HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/01/23
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 9, 2002
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's
agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-00-24; Adoption 013 resolution amending the Rancho Del
Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) 1 Plan, in order to allow the
construction of a double left turn lane with associated driveway
on East H Street, providing direct vehicular access to the Home
Depot store located within Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center
(725 Plaza Court).
Project Planner: Steve Power, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Public Hearing; SUPS 01-05 proposal to construct a
1,240 sf car wash, 840 sf 2-bay lube area, and a 435 sf customer
service area, with accompanying landscaping parking and
driveway circulation.
Project Manager, Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-31; Modification to Conditional Use Permit C-68-20, for
an existing self-service car wash located at 298 Broadway.
Project Manager, Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
4. REPORT:
Accessory Second Unit
Project Manager, Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
..~--~._.,_.__._._-"-_..._-
Planning Commission
- 2-
January 23, 2002
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
San Diego Country Club Mono-pine
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes,
Thomas, McCann, Willett
Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner
Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager
Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
Ann Moore, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEISILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (Willett/Thomas) (5-0-2-0) to approve minutes of December 5, 2001 as
submitted. Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Bill Tripp, 1401 Laurel Avenue stated he reviewed the accessory second unit matrix and
expressed concern with staff's recommendation that Conditional Use Permits for accessory
second units continue to be processed administratively without a public hearing. He further
urged the Commission to carefully consider this recommendation in light of existing
requirements that all Conditional Use Permits be considered in a public hearing forum.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:SUPS 01-05; Special Use Permit to construct a 1,240 sf car
wash, 849 sf 2-bay lube area, and a 435 sf customer service
area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and driveway
circulation.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
January 9, 2002
Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner reported that the project is located at
the northwest corner of Third Avenue and Montgomery Street and is surrounded by
single family, two-family and multi-family homes, as well as a number of commercial
uses. Since the proposal is located within the Redevelopment Project Area, final
approval is required by the Redevelopment Agency.
The applicant initially submitted an application for the proposed project in January
2001. Staff identified a number of concerns relating to on-site circulation, vehicular
queing and landscaping issues. As a result the applicant worked with staff and
redesigned the project addressing concerns that were previously identified.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution SUPS 01-05
recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions and findings
contained in the draft Redevelopment Agency resolution.
Commission Discussion:
Chair O'Neill expressed concern that the 42 feet from the exit of the car wash tunnel to
the driveway approach does not provide adequate room for stacking of cars that are
coming out of the car wash and still need minor detailing of wiping down windows and
mirrors. He also stated that if this were a drive-through car wash, where patrons
remain in their cars, then there most likely wouldn't be a stacking problem.
Public Hearing Opened 6:25
Lee Hope, Architect, 5055 North Harbor Drive, San Diego stated that the exit area
(42 feet) allows stacking of 4 vehicles and there is not anticipated to be any problem in
moving the cars off the premises because the customer service area has no vending
machine or anything else that would delay the customer from picking up their vehicle
when it comes out of the car wash. He further stated that this is an automated car
wash and cars exit virtually dry requiring minimal touch-up of windows and mirrors.
Commissioner Thomas inquired what the elapse time is from when the vehicle enters
the car wash to when its ready to drive off the premises.
Mr. Hope responded that going through the car wash takes 60 to 90 seconds and then
approximately 90 to 120 seconds for detailing time, for a total of approximately 3
minutes, however, patrons exit their vehicle prior to it being vacuumed, therefore, that
time is extended.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
January 9, 2002
The Commission consensus was that the project, as designed, is too ambitious for a lot
this size because it does not allow for adequate on-site circulation, specifically the
stacking grid-lock that will occur due to the restricted area at the exit of the car wash.
They, therefore, urged the applicant to consider redesigning the project and perhaps
change the car wash so that it is a drive-through where patrons don't exit their vehicle.
MSC (Thomas/Castaneda) (7-0) to continue public hearing to January 23'" to allow
Mr. Hope (Architect) time to confer with the owner, who was not present at the
meeting. Motion carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:a. Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
b. PCM 99-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations,
Village Design Plan, Public Facilities finance Plan,
Affordable Housing Program and other regulatory
documents for 2,232 dwelling units on approximately 386
acres in village Six of Otay Ranch located generally in the
north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of
Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch
Road and west of future SR-125.
Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager gave an overview of the project as
presented in staff report. She reported that a Second Tier EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project The
Final EIR contains responses to comments re~eived during the public review period.
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental impacts
that would result from the proposed SPA Plan and conceptual TMs. Some of these
significant impacts can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures, while others cannot be avoided by adoption offeasible mitigation measures or
feasible environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed project, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted.
Project Level and cumulative impacts are identified and are divided into three categories:
Significant and Unmitigated; these are either cumulative (project is combined with other
projects) or regional in nature (beyond the sole control of the City of Chula Vista. They are:
- Land Use (Cumulative)
- Landform Alteration & Aesthetics (Cumulative)
- Silological Resources (Cumulative)
- Agricultural Resources (Cumulative)
- Transportation, Circulation & Access
- Air Quality (Project & Cumulative)
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
January 9, 2002
Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant; Mitigations measures required in the
EIR would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Landform alterations and aesthetics (project)
Biological Resources (project)
Geological/Soils (project)
Paleontological Resources (project)
Agricultural Resources (project)
Water Resources & Water Quality (project & cumulative)
Transportation Circulation & Access
Cultural Resources (project & cumulative)
Noise (project and cumulative)
Water supply and facilities (project and cumulative)
Sewer Service (project and cumulative)
Integrated Waste Management (project and cumulative)
Law Enforcement (project and cumulative)
Fire Protection (project and cumulative)
Schools (project and cumulative)
Library Services (project and cumulative)
Parks & Recreation (project and cumulative)
Hazards/Rick of Upset (project and cumulative)
Less than Significant Impacts
Land Use, Planning and Zoning (project)
Housing and Population (project and cumulative)
Geology and Soils (cumulative)
Mineral Resources (project and cumulative)
Gas/Electric Service (project and cumulative)
At the time the Program EIR 90-01 was certified and adopted in October 1993 the City
Council and Board of Supervisors jointly determined that substantial social environmental
and economic benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweighed the significant and
unmitigable impacts associated with the project and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration was approved.
Village Six will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the
application of these measures, therefore in order to approve the project, the City must
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives and based on this examination,
the City has determined that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
January 9, 2002
environmentally superior to the project
Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner, gave an overview of the project as presented in staff
report. He further reported that the SPA Plan proposes 2,232 dwelling units on 386.4
acres of land in Village Six. The ownership is split between three property owners;
McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, the Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese of San
Diego. McMillin is proposing 482 single-family dwellings and 212 multi-family units on their
portion of Village Six, while Otay Ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family dwellings
and 1,392 multi-family units. The Catholic Diocese is proposing a church on an 11.5 acre
site and a 32.5 acre private high school in a neighborhood zoned residential.
Commission Discussion:
Chair O'Neill stated that with ownership of the land by the Diocese, it becomes tax exempt
and was wondering what would happen if the plans for the private high school fall out
Rick Rosaler responded that although this is out of the City's purview and he cannot speak
for the Diocese, if the plans for the high school fall apart, they would most likely then sell
the property to a merchant builder, at which time the tax exemption on the property would
be removed.
Cmr. O'Neill further stated that the accessory unit component as part of satisfying the
affordable housing requirement (six units) was innovative and in actuality a homeowner
can qualify for more house with less income under this scenario.
Cmr. O'Neill stated he supports the accessory unit wholeheartedly. Furthermore, whether
one likes it or not, State law would allow a secondary unit (attached or detached) to go in
later. Surprisingly, the plaintiff in the Santa Monica decision, was the Coalition For
Affordable Housing; apparently they seem to think there is some afford ability that accrues
from these accessory units.
Commissioner Thomas stated he did not support the accessory unit in lieu of the six
affordable housing units because the homeowner would be able to rent the unit at market
rate, which would then defeat the purpose of calling it affordable.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the progress the Diocese is making in purchasing the
land.
Rick Rosaler responded that they have other sites under consideration and they are
presently evaluating the Carmel Mountain site, however, they are encountering some
problems with the City of San Diego for that site and they will be looking next at the Otay
Ranch site. The Diocese has stated that the school would not be open until SR 125 is built
because this is a regional facility and people would need SR 125 to get to the school.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
January 9, 2002
Commissioner Hall expressed concern that within the Otay Ranch and Eastlake
development, the City is not achieving the full realm of smart growth and asked if the plans
for the private high school fall out, has the City considered commercial! industrial office
park for that site, thereby creating a job base for Chula Vista residents.
Rick Rosaler stated that in 1993 the County of San Diego jointly approved the GDP and
the plan envisioned Otay Mesa as being the employment base for the area. However,
there are office uses focused into the Freeway Commercial and Eastern Urban Center, but
not in the Villages.
Additionally, Cmr. Hall stated that he would like to see a survey conducted of the residents
in the eastern portion of the City in order to access whether they plan to use SR-125,
knowing that it will be a toll road. Cmr. Hall further stated that he is concerned that regional
jurisdictions and the development community believe that SR-125 will be the panacea for
improving traffic conditions that currently exist and future conditions at build out. The fact
that SR-125 will be a toll road, in his opinion, will be a deterrent for its use and, therefore,
the region will not reap the optimal benefits of its usage.
Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager, stated that although conducting a
survey would be an excellent way to gauge the community, it would not be within the
purview of an Environmental Impact Report,
Commissioner O'Neill stated that the same concerns were expressed about the
Coronado Bridge, which turned out to be unfounded. Furthermore, he stated that no one
from eastern Chula Vista needs to use the toll road in order for it to be effective because
SR-125 will effectively take the pre-load from the border off of 1-805, to the benefit of the
residents of Chula Vista who use 1-805.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he concurs with Commissioner Hall's comments
regarding the under-utilization of SR-125 and although he agrees with Chair O'Neill's
comments on the Coronado Bridge, he believes that SR-125 is more analogous to the 73
toll road in Orange County, which has not met expectations in terms of reaching capacity.
Additionally, although SR-125 may take some of the load off of 1-805 with traffic coming
from the border, unless residents from eastern part of Chula Vista use the roll road, there
are still going to be problems on surface streets.
Commissioner Castaneda inquired if any consideration has been given to incorporate into
the monthly Home Owners Association fee the cost for the transponder to the toll road.
He further stated that it would be a lot more feasible to do it now, rather than later
Alex AI-Agha, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated that the City has not conditioned this specific
requirement on the entitlement process for any project in the past because it would be
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
January 9, 2002
considered as a private matter between the HOA and the developer.
Ann Moore, Sr. Assistant City Attorney stated that although this is an interesting concept,
the City has limitations with respect to such a condition, however, the developer would
have far more latitude to fashion such a provision in their HOA documents and perhaps
include it as a line item in their HOA budget
Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern that Mitigation No. 5.10-7 contained in the
EIR does not allow for more public input when adjustments or changes are made to the
9,429 traffic capacity threshold.
Ann Moore responded that the language would be clarified stating that the City Council
would be involved in a more formal review process for any adjustments to the 9,429 cap
which limits the issuance of building permits for new dwelling units.
