The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutF- 5 Valleydale Strom Drain Project - Approval of Construction Plans and the Negative Declaration 4111. IT AZUSA CONSENT CALENDAR TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: NASSER ABBASZADEH, CITY ENGINEER VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 SUBJECT: VALLEYDALE STORM DRAIN PROJECTS -APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THE NEGATIVE DECLREATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve: 1. The construction plans for the Valleydale Storm Drain project, as prepared by the City consultant Boghossian and Associates. 2. The Negative Declaration prepared by City staff, attached with the accompanying Resolution. BACKGROUND In December 2001, the City entered into an Agreement with the LA County Department of Public Works to jointly construct the Woodcroft storm drain project (area bounded by Lark Ellen, Woodcroft, Enid, and Arrow Highway). The Agreement was for the City to pay for design services (initially$198,000, later increased by$15,800) and the County will pay for the construction costs (about $1,500,000). LA County has re-named the project Valleydale Storm Drain. The design portion of the project is complete; staff has reviewed and approved the plans. Next, the project will be submitted to other regulatory agencies to secure applicable permits (Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Board, and the Department of Fish and Game have jurisdiction over the outfall, the Little Dalton Wash). Staff conducted an initial environmental review of the project and prepared a Negative Declaration for the project. A copy of the Declaration and the accompanying Resolution are attached. FISCAL IMPACT The City has used Sewer Funds to pay for the design services, $213,800, while LA County will pay for the construction cost estimated at $1,500,000. Attachments..\..\Desktop\valleydaleresofinal.doc..\..\Desktop\VALLEYDALEstormdrainfinal.doc..\.. \Desktop\Valleydale Notice to adopt a negdec.doc INITIAL STUDY & NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Valleydale School Storm Drain A storm drain project to relieve the area from flooding. Located at: On portions of Enid, Lark Ellen, and Arrow Highway,Azusa, CA 91702 (and Los Angeles County) U11? > 1/FOP Prepared by: The City of Azusa Community Development Department 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 91702 Contact:Nasser Abbaszadeh 626-812-5261 August 2002 Date Received for Filing: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Clerk Stamp Here) Notice is hereby given that the City of Azusa has completed an Initial Study of the project described as Valleydale School Storm Drain. This Initial Study was completed in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at City Hall,Community Development Department front counter,213 E.Foothill Blvd.,Azusa,CA,available for public review. Comments will be received until September 16,2002 when the project is scheduled to appear before the City Council Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. The item will be considered for approval by the City Council on Monday,September 16,2002 at 7:30pm in the Civic Auditorium at 213 E.Foothill Blvd. Any persons wishing to testify may file a written statement prior to that time and/or may appear and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Engineer at, or prior to, the public hearing. At the public hearing, the City Council will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration. If the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the City may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. City Engineer Lead Agency Signature(Nasser Abbaszadeh) Title Date CITY/RVPUB/2000/313792 PAGE 2 FORM "D" r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Valleydale School Drain 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Nasser Abbaszadeh, City Engineer (626) 812-5261 4. Project Location: On portions of Enid, Lark Ellen, and Arrow Highway Azusa, CA 91702 (Los Angeles County) (Refer to attached Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map, Page 2) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Azusa &LA County Department of Public Works 6. General Plan Designation: CF &GC 7. Zoning: R1-6 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A storm drain project is being proposed to prevent the area from flooding. 9. Surrounding Land Uses/Setting: (Briefly describe project's surroundings; Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) The area is residential in nature with an elementary school (Valleydale) in the vicinity. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): LA County Department of Public Works, United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 1 of 18 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. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards &Hazardous Mat's ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation Cl Transportationfrraffic ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Cl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Nasser Abbaszadeh Printed Name CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 2 of 18 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 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 a project-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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless 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 to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references 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. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt 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 to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 3 of 18 • Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ • views in the area? Discussion: a, b) No designated scenic vista or highway is located in the vicinity of the project. No impact will result. The project will not adversely affect the area since no light or glare will be created. c) During construction, rock and dirt piles will be stored in the general vicinity of the project. This temporary visual blight will be cleared up as soon as the project is completed. No impact will result. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ • Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ • CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 4 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: a-c) Not applicable; not an agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ • applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ U substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ❑ • any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ • concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ • number of people? Discussion: a-e) No impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required apart from standard dust control practices associated with any construction work. CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 5 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt 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 substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ • identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ • marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species ❑ ❑ ❑ • or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ • preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, • CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "Ju Page 6 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant ' Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a-f) The surrounding area is developed with urban uses. No endangered species, locally designated species, or designated natural communities are located in the vicinity of the project. The project is not near any wetland habitat or wildlife corridor. Therefore, the project will not have any effect on biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 0 • 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant LI • to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? LI • Discussion: a-d)The site is not located within an area designated as having historical, archeological, or paleontological significance. However, standard precautionary measures will be conditioned to be implemented to ensure proper protocol in case any potentially significant artifact is discovered during construction effort. