trees along the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road.
Photo Date: Apri13, 2002
~~~x
~~~ ~ l
~~o~~\h
i J~(
J U ~~
3
~ .~
-~
~~
~~
~~
S
~ .~
5n
V /~
~`
\V{^'~
M
v
~m
Z
n
a
I~
~Q
~~
W
01 =
C ~
O)
.a
'd d
C4 ~'
o L..
~ 0
O V
~ Q
R
U
~ y
ca .a
a~i ~
a~ ~
F- J
"~
~ a
\V^]~
Y
d ;m
V
N LL
Z
C^
• ~ /7
'p
V
--~+
~ V
? d
U ~
L t~
ci y
m .a
L
d ~!
N J
nt ~
~~
/]~~ d ~U,/^''~
/~ /~ v t7 ~.Y/
Z
G ~
-.~, d Qm
'O
3 -W- ~ a.
C
~ O
o
~~
-~ ~~~
°' J
~ ~~
F-
r~,,,...---~
~~
~ ~ ~~
3 ~ ~ ~~'-'
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~~~~
~~ ~
~~~
m
U
N
Z
\I/ ~
0
z
I+~.
z
0
r
22
. s3
~ ^`3
v ~ ~ Sy(`V~~j
l.Y V
W Q
f) t1J
LL
C ~
C ~
~a
-a
~ }'
°a'
o ~
~ ~
ov
as
c.
U ~
d ~
m ti
rn ~
m =
m ~
F- ~
~~
u.r 3
U
N
z
~~~~ 0
i~
_.- /~ _ ~ ;
f-''~~ ,
U1 ~ ~ -- ?4
~~ ~ ~~ ~~
.~~
~ ~~ ~ ~: ~
s ~ ~~
~ -~ ~
~~
i--r a
~ W
~~
LL
as C
c ~p
c ...
a+ p.
-a
~ Q
o v
~ ~
0
o V
r
m Q.
aN
ca .a
a~ ~
°7 J
Trees
• In order to maintain a consistent species of street tree along the segment of
Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive, the eucalyptus
street trees to be removed to accommodate the project are proposed to be replaced
with semi-mature specimen eucalyptus trees. If applicable, an alternative street
tree species may be selected which reflects the palette of trees used elsewhere
along the segment of Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive and Crest
Drive.
Shrubs
• Small to medium height shrubs with flower color to match existing landscape
palettes of the median islands within Telegraph Canyon Road.
Groundcovers
• Low groundcover as an understory to the shrubs and trees to match existing
landscape palettes of the median islands within Telegraph Canyon Road. These
groundcovers should be evergreen, could be flowering or not and meet the space
requirements without undue maintenance to keep in check.
2.3.2 Project Construction
Construction of the proposed project will be subject to the design, engineering, and
construction standards of the City. The exact details For construction of the proposed project
have not yet been determined. A traffic control plan would be required with the
improvement plans which would maintain access in and around the project area.
Construction will not be permitted from 10 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and
10 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays in accordance with the City's Municipal Code
(Section 17.24.050 paragraph J). When possible, construction would take place during off-
peak hours to minimize traffic impacts.
June 2002 3202-07
City of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 18
With the application of project mitigation measures and standard project conditions, the
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on the Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist and the Environmental Evaluation Discussion. No
potentially significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level by the
measures identified below have been identified. In addition, standard project conditions have
been incorporated into the project to ensure that these effects remain at less than significant
levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is therefore proposed to satisfy the requirements
of CEQ?. (PRC 21000 et. seq. 14 Cal Code Regs 15000 et. seq.).
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce significant impacts to less than
significant levels.
Air Quality:
• Dust-reducing measures shall include regular watering of graded surfaces and
restriction of all construction vehicles and equipment to travel along established and
regularly watered roadways at specified speeds.
• During construction stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne shall
be covered or periodically watered.
• 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 debris.
• 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.
June 2002
3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project ig
• 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.
• Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour.
Biological Resources:
• Prior to the removal or alteration of any mature trees or the commencement of
construction activities during the raptor nesting season, identified as December 1
through May 31 in the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, a qualified biological
shall conduct apre-construction survey of such trees as well as those within the
construction impact area established by the biologist. In the event that a nest(s) is
found during the survey, appropriate construction setbacks deemed appropriate by a
qualified biologist to protect young birds until they are no longer dependent upon the
nest shall be established. No restrictions with respect to tree removal or construction
setbacks shall apply outside the raptor nesting season.
• Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any grading permit,
the Environmental Review Coordinator shall ensure that the plans and specifications
include a note regarding the survey requirements and construction restrictions
outlined in the above measure during the raptor nesting season.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
• Since soil will be disturbed on the Arco and Union 76 Service Station sites, the city of
Chula Vista shall develop a work plan for the Telegraph Canyon Road widening
project. The work plan shall be developed prior to City approval of the final
improvement plans for the project to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. The work plan shall require the screening and disposal of contaminated
soil if encountered during the project. In addition, a site Health and Safety Plan shall
be prepared to address health and safety issues associated with the project.
Compliance with the work plan and Health and Safety Plan will result in potential
hazards being reduced to less than significant levels.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project pp
Project title: Telegraph Canyon Road Widening
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
3. Contact person and phone number: Paul Hellman, (619) 585-5680
4. Project location: Telegraph Canyon Road from I-805 northbound on-ramp to 1,000
feet east of Halecrest Drive, Chula Vista
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Chula Vista
6. General plan designation: Commercial Professional and Administrative/Public
Road Right-of-Way (6-lane prime arterial)
7. Zoning: CC Commercial Central/Public Road Right-of-Way
8. Description of project: The project consists of widening Telegraph Canyon Road
for approximately 1.200 feet (0.2 mile) from the I-805 northbound on-ramp to a point
approximately 1.000 feet east of Halecrest Drive to provide an additional westbound
lane (from three to four westbound lanes). The project will also require
reconstruction of the southern wall of the existing trapezoidal concrete channel
adiacent to Telegraph Canyon Road.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project is located in the Sweetwater
Community Area of the Citv of Chula Vista. Surroundine land uses include
commercial retail such as service stations a retail shopping center and professional
and administrative uses immediate)y adjacent to the project site. Medium-high and
low-medium residential uses and schools are located in the project vicinity. The entire
project site is urbanized with no undeveloped areas. The I-805 transportation corridor
forms the western boundary for the project.
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 21
U S Army Corers of Engineers Nationwide Permit
Regional Water Qualit;~Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES:
By signing below, the Applicant stipulates that he/she has read and understands, and has
his/her company's authority to agree to, the mitigation measures contained herein, and will
implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to
sign below pzior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk
shall indicate the Applicant's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and
that the Applicant shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
„~ r
C1t,+-~r,~ ,J)C :ilJ°iZ/~ " =,/Zy~iJCl~)7~~ r
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
~Sipnature of Applicant Date
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" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
June 2002 3202-Ot
Ciry of Chula Usta .Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 22
10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required (e.g., permits,
Financing approval, or participation agzeement.)
California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601 Streambed Alteration
^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources
® Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources
® Hazards & Hazardous ^ Hydrology/ Water Quality
Materials ^ Noise
^ Mineral Resources ^ Recreation
^ Public Services ^ Utilities/ Service Systems
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
®Air Quality
^Geology/ Soils
^Land Use/Planning
^Population/ Housing
^Transportation/
Traffic
^ City Thresholds
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a MITIGATED 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 revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Uista Telegraph Canyon Roatl Widening Project 23
~~~
Marily R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
~,/ ,~/o~
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,
less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant
Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Mitigated Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta .Telegraph Canyon Roatl Widening Project 2q
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier
Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
S) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available Eor review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed.Identifywhicheffectsfromtheabovechecklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significant.
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 25
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detai/ed discussion Less than
of environmental impacts Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Discussion of Environmental Impacts Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited tc, ^ ^ ® ^
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
cl Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ^ ^ ® ^
site and its surroundings?
dl Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ^ ^ ^
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts [o agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) pr epared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model [o use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would [he project:
al Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ^ ^ ^
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
6) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ^ ^ ^
contract?
c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment ^ ^ ^
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to nonagricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established 6y the applicahle air quality management or air pollution district
may 6e relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ^ ® ^ ^
plan?