Commissioner Castaneda further stated that he shares Cmr. Thomas' concerns on the lack
of control on afford ability of the accessory units. He is also concerned with the existing
regulations allowing the accessory unit to be detached which could potentially change the
make-up of a single family residential neighborhood by increasing the density and creating
a multi-family neighborhood. He asked if there could be a requirement that states that the
secondary unit must be attached to the existing home, thereby increasing the likelihood of
these units being occupied by a family members as opposed to it being detached.
Rick Rosaler stated that the design regulations, as now written, allow a detached structure
in the rear yard.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about the new legislation, which requires developers to
ensure water availability from water authorities.
Ms. Moore responded that the new legislation requires Cities to place a condition on the
Tentative Map requiring the developer to acquire proof of water availability from the local
water authority and present it to the City.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8:05.
Bob Pletcher McMillin Company, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City stated that they
have 6 units of affordable housing that needs to be satisfied and initially they had
considered transferring the obligation to a future village and deal with it, as in most cases,
within a large apartment unit. The GDP currently allows the accessory units, and the GDP
and affordable housing policies encourage, at least, an attempt to come up with other
options to satisfy these requirements, however, this is not a final action because there
would need to be an agreement and the City would need to be satisfied that the affordable
housing requirements have been met.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 -
January 9, 2002
Mr. Pletcher addressed the comments made regarding the HOA collecting fees for the
transponders. He indicated that SR-125 is a regional solution to a regional problem and to
make a connection between an HOA and a regional requirement would not be advisable.
In closing, Mr. Pletcher stated that this is a project that has been in the planning stages
since 1998 and they, as well as staff, have worked diligently in designing a quality project.
Village 6 is a logical extension of existing development programmed for Otay Ranch and it
does utilize existing infrastructure that's already in place, particularly Olympic Parkway.
This was a project that was envisioned to provide some of the funding and the commitment
to construct Olympic Parkway, which is under construction. He, therefore, urged the
Commission to approve the project
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:15.
Commissioner McCann stated that he is not as skeptical about the use of SR-125 and
believes it will relieve some of the surface street traffic going to Otay Mesa.
MSC (WilleWO'Neill) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt:
a. Resolution EIR 98-01 recommending the City Council certify that the final
Second-Tier EIR (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA, and State CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain
findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program with the following
recommendation:
That a clarification be made to Mitigation No. 5.10-7 stating that the any
adjustments to the 9,429 cap would be considered by the City Council.
Motion carried with Commissioner Thomas voting against the motion.
MSC (WilleWO'Neill) (5-2-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt:
b. Resolution PCM 99-05 recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving the Village Six SPA Plan and other regulatory documents including
the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Affordable Housing
Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non-
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails Plan, and adopt an Ordinance approving Planned Community District
Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, including the following Condition No. 51 contained in the
SPA Conditions of Approval for Otay Ranch Village Six:
Planning Commission Minutes
- 9 -
January 9, 2002
"51. Due to the development standards established for the SPA Plan and
accessory second units, accessory units are only allowed by Conditional
Use Permit for specific models or units in Neighborhoods R-2a or R-2b
(not to exceed a total of 100 units) and Neighborhood R-1 or R-3 (not to
exceed a total of 100 units) which traffic impacts have been included in
the EIR 98-01 analysis."
Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Thomas voting against the
motion.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23,2002.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 1/23/02
1
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-OO-24: Adoption of a resolution amending the
Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan, in order to allow the construction
of a double left turn lane with associated driveway on East "H" Street, providing direct
vehicular access to the Home Depot store located within the Rancho Del Rey
Commercial Center (725 Plaza Court).
The management of Home Depot is requesting the amendment of the Rancho Del Rey
SPA Plan in order to allow the construction of left turn lane with associated new
driveway along East "H" Street. The provisions of the Rancho Del Rey SPA plan
presently limit left turn lanes on East "H" Street to those that exist at the major entrances
to the Center.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That the Planning Commission review the staff report and application submittal,
and then adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council modifY
the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan to allow the construction of a new left turn lane with
associated driveway providing direct vehicular access to Home Depot.
DISCUSSION:
The project site is the Rancho Del Rey Business/Commercial Center located on East "H"
Street. The project setting is a terraced land area of approximately 85 acres consisting of
developed parcels that stairstep down from east to west. Rice Canyon borders the site to
the north. A Scenic Roadway and open space area (East "H" Street) abut the site at the
south. The Center accommodates several major retail establishments including Home
Depot, Costco, Kmart, Petco and Jeromes Furniture. Uses surrounding the Center are
primarily residential in nature.
The Business/Commercial Center is accessed via three primary entries that intersect with
East "H" Street. East "H" Street is designated as a Scenic Roadway within the Chula
Vista General Plan. The right-of-way along East H Street is characterized by varying
slopes and landscaping, creating a scenic open space buffer between the street and
surrounding development. City-owned open space parcels abut East "H" Street in the
area of the Center. Trees and other significant landscaping are maintained within the open
space parcels. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any
impacts associated with the proposed Project have been previously identified in the
Rancho del Rey FEIR 92-02 and has therefore, prepared an addendum to that document.
/
PCM-00-24
-2-
January 23, 2002
The Rancho del Rey Business/Commercial Center was originally created as an
employment park in 1985. The Center was designed to provide employment opportunities
to area residents in an unobtrusive setting surrounded by open space. Due to slow
development of the center and market demand for large-scale retailers, however, the
Rancho Del Rey SPA Plan was modified to allow commercial enterprises in 1992. Since
1992, the majority of the Center has been utilized for retail/commercial purposes.
The management of the Center has stated that because the Rancho del Rey
Business/Commercial Center was not originally designed for retail commercial purposes,
the layout of the development presents significant constraints to businesses currently
operating there. Specifically, the vehicular circulation plan for the site does not lend itself
to accommodate the large volume of traffic that a major retail center generates. Because
there is no direct access to the Home Depot from East "H" Street, vehicles bound for
Home Depot must enter the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center via Paseo Del Rey and
mix with vehicles bound for other destinations within the Center. During times of high
traffic volume such as weekends, the lack of a direct access driveway to Home Depot
contributes to congestion within and around the Rancho Del Rey Center.
Proposed Improvements:
The applicant is proposing to modify the provisions of the Rancho Del Rey SPA 1 plan in
order to construct two signalized left turn lanes (serving east-bound traffic) with
associated driveway on East "H" Street. The new driveway would be located
approximately 680 feet to the east of the centerline of Del Rey Blvd. The new driveway
would be 50 feet in width and would consist of one entry lane and one exit lane. The
proposed driveway would entail significant grading of the existing open space slope
situated to the south of Paseo del Rey, as well as the alteration of the existing median on
East "H" Street. Both sides of the new driveway would be bordered by a planted retaining
wall. The new retaining wall would reach a maximum height of 16 feet along the east
side of the driveway and 13 feet along the western side of the subject driveway.
ANALYSIS:
A traffic analysis was performed in association with this development request and can be
reviewed in Attachment "A" to this report. The traffic analysis indicates that the new left
turn lanes and driveway would result in a slight improvement to the existing traffic
situation both within the Center and along East "H" Street by decreasing delay times.
The traffic analysis indicates that the level of service of the intersection of East "H"
Street and Paseo Del Rey would remain at LOS "D" during the weekday and weekend
peak hours. The traffic study states that the intersection of Plaza Court and Paseo Del Rey
will remain at LOS C during the weekday and weekend peak hours. The traffic study also
indicates that the new intersection will operate at LOS B during peak hours. The City
Traffic Engineer has reviewed the subject traffic study and concurs with the findings
made in this report.
~
PCM-00-24
- 3 -
January 23, 2002
The construction of the driveway would result in the removal of25 parking spaces on the
Home Depot site. The project plans depict 612 total parking spaces on site once the
subject driveway is completed. The minimum amount of parking needed to accommodate
this retail use based upon the total floor area of the store is 611 spaces.
The construction of the new left turn lane and driveway along East H Street requires the
amendment of the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area I (SPA) Plan. The SPA Plan
presently limits left turn lanes to those that presently exist at the major entrances to the
Rancho Del Rey Business/Commercial Center. The language of the SPA Plan would be
modified to allow the new left tum lane and can be reviewed in Attachment "R"
The Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review SPA amendment
requests and make recommendations to the City Council concerning such requests. In
accordance with the Zoning Code, all pertinent application materials and fees have been
supplied to the City.
As stated above, East H Street is designated as a Scenic Roadway in the Chula Vista
General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires that Sectional Planning Areas be consistent
with the General Plan. Section 8.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
addresses East "H" Street and includes the following language:
"The views from the scenic roadway to these varied land uses is an
important asset to the scenic route. It is also an important consideration to
maintain a consistent quality of development and landscaping along the
entire route. "
In reviewing the proposal, the Planning Commission should assess the benefit of
improved traffic flow, verses the disturbance to the City open space area in the location
of the proposed driveway. Proposed retaining walls will reach a maximum height of
approximately 16 feet, and mature vegetation will be removed/relocated. According to
the project applicant, however, the driveway will only be visible from the new
intersection, and the retaining structures will not be visible from the new driveway. The
applicant also states that mature vegetation will be replaced/relocated and that the
retaining wall will incorporate planter pockets and landscaping. The applicant will be
required to submit a landscaping bond to the City in order to ensure that all landscaping is
adequately installed and maintained. It is important to note that the Design Review
Committee will be reviewing the landscaping and grading plans as part of the permitting
process for the driveway.
The construction of the proposed driveway would result in the disturbance of the City
open space area. Also, vegetation will have to be removed from the median island
dividing East "H" Street According to the City Landscape Planner, however, the project
landscape plan calls for significant planting in order to replace vegetation removed to
accommodate the new driveway and left turn lane. Also, the retaining walls to be
constructed on both sides of the proposed driveway will contain planter pockets and will
be covered with vegetation. The replacement landscaping for the new driveway and
modified median will result in a consistent quality oflandscaping along East "H" Street
3
PCM-00-24
-4-
January 23, 2002
Section 19.48.100 of the Zoning Code requires that the Commission make the following
findings when either approving or modifying a SPA plan:
A. The proposed sectional planning area plan is in conformity with the
general development plan of the P-C zone, any adopted specific plans, and
the Chula Vista General Plan and its several elements.
Proposed finding: The proposed SPA amendment to allow the
construction of a left turn lane into Home Depot is in conformance with
the Chula Vista General Plan and Rancho Del Rey General Development
Plan. The left turn lane will facilitate vehicular access throughout the
Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center by diverting automobiles bound for
Home Depot directly to the Home Depot parking lot. The left turn lane
would contribute to the overall goal of the City's General Plan
Transportation Element by facilitating efficient and safe transportation.
Planned landscape improvements will minimize the project's impacts
upon City open space areas and maintain project compliance with the
Open Space Element of the General Plan.
B. The proposed sectional planning area plan would promote the orderly,
sequentialized development of the involved sectional planning area.
Proposed finding: The SPA amendment would further promote the
orderly development of the sectional planning area by improving traffic
flow throughout the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center.
C. The proposed sectional planning area plan would not adversely affect
adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental
quality.
Proposed finding: The proposed SPA amendment would not adversely
affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or
environmental quality. The SPA amendment to allow the construction of
left turn lane into Home Depot would improve traffic circulation and
maintain the overall quality of the open space area abutting the site.