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse • effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:: CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page7of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ❑ ❑ U on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ • c) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ • liquefaction? d) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ • e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ • topsoil? f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- ❑ ❑ ❑ U site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ ❑ • creating substantial risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ • disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion: a-h) Not applicable; no portion of the site is located within the potential area for landslides per Azusa General Plan and State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map. CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 8 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or • disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset 0 E • and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to L • Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 0 El • two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for Li 0 • people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or Li Li Li S CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 9 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, ❑ ❑ ❑ • including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? Discussion: a-h) No impacts are anticipated. 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 there would be a net deficit in aquifer ❑ ❑ ❑ • volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) 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 • ❑ ❑ ❑ off-site? d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ • additional sources of polluted runoff? CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 10 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ • delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ • h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including El ❑ ❑ • flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ • Discussion: a-i) The project is not located near a body of water or within a hazardous flood zone. Standard measures will be taken for surface runoff mitigation associated with new construction. As such, the project will have no impact on drainage patterns, surface run-off, groundwater, or any other water-related concerns that cannot be properly mitigated through standard construction practices. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general • ❑ ❑ ❑ plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ • CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 11 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact Discussion: a) The project will not divide an established community. The project is located within a residential area. As such, no impact has been identified. b, c ) The project will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies adopted by other agencies. All proper construction permits will be secured prior to the start of construction activity from the permitting agencies. The project will be compatible with the existing land uses in the vicinity. No impact has been identified. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and 0 0 0 • the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated El El 0 • on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a, b) The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource nor displace people. The site is not designated as a mineral resource area and will not require displacement of people and/or structures. No impacts are anticipated. 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 ground borne vibration or ground borne noise ❑ E • ❑ levels? CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 12 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 0 • without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above • levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 0 0 • two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or 0 0 0 • working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: a -f) Project shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. All construction activities shall be limited to 7am and 6pm Monday through Friday. Heavy equipment will be staggered in usage to minimize the amount of noise to be generated by the construction. The site is not near any airports or private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new ❑ ❑ LI • homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ LI ❑ • housing elsewhere? CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 13 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ • housing elsewhere? Discussion: a-c) The project will not induce substantial population growth, or displace housing or people. No impacts are anticipated. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b) Police protection? El El ❑ U c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ • d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ • e) Other public facilities? El ❑ ❑ • Discussion: a-e) No impacts are anticipated. The project does not involve any housing or the construction of new buildings that would require additional governmental services. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 14 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No lncorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such 1=10 • that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of • recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a, b) The project will not interfere with existing recreational opportunities. No impacts are anticipated. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of • 0 the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county • congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in 1=1 • location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous El 0 0 • intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 15 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ • ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ • ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus ❑ ❑ ❑ • turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: a) During construction, the normal traffic patterns will be disrupted as residents will seek alternate routes. The normal patterns will be restored once the project is completed. b-f) The design features relating to transportation were reviewed by the City Engineering Department. No hazardous design features were identified. The area parking will be disrupted by the presence of open trenches and heavy equipment. No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists were identified by any reviewing City department, including the City Engineering Department. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation or affect rail, waterborne, or air traffic. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ U 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? CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 16 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No lncorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ • resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ • project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑ • waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ • regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: a-g) No impacts to utilities and services are anticipated. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ • the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ • individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 17 of 18 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potential Unless Less ly Mitigation Than No Incorporat Significa Impact Significa ed nt nt Impact Impact incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist 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 Incorporated," describe, on attached sheets, 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. Discussion: a-c) Not applicable; no other analyses have been done for this project. Traffic and noise issues are addressed in the document, as they will not pose adverse impacts. CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 18 of 18