61 Violate any air quality standard er contribute suhstantially to an ^ ® ^ ^
existing ar projected air quality uialation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ^ ^ ® ^
pollutant far which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicahle federal or state amhient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursorsl?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ^ ^ ® ^
e) Createohjectionahleodorsaffectingasuhs[antialnumherofpeople? ^ ^ ® ^
June 2002 3202-01
CiTy of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 28
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detei/ed discussion Less than
of environmental impacts Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Discussion of Environmental Impacts Impact Incorporated Impact 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 suhstantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ^ ^ ^
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the Calif ornia Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Haveasubstantialadverseeffec[onfederallyprotectedwetlandsas ^ ^ ® ^
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?
dl 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?
el Conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological ^ ^ ^
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ^ ^ ^
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
__
a) Cause a suhstantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ^ ^ ^
resource as defined in §15D64.5?
b) Cause a suhstantial adverse change in the significance of an ^ ^ ^
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
cl Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalrescurceorsite ^ ^ ^
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturhanyhumanremains,including [hose interredoutsideofformal ^ ^ ^
cemeteries?
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 2?
ENVIRONMENTALISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion
a/ en viranmenta/impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures [c potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of lass, injury or death involving:
i) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,asdelineatedonthemost
recent Alquist~Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist far the area er hosed an other suhstantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geclogy Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial sail erasion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or sail that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in
on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, suhsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1~B of the
Uniform Building Code (19941, 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 availahle for the disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Wculd the project:
a) Createasigniiicanthazardtothepuhlicartheenvironmen[through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
h) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicartheenvironmen[through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardousemissionsorhandlehazardousoracutelyhazardous
materials, suhstances, ar waste within one quarter mile of an
existing or proposed 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?
Less than
Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ~
^ ^ ® c
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
June 2002 3202-Ot
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 28
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 far a detai/ed discussion
of environmental impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Less than
Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such ^ ^ ^
a plan has not keen adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would [he project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) Farprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheproject ^ ^ ^
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in [he
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ^ ^ ® ^
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures 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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ^ ^ ® ^
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ^ ^ ^
substantially with groundwater recharge such that [here would he
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting
nearhy wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
cl Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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 offsite?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ^ ^ ® ^
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on~ or offsite?
el Createorcontrihuterunoffwaterwhichwculdexceedthecapacity ^ ^ ® ^
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ^ ® ^
June 2002 3202-01
CiTy of Chula Usta aTelegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 29
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 far a detailed discussion
ofenviionmenta/impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Less than
Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Place hcusing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a ^ ^ ^
federal Flocd Hazard Boundary ar Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100~year flood hazard area structures which would ^ ^ ^
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people ar 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?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudilow? ^ ^ ^
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^
h) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ^ ^ ^
an agency with jurisdiction aver [he project lincluding, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted far the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ^ ^ ^
community conservation plan?
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 regicn and the residents of the state?
h) Result in the loss of availability of a locally~important mineral ^ ^ ^
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or otherland use plan?
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 groundhorne ^ ^ ^
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 amhient noise levels ^ ^ ® ^
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula U~sta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 30
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 far a detai/ed discussion
ofenvironmentalimpacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Less than
Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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
puhlic 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 naiselevels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Wculd the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ^ ^ ^
example, 6y proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly Ifor
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructurel?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ^ ^ ^
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ^ ^ ^
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) 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 far
any of the public services:
it Fire protection? ^ ^ ^
ii) Police protection? ^ ^ ^
iii) Schools? ^ ^ ^
iv) Parks? ^ ^ ^
vl Other puhlic facilities? ^ ^ ^
XIV.RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ^ ^ ^
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the f acility would occur or he accelerated?
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Vsta •Telegraph Canyon Road Wtlening Project 3t
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detai/ed discussion
of en vironmenta/impacts
Discussion of Environmental
bl Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect an the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIDN)TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system li.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the numher of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersectiansl?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the County Congestion Management
Agency for designated roads ar 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?
dl Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipmentl?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
gl Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation le.g., hus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Duality Control Bcard?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction 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 availahle to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Less than
Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant Na
Impact Incorporated Impact Impa
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
o ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 32
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer ro Section 5 for a detailed discussion Less than
of enviianmental impacts Significant
Potentially Impact With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Discussion of Environmentallmpacts Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in determinaticn by the wastewater treatment provider ^ ^ ^
which serves ar may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
[c serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providerls
existing commitments?
fl Be served 6y a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ^ ^ ^
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
gl Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ^ ^ ^
related to solid waste?
XVII. 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 6eldw self-
sustaininglevels, threaten [o eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare ar 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? 1"Cumulatively considerable°meansthat
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of pas[ projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of prohahle future project'l?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ^ ^ ^
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. CITY THRESHOLDS -Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards?
a) FireIEMS ^ ^ ^
61 Police ^ ^ ^
c) Traffic ^ ^ ^
d) ParkslRecreation ^ ^ ^
el Drainage ^ ^ ^
tj Sewer ^ ^ ^
gl Water ^ ^ ^
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry or Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon flood Widening Project 33
5.1 AESTHETICS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vistaL
No Itnpact. The project site is located immediately east of I-805 along a developed
portion of Telegraph Canyon Road. The project would widen Telegraph Canyon
Road for approximately 1,200 feet (0.2 mile), providing an additional westbound lane
from the I-805 northbound on-ramp to a point approximately 1,000 feet east of
Halecrest Drive. As discussed in Section ,2.2, Environmental Setting of this MND, the
City of Chula Vista has scenic landforms and views consisting of coastal mesa and
foothills. The proposed road widening project would not effect undeveloped scenic
areas or topography as the road widening would occur within urbanized areas, and
would not damage or block views of scenic vistas in Chula Vista. Therefore no impact
on a scenic vista would occur.
b) Wouldtleeprojectsubstantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highwayL
Less than Significant Impact. The project would result in widening Telegraph
Canyon Road, a designated scenic roadway in the Land Use Element of the Chula
Vista General Plan. Implementation of the City's scenic routes specifies that all
development proposed adjacent to scenic routes should be subject to design review to
insure that the design of the development will enhance the scenic quality of the
roadway. The project will result in the removal of low-lying shrubs, ground cover,
and approximately 18 mature eucalyptus street trees in the parkway along the north
side of Telegraph Canyon Road. In order to maintain a consistent species of street
tree along the segment of Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive and Crest
Drive, the eucalyptus street trees to be removed to accommodate the project are
proposed to be replaced with semi-mature specimen eucalyptus trees. If applicable,
an alternative street tree species may be selected which reflects the palette of trees
used elsewhere along the segment of Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive
and Crest Drive. The Landscape Concept Plan is depicted in Figures 6a through 6e as
described on pages 7 and I8.
June 2002 3202.01
City of Chula Vsta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 34
Short-term adverse aesthetic impacts would occur during project construction,
however, upon completion of landscaping, it is anticipated that the long-term
aesthetic appeal of the project area would be similar to the existing condition (see
Figures Sa-56). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not conflict
with the City's scenic roadway designation of Telegraph Canyon Road. Further, the
project would not impact rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Therefore a less
than significant impact would occur.
c) Would tl~e project degrade the existing visual character or quality o f the site and
its surroundingsZ
Less than Signi ficant Impact. See response 4.1-b. Short term visual impacts include
the presence of construction support vehicles during construction. Long term visual
impacts include changes in Telegraph Canyon Road from three to Eour westbound
lanes starting from the I-805 northbound on-ramp to a point approximately 1,000 feet
east of Halecrest Drive.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare Which would
adversely a ffect day or nighttime views in the areal
1Vo Impact. No portion of the project would involve a new source of lights. The
roadway would require street lights, however the project would not result in any
additional lights from those already in use on Telegraph Canyon Road. The adjacent
drainage would not require any type of short-term or permanent lighting. Therefore,
no impact to lighting would occur.