Surrounding land uses and residences would not be adversely affected by
the SPA amendment request.
l'
PCM-00-24
- 5-
January 23, 2002
CONCLUSION:
Construction of the proposed driveway and left turn lane will facilitate access onto the
Home Depot site from East "H" Street. Traffic within the Center will be slightly
improved since automobiles and delivery trucks will no longer have to enter the Center
via the Paseo Del Rey entrance. The City open space easement in the area of the
driveway will have to be significantly altered in order to accommodate the proposed
driveway. Entrance construction will require substantial grading, the construction of
retaining walls, the alteration of the existing landscaped median, and the
removal/relocation of mature vegetation. According to the City Landscape Planner, the
applicant has mitigated the visual impact of the proposed driveway as much as possible
by incorporating a retaining wall with planter pockets, and by heavily landscaping the
area surrounding the proposed driveway.
The Home Depot site has no direct access from East "H" Street and receives a high level
of vehicle trips. Retail establishments such as this typically have direct driveway access
to/from major streets. The new driveway and left turn lane clearly would facilitate
vehicular access to the site and reduce driving time for those frequenting this business.
Direct driveway access to the Home Depot could, however, degrade the open space
character of East "H" street near the new driveway. The Planning Commission should
weigh the benefit of improved vehicular access to the Home Depot against the negative
impacts upon the open space character of East "H" Street.
Staff believes that the improved internal traffic circulation for the commercial center
warrants the construction of the left turn lane and associated driveway (with planned
landscape improvements), and recommends that the Commission adopt the attached
resolution which recommends that the City Council amend the Rancho Del Rey SPA I
plan to allow the left turn lane with associated driveway.
Attachment A - Draft Resolution
Attachment B - Draft SPA language
Attachment C - Traffic report
Attachment D - Addendum to FEIR 92-02
H :HOMEIPLANNINGISTEVEXPIPCM0024PC
s-
I1trAC-HllAf2/JT 4-
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-OO-24
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE RANCHO DEL REY
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN, IN ORDER TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANE
WITH ASSOCIATED DRIVEWAY ON EAST "H' STREET,
PROVIDING DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE HOME DEPOT
STORE LOCATED WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY COMMERCIAL
CENTER (725 PLAZA COURT).
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Rancho
del Rey Sectional Planning Area I (SPA) Plan was filed with the Planning
Department of the City ofChula Vista on April 13,2000 the Home Depot; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests an amendment to the Rancho del Rey
SPA I Plan in order to allow the construction of a double left turn lane with associated
driveway on East "H" Street, providing direct vehicular access to the Home Depot
store located within the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center (725 Plaza Court); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new
environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project
result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously
identified in FEIR 92-02. None of the conditions requiring preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist;
therefore, an addendum to FEIR 92-02 was prepared in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days
prior to the hearing, and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely January 23, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that proposed SPA
amendment to allow the construction of a left turn lane into Home Depot is in
conloJlJlance with the Chula Vista General Plan and Rancho Del Rey General
Development Plan. The left turn lane will facilitate vehicular access throughout the
Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center by diverting automobiles bound for Home
Depot directly to the Home Depot parking lot The left turn lane would contribute to
(p
the overall goal of the City's General Plan Transportation Element by facilitating
efficient and safe transportation. Planned landscape improvements will minimize the
project's impacts upon City open space areas and maintain project compliance with
the Open Space Element of the General Plan; and,
\VHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the SPA amendment
would further promote the orderly development of the sectional planning area by
improving traffic flow throughout the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed SPA
amendment would not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment,
circulation or environmental quality. The SPA amendment to allow the construction
of left turn lane into Home Depot would improve traffic circulation and maintain the
overall quality of the open space area abutting the site. Surrounding land uses and
residences would not be adversely affected by the SPA amendment request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS
PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council amend the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area I (SPA)
Plan, in order to allow the construction of a new left turn lane and associated
driveway on East "H" Street, providing direct vehicular access to the Home Depot
store located within the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center (725 Plaza Court), as
shown in Attachment "A" to this resolution; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23'd day of January, 2002, by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neill, Chairman
Oiana Vargas, Secretary
H:HOMElPLANNINGISTEVEXPIPCM0024.RES
7
spirit and intent of the Zoning Code Ordinance. It is intended that the Business
Center include an Employment Park component and a Commercial Center
component The commercial in this area may be designated for major
commercial uses with separate development standards and issues listed above
and promote high quality commercial development
2. Permitted uses shall consist only of those uses which are compatible with
residential areas. Such uses shall be determined upon submission of the first
SPA or sub-area plan which proposes any development of the Employment
Park. Sufficient landscape or other buffers shall be provided between the
Business Center area and all other land uses. The rear exposure to residential
areas shall receive special consideration.
Typically, uses acceptable in the Employment Park would be office and
service commercial, research and development and some light manufacturing
in low-rise buildings. Such uses require a minimum of heavy truck traffic and
generally do not produce nuisance noise, odors, vibrations or negative visual
impacts which create conflicts with neighboring land uses. Limited retail
and food service commercial uses for the convenience of employees
would also be permitted.
Uses within the separate Commercial Center area could typically include
large discount/entertainment retailers and complementary
recreation/entertainment, service and support retail commercial facilities.
Such uses shall be required to meet performance standards for operation and
design to avoid impacts to neighboring land uses.
3. Setbacks along East "H" Street shall be of sufficient width to permit
substantial landscaped areas along the street to preserve the scenic qualities
of East "H" Street, a scenic highway in the Scenic Highways Element of
the General Plan.
4. Access from East "H" Street to the Business Center shall be restricted to these
major entries. One additional right and left turn One or more right turn only
entries may be consiaerea mroject to traffic analysis entry may be permitted to
the west of Paseo Del Rey (serving Home Depot) subject to traffic analysis
and approval by appropriate City ofChula Vista approval bodies.
5. Parking areas shall be screened from view by buildings, walls and
landscaping.
6. Major signing shall be limited to monument and wall signs in the Business
Center, the sizes of which shall be determined as a part of the SPA plan
review process. Signing standards and guidelines for property within the
Business Center shall also be adopted in the SPA approval process, which
shall be supplemented by Design Guidelines.
f
Attachment B
~CE TR4FF/C/ifID TP.IWSP:RTAIDVENSIt\EEPJf\K;
9255 DILLON DRIVE
LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941
Tel. (619) 589.9151
Fax. (619 589-9209
June 11,2001
Mr. John Ziebarth, AlA
Ziebarth Associates
800 W. Ivy Street - Suite E
San Diego, California 92101
Subject: Chula Vista Home Depot - Site Access
Dear Mr. Ziebarth,
As requested by the City of Chula Vista, we have updated our analysis of the
proposal to add an additional access driveway to the existing Home Depot site. The
update consists of new traffic counts (2/01) and related Level of Service (LOS)
calculations. The following is a summary of the analysis and findings:
PROPOSAL:
A new driveway to access the existing Home Depot site is proposed on East H
Street, west of Paseo Del Rey, and will consist of dual right-turn lanes exiting the site,
and dual left-turn lanes (eastbound) and a single right-turn lane (westbound)
entering the site (see figures 1 and 1.1). The new driveway will be signalized and
coordinated with eastbound "left-turn" and southbound "through" phases of the
existing signal at the East H Street & Paseo Del Rey intersection.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Traffic counts were performed at the intersections of Paseo Del Rey & Plaza Court
and Paseo Del Rey & East H Street (see figure 2). The resulting LOS calculations
are as follows:
Intersection Saturda Noon eak
LOS DELAY
D 49.9 sec/Veh
Paseo Del Re & Plaza Ct. C 28.0 sec/Veh
· Delay shown above is average delay per vehicle
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
To distribute traffic to the proposed new driveway, it was assumed that the following
percentages of the existing traffic entering and exiting the Home Depot site will use
the new driveway:
c;
Attachment C
,
r
i
· Page 2 June 11,2001
. 90% of the e/b East H St. traffic entering the site.
· 90% of the sib Paseo Del Rey to w/b East H St. traffic exiting the site.
. 30% of the w/b East H St. traffic entering the site.
Please refer to figure 3 for the resulting turn volumes. The resulting LOS calculations
are as follows:
Intersection Sat.Noon Peak Improvement PM Peak Improvement
LOS Delay (Delay) LOS Delay (Delay)
East H/Paseo D (43.1) 6.8 sec/Veh D (41.4) 0.7 sec/veh
DelRey
Paseo Del C (21.6) 6.4 sec/Veh C (21.4) 2.5 sec/veh
Rey/Plaza Ct.
East H/New B (19.2) N/A B (16.1) N/A
Driveway
. Improvement (Delay) shown above are reductions in average delay per vehicle
with the new driveway operating compared to existing conditions.
YEAR 2015 ANALYSIS:
Consultation with City of Chula Vista staff regarding the future projected volumes on
East H Street has revealed that future volumes will be reduced due to the projected
construction of regional transportation facilities in the area. Specifically, the major
transportation facilities consist of the construction of Olympic Parkway and SR-125.
The addition of these facilities is projected to decrease the average daily traffic
volumes on East H Street adjacent to the project site from an existing 44,500
vehicles/day to 32,000 vehicles/day.
Because of these projections, no detailed analysis was performed for the year 2015
conditions.
SIGHT DISTANCE:
Field measurements confirm that the existing roadway (East H Street) at the location
of the proposed driveway is constructed with a 55 MPH stopping sight distance.
This sight distance standard shall be retained with the addition of the proposed
improvements involved with the construction of the new driveway. This may involve
moving, removing and/or trimming of the existing parkway and median landscaping.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, our analysis shows that the addition of this proposed access driveway
will improve operations and decrease the average delay of vehicles during the peak
traffic hours at the adjacent signalized intersections. The addition of a signal on East
10
I
. Page 3
June 11, 2001
H Street at the proposed new driveway can be accomplished with minimal impacts
to East H Street traffic with interconnect and coordination of phasing with the Paseo
Del Rey and the Del Rey Boulevard traffic signals on East H Street. Eastbound left
turn storage will be adequately accommodated with a total of 450' of storage in the
proposed dual left turn lanes with. 55-MPH stopping sight distance needs to be
maintained throughout the project area with the addition of the related
improvements. Detailed designs will need to address sight distance and related
landscape improvements.
Please feel free to call me with questions on any of the above.
Sincerely,
173OOtrafficreport1 rev
(;
ADDENDUM TO FINAL SEIR-92-02
(SEIR for Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center)
Home Depot Commercial Driveway and Traffic Signal
PROJECT NAME:
Home Depot
PROJECT LOCATION:
725 Plaza Court
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Home Depot
PROJECT AGENT:
Ziebarth Associates, Inc
CASE NO.:
IS-00-10
DATE: January 18,2002
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allow an addendum to an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to be prepared if one of the following conditions is present:
1. If some changes or additions are necessary but none ofthe conditions described in Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
2. Additional or refined information available following completion of the Environmental Impact
Report regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the mitigation
measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects ofthe project, does
not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously
addressed in the Environmental Impact Report.
This addendum has been prepared to specifically provide additional information and analysis
concerning potential impacts resulting from:
a. The proposed construction of a new access driveway (including a left-turn pocket) /Tom East H
Street to the existing Home Depot site; and
b. The installation of a new traffic signal at the East H Street/access driveway intersection.
The Rancho Del Rey Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-92-02) certified on
November 18, 1992 analyzed the impact of developing the property as a mixed-use commercial
center to include major retailers in addition to complementary recreation/entertainment/retail
commercial uses and smaller retail uses (Exhibit A - Locator Map). The analysis addressed three
major anchor stores (Home Depot, K-MART, and Price Club) that were considered for construction
on the project site. Subsequently, the Design Review Committee (DRC) approved the design of
Home Depot and the project was deemed ministerial and exempt from further CEQA review.
Id--..
Page 1
Attachment D
This addendum focuses on the potential impacts to the environment that would result from
constructing the proposed driveway and traffic signal. The proposed driveway would service the
existing Home Depot located at the northwest comer of East H Street and Paseo Del Rey (725 Plaza
Court), which is currently accessed via a single street connection with Plaza Court at the northern
terminus of Pas eo Del Rey. The proposed driveway will provide direct access for both eastbound
and westbound East H Street traffic and will be limited to a right-turn only exit
As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Final SEIR have not changed. Impacts
resulting from the construction of the driveway, and installation of a traffic signal, are found to be
less than significant This addendum has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section
15164 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial change
to the previously approved project, nor would there be a substantial change in circumstances under
which the project was constructed, and no new information of substantial importance has been
presented. The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that were not
considered in SEIR 92-02, nor would the project increase the severity of any of the impacts
identified in SEIR 92-02.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of constructing an additional access driveway to the Home Depot site and the
installation of a traffic signal at the East H Street/access driveway intersection (Exhibit B - Site
Plan). The driveway will be located on East H Street, west of Pas eo Del Rey, and will consist of
dual right-turn lanes exiting the site (southbound), dual eastbound left-turn lanes, and a single
westbound right-turn lane entering the site. The new driveway will be signalized and coordinated
with eastbound "left-turn" and southbound lanes at the existing East H Street/Paseo Del Rey.
Discretionary actions required to approve the project include:
I. Design Review Committee approval of the driveway/crib wall encroachment into the open
space/landscape buffer; and
2. City Council approval of a Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan Amendment to include a graphic
showing the driveway and intersection.
III. PROJECT SETTING
The 13.46-acre Home Depot site is part of the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center approved by the
City Council on November 24, 1992. The Home Depot site is located in the western portion ofthe
commercial center. Access to the site is provided at Plaza Court, a cul-de-sac street off of Pas eo Del
Rey north of its intersection with East H Street The site is bounded by East H Street, open space to
the south, open space and medium density residential to the north; commercial land uses to the east,
and open space to the west.
/3
Page 2
IV. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS
The present zoning designation for the 13.46 acre Home Depot site is C (Planned Community -
Commercial) and the General Plan designates the site as Retail Commercial. The project conforms
to the existing zoning and General Plan designation and to the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community
District Regulations.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Transportation/Circulation
The City ofChula Vista's Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur during the
peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. No intersection may reach a LOS "E" or
"F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with rreeway ramps are
exempted rrom this City policy. The proposed project will not generate any additional trips.
Based on a traffic analysis prepared by RCE Traffic and Transportation Engineering, dated June
11,2001, the City ofChula Vista Traffic Division Section has determined that the proposed
project will improve traffic and circulation, and reduce delays at the East H StreetlPaseo Del Rey
Boulevard intersection. The traffic analysis concludes that the addition of this proposed access
driveway would improve operations and provide additional capacity for development in the area
at the existing signalized intersections. The addition of a signal on East H Street at the proposed
driveway can be accomplished with less than significant impacts to westbound traffic by
synchronizing this signal with the rest of the signals on the East H Street corridor. Eastbound
left turns can be accommodated with 450 feet ofleft-turn storage and standard deceleration lane
lengths. Westbound right turns will be provided with an exclusive right-turn lane with standard
deceleration lane lengths.
2. Aesthetics
The proposed project will disturb the existing manufactured slopes on the north side of East H
Street. These slopes contain mature trees and are part of the East H Street scenic corridor.
Construction ofthe new entrance includes the removal of2,425 sq.ft. of slope area, including 15
trees from the parking lot, 17 trees in the open space slope, 11 street median trees, and 22 street
trees. Existing trees impacted by the proposed project with be replaced either on-site or off-site
within the Rancho Del Rey maintenance district. Any off-site tree planting and landscape
improvements will be carried out at the owner's expense. The Public Works Department Open
Space Division shall approve the off-site plantings. Alternatively, the applicant may deposit the
cost of the off-site planting in the Public Works Department landscaping fund. Ifthis alternative
is selected, the Public Works Department will implement the planting program as part of the
City's annual landscaping program. All off-site trees, slope planting, and irrigation is subject to
review and approval by the City's Open Space Coordinator.
('I
Page 3
A landscape plan for the project will be prepared and considered as a part ofthe Design Review
Committee (DRC) process. This process will ensure that the landscape plan that the proposed
planting complements the surrounding vegetation and minimizes the aesthetics impacts of the
proposed project. The design review process will also help ensure that the proposed driveway
complements and enhances the surrounding existing development. As part of the site
plan/design review, retaining walls will be designed to complement the existing landscaping in
the existing slope areas.
VI. CONCLUSION
Impacts related to the proposed construction of the access driveway as a secondary entrance to the
existing Home Depot are found to be less than significant and are in conformance to all City
requirements regarding fire, building, engineering and compliance with the necessary permitting
process from other governmental agencies as applicable.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical
changes or additions, which are necessary to make the Final SEIR adequate under CEQA.
~~L~~O/M)(~5"
Marilyn .F. Ponseggi,
Environmental Review Coordinator
REFERENCES
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Traffic Analysis, RCE Traffic and Transportation Engineering (December 5, 1997)
Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report, Kleinfelder (January 22, 1999)
Proposed H Street Driveway Retaining Walls Letter, Kleinfelder (February 2, 1999)
Land Use Inventory
CONSULTATION
Majed Al-Ghafry, Civil Engineer, Traffic Engineering
Mary B. Hofmockel, Landscape Architect
Gary Williams, Landscape Planner
Doug Perry, Fire Marshal
Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner, Current Planning
Brad Remp, Assistant Director/Building Official
Otay Water District
I~
Page 4
Case No.IS-OO-lO
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
3.
Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent:
4.
Name of Proposal:
5.
Date of Checklist:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Ib
Home Depot
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ziebarth Associates, Inc.
800 W. Ivy Street, Ste. E
San Diego, CA 92101
Home Depot Driveway and Traffic Signal
January 18, 2002
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
C'J
C'J
C'J
C'J
Comments: The 13.46-acre Home Depot site is located in the western portion of the Rancho Del Rey
Commercial Center. Access to the site is provided at Plaza Court, a cul-de-sac street off of Pas eo Del Rey
north of its intersection with East H Street. The Home Depot site is bounded by East H Street to the south,
open space and medium density residential to the north, commercial land uses to the east, and open space
to the west.
Home Depot proposes to construct a secondary access driveway from East H Street, and a traffic signal
at the driveway intersection, to serve the existing facility. Home Depot was approved by the City
Council on November 24, 1992, and constructed in conformance with the Retail Commercial General
Plan designation and the Planned Community-Commercial (C) Zoning designation. The proposed
development will require a Rancho Del Rey SPA 1 Plan Amendment to revise text and graphics to
describe and illustrate the new entrance from East H Street.
No land use impacts or conflicts are anticipated. There are no agricultural uses on the site. The
driveway would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. No
significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
o
o
~
o
Comments: The project consists of a secondary access driveway and traffic signal for an existing
commercial facility. No housing would be displaced by the proposed construction of the new Home
Depot entrance. Construction of the driveway is consistent with the General Plan and would not exceed
the regional or local population projections.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
expose people to potential impacts involving: Signifil;3nt Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact ImJl8ct
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 ~
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 ~
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 ~
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ~
any unique geologic or physical features?
17
2
1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion, which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The Home Depot site is fully graded and developed. Grading to construct the driveway
across the landscaped slope on East H Street would involve 4,800 cu.yds. of cut material and 42 cu.yds
of fill. The excess material would be exported to a City approved site. Retaining walls would be
constructed along both sides of the driveway. The east wall would be 170 feet long and the west wall
would be 140 feet long. The maximum height of the walls would be 15 feet.
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
o
o
o
C!I
o
C!I
o
o
o
o
C!I
o
A Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Kleinfe1der, Inc., dated January 22, 1999, and
a supplemental letter for the proposed retaining walls, dated February 2, 1999, indicates that the site is
suitable for the proposed driveway. Compliance with the report recommendations will ensure that no
geologic or soil impacts will occur. No adverse geophysical impacts are expected.
Short-term erosion of the cut and fill slopes and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain system
would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as specified in the grading and improvement plans. The BMP requirements include:
1. Catch basin filters shall be installed to prevent trash and silt ITom entering the storm drain system.
2. Catch basin filters shall be maintained and inspected as scheduled by the City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department.
3. Temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be install to control short-term erosion.
All grading operations will be performed in compliance with the City ofChula Vista Grading Ordinance
(Ordinance 1797, as amended).
Potential long-term erosion impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the planting
and irrigation of slopes as required by the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797, as
amended by Ordinance 1877. Landscaping will be installed as shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan
as approved by the City Landscape Architect Grading and planting will be accomplished prior to October
1; should grading occur between October! and April!, planting must be installed immediately following
the completion of grading.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required because the BMPs would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves? I f
3
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless SignirIcant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 C!I
0 0 0 C!I
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Alterations to the course or flow of
floodwaters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments: The geotechnical report states that groundwater was not observed in the borings that
extended to 23.5 feet below the surface. The proposed driveway would result in a negligible increase in
the rate of surface runoff from the project site. Construction of the driveway will remove a portion of
the existing brow ditch along the top of the slope above East H Street. Runoff will be redirected to new
catch basins and storm drains installed along the top and both sides of the driveway. The City Engineer
will require that the final driveway design prevent surface runoff from entering traffic lanes or the
sidewalks on East H Street. The City Engineer has determined that the proposed drainage system is
adequate to serve the proposed project. No significant impacts to water resources have been identified.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Storm Water Pollution Plan
(SWPP) is not required by Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 14.20) because the project will result in
soils disturbance of less than five acres. However, the code requires the implementation of Best
Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drain facilities during and after construction.
Construction of the driveway would result in a negligible increase in surface water run-off. A standard
Engineering Department condition of approval requires drainage improvements to be included on the first
submittal of grading/improvement plans that identifies the method to be used to convey on-site surface
water.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
19
4
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: Short-term construction grading emissions and dust would be reduced to a less than
significant level through the implementation of the following grading pennit requirements:
o
o
o
ti!
o
o
o
ti!
o
o
o
ti!
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control
agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or dust
control agents shall be app1ied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not
visible.
2. Trucks hau1ing dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills.
3. A 20-mi1e-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall be
enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce
re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction
sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as
directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
7. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be uti1ized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic reduction
for gaso1ine-powered equipment shall be used. Also, construction equipment shall be equipped
with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance.
Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
The proposed driveway is consistent with the General Plan designation that was used as the development
intensity for the Regional Air Quality Model. Thus, traffic emissions are consistent with the assumptions
of the air quality model and emission projections. No sensitive receptors are located in the adjacent
areas. No significant impacts are expected to result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required because the project requirements 1isted above would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ti!
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ti!
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ti!
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ti!
0J()
5
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
1) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The Rancho Del Rey SPA I Plan requires that additional traffic analyses be conducted if
additional entries into the commercial center are proposed. The conclusions of the traffic analysis
prepared for the proposed driveway are:
D
D
D
I!
D
D
D
I!
D
D
D
I!
D
D
D
I!
1. The East H Street/Paseo Del Ray intersection would remain at LOS D during the Saturday noon
peak-hour and weekday PM peak-hour, and there would be an improvement in overall
intersection delay times.
2. The Plaza Court/Paseo Del Rey intersection would remain at LOS C during the Saturday noon
peak-hour and weekday PM peak-hour, and there would be an improvement in overall
intersection delay times.
3. The new driveway access to the Horne depot site will operate at LOS B during the Saturday noon
and weekday PM peak hours.
4. Future traffic volumes on East H Street will be reduced from 44,500 ADT to 32,000 ADT due to
the projected construction of regional transportation facilities in the area.
The City of Chula Vista Traffic Division has determined that the proposed new driveway will improve
traffic and circulation, and reduce delays at the impacted East H Street/Paseo Del Rey Blvd. intersection.
The traffic analysis concludes that the addition of this proposed access driveway would improve
operations and provide additional capacity for development in the area at the existing signalized
intersections. The addition of a signal on East H Street at the proposed dri veway can be accomplished
with minimal impacts to westbound traffic. The City Traffic Engineering Division has indicated the
addition of the signal will not result in an impact because it will be interconnected and synchronized with
other signals on East H Street Dual eastbound left tums would be installed with 450 feet of left turn
storage. A single-lane westbound right-turn lane into the site will be provided with a standard
deceleration length. Dual right-tum lanes exiting the site will be provided.
The project is consistent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan and
General Plan Traffic Element Short-term effects would consist of construction trucks required to
construct the facility. No significant transportation impacts would result
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N"
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D D I!
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
cJ-(
6
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 t!!
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 t!!
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 t!!
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 t!!
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 t!!
efforts?
Comments: The project site and surrounding developed areas are located in a fully urbanized
community and contain no native habitats. The site has been fully developed with a commercial
building, paving, and landscape areas. The proposed driveway will bisect the landscaped manufactured
slope along East H Street. No animals or plant species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local,
State or Federal resource conservation and regulatory agencies are known to be present in this highly
disturbed site. No significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 t!!
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 t!!
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 t!!
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposed driveway does not require the use of energy. The proposed signal will be
equipped with a red LED 9 to 25-watt lamp in order to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions. The
proposed project does not conflict with the recently adopted CO2 Reduction Plan. The site does not
contain any known mineral resources. No significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 t!!
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
o
o
o
t!!
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
o
o
o
t!!
~
7
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed project would not involve the use or sale of hazardous substances. No
impacts related to hazards or hazardous substances are anticipated, nor would it interfere with emergency
response or evacuation plans. No known health or fire hazards would result from the new driveway. No
impacts are anticipated from construction and operation of the facility. No significant impacts are
expected.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Comments: Noise impacts would occur during the construction period; however, these noises are
considered to be less than significant due to their short-tenn nature and the intennittent periods of noise
generation. Grading operations would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Construction noise is exempt from the provisions of the City noise ordinance (see Municipal Code section
19.68.060). Consequently, noise associated with the grading operation would be regulated by conditions
included in the approved grading pennit
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
Potentially
Signifi(;ant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 181 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181
Comments: No new or altered governmental services will be required to serve the project Fire and
police protection can be adequately provided to the site. Maintenance of the new traffic signal would
result in negligible impacts to public services. No significant impacts would occur as a result of the
proposed project
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XII.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d3
8
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold
Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
I!!
The City's Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the
cases.
Comments: According to the Fire Department, the proposed driveway and traffic signal will not impact
the current level of service. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be
met, since Fire Station #4 is approximately 1.5 miles away and would be associated with a 2-3-minute
response time. The proposed project will comply with the City's Fire Threshold Standards. No impacts
to fire/EMS are expected.
b) Police
o
o
o
I!!
The City's Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62 % of the Priority II urgent calls throughout the
City within 7 minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of 7
minutes or less.
Comments: According to the Chula Vista Police Department, the proposed driveway and traffic signal
will not impact the current level of service. The Police Department will be able to maintain the current
level of service. No impacts to police service are anticipated.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
I!!
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS)
"C" or better, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day
at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their
1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempt from this standard.
Comments: The 2000 Traffic Monitoring Program Report to the GMOC indicates that the East H Street
segment between Del Rey Boulevard and Paseo Del Rey is currently operating within the Traffic
Threshold Standards. The City's Engineering Traffic Division has indicated that the addition of the
proposed driveway and traffic signal is expected to maintain the existing LOS for traffic on this segment
of East H Street. No traffic impacts are anticipated to result from adding the driveway and traffic signal.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
I!!
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/l,OOO population.
Comments: The proposed project will not result in additional population on the City. This threshold
standard does not apply to the proposed project. No conflicts with the Threshold Standard for Parks and
Recreation will occur.
e) Drainage
o
o
o
I!!
The City's Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
~'f
9
Comments: The project will install new catch basins and storm drains along the top and both sides of the
driveway. The City Engineering Division reports that these new facilities, and the existing storm drain
facilities will adequate serve the project and that no significant impacts would occur. The proposed
project complies with the City's Threshold Standard for storm water flows.
e) Sewer
D
D
D
Ii!
The City's Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent
with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Comments: The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard because no sewage would
be generated by the project; thus, no improvements to the sewer system would be required.
f) Water
D
D
D
Ii!
The City's Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards
are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to
participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has
in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The proposed project will not require any water service beyond the landscape irrigation
water currently used on-site. Consequently, the project would comply with this City Threshold Standard
and would not result in an impact to the City's water system.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Significant Unless Significant No
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Power or natural gas? D D D Ii!
b) Communications systems? D D D Ii!
c) Local or regional water treatment or D D D Ii!
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? D D D !;i1
e) Storm water drainage? D D D Ii!
f) Solid waste disposal? D D D Ii!
Comments: This project will not result in a need for new or altered systems; however, an existing
storm drain across the parking lot will be relocated. No significant adverse impacts to utilities and
service systems would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D D Ii!
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route? d. ~
10
D
D
D
Ii!
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
o
Comments: The proposed project will disturb the existing manufactured slopes on the north side of East
H Street These slopes contain mature trees and are part ofthe East H Street scenic corridor. Construction
of the new entrance includes the removal of2,425 sq.ft of slope area, including 15 trees from the parking
lot, 17 trees in the open space slope, 11 street median trees, and 22 street trees. Existing trees impacted by
the proposed project with be replaced either on-site or off-site within the Rancho Del Rey maintenance
district Any off-site tree planting and landscape improvements will be carried out at the owner's expense.
The Public Works Department Open Space Division shall approve the off-site p1antings. Altematively,
the applicant may deposit the cost of the off-site planting in the Public Works Department landscaping
fund. If this alternative is selected, the Public Works Department will implement the planting program as
part of the City's annual landscaping program. All off-site trees, slope planting, and irrigation is subject
to review and approval by the City's Open Space Coordinator.
A landscape plan for the project will be prepared and considered as a part of the Design Review
Committee (DRC) process. This process will ensure that the landscape plan that the proposed planting
complements the surrounding vegetation and minimizes the aesthetics impacts of the proposed project
The design review process will also help ensure that the proposed driveway complements and enhances
the surrounding existing development As part of the site plan/design review, retaining walls will be
designed to complement the existing landscaping in the existing slope areas.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change, which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
E1R as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
~~
11
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impad
0 0 0 ~
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not identify the project
site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential cultural resources. There are no known cultural
resources in the project area and no significant impacts would result.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not identify the project
site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential paleontological resources. There are no known
paleontological resources on the site or in the adjacent area. The Geotechnical Report boring log indicates
the area to be graded consists of bentonite, cement, concrete and backfill materiaL No significant impacts
to paleontological resources are anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
o
iii
o
o
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 iii
0 0 0 iii
0 0 0 iii
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
C) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed project would not result in an impact to the City's parks and recreation plans
because it would not increase the demand for recreation facilities or interfere with the City's parks and
recreational programs.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for
milndatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
Comments: Construction of the project would not result in the removal of native vegetation nor impacts
to sensitive wildlife species or cultural resources.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
~7
12
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
iii
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: Constructing a driveway on the site would not affect long-term environmental goals of the
City ofChula Vista in that the project site is not identified for preservation in the City's recently adopted
Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
o
o
o
iii
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable. The project will result in a secondary means of ingress and egress into an existing
commercial establishment. The added traffic signal will improve traffic and circulation, and reduce
delays at the East H StreetlPaseo Del Rey Boulevard intersection. Improved circulation and traffic as a
result of the proposed project will have a positive impact for the surrounding commercial uses.
o
o
o
iii
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project will
cause substantial adverse impacts to humans.
o
o
o
iii
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/C irculation D Public Services
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
13 r5:l.8:
._~_...__._._.---._.,--,_._-,...__._,- .
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the D
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and D
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but D
at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a r'?"~this determination.
. . {/~ . 1/ /Bjl'c2-
Ma llyn R. . Ponseggi / Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
~
clj
14
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 1/23/02
Continued Public Hearing: Special Use Permit SUPS-0]-05, proposal to
construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area, and a 435-sq.
ft. customer service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and
driveway circulation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee
recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-0]-038) and approval of the
proposed project at their December 3,200] meeting.
RECOMMENDA TION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution SUPS-
0] -05 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft
Redevelopment Agency resolution.
DISCUSSION:
This item was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to discuss
the Planning Commissioners concerns about the project with the property ownership group.
Based on the concerns ofthe Planning Commission, the applicant has decided to alter the proposed
site plan circulation to eliminate the potential for the stacking of vehicles exiting the car wash from
entering onto the dedicated alley.
The revised site plan shows that all car wash and lube center vehicles will now exit from the northerly
driveway onto Third Avenue. This will allow for several vehicles to receive drying treatment after
emerging rrom the 60-ft. long automated car wash building before egress back onto Third Avenue.
To accommodate a strictly on-site stacking circulation system, the 5 employee parking spaces shown
on the previous site plan along the north property line will now be accessed from the dedicated alley,
rather than from the on-site driveways. Of note, the City Engineer has reviewed and approved the
use of the alley to access the required parking.
In addition, the closure of the car wash exit onto the alley will allow for the creation of 2 compact
parking spaces to be added at the former alley access. The total of 7 parking spaces along the alley
along with the handicapped parking space adjacent to the customer service building will negate the
need for a zone variance for parking (see revised condition I-i). The first 5 parking spaces will be
protected from encroachment through the strategic location of concrete wheel stops. The 2 parking
spaces nearest the landscape setback along Third Avenue will be striped but not include any physical
impediments to allow for customers to drive-through the parking spaces onto the site from the alley.