5.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland o f
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program o f the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural useL
1Vo Impact. The State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection "1998 Important Farmland Map" shows that the project would
occur on lands designated as urban and built-up land. This land is defined as
residential land with a density of at least six units per ten-acre parcel, as well as land
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vsta .Telegraph Canyon Roatl Widening Project 35
used for industrial and commercial purposes. This designation does not constitute
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, therefore
impacts to sensitive agricultural resources would not occur.
b) Would the project coufl'ict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contractL
No Impact. As stated in response 4.2-a, no portion of the project is located within
areas which are zoned for agricultural use, therefore no impact would occur.
c) Would the project involve other d:anges ii: the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion o fFarmland tonon-agricultural
useL
No Impact. As stated in responses 4.2-a and 4.2-b, the project is located in urbanized
areas and no portion of the project is located within areas designated as containing
significant or sensitive agricultural resources. Therefore no impact would occur.
5.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation o f the applicable air
quality plant
Less than Significant Impact with 1Vlitigation Incorporated. The project site is
located in the San Diego Air Basin, which is a Federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,o). The applicable 03 attainment plan is the
Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAGS), which is prepared and administered by the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Federal guidelines relative to
implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments contain emission thresholds
at levels that are presumed not to interfere with the attainment process for national
clean air standards.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 36
Although the San Diego APCD has not developed any guidelines for evaluating the
significance of air quality impacts for proposed projects undergoing CEQA review, the
APCD has established air pollutant emission limits that, when exceeded, indicate a
source may have a significant cumulative impact on ambient air quality. As a result,
a project would be considered to have a potential significant air quality impact iF the
emission levels From the proposed project were to exceed the growth assumptions
incorporated into the RAQS For San Diego Air Basin.
Normally, if a project is consistent with the City's General Plan or community plan,
it can be considered consistent with the growth assumptions in the RAQS (Personal
communications with Rob Reider, SupervisingAir Resources Specialist, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, June 2001).
The proposed project will serve to improve existing traffic conditions by allowing
traffic to flow faster and more smoothly, and will reduce vehicle idling(see Section 4. ~5
Transportation/Traffic). This will help improve existing air quality in the region. The
traffic analysis showed that the Telegraph Canyon Road improvements will be a
benefit at present and at buildout, as intersection delay will be less if the Telegraph
Canyon Road improvements are implemented. The improvements in traffic
conditions will result in improved air quality.
Significant short-term air quality impacts would occur during construction.
Construction emissions would come Erom heavy equipment exhaust, construction-
related trips by workers, and associated fugitive dust generation From excavation and
grading activities. Heavy construction equipment will be diesel-powered. The
principal pollutants would be carbon dioxide (CO), volatile organic compounds,
(VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and PM,p. VOC and NOx are the precursors of
ozone (O~).
Project emissions associated with construction activities are not anticipated to exceed
federal significance thresholds for PM,tl or 03 due to the short-term nature and limited
grading activities. The Following mitigation measures would reduce short-term
construction fugitive dust emissions and 03 to below a level of significance.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Roatl Widening Project 37
PROJECT MITIGATION
• Dust-reducing measures shall include regular watering of graded surfaces and
restriction of all construction vehicles and equipment to travel along established
and regularly watered roadways at specified speeds.
• During construction stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne
shall be covered or periodically watered.
• 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 debris.
• 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.
• 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.
• Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind
speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violationL
Less than Significant Impact with 1Vlitigation Incorporated. The project would
contribute emissions to the San Diego Air Basin which iscurrently innon-attainment
for federal ozone standards as well as particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
(PM,d). The project is anticipated to cause short-term construction related emissions.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 3g
[ROG], nitrogen oxides [NOX], sulfur dioxide [SOz], and PMIO.
However, due to the short time period necessary for construction of the facilities,
construction-generated air pollution would be mitigated to below a level of
significance with implementation of the above mitigation measures (Section 5.3-a).
c) Would tlTe project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase o f any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) t
Less than Significant Impact. Although minor, implementation of the project
would result in short-term impacts to air quality associated with construction. Short-
term cumulative effects to air quality due to construction activities would be
minimized through dust abatement procedures and the proper maintenance of
construction vehicles in accordance with APCD rules (see response 4.3-a). Therefore,
the project would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrationsL
Less than Significant Impact. There are existing and planned sensitive receptors
(e.g., residences, schools, parks) within 1,000 Feet of the proposed project. The project
is anticipated to cause short-term construction related emissions. The emissions
include the release of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds [ROG], nitrogen
oxides [NOx], sulfur dioxide [SOZ], and earth particulate matter less than 10 microns
in size [PMto]. Upon project completion, traffic flow will be enhanced reducing
exposure to sensitive receptors.
Emissions by the proposed project would occur during all construction phases of the
project. Short-term impacts From construction activities would be primarily
associated with exhaust from construction equipment (including carbon monoxide,
reactive organic compounds [ROG], nitrogen oxides [NOX], sulfur dioxide [SO2], and
the movement of earth particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PMIO]). As
mentioned in response 4.3-b, the San Diego Air Basin Management Guidelines do not
identify construction related emissions as significant impacts.
June 2002 3202-Oi
Ciry of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 39
The emissions include the release of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds
Standard measures to minimize construction related impacts from dust and
equipment emissions would be included in the project construction activities (see
response 4.3-a). These measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize
the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts associated with ongoing
development in the region to a less than significant level.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the roadway improvements may
produce odors associated with construction vehicle emissions; however perception of
the odors would be short-term in nature and not considered a significant impact.
Long-term operation of the proposed project would not produce noticeable odors.
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project ltave 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 o f Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with tYlitigation Incorporated. The project would
result in the widening of an approximately 1,200-Foot segment of Telegraph Canyon
Road through the central portion of Chula Vista near its junction with I-805, and
modifications to the south wall of a concrete drainage channel (Telegraph Canyon
Creek) adjacent to the road. The project site is developed and urbanized and does not
contain any areas of identifiable biological habitat. However, the project would result
in removal of mature eucalyptus trees, which have the potential to provide nesting
sites For sensitive raptor (bird) species. To ensure that such impacts are avoided, the
following mitigation is required:
PROJECT MITIGATION
• Prior to the removal or alteration of any mature trees or the commencement of
construction activities during the raptor nesting season, identified as December 1
through May 31 in the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, a qualified biological
shall conduct apre-construction survey of such trees as well as those within the
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 40
construction impact area established by the biologist. In the event that a nest(s)
is found during the survey, appropriate construction setbacks deemed appropriate
by a qualified biologist to protect young birds until they are no longer dependent
upon the nest shall be established. No restrictions with respect to tree removal or
construction setbacks shall apply outside the raptor nesting season.
• Prior to the approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of any grading
permit, the Environmental Review Coordinator shall ensure that the plans and
specifications include a note regarding the survey requirements and construction
restrictions outlined in the above measure during the raptor nesting season.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse e f fect on any ripnrian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, yolicies,
regulations or by the California Deyartntent o f Fish and Game or the U. S. Fisl:
and Wildlife ServiceZ
1Vo Impact. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive
natural communities identified by the CDFG, USFWS or any local or regional plans
or regulations. The project will include modifications to an existing trapezoidal
concrete drainage channel that is part of Telegraph Canyon Creek. The concrete
channel is developed and does not support vegetation or other sensitive biological
habitat. For modification of the channel, a Nationwide Permit Authorization under
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act may be required From the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers prior to construction of the proposed project. In addition, a Water
Quality Certification may be required from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A Streambed Alteration Agreement may also be required from the California
Department of Fish and Game in accordance with Section 1601 of the Fish and Game
Code. The project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian or
wetland habitat.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally yrotected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 o f the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal yool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other meansL
S
Less than Significant Intact. See response f1:4-b.
June 2002 3202-01
Cily of Chula Vsta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 47
d) Would the project inter fere substantially with the movement o f any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use o f native wildlife nursery sitesZ
No Itnpact. As stated in response 4.4-a, the proposed project is located entirely
within urbanized and developed areas and does not contain any area of sensitive
biological habitat. As no suitable habitat exists in the project site, the project would
not interfere with movement of any fish or wildlife species or wildlife corridors. The
corridor is not identified as a wildlife corridor in the City of Chula Vista Draft MSCP
Subarea Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinanceL
No Impact. The proposed project does not contain any undeveloped natural areas or
designated plant or animal resources and would not conflict with any local policy or
ordinance protecting biological resources. Therefore no impact would occur.
f) Would the project con f lict with the provisions o f an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plant
No Impact. In the context of Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP),
the proposed project falls within the jurisdiction of the Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) for the City of Chula Vista Subarea. However, no portion of the
proposed project are within the proposed Chula Vista MSCP Preserve or any other
approved habitat conservation plan conservation corridor. The MSCP vegetation map
(Figure 3, Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, September 2000) shows the
project site as `urban/developed.' Therefore, no impact would occur.