The previous staff report presented to the Planning Commission at the January 9, 2002 public hearing
held on this matter is attached, along with a revised draft Agency Resolution.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Staff Report rrom the January 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, including all the
associated attachments found therein.
/
J :\PlanningIHAROLDlSUPS-OI-05-2.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ---1
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
ITEM TITLE:
Continued Public Hearing: Special Use Permit SUPS-OI-05, proposal to
construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area, and a 435-sq.
ft. customer service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and
driveway circulation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee
recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-O 1-03 8) and approval of the
proposed project at their December 3,2001 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution SUPS -
01-05 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft
Redevelopment Agency resolution (Attachment 6).
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The site is a flat parcel ofland at the corner of Third and Montgomery, previously developed with
two single-family homes. There is still an existing single-family home located at 304 Montgomery
Street that will be demolished as part of this project. There is also a large open yard area where
another single-family home existed on the same lot at 1616 Third Avenue, the same address for the
proposed project, but was lost in a fire years ago. Some of the existing trees along Montgomery
Street and the rear property line, such as a Queen Palm and some Cypress trees, will be retained.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
The property is located at the northwest corner of Third Avenue at Montgomery Street. The Otay
neighborhood (as it is known as according to the Montgomery Specific Plan) contains a number of
single-family, two-family and multi-family homes. There are also a variety of commercial uses along
Third Avenue, such as restaurants, automobile repair and painting, medical offices and storage
facilities along with the historic Otay Baptist Church one block south.
GENERAL PLAN
Site: Mercantile & Office Commercial
North: Mercantile & Office Commercial
South: Mercantile & Office Commercial
East: Mercantile & Office Commercial
West: Mercantile & Office Commercial
ZONING
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
CURRENT LAND USE
Single Family Residential
Auto Repair & Painting Facility
Residential!RestaurantlShoemex Imports
Los Panchos Mexican Restaurant
Multi-Family Apartment Complex
A
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
3. Proposal
The proposal is to construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area, and a 435-sq. ft.
customer service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and driveway circulation.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project was originally a much larger four-bay lube center with an automated car wash
facility when the application was submitted on January 31, 2001. The original site plan showed
complete on-site circulation of customer vehicles with a driveway on the side ofthe Third Street side
of the lube center and car wash. However the project did not consider the required Third Street
dedication as well as the required landscape setbacks along Third Avenue and Montgomery Street
As a result, there were considerable circulation and landscaping issues to be resolved, and these issues
were discussed in meetings between staff and the applicant( s) in March, June, and July 2001. In
October, the applicant submitted the current site plan that substantially addresses concerns about the
on-site circulation driveways and vehicle queuing, reduces the size of the lube center from four bays
to two, and allows for substantial landscaping along Third Avenue and Montgomery Street
The Design Review Committee recommended adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approval of the proposed project on December 3, 200]. However, additional
discretionary review is required since car washes and automotive repair facilities require a conditional
use permit in the Central Commercial Zone. Since the proposal is also in a Redevelopment Project
Area (Southwest Project Area), it is called a Special Use Permit Special Use Permit's are subject to
final approval by the Redevelopment Agency.
Normally, a Special Use Permit would be sent to a Project Area Committee (in this case the
Southwest Project Area Committee) for recommendation prior to the Redevelopment Agency public
hearing.
However, in absence of a Southwest Project Area Committee, and pursuant to the Redevelopment
Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624), the Planning Commission has
been designated as the reviewing body to provide recommendations for development projects to the
Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, if the Planning Commission approves the Special Use Permit,
the Redevelopment Agency will hold a public hearing on January 15, 2002 for final approval of the
proposed project
Staff attempted to "fast track" this request for approval before the end of 200 I and originally
scheduled it for the Planning Commission agenda of December l2 and the Redevelopment Agency
agenda for December 18.
However, after the staff reports were distributed, the City Attorney's office noticed several issues and
suggested that the matter be continued to prevent unnecessary confusion. This report addresses all
the City Attorney's concerns. Unfortunately, all available copies of the site plan were distributed in
December. If the Commissioners have not retained those plans, they should contact staff to arrange
for another set prior to the meeting.
3
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
ANALYSIS:
The Zoning Code requires compliance with specific criteria for both (1) Automated Car Wash
Facilities and (2) Automotive Service Facilities as described and analyzed below
1. Compliance with Section 19.58.060 of the Zoning Code
Automobile Car Wash facilities must comply with the following:
A All equipment used for the facility shall be soundproofed so that any noise emanating there
from, as measured from any point on adjacent property, shall be no more audible than the
noise emanating from the normal street traffic at a comparable distance.
B. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 AM to 11 :00 PM (maximum), unless specifically
approved by the Planning Commission.
C. Vacuuming facilities shall be located to discourage the stacking of vehicles entering the car
wash area and causing traffic congestion adjacent to any areas used for ingress or egress.
D. The car wash location, technology and related drainage facilities shall be designed and
constructed so as to prevent damage to pavement or other infrastructure from water from the
car wash operation being carried off-site, to provide a means to collect and retain potentially
toxic material, and to use recycled water to the extent possible.
With regard to Section A, the project should meet or exceed these requirements of the code, and will
be required as a condition of approval. According to the acoustical study, the equipment will be
soundproofed sufficiently with the block walls to reduce the audible noise to normal street traffic.
Dr. Leslie E. Penzes, Acoustical Consultant, completed an acoustical study for the proposed
Lightning Auto Center based on noise measurements taken at two similar car wash and lube center
operations in the San Diego area, noise measurements taken at the site, and acoustical modeling. The
acoustical analysis determined that noise generated by the car wash blowers would exceed the City's
noise standards by 10 dB (A).
To reduce the noise level at the property line to 60 dB (A), the project design was modified to extend
the western wall ofthe car wash building 30-ft. beyond the entrance of the car wash, and to extend
the wall at the exit of the car wash by IO-ft. The height of these proposed "wing-walls" will be 14-ft.
The building extensions do not interfere with site clearance.
The western wall of the car wash building is adjacent to the multi-family residential apartment
building, and a 5-ft setback is provided between the building and the property line. The extension of
the walls, as shown on the site plan, reduces the noise level at the property line to less than 60 dB
(A); therefore, no mitigation measure was required because the design of the project has been
modified to reduce the noise level at the property to less than significant.
tf
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
With regard to Section B, the hours of operation being requested will only be from 8: 00 AM to 600
PM in the summertime, and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM in the wintertime. Thus, the hours of operation will
be significantly less than those allowed by the Code (700 AM to II :00 PM). The hours of operation
will be memorialized as part of the conditions of approvaL
With regard to Section C, the site plan and operational description state that stacking will be
controlled at the vacuum manifold entrance into the car wash. The number of cars allowed to queue
on-site for the car wash will be six (6), and the number of cars allowed to queue on-site for the lube
center will be two (2). The Third Avenue frontage will be red curbed to prevent queuing off-site that
could impact traffic flow. Directional signage will be provided directing vehicles that cannot enter the
site to make a right turn on Montgomery Street and return to the site by driving around the block.
Vehicles in the northbound travel lanes on Third Avenue will be prevented from entering the facility
by a raised median and directional signage.
Finally, with regard to Section D, the toxicity of the drainage into storm water and sewerage systems,
as well as the use of recycled water is addressed in the mitigation measures and conditions for
pollutant discharge permitting as required by the water resources agency.
2. Compliance with Section 19.58.280 of the Zoning Code
Automobile Service facilities must comply with the following
A. They are clearly required by public convenience;
B. They will not cause traffic hazards or undue congestion;
C They should be located only on property abutting the intersection of major or collector streets
or combination thereof, or within shopping centers as part of an approved site plan, except
that they shall be limited to the periphery of the central business area. They may be located
on an interior lot if they do not disrupt the continuity of retail store frontage for pedestrians;
D. They will not be a nuisance to residences or other surrounding uses;
E. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscape manual of the city except that a
6-ft. minimum planter area in front of the pump islands and not closer than three feet to any
driveway shall be required. The pump islands shall be located no closer than 12-ft. from the
planter;
F. Architectural approval subject to the conditions of Sections 19.14.420 through 19.480 shall
be obtained;
Note: Where a service station is a secondary land use, i. e., accessory to another principal use and
consisting of no more than a single pump island with no more than three fuel pumps, the
following provisions shall not apply
.5'
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
G. Outside sales and display may be allowed in an area beneath a canopy when specifically
approved as part of an approved site plan. Structures used to display merchandise shall be
designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building. In no case shall a display
area interfere with vehicular circulation or obscure required landscape areas. Accessoryuses
may also be stored outside subject to the conditions herein;
H. Accessory outdoor uses other than parking and service lanes shall/may also be allowed but
shall not occupy more than ten percent of the area of the site. Such accessory uses may
include rental, utility or travel trailers, but not more than six such trailers shall be permitted on
the lot at anyone time and shall be screened from the street .or highway. Under no
circumstances shall any use be located in such a way that would interfere with normal traffic
flow onto, within or from the site, or which creates dangerous impediments to traffic visibility.
Only those areas shown on the approved site plan will be allowed for parking or storage;
L AJI items offered for sale on the site shall be items normally incidental to service station
business except accessory uses as provided herein.
The proposed project must meet or exceed the requirements ofthis section of the Zoning Code, and a
condition of approval is recommended requiring such compliance.
With regards to Section A, the public convenience is being served, according the operational profile,
because there is no other automated car wash or express lube center within the market area, and the
pro forma shows that there is a high side projection for this location, with no other similar service
facility within a three mile radius.
With regards to Section B, the addition of the lube center will cause no traffic hazards or undue
congestion. As discussed in the background, the lube center was reduced from a four-bay garage to a
two-bay garage. As such, only two cars would be allowed to queue in front of the service garage
without encroaching on the car wash entrance, where, as mentioned above, up to six cars may queue.
No vehicles shall be allowed to stack off-site, and if it is not possible to enter the site a vehicle may
use the dedicated parking lane, which is red curbed, to circle around the block and return to the site
for entrance.
With regards to Section C, the property is abutting the intersection ofa major (Third Avenue) and
collector (Montgomery Street)
With regards to Section D, the proposal will not be a nuisance to residences or other surrounding
uses in that adequate mitigation, such as the wing walls along the car wash building, and the
landscape buffer and fencing are provided adjacent to the residential use. In addition, there is no
driveway access along Montgomery Street, a residential collector. The remaining surrounding uses
are commercial and will benefit from the addition of an automotive service center.
With regards to Section E, the site will be landscaped in accordance with the landscape manual of the
City, as discussed further under the sub-heading oflandscaping in this analysis section. The issues
discussed related to pump islands do not apply here as there is no proposal to provide gasoline here.
~
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
With regards to Section P, the site plan and architectural approval referenced within Sections
19. 14.420 through 19. 14.480 to be provided by the Zoning Administrator has been provided for by
the Design Review Committee through the Precise Plan overlay zoning designation that provides that
the site plan and architectural shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee for
certain development projects. The Design Review Committee provided the approval on December 3,
200 I, and some of the issues related to their review are included in the analysis below. Some issues
related to the site plan, such as the required parking and landscape setbacks, will require revisions or a
zone variance approval by the Zoning Administrator as discussed below.
With regards to Sections G, H and I, since the lube center automotive service is a secondary land use
to the principal use of the automated car wash, the provision for outside sales, display, or accessory
outdoor uses, or other items offered for sale on the site shall not apply. As such, no provisions are
provided for canopies or services, such as auto detailing, to be provided outside the enclosed
buildings, also in conformance with the Montgomery Specific Plan that discourages open or outdoor
uses on such sites. Therefore, no automotive services will be allowed outside the lube service
building, and automotive services to vehicles outside the automated car wash will be limited to the
interior vehicle vacuum manifold area entering the car wash and the drying area located at the car
wash exit adjacent to the alley.
Zoning:
As shown in the table, the Central Commercial with a Precise Plan zoning (CCP) requires the
following development standards for the proposal:
STANDARD REQUIRED REQUIRED PROPOSED
(CCP Zone) (Specific Plan)
Front yard: 25 feet 15 feet (LIS) 15 feet
Exterior Side yard: 25 feet 15 feet (LIS) 40 feet
Interior Side yard: o feet Same as zone 40 feet
Rear yard: o feet Same as zone 5 feet
Lot Coverage: 50 percent Same as zone 20 percent
Height: 45 feet Same as zone 17 feet
Parking: 7 spaces Same as zone 6 spaces
The car wash facility is adjacent to a residential use, but not a residential zone The apartment
building to the west is actually located in the same CCP zone. The project will include a 5-ft.
landscaped setback from the apartments, along with two 14-ft. high masonry "wing-walls" to match
the height and design of the exterior wall of the car wash. This will mitigate the noise and visual
impact of the car wash on the adjacent residential use.
Parking:
The parking requirement is based on the two proposed uses. The car wash is required to provide one
parking space for each employee, and the lube center is considered an automobile repair or service
garage, requiring one space for each 400-sq. ft. of floor area. The operational profile states that up to
7
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
seven persons could be employed on-site; five for the car wash and two for the lube center. The
parking standard for the 840-sq. ft. lube center would require 2 parking spaces utilizing either the
square footage standard or the employee standard. Therefore, 7 parking spaces would be required,
but only six parking spaces are shown on the proposed site plan.
According to the operational profile, at least three car wash employees, based on employee salary
range, will almost certainly take alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking, public
transportation, ride share or being dropped off as a method for commuting to work. Staff feels that
the six parking spaces provided could be adequate. However, reductions in parking must be
approved by a zone variance. The Zoning Administrator could handle such an application for this
project administratively, and the applicant has indicated that they favor this solution as opposed to
providing an additional parking space that they feel won't be used The applicant has yet to apply for
the variance but would not like this application to be delayed any longer. Staff is therefore
recommending that the applicant comply or obtain approval of a variance for a reduction in parking is
made a condition of approval for this Special Use Permit (Condition I J)
Landscaping:
The landscaping proposed for this project will enhance the overall site, primarily by buffering the
harsh uses of the car wash and lube center with large planter areas on all sides, except along the alley
to the north. The Third Avenue (front) building setback is 25-ft. per the CCP zoning; however, the
project will require a 12-ft. dedication of property along Third Avenue. After the dedication, the
front building setback will be IS-ft, which meets the required landscaped setback per the
Montgomery Specific Plan for all new projects constructed along Main Street, Broadway, or Third
Avenue corridors.
The CCP zoning also requires a 2S-ft. building setback along Montgomery Street (an exterior side),
with a landscape setback of 15-ft. per the Montgomery Specific Plan. However, the proposed site
plan shows a I a-ft. landscape setback. Staff feels that there are several options to redesign the
project that would allow for the additional 5-ft. landscape setback to be provided, while retaining
much of the existing layout for the project. However, the applicant would like to retain the narrower
landscape setback because the site would function better, and because Montgomery Street will have
an additional 3-ft. oflandscaping within the City's right-of-way behind the existing sidewalk.
The Community Development Department is in support of such a reduction in the landscape setback
because the project will still be able to provide an adequate landscape buffer along the street, and it
represents the type of financial investment needed in the City's Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area. The Design Review Committee at their December 3, 2001 public hearing recommended
approval of the site plan with a la-ft. landscape setback, based on the fact that an additional 3-ft.
would be provided within the City's right-of-way along Montgomery Street.
Nevertheless, the proposed site plan (showing the reduction in the required landscape setback) is
ultimately subject to review by the Planning Commission and final approval by the Redevelopment
Agency. If a reduction in the landscape setback were felt to be an acceptable design feature, it would
still need a zone variance comparable to the parking variance discussed in the previous section.
'2
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
Therefore proposed condition I J for approval of a variance for this project includes the landscape
issue along with the parking issue.
Staff and the Design Review Committee agree that the proposed landscape planter areas adequately
define the driveway entrances, the car wash and lube center queuing edges and transitions, and the
parking space areas.
The final landscape plan is required to be revised in conformance with the reviewing comments ofthe
Landscape Planner, to ensure that the planting materials utilized will be appropriate for long-term co-
existence with the high-intensity automotive uses found on the site.
Site Plan and Circulation
The site plan under consideration reflects the applicant's responses staff s initial concerns with a
number of issues surrounding the use of the site. The applicant has reduced the size of the lube center
by half, so that it is now a 2-bay garage instead of a 4-bay garage, eliminated an on-site driveway
between the lube center and sidewalk on Third Avenue, met the landscape setback requirements, and
provided stacking for six cars entering the car wash.
By responding to these requests, conflicts will be mitigated or significantly reduced. The result is
what staff feels is an acceptable flow and circulation system for the amount of vehicular activity that is
expected on this site.
Of note, as part of the project development, the portion of Third Avenue will be widened and will
provide an additional travel lane along the entire frontage of the project in conformance with the
commercial arterial street designation, and will be red curbed to allow ease in access to the facility.
Architecture and Signage:
As noted previously, the Design Review Committee considered this project at their December 3
meeting. The Committee was satisfied with the overall design of the building and landscaping forthe
site. However, they indicated that they would like to see more consistent and uniform signage with
regards to the channel lettering. Therefore, the condition of approval for signage requires that the
sign permit application include scaled plans ensuring that the channel letters for both the "Shell Rapid
Lube" and" Lightning Auto Center" consist of similar font style and size, in addition to the proposed
logos.
A TT ACHMENTS:
I. Locator Map
2. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. sUPs-ai-os
3. Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624)
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement
6. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution and Owner Participation Agreement
J :\PLANNINGIHAROLDlSUPS-Ol-05.DOC
J
o
o
]
]
~\
-
j~
J:
J~
[O]I[[
TREMONT STREET
ill]]]]]
~mJI
w
II mm.
~ ([JJ]J]
MAIN STREET ElllJII[
I I [JOlt \j~ 0 DJIIJJ
"
~ 8ffiffiHE
;;"
j 8HD
W
:J
Z
w
~
o
z
I/)
w
a::
II..
MONTGOMERY STREET
ZENITH STREET
."",
ORANGE AVENUEC
~
DO e1J1II=j 0 .
DO B
00 ~
00
DO
BB B
DO
DO
o
lOCATOR MAP
(0
.
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-OI-0S:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SUPS-Ol-OS, AND
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS-OI-038, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AND TWO-BAY LUBE CENTER AT 1616 THIRD AVENUE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning
Department on January 31,200 I by F. Leland Hope, Architect; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area,
and a 435-sq. ft. customer service area, at 1616 Third Avenue and 304 Montgomery Street; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee determined that the initial study was adequate and recommended
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as to the effects of the proposal on the environment on December 3, 2001
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a Special Use Permit is a Conditional Use Permit in a Redevelopment Project Area, and would
normally be sent to a Project Area Committee (in this case the Southwest Project Area Committee) for recommendation
prior to the Redevelopment Agency public hearing. However, in absence of a Southwest Project Area Committee, and
pursuant to the Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624), the Planning
Commission shall provide recommendations for development projects located in the Southwest Project Area prior to the
projects being presented to the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration pursuant to the authority
granted in the Zoning Ordinancc and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said special use permit and notice of
said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and
its mailing to property owners and residents within 500-ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least IO days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was continued from the time and place advertised, from December 12,2001 to January
9,2002, and from January 9, 2002 to January 23,2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidcnce, and testimony presented at the public
hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend
that the Redevelopment Agency approvc Special Use Permit SUPS-O 1-05 in accordance with the findings and subject to
the conditions and findings contained in the attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolutions granting a Special Use
Permit and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Owner Participation Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Redevelopment Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
23'd day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Kevin O'Neill, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
If
J: IPLANNlNGIHAROLDIREsoLUTIoNsIRESOsupsOl_05.Doc
Mitigated Negative Declaration
j//.
PROJECT NAME:
LIGHTNING AUTO CENTER
PROJECT LOCATION:
1616 Third Ave (Third Ave. & Montgomery St.)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
626-132-10
PROJECT APPLICANT:
F. Leland Hope
CASE NO.:
IS-O 1-03 8
DATE:
November 13, 2001
A. Project Setting
The 0.28:t:-acre (12,320 sq.ft.) site is located on the northwest comer of the Third Avenue and
Montgomery Street intersection (see Exhibit A - Locator Map). The surrounding area is fully
developed with the following land uses:
North - commercial (auto body and paint shop);
East - commercial (restaurant across Third Avenue);
South - single- family residences (across Montgomery Street); and
West -multi-family residences.
The site is currently developed with a single-family residence. A chain-link fence surrounds
the perimeter of the property. The site is flat and contains non-native plant material. No
listed plant or animal species is known to occupy the site or surrounding area.
B. Project Description
The project proposes to remove the residence and construct an auto center that provides
automated carwash (1,240 sq.ft.) and fast lube service (721 sq. ft.) (see Exhibit B - Site Plan).
Water used in the carwash will be filtered, recycled and released into the City sewer system.
A 469 square foot customer area would be located between the lube center and carwash.
Stacking for six cars entering the carwash, and stacking for two cars entering the lube center,
is shown on the site plan. The property frontage on Third Avenue would be improved to City
Standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, which currently do not exist. Curb, gutter, and
sidewalk currently exist on the Montgomery Street frontage. The maximum height of the
building would be 18 feet.
The lubrication services would be limited to basic oil changes and related service. Business
hours are proposed to be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the summer months and 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. in the winter months. The proponent estimates that approximately 75-100 cars
would be washed per day, and approximately 20-25 cars per day would be processed through
the lube center. Three employees would staff the car wash and two employees would staff
the lube center. Other employees include a manager and cashier.
I
11/13/01
! :2..
Automobiles would enter the car wash and lube area from Third Avenue near the intersection
with Montgomery Street (south end of the site). Autos from the car wash would exit to an
existing concrete paved alley at the northern property line. Autos from the lube area would
exit onto Third Avenue near the northern end of the site. Employee and patron parking is
provided adjacent to the northern property line. The parking area would be accessed from
the northern site entrance on Third Avenue.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed auto center is consistent with the CCP (Central Commercial - Precise Plan)
zoning designation, CMO (Commercial - Retail) General Plan designation, and the city's
environmental plans and policies. The project is also consistent with the Montgomery
Specific Plan, which designates the site as Mercantile & Office Commercial. The site is
located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the Redevelopment
Area Plan.