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance o f a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.St
No Impact. The proposed project would result in widening of Telegraph Canyon
Road within existing developed and previously disturbed areas. Based on aerial
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 42
photographs, the mature eucalyptus street trees within the project area to be removed
were planted during the 1970s. Construction of the project would not require grading
or disturbance outside of existing developed areas, and would not result in impacts to
historical, cultural, or paleontological resources.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance o f att
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.St
No Impact. See response 4.5-a.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic featureZ
No Impact. See response 4.5-a.
d) Would the project disturb any human remaitts, including those interred outside o f
formal cemeteriest
No Impact. See response 4.5-a.
5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk o f loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture o f a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recentAlquist-
PrioloEarthquake Fault ZoninglVIap issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence o f a known fault& Refer to Division o f
1Llines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. The project is located within seismically active southern California,
an area where several of the faults and Eault zones are considered active by the
California Division of Mines and Geology. Alquist-Priolo earthquake Fault zones
(A-P zones) have been established for the majority of these faults and fault zones.
The purpose ofthe A-P zones is to prohibit the location of structures on the traces
of active faults, thereby mitigating potential damage due to fault surface rupture.
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Fwd Widening Protect 43
The project site is not listed in an Alquist-Priolo special study zone. The two
populated areas listed inthe Alquist-Priolo special study zone in San Diego County
are Point Loma, and La Jolla, with several areas in the sparsely populated
mountains and deserts in eastern San Diego County (www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg,
accessed January 30, 2002). Therefore, it is anticipated that the project would
have no impact on people or structures due to an earthquake.
The Seismic Sa fety Element of the General Plan for the City of Chula Vista lists a
total of five Faults within the City, including two potentially active faults, the
Sweetwater and La Nacion; and three inferred faults, the Otay River Valley Fault,
the Telegraph Canyon Fault, and the San Diego Bay-Tijuana Fault. The City
specifies abatement measures For construction near active faults, however the
proposed project is not located on or immediately adjacent to an active fault.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shakingL
No Itnpact. As stated in 4.6-a, a certain level of exposure to seismic ground
shaking has the potential of occurring within seismically active Southern
California. Adherence to the latest seismic standards in roadway construction will
be implemented. Therefore, no impact would occur.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including lique factionL
No Impact. The project is not located within a liquefaction hazard area
(,www.sangis.org, accessed January 30, 2002). Therefore, it is not anticipated that
the site would be subject to significant hazards from liquefaction.
iv. Landslidest
No Impact. Landslide hazard areas are generally considered to exist when
substantial slopes are located on or immediately adjacent to a subject property.
In addition, some areas of soils in the City contain a combination of bentonite
material intermingled with the geological formation known as the San Diego
Formation, which is extremely susceptible to landsliding. However, the proposed
project is not located on or adjacent to substantial slopes and is not depicted in a
potential landslide hazard area in the SanCis Natural Features Map
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 44
(www.sangis.org, accessed January 30, 2002). Considering the relatively level
terrain of the area proposed For the roadway, it is not anticipated that landslide
hazards would significantly affect the proposed project.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or tl:e loss of topsoilL
Less Than Significant Imyact. The proposed project would consist of constructing
roadway improvements to existing paved areas and would not result in long-term
exposure of unpaved or unvegetated slopes or soils that would be susceptible to
erosion or loss of topsoil. However, due to the close proximity of the project site to
the Telegraph Creek drainage channel and proposed modifications to the south wall
of the channel, potential for sediment pollution into the watershed is possible during
the construction phase from grading associated with the road widening.
PROTECT CONDITION:
Prior to the approval of the grading plan For the project, an erosion control plan shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to completion of final improvements, temporary erosion control shall be
performed and installed by the contractor as indicated below:
a. The erosion control contractor shall be responsible for the inspection and
modification of the erosion control device during the rainy season. The contractor,
permittee or owner shall be responsible for the continual maintenance of the
erosion control devices during the rainy season. In the event of failure or refusal
to properly maintain said devices, the City Engineer or Environmental Mitigation
Monitor may cause emergency maintenance work to be done to protect adjacent
private and public property, the cost (including an initial mobilization amount) of
which shall be charged to the owner.
b. All removable protection devices shown shall be in place at the end of each
working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40 percent. After
each rainstorm exceeding '/a inch in a 12-hour period, silt and debris shall be
removed from check dams and desilting basins and basins shall be pumped dry as
deemed necessary by the City Engineer and Environmental Mitigation Monitor.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 45
c. Effective planting shall be installed, Fully germinated, and shall effectively cover
the required slopes prior to final approval. The planting mix shall be approved by
the Landscape Architecture section of the Building and Park Construction
Department prior to installation. Sprinkler systems are required on all slopes over
Five feet in height.
d. Silt basins, traps, or sandbags shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to
prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system.
The grading contractor shall be responsible for cleanup of silt and mud on adjacent
streets due to construction activity.
The contractor shall remove silt and debris after each rainfall exceeding'/a inch in
a 12-hour period and when silt reaches a depth of 1.0 Foot.
g. The contractor shall restore all erosion control devices to working order to the
satisfaction of the CityEngineer and Environmental Mitigation Monitor after each
rainfall which produces runoff.
h. The contractor shall install additional erosion control measures as may be required
by the City Engineer or Environmental Mitigation Monitor due to incomplete
grading operations or unforeseen circumstance which may arise.
i. The contractor shall take the necessary steps to protect the project and adjacent
property From any erosion and siltation that may result from grading operations
by appropriate means (sandbags, hay bales, temporary desilting basins, silt fences,
dikes, shoring, etc.) until such time that the total project is completed and
accepted for maintenance by owner.
Prior to preparation of improvement plans, a geotechnical study shall be prepared.
The applicable recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the Final
design.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result o f the project, and potentially result in, on or
o f fsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapseZ
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 46
No Impact. See response 4.6-a, i, ii, iii, iv. The City has determined that the project
site is suitable for development as evidenced through existing roadways, commercial
and residential development. In addition the proposed project would not cause soils
to become unstable as a result of the project. Therefore no impact would occur.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B o f the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks o f li fe or propertyL
Less than Significant Impact. The project site contains Gaviota Fine sandy loam and
Salinas clay loam (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, 1973). These soil types consist of fine sandy loam, clay loam. The large
amount of sand and small amount of clay in the soil yields a moderate risk of
expansion as indicated in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. However, the
proposed project (a road widening) would not be negatively affected to the extent
that it would create a substantial risk to life or property. Therefore, a less than
significant impact would occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable o f adequately supporting the use o f septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for tl:e disposal or wastewaterL
No Impact. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks.
5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Ll~ould the project create a signi ficant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal o f hazardous ~naterialsL
No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would involve the short-term
transport of gasoline and other fuels to the project site For the sole purpose of
equipment fueling. However, once project construction is complete (approximately
3-4 months), the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, would not occur.
b) Ll7ould the project create a signi ficant hazard to the public or tl:e environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environmentZ
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 47
No Impact. See response 4.7-a.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile o f an existing
or proyosed schoolL
No Impact. See response 4.7-a.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list o f hazardous
materials sites compiled j~ursuant to Government Code Section 65y6Z.5 and, as
a result, would it create a signi ficant hazard to the public or the environmentt
Less than Significant Itnpact with tVlitigation Incorporated. A Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment was performed by Dudek and Associates, Inc. in
November 2001 for the two service stations along Telegraph Canyon Road adjacent
to the road widening project (see Appendix A). The results of which are summarized
below. The Arco Service Station was identified seven times in the database search.
In March of 1991, three gasoline steel underground storage tanks (USTs) were
removed and replaced with four 10,000 gallon and one-550 gallon double-walled
fiberglass USTs with double-walled piping. Soil samples were collected From the fuel
UST excavation and piping trench. Soil samples collected by Brown and Caldwell
indicated total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations ranging From non-
detectable (,5 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) to 8,700 mg/kg; analysis of soil
samples from the waste oil UST excavation for total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPH) did not indicated detectable concentrations. A soil vapor
extraction system (VES) was installed and operated off and on from April 1993
through May 1996. The County of San Diego confirmed the completion of the site
investigation and remedial action in March of 1997. In August 1999, a second UST
release occurred and is currently active.
The Telegraph Canyon Union 76 Service Station was identified three times in the
database search. On March 4, 1999, Wayne Perry, Incorporated personnel removed
one 550 gallon waste oil UST. Soil samples were collected from beneath the former
waste-oil UST inverts at depths of 10 and 11 feet bgs. TRPH was detected in both
samples collected at 7,400 mg/kg (BTW) and 39,200 mg/kg (BTE). Based on chemical
data, over-excavation activities were performed on Apri18, 1999. In September 2000,
a second UST release occurred and is currently inactive. The County of San Diego
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Ysta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 48
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would tl:e project result in
a sa fety hazard for people residing or working in the project areal
No Impact. See response 4.7-e.
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plant
Le:.s than Significant Impact. Due to the amount of traffic in the project area and
along Telegraph Canyon Road, construction traffic hazards may be encountered. In
order to reduce the potential for construction traffic conflicts which may include
emergency evacuation plans, a traffic control plan shall be developed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. This plan will ensure that acceptable traffic
conditions, including emergency access, are maintained during construction. In the
long-term, emergency access may be improved as a result of the enhanced traffic
circulation. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. Also refer
to response 4.15-a.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a signi ficant risk o f loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including wl:ere wildlands are adjacent to
urlranixed areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands&
No Impact. The proposed project is located in a completely urbanized area, and is not
adjacent to wildlands. Therefore the proposed project does not expose people to risk
of ~Nildland fires, and no impact would occur.
5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirementsZ
Lens than Significant Impact. Construction impacts due to grading, cutting and
filling are anticipated to potentially impact water quality through increased sediment
load within the floodplain and adjacent waterways.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vsta Telegraph Canyon Roatl Widening Project 50
PROJECT CONDITION:
• Water quality Best Management Practices shall be implemented during
construction in accordance with the provisions of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board Order No. 2001-01 (NPDES No. CAS0108758).
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net de ficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering o f a local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate o fpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) z
No bnpact. Estimated depth to groundwater for the site is 180 feet below land
surface (DUDEIC Phase I Site Assessment, Appendix A). Project construction would
not impact these groundwater resources. In addition, the project would not deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as the project site is
currently developed and paved, and an increase in impervious surface area would not
occur. Therefore, no impact would result.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or
area, including through the alteration o f the course o f a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or o f fsiteZ
Less than Significant Impact. Permits maybe required from the RWOCB, CDF&G
and the ACOE. Modifications to the existing concrete drainage channel will include
changes to the south wall from a trapezoidal to a vertical wall. Substantial alterations
to the drainage patterns would not result.
During construction of the additional westbound lane on Telegraph Canyon Road,
BMP's would be implemented to ensure that erosion or siltation would not occur,
especially in the Telegraph Canyon Creek drainage (see construction BMPs in response
4.8-a). Preliminary design calculations for the revised open channel cross-section
modifications needed for the roadway widening project show that by modifying both
the south wall and widening the channel bottom will provide similar design capacity
flows to the existing condition geometry. To ensure proper design, the project
engineer will submit the design calculations and related information required for all
drainage facilities affecting the capacity of this drainage channel at the time of
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 51
improvement plan submittal, all in accordance with the City's Subdivision Manual
requirements. The modifications of Telegraph Canyon Creek would not have any
long-term impacts on erosion or siltation.
d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or
area, including through the alteration o f the course o f a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount o f sur face runo f f in a manner which
would result in flooding on or offsiteL
Less than Significant Impact. See response 4.8-c. The project would alter the
location and nature of Telegraph Canyon Creek (a concrete drainage channel) slightly
in order to accommodate an additional westbound lane on Telegraph Canyon Road.
However this alteration would not substantially increase the amount of runoff from
the area as the volume capacity of Telegraph Canyon Creek would still be sufficient,
and no significant amount of impervious area would result from project construction.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or Planned stortnwater drainage systems or Provide
substantial additional sources o f polluted runof fZ
Less than Significant Impact. See response 4.8-c. The south wall of the concrete
drainage channel adjacent to the widened roadway would be modified to a vertical
wall. The project would result in additional impervious area. The capacity of the
channel would not be affected. The proposed project would not contribute a
significant amount of runoff compared to existing conditions and a landscaped area
will provide a buffer between Telegraph Canyon Road and the adjacent concrete
drainage area. Therefore, the capacity of the stormwater drainage system would not
be exceeded and substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would not result
From the project; impacts are considered to be less than significant.
PROJECT CONDITIONS:
Prior to the preparation of improvement plans, a drainage study shall be prepared; all
applicable recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the final design.
The project engineer shall submit the design calculations and related information
required for all improvements affecting the capacity of the drainage channel, in
accordance with to requirements of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 52
Appropriate water quality best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented
during construction, in accordance with the provisions of California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, order No. 2001-01 (NPDES No.
CAS0108758).
f) Would the project otherwise degrade Water qualityL
Less than Significant Impact. See responses 4.8-a, c and e.
g) Would the project place housingWithin a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary o f Flood Insurance Rate 1Vlap or other flood
hazard delineation mapL
No Impact. The project would not be located within a mapped 100-year flood zone
(SANGIS Floodplain Map, website accessed February 2002). Further, no portion of the
proposed project would involve the construction of housing. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures Which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The project is not located within a mapped 100-year flood zone (SANGIS
Flood Plain Maps, website accessed February 2002). Therefore, the project would not
involve the implementation of permanent structures that could impede or redirect
flood flows.
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a signi ficant risk o f loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result o f the failure o f a levee
or damZ
No Impact. No portion of the project would involve the construction of a levee or
dam which could potentially place downstream people or structures at risk. In
addition, no portion of the project would be located within a mapped 100-year
floodplain (SANGIS Floodplain Map, website accessed February 2002).
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 53
1Vo Impact. The widening of Telegraph Canyon Road would not present a significant
hazard to people or the environment From seiche or tsunami, and the project site is
not located in the coastal zone. Therefore, no impact would occur.
5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the project physically divide an established conrtnunityL
1Vo Impact. The project consists of constructing a 1,200-foot long segment of an
additional westbound travel lane on Telegraph Canyon Road to ease traffic congestion
in the project area. The project would not divide an established community as the
roadway is already an existing feature in the project area. The widening of Telegraph
Canyon Road would not alter or preclude existing land uses in the project area.
Therefore no impact would occur.
b) Would the project con flict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose o f avoiding or mitigating an environmental e ffectL
1Vo Impact. The project is located within the Sweetwater Community Plan Area of
the City of Chula Vista General Plan and isdesignated as asix-lane prime arterial. The
widening of Telegraph Canyon Road would not conflict with any applicable land use
plan or policy as the site is currently being used for a public roadway. A small amount
of additional right-of-way will be required from the existing gas station sites, which
are zoned "C-C, Central Commercial." In addition, the drainage easement area of the
adjacent concrete drainage channel would also be used to accommodate the widening.
Construction of an additional westbound lane will not prevent application of, or
change any, land use designations or zoning. Further, the project site is not within
the coastal zone and would not impact any local coastal program. Therefore no
impact to land use and planning would occur.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 54
j) Would the project be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flowL
c) Would the project conflict With any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plant
No Impact. See response 4.4-f.
5.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss o f availability o f a known mineral resource
that Would be o f value to the region and the residents o f the stateL
No Impact. No portion of the project would intersect known mineral resources that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As depicted on the
California Division of Mines and Geology, Generalized Mineral Land Classification
Map of Western San Diego County, 1996, the impact area has not been designated as
having any known mineral resources, or as having potential for mineral resources.
The project site is categorized `MRZ3', which is defined as areas containing mineral
deposits of which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data (California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996). The project
would have no significant impact on known or expected mineral resources.
b) Would the project result in the loss o favailability o f alocally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plant
No Impact. Valuable sand, gravel and crushed rock resources which are extremely
important to the local and regional construction industry are located within the City
of Chula Vista, and both the Sweetwater River and the Otay River Valleys contain
significant deposits of construction quality sand reserves. However the project area
is designated for public roadway and commercial uses in the City's General Plan, is not
located within either river valley, and would not impact an area designated for mineral
resource recovery. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
5.11 NOISE
a) Would the project result in exposure o f persons to or generation o f noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards o f other agenciesZ
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 55
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the use of
construction equipment during short-term project construction. Construction of the
proposed project would result in a temporary increase in existing noise levels.
Construction equipment noise generally ranges From 70 to 95 dB(A) at 50 Feet from
the source. At about 500 feet From the source, intermittent levels from the loudest
construction equipment would be about 75 dB(A). The proposed project is located in
an urban area within the City of Chula Vista. Sensitive receptors including schools
and residences are located within 1,000 Feet of the project site. Noise levels in the City
are governed by the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), Chapter 49.d8Perforrnance
Standards and Noise Control. This chapter of the municipal code gives permissible noise
levels (dBA) for designated land uses, and Section 19.68.060 of the CVMC lists
construction activities as being exempt from Exterior Noise Standards. However, the
CVMC prohibits construction in residential zones Monday through Friday, 10 PM to
7 AM, and 10 PM to 8 AM on Saturdays and Sundays. For certain work that does not
generate substantial noise levels within any residential zone, the contractor may be
authorized to perform such work during these restricted periods, at the discretion of
the City Engineer.
The proposed project would improve existing traffic conditions in the area, and is not
a source of additional vehicle trips on Telegraph Canyon Road. The existing noise
level is approximately 69 dB to 72 dB CNEL at the residences adjacent to Telegraph
Canyon Road. The future noise level would range Erom approximately 68 to 72 dB
CNEL upon project completion. The proposed project would not increase future noise
levels (see DUDEK Noise Assessment in Appendix C). The noise assessment
concluded that the project would result in a less than significant noise impact.
PROJECT CONDITION:
• Each internal combustion engine utilized during construction shall be equipped
with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer.
Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.24.050 (paragraph J),
construction is not permitted in residential zones Monday through Fridays
between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM and on Saturdays and Sundays between 10:00 PM
and 8:00 AM. For certain work that does not generate substantial noise levels in
any residential zone, the contractor may be authorized to perform such work
during these restricted periods, at the discretion of the City Engineer.
June 2002 3202-Ot
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 56
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levelsL
No Impact. See response 4.11-a. The proposed project will not require blasting,
therefore persons will not be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or noise
levels and no impacts are anticipated.
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Without the projectL
Less than Significant Impact. See response 4.11-a. The project would consist of
construction of an additional westbound lane on Telegraph Canyon Road to improve
traffic flows and reduce vehicle idling and traffic congestion. As stated in Section 5. ~5,
the proposed project would improve existing traffic conditions in the area, and is not
a source of additional vehicle trips on Telegraph Canyon Road. Therefore, as
concluded in the noise assessment, the project would not increase ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above existing levels.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
atnbient t:oise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Without the
projectL
Less than Significant Impact. See response 4.11-a.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, Where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles o f a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levelsL
No Impact. The project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport. Therefore, impacts to construction workers associated with aircraft
would not occur.
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 levelsL
No Impact. See response 4.11-e.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vise Telegraph Canyon Foad Widening Project 57
5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example,
tl:rouglt extension o f roads or other infrastructure) L
1Vo Impact. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area,
as the project is proposed in order to improve existing traffic congestion levels
consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and maintain compliance with
the City's Growth Management Ordinance threshold standards For traffic congestion.
b) Wottld the project displace substantial numbers o f existing housing, necessitating
the construction o f replacement housit:g elsewhereL
1Vo Impact. Construction of an additional westbound lane on Telegraph Canyon
Road would not displace any existing housing. Therefore, no impact would occur to
existing housing.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction o f replacement housing elsewhereL
1Vo Impact. See response 4.12-b.
5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision o f new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
signi ficant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i. Fire protection
1Vo Impact. The installation of an additional westbound lane on Telegraph
Canyon Road would not require additional fire protection services. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 58
ii. Police protectiou
1Vo impact. The installation of an additional westbound lane on Telegraph
Canyon Road would not require additional police protection services. Therefore,
no impact would occur.
iii. Schools
No Impact. No additional student population would be generated by the
proposed improvements. The proposed project would not affect existing primary
and secondary schools within the area. Implementation of the project in the
manner or location planned would not result in impacts to proposed schools in the
City of Chula Vista area.
iv. Parks
No Impact. Due to the non-population inducing nature of the project, increased
demands on existing public parks would not occur. Therefore the need for new
or improved park facilities would not be necessitated by implementation of the
proposed project.
v. Other public facilities
1Vo Impact. It is anticipated that existing maintenance crews and resources of the
City would be able to service the additional lane on Telegraph Canyon Road
without placing substantial additional demand on services.
5.14 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use o f existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be acceleratedZ
No Impact. As stated in response 4.12-a., the project is not growth inducing nor
would it cause an increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities.
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 59
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require tl:e construction or
expansion of recreational facilities Which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environmentL
1Vo Impact. Construction of the project would not require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, therefore no impact would occur.
5.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic Which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity o f the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number o f vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) Z
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction: Construction traffic will be generated by construction crews and
equipment/material deliveries For approximately 3-4 months. Approximately 1,500
cubic yards of earthwork will be necessary to complete the project. Construction
traffic would primarily utilize I-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road within Chula Vista
and the Sweetwater Community Plan Area. During construction the westbound bike
lane along Telegraph Canyon Road would be closed. It is likely that one westbound
lane on Telegraph Canyon Road would also be closed during construction, and would
serve as a staging area for construction supplies and equipment. A shopping center
on Telegraph Canyon Road has two driveways that would require modifications
associated with the adjacent drainage channel as the roadway is improved in that area.
It is expected that this short-term construction-related traffic would not create a
substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic patterns on these roadways
in such a way that congestion and delay would be substantially increased on major
street segments or intersections. However, due to the amount of construction and
traffic occurring within the City, minor short-term impacts related to construction
traffic, delay, hazards and congestion may result. When possible, construction would
take place during off-peak hours to minimize impacts. In addition, project conditions
include a traffic control plan which will Further reduce conflicts associated with
constructfon.
June 2002 3202-Ot
City of Chula vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Protect 60
PROJECT CONDITION:
• A traffic control plan shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
and shall be implemented during the construction period.
Operation: A traffic study intended to identify the overall traffic effects of the
project was prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan May 2002 (Appendix B). The
study concluded that the proposed project would improve the existing Level of Service
(LOS)' at the following intersections and street segments:
Existing LOS w/o Existing LOS
Intersection Peak Period Improvement wgmprovement
Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 NB Ramps AM E D
AM D C
Telegraph Canyon Road/Halecrest Avenue
PM C B
Telegraph Canyon Road Street Segment
I-805 to Halecrest Drive D C
These LOS improvements (see Tables 3 and 5 of the traffic report for details) indicate
that vehicles would move Easter and smoother along Telegraph Canyon Road and at
the listed intersections, and idling time of vehicles would also be reduced as a result
of the project. The traffic analysis showed that the Telegraph Canyon Road
improvements will be a benefit at community buildout. Intersection delaywill be less
at buildout iE the Telegraph Canyon Road improvements are implemented.
Near-term and long-term traffic standards for the City of Chula Vista would be met
with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant
impact would occur.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the County Congestion 1Vlanagemezzt Agency for
designated roads or {zighwaysZ
tLOS is a measure of effectiveness Eor intersection operations (see Appendix B For more details).
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 61
Less than Significant Impact. See response 4.15-a. During construction of the
project (3-4 months), standard traffic requirements would ensure that acceptable
roadwayconditionswould bemaintained. Upon completion, the project would result
in improved LOS at intersections along Telegraph Canyon Road and along the
roadway segment at Telegraph Canyon Road Erom I-805 to Halecrest Drive and would
not contribute to cumulative traffic impacts.
c) Would the project 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 t
No Impact. No portion of the project would impact air traffic patterns. Therefore,
no impact would occur.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves o f dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) t
Less than Significant Impact. The project would widen the road along the frontage
of two gas stations and gas pumps at those stations. The Uniform Fire Code requires
that gas pumps be located not less than 10 feet from the property line. The project
would result in the gas pumps being located at least 12 feet from the property line.
The project would allow traffic to flow faster and more smoothly upon completion,
and no incompatible uses would occur. The required traffic control plan, as described
in response 5.15-a above, and compliance with the Uniform Fire Code, would avoid
construction related traffic impacts and safety hazards. Therefore, a less than
significant impact would occur. Also see response 4.15-a.
e) Would the project result in i~:adequate emergency accessZ
Less than Significant Impact. See response 4.7-d.
f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacityt
No Impact. No parking is currently allowed along the proposed segment of Telegraph
Canyon Road. The proposed improvement would not affect the existing parking
condition.
June 2002 3202-07
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 62
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in relocation and
maintenance of the existing sidewalk and bike lane along Telegraph Canyon Road, and
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements o f the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact. No portion of the project would involve wastewater treatment or an
increase in the demand for additional services, therefore no impact would occur.
b) Would the project require or result in the construction o f new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion o f existing facilities, the construction o f which
would cause significant enviromnental e f fects?
No Impact. See response 4.16-a.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction o f new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction o f which
could cause significant environmental e f fects?
Less than Significant Impact. The project would result in modifications to the
south wall of the existing concrete drainage channel adjacent to Telegraph Canyon
Road. However the reconstruction of this channel would not cause significant
environmental effects since the modified channel will provide similar design capacity
Flows to the existing condition geometry (see response 4.8-c). The project will not
significantly increase the impervious surface within the local drainage basin.
Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Protect 63
d) Would the project have su f ficient water supplies available to serve the yroject front
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements neededL
No Impact. The project would not require the need For new or expanded water
supplies. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Would the project result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected detnand in addition to the provider/s existing commitmentst
No Impact. The project would not require the need for wastewater treatment.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Would the project be served by a land fill with su f ficieut permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needsL
1Vo Impact. The limited amount of solid waste generated by project construction
would have a less than significant impact on local solid waste Facilities. No regular
solid waste disposal is proposed as part of the roadway improvement project, and no
impacts to capacity of a permitted landfill would occur.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid wasteL
No Impact. Waste generated during construction of the project would be disposed
in a solid waste landfill incompliance with Federal, state, and local regulations related
to solid waste. Upon completion, solid waste would not be generated by the project.
5.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential ro degrade the quality o f the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat o f a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below sel f-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 64
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range o f a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate importat:t examples o f the major periods
o f Cali forma history or prehistoryL
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in response 4.5-a and 4.5-b, the project
would not result in impacts to archaeological or cultural resources. As outlined in
Section 4~4, the proposed project would not impact any sensitive habitats such as
wetlands or state or Federally listed sensitive plants and animals. Project mitigation
measures required to avoid potential impacts to nesting raptors would result in less
than significant impacts to raptors that may utilize existing street trees for nesting.
Therefore, degradation of the quality of the environment, or reduction in habitat,
plant, Eish or wildlife community would not occur.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerableL ("Cumulatively considerable" means that tl:e incremental e ffects
o f a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the e f fects o f past
projects, the e f fects o f other current projects, and the e f fects o f probable future
projects);
Less than Significant Impact. As revealed by the previous discussions for each
environmental category, impacts From the proposed project are considered to be less
than significant after the incorporation of standard construction measures as required
by the City. No long-term significant impacts are associated with the project. In the
absence of significant impacts, the incremental accumulation of effects would be less
than significant. Although the project would incrementally contribute to cumulative
impacts documented as occurring with development of the City of Chula Vista, these
impacts would be considered less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental e f fects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectlyt
1Vo Impact. The project would result in environmental impacts, however these
impacts would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Based on the
analysis of all the above questions, it has been determined that there would be no
significant direct or indirect effects on human beings.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 65
Will the proposal adversely irnpact the City's Threshold StandardsZ
No irnpact. As described below, the proposed project does not result in significant
impacts to any of the threshold standards.
a) Fire/EMS. The Threshold Standards require that fire and medical units must
be able to respond to calls within seven minutes or less irr 85% o f the cases and
within five minutes or less in ~5% o f the cases.
No impact. The widening of Telegraph Canyon Road will improve traffic
conditions and the current level of service and the Fire/EMS Threshold standard
will continue to be met.
b) Police. The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to
84% o f Priority 7 calls within seven minutes or less and maintain an average
response time to all Priority 1 calls o f 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must
respond to 62.10% o f Priority 2 calls within seven minutes or less and
maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of seven minutes or
less.
No impact. The widening of Telegraph Canyon Road will improve traffic
conditions and the current level of service and the Police Threshold standard will
continue to be met.
c) Traffic. City wide - 1Vlaintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed
average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during
peak hours, a LOS o f "D" can occur for no more than two hours o f the day.
No impact. According to the traffic study prepared for this project, LOS at
intersections and a roadway segment would be improved as a result of the
roadway widening (see Section 4.15). The proposed project would comply with
this Threshold Standard.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula vista Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 66
5.18 CITY THRESHOLDS
1Vo Impact. The proposed project is a roadway use and therefore, the Parks and
Recreation Threshold Standard does not apply. No park pad obligation will be
required for the proposed project.
e) 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 1Vlaster Plan(s)
and City Engineering standards.
1Vo impact. Onsite drainage facilities include aconcrete-lined drainage channel
(Telegraph Canyon Creek) adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. The south wall
of the channel would be modified as a result of the project.
The City is required to comply with NPDES permit requirements and implement
Best Management Practices to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the
stormdrain system and Telegraph Canyon Creek during and after construction.
The modified channel will provide similar design capacity flows to the existing
condition geometry. According to the Engineering Division, the proposed project
will comply with the Drainage Threshold standard.
~ Sewer. The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer tLlaster Plan(s) and City Engineering
standards.
No impact. The proposed project is for a roadway widening, and would not
impact sewage flows and volumes. The proposed project would complywith this
Threshold Standard.
g) Water. The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment,
and transmission facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth
and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project g7
d) Parks/Recreation. The Tlzreslrold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 4
acres o f neighborhood and cornmunity park land with appropriate facilities per
1, 000 residents east o f Interstate 805.
at the time o f building permit issuance.
No impact. The proposed project is For a roadway widening, and would not
require the need for new or expanded water supplies. The proposed project would
comply with this Threshold Standard.
June 2002 3202-Ot
City of Chula Usla Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project gg
construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in Whatever
Water conservation or fee o f fset program the City o f Chula Vista has in e f fect
6.1 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
California, State of. Building Standards Commission. Uniform Building Cade. Chapter 48
Section 1809, tables. 1994.
California, State oE. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Update
to Special Report 453, Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in Western San
Diego County, Production-Consumption Region. 1996.
California, State of. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Alquist-
Prio(o Map and Associated Tables. Website accessed January 30, 2002
www.consrv. ca.~ov/dm~
California, State oE. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 49987mportant Farmland Maps.
Chula Vista, City of. General Plan. 1989.
Chula Vista, City of. Drafi MSCP Subarea Plan. September 2002.
Chula Vista Municipal Code. Chapter 19.68 Performance Standards and Noise Control. 2002.
Multiple Species Conservation Plan Vegetation Map. Figure 3, Dra ft City o fChu/a Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan. September 2000.
Reider, Robert. Supervising Air Resources Specialist, San Diego Air Pollution Control
District. Personal Communications. June 22, 2001.
SanGiS bneracrive Maps Website. www.sangis.org_ Accessed January-February 2002.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey o f San Diego
County- National City Quadrangle. December 1973.
6.2 TECHNICAL STUDIES
Dudek & Associates, Inc. Phase I Environmental Assessment Arco Service Station, Telegraph
Canyon Union Service Station. November 2001.
June 2002 3202-01
Ciry of Chula Usta •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project gg
Dudek & Associates, Inc. Telegraph Canyon Road Irnprovemenr Project Noise Assessment. May
2002.
Linseott, Law & Greenspan. Eastern Chula Vista Traffic Capacity Enhancement, Telegraph
Canyon Road. May 2002.
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Vista •Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 7p
City of Chula Vista
Mary Ladiana, Environmental Projects Manager
Paul Hellman, Environmental Projects Manager
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
Joe Monaco, Senior Project Manager
Andrew Garner, Environmental Planner/Analyst
Mike Komula, Acoustician
Mark McGinnis, GIS Analyst
Tonette Foster, Word Processing
Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers
John Boarman, Principal
June 2002 3202-01
City of Chula Usta Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Project 77
ATTACI'IM~NT A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP)
,ATT,~CIyMENT "A"
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Telegraph Canyon Road Widening
IS-02-35
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula
Vista in conjunction with the proposed Telegraph Canyon Road Widening (IS-02-35). The
proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA)
and City/State CEQA guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that
adopted mitigation measures are adequately implemented and monitored.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental
impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance
Coordinator shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista. The
applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with the
mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-02-35 to the Environmental Review Coordinator.
The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the
mitigation measures have been accomplished.
Table 7, Mitigation Monitoring and Reyorting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
listed in Section 3.0, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to
determine if 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.
June 2002 3203-Ot
City o(Chula Vsta ~ Telegraph Canyon Road Widening q.~
r
FH
A~A'
1~1
U
w
x
SU
44
W
0
4Y,
a
z
F
Q~i
H
w °'
a w
C1q ~"
["'
O
O
O
~_
~"~
L
U
0 ~
A m
U
_.
I
x
y
i
t
U
w :a
O ,~ ~~ C U
a+.V.i .. O m N
~.....'. C O O O
O E o v
L T
O OCI N y j ~N y d t0 O O. N~
j y O E y o y V a U a d .L.. f0
't ~> m ~ a ~ n m o m ~~> a? E E s m o
R y U~ N~ O >. ~ O U E C O O C~ N N O t0 L
N: y d N~ T d~ ~~ y y N N E N~ r _O L~ 6~ O d d
~. II ~~ ~~ m~ h :.'m ~ c o ~ pC o~~ m o m :4 E ayi ~ w
o. y O A d Ol U O d O d O a O fO C V N fO t~ ~ j L C C L
a n m y
y l9 U/ 01 f0 M ~ ,~y„
01 m .` c m~ y 0 U a~` L U O L c m ~ m N o w~ ~ o m
:f. ~ ~° o w a~i h o `~ y T o 3 n w >` Q°? `° ~ c~ E° t v
'O 3 ~' y L T U y N W U C a .U 'O N 'C y U N
d (0 ` d N fU 01 ~ C .O 0) a N a ~ ~ ~ C O0 UJ D. ~ O f0 O
~~~ L~~ j~ ~~ j N O y O~ C UO t0 ~ C~ ~.- C m N
i^ ~ m> ayi ° D E 'm a^ m H ~' c~ E v `0 5 U :° E `o c° d E
O
O
N
M
N
O
O
N
C
N
Q
W :
E 'i
a
v
~ « , -
.°.2 p
C.
O
-V.: ~
.:;. .
.
c
~ - - - -
~
~ t
O ; L
q U
as o ~
~ U
~ -
~
U
O C N
V
X
01 m ~
!
~'> a o 'x
U
o,
0 o m
--
o.u I°p~~,
w ~ o ~ w m
I
I
I ~ o-a
' C .y j J ~°~ f0 N~ W
~[
O N O N
N ~
O
n
N N p
~
C
N N ~ p _ C d C N L 1 0 N E ~ N°~ ~ ~
N N y
w n m O ~
` N ~ ~ N p L N C E N N O H a '~ N
`
~ ~ d o °
a o m' c 3 °- ~ ~ c~ °c v c a~ ~ m
o 'o o
3 ` m c ° m
` ~ o
m~ m n E a
m a
~ L w in ~ a d m v ~ °
M d
~
d. I C J C°~ U1 °U ~ L f>`U N N O E~~ ~ a L T ~' A L T 'O N
° ~ `0 E C %
C~ ~ ~ j ~ ° O N C L (n N Z L t C Z Y fU O
~ 0 L, d T J ~
~ a N IO N N > ~ 'j ~ _
J~ U N 3 L N f0 0- D
:
a 0
mc ° N j O N
o-n°- o f'E da x ° v oc°
Ei N
mo d'°ma
of m c d d b a a~ ~ n "- ~' c
E° m o n
~ p o m
o w Y ~ y T
~
?' d s n :4 0 am 'm c c~ a z ~ ~ a"i ° m .
~ m~ ` .L m c m°
°
~i L N >` C« y n m C 0 N N ~ y.°- y U1 ~ y
N j«O N°
O N N O E ~N n .N ~ E N V h N ~ p O p~ y
l] L~ C_
E U . ~p
N
~ ~ ~
n
o d o H _ E n a d ' 'v ° N a c J o 3 ~
O1 °
m ~' a° ° m r
` ~ ~ 'o- o ~ ~o ~ ~ : m o d aoi ~~ n o c
o c a o
a .L.. m m
o U E w E B o a n~ N 3 o a E p c w
~ O m a m ~ a ~ c~ m`
o
N
~
Z ~
0
:~ O
~ iN
~ O
~
:~ m
0
0
M
0
0
N
C
a
r
I~
o y
U
X
O
r
d
~~
t0
O p ~ N
o w m
n N ~ O
N ~ J O
~ ~ Q a
c y c
L L "~ m y~ 'a E m o
`" 3 E o c E~ J o= m
y C C .L.. J O J_ J J
N O d
N~ O~ T N ~> C N d W r
N ^ C
.L... C O r N Y W- O~ O OI
~ '
O `l j 0 O y y U= L_ O
7 p ~ a ~ o ` '~, y N 'o
E a > m .. g U ~, N m
y Z~ N ` m E C aL. C y
c d m m api ~ a n a~ ~~~ N
n N ``' y~ o~ ~ °p m~ 2 E m
a~ a «p ti w t E~ U w m m~ y
~ O D U m O j t0 3 (Op N Cp 0 W
N N d t0 C O p~ N a U D C
O) d O. ~ y O ~. >. > .~. 'O N
3 a d w c a E m~ ~ c° m$ c
~n
J
L
U
`o
r ..
U
~_ _
Y C
O C O O L {p
~ 3 a m a
~ E m ~ L >.
y ~ a `O c ~ ~
C C O O N
W m E p n 2 V7
d O - "O N
i p p` a L ~ N N L
o - ~ y ~ 3
iQ ~ 3 N L L 0 f0 C p j t~ ~O
O. ~ O ~
~ N O C~ j N E` Q d= U
N p C N O~ O ~~ O N .4.I U? 9 O
a N y0 ~ t0 0 6~ O N~ J~ IO N
a' a~- U 3 N N W L C V ~ f/1
H« °~ L aL'T' m m~ rn m o a~
Q N U N l` F U D_ v C w" U1 N
fib Z m m o g .c ._ v a
c - 'o -
~ i~~> H ~' ~ E 3 E ~ 'o c N `m
O N p y y m
Q''3 r m m n> v c
'p p L w p~ N a y U r C~~ C
= C C D fU ~ N C O d~ 0 0 f0 N
O~ m v a 3~ w ~~ ~' ~ ~~ L
Z - -
v
s
N
O
N
M
a
~.
d
E
E
0
v
r
o
O. q
O N.
U
s
d
c
o R
as
°'__
o ~'
a ;v
C N
w `~ l11
O
~ m O U
G [)
E ~` •~
i= > a o
U
w a.
-- Y...c.
o. o
v '
o ~
d 'C
~ >q
v
` U
O - ~
3 3 m
~ ~ m
w m c
~,t a '~ h
a
~' 3 ~ y >
d ~ 'o ~
O'
a ~ L ,`~-
'~ E ~° m -
U `. °'
b7 N y N
.~ N ~.
~' = p C
U d ~
1 ~ ~ ~ H
O C ~ y
4 ~
~ N t9 wl ~
t_. O. d O
:~ ~/
w~~ N
~ _~
s
0
M
0
0
c
~.