D. Public Comments
On February 22, 2001 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a
500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended March 5, 2001.
No written comments were received.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant
environmental effect, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
1. Geophysical and Water
The proposed project includes digging 8 feet in depth with the excavation of964 cubic yards
of soil in preparation for the building basement construction. As a standard condition by the
Engineering Department, the applicant will be required to submit preliminary
grading/improvement plans. Although any grading operations will be performed in
compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended),
significant erosion impacts could occur during the excavation and construction period due to
disruptions of the soil. Soil erosion could result in sedimentation in the storm drain system.
A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit is not
required because the site contains less than five acres. However, the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that are included as a mitigation measure during and after
construction would reduce erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain system
to a less than significant level. Short-term erosion would be reduced to a less than significant
level by the installation of temporary de silting and erosion control devices as specified on the
Site Plan. These devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and
2
11/13/01
shoring. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment
from entering the storm drain system.
Groundwater could be contaminated if automotive fluid spills occur on-site, or if
contaminated water from the automobile washing equipment is spilled. These potential
impacts are addressed below (see Hazards). The applicant will be required to submit an
application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to the County of San Diego Industrial
Wastewater Control Program, who will determine if an Industrial User Discharge Permit is
required for the proposed auto center.
2. Paleontological Resonrces
The proposed project includes digging 8 feet in depth and the excavation of 964 cubic yards.
The site is noted as a moderately sensitive paleontological resource area given the history of
what has been found according to the Museum of Man, Paleontological Curator, and the City
of ChuJa Vista General Plan, however, based upon the relative shallow depth of digging and
the small area that is to be excavated there is no known significant paleontological resource
impact created by the proposed project.
3. Air Quality
The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction-
related activities to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impacts to air quality.
Although air quality impacts resulting from construction related emissions are potentially
significant, they are considered short-term in duration since construction is a relatively short-
term, one-time activity. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in
accordance with City of Chula Vista grading standards and the rules and regulations of the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
3. Hazards
Groundwater contamination could occur if petroleum products or water from the equipment
washing facility is spilled. Demolition of the existing buildings could result in the release of
airborne asbestos fibers or lead paint residue if the structures contain asbestos materials or
lead paint. Release of airborne asbestos fibers or lead paint residue would result in a
significant health hazard.
4. Traffic/Circulation
Traffic circulation impacts could occur as a result of the proposed project, auto lube center
and car wash, at the corner of Third Avenue and Montgomery Street. Vehicle conflict could
occur with vehicles entering and exiting the project site, as well as internal circulation of the
vehicles using the car wash and auto lube facilities.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures will be
3
/3
11/13/01
made a condition of approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring
Reporting Program (Attachment "A").
Geophysical & Water
Erosion and Sedimentation
1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) according to the Engineering Department, shall be
implemented during and after construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the
downstream storm drain system. Short-term erosion would be reduced to a less than significant
level by the installation of temporary de silting and erosion control devices. These devices
include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
Air Quality
Construction Related Emissions
2. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust
control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
3. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and
spills.
4. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall
be enforced.
5. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to
reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes
to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
6. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
7. Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible
and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
8. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic
reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. Also, construction equipment
shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance
4
11/13/01
Hazards
Asbestos
9. The applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of
California to conduct testing for the presence of asbestos in buildings to be demolished.
A report shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department
that identifies whether or not asbestos is present. If required, a remedial work plan for
the removal and disposal of asbestos shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department and San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District.
10. Prior to demolition activities, a lead-based paint survey is required. If confirmed lead-
based paint is scheduled for demolition an environmental consultant certified by the State
of California shall remove it. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the
required permits from all affected state and local and regulatory agencies including the
Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to
precede with this process of the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a
building permit.
Petroleum or Contaminated Water Spills
11. The applicant shall submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to the
County of San Diego Industrial Wastewater Control Program and comply with all
conditions contained in any permit issued.
12. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits related to hazardous
materials from state and local regulatory agencies, including the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health, and shall provide proof of having obtained such
permits to the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
13. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department for any
maintenance work done on-site or for the storage of hazardous materials exceeding those
listed in the California Fire Code 1998 (CFC 98). Petroleum spills shall be immediately
reported to the Fire Department, and spilled petroleum removed from the site as directed
by the Fire Department.
Traffic/Circulation
14. Installation of a four-foot wide raised median on Third Avenue, between Montgomery
Street, and the south driveway to prevent left turns into the project's south driveway.
15. The northern driveway shall be a minimum of 30-feet in width to allow for two-way
traffic access. The south driveway shall be constructed as an alley-type driveway and
striped for ingress only.
5
11/13/01
IT
16. Installation ofred curbing along Third Avenue frontage to prevent on-street parking.
I agree to implement the mitigation
Mitigated N Declaration.
measures required as stated in this Section (F) of this
Name, Tit e
II ;;4/D/
Date ( ."
G. Consultation
1. City of Chula Vista:
Maria Muett, Planning Division
Jim Greering, Fire Marshall
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department
John Schmitz, Planning Division
Steve Power, Planning Division
Frank Rivera, Engineering Division
Ralph Leyva, Engineering Division
Applicant:
F. Leland Hope
2. Documents
Chu1a Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997
3. Initial Study
This environmental detell11ination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City
of Chula Vista. Further infoll11ation regarding the environmental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910.
~.~ {j//t?~ ~.
Marilyn . F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date: '0il!J'
6
11/13/01
j
j
~---
I
I
I
i
I
~~
i
I
---~i i----------_rORANGE
II :-,
~~J///~i
////
..~ssD
I i
tBHHHm
;;
8HD
\-. I
/,
ANITA STREET
j~
~
] ~
] ~
D D
o I
]
]
~ \,
mrn
IllJI[]
ZENITH
I
MAIN
I
rnmm
TREMONT STREET
ITIIJIJITJ mrrrn
DJJ]][[J]]~mJI
z
w
~[]J]]Ig[
111~ITIIIllII
STREET
bt [J1t=11~[T1nro~~~
STREET
[JOlt \JJiO DJJIII
W
:J
Z
W
~
o
z
I/)
w
a::
II..
STREET
AVENUE
_/
//
,
~-~~-
--------------------------
~-
00
00
00
DO
DO
BB
DO
DO
o
I ~1CC
~--rrH LLJ--Ll::l~ c::
8 UillJjo I ,
B '
~
o
o
o
W
:J
~I
II
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
No Scale
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~~~~I~';.,1r: F. LELAND HOPE
PROJECT 1616 THIRD AVENUE
ADDRESS:
LOCATOR
C:\:nyfiles\!C::21ci1S'.,!S0103B.cdr 02"07101
FILE NUMBER:
IS - 01-038
INITIAL STUDY
Request: Proposed construction of a neighborhood auto service
center to include: a car wash and auto lube center.
I
IiXH/Brr A
..__._.._--_.._.__._._._._--..._----,_._._-~_..-.__.-
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Li~htnin~ Auto Center, 18-01-038
This Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in
conjunction with the proposed Lightning Auto Center project (IS-OI-038). The proposed project
has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA
guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures
are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-OI-038.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation
of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
I. Geophysical & Water
2. Air Quality
3. Hazards.
4. Traffic/Circulation
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 Reporting Program are
met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written form
confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-Ol-038 shall be
provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review
Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been
accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, lists the mitigation measures listed in
Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, 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.
(H:\home\planning\naria\IS-OI-049 MMRP text.doc)
lip
r-_J
r-~}
I
,
,
i
:-:1
, ,
.~
t'0 z a::
w :5 ......
~~ f-
a.. Z
......
Q) ()
Z ~
L 0
en f-
~ ::>
<(
0') -I C>
<(
e_ ::::> z
~ ~ lL.. Ii: Z
.l33W.S),~O~HIOr<j f-
I
; " ~ . ~~'~I LU C>
0 ~ 8.. '" 5 U :J
. ~Gg 5~;;,;>
~ .. ~~~~ ~~ Z
E" ~ 'f ~:~ ~:!:~'"
& &C<~~ i " ~ &~o ~'f~~ 0
~ ~~ 0=.. f~~~ . ",x "'...~ U
c 'f ~
,
~~ " " ~
+
o~
z<
<" J. -t~;\ 0
~; I
,
~t! "
Be I co" ~ ~
~J ~;;~ ~ ~
0<11
~~~+)
I .---~
I %>::1
fti:..: I
~
o
'8
~
I
I
,
V
I
/
,
V
~
(;
0
'"
..:
0-
"
(I)
~
"
0
'i':
0
~
0
"
~
':;
~
..
c: CJ
" 3:
'" 0
" ...
E CD
0
~
W I
z
() :s
'"
::;) 0-
0 (I)
(I) Z
Z
I- <t:
I- c-
O '.J')
U~Z
"'3:t::j
Z<t:O:::
::::;-,~
I
~ ~c
03S0dO~d .o-;z:r
~-I1I" ~-11
r\ /1 I' 'I
1\/1 11'/1
IAI IAI
1/ ,I '"I
L.'J L.'J
I
;,
.
~
Zw
~~:2g!
~....~<
"'~1II8
~~~g
B~!;:i!
(---
''')
I ~~
I~
---)
---,--------)
,
~\ ~
$!; ~
~~j:: 0-6 ><
~",..... ~
- -3N'if AH!3dO~~ ,00;\
"
.0-,
.0-.6 ~ ,..J
~~ ~~~g ~
~~ '" ~g~~ I!:~
"'0 b! ID-<...",~< ",=-
z'" O~ -::1"'/:...... ~~
:~ ~a ~<3r4::1 ~
..."--n."':O~I:I"'~......
. >
0<
"
..
o
o
I
~
.
511
0<
c~
"
o
I
'.
~
~g
",::Iii:!
~8~ ~
.5~12 ~
'----
~' I
I , ,
, + ,
I ~~~ I
I o!i~ L
I &=~ 1...
......,.g:1jo""""-.!,
- ---
o
Ii,
B~
.o--,o~
.o--,ZI
.o-,~I
V-:JNO:J:lNlLSIX3
u
'"
""
...
...
Z
4
<I:
-
c: I
GI
E I
.r. ~
u ...
~ I ~
E
E
<I: 0
1 u
..
S
c:
GI
U
o
-
::J
<I:
:J
co
M
,
....
o
,
UJ
I
1
....
~
~
1;1:
~;~
'"'''
~h'
U.:
1"'1
=..
U"
::;:,
~:
"
O.
~
I>;
"
Z
~;,
E-o
~
0"
I>;
~
~.
"
~
~
o
E-o
....
Z
o
:E
z
o
....
E-o
<<:
"
....
E-o
....
:E
I
01
'\J 8'
u 1
Q.
~ .~t::
u "2
-,
~
U
<5-
'"
Q
bl)
'"
'C
'"
'"
'"
'5),
'"
~
~
:s
'inc
S;; ':'
~..
a: ..
~
.:!
"'0.",
~~
....-0.:
"'.:'If}
0'.0
Q;,;(,j
~ g
0",
"'~
c "
.-c
E .-
.- .
f-o ~
>-
gf~
:C:g X
QU
iI,.1.'"
~'C
Q;,; 0:
U
~.;..c
r}FS!
~ c
o.~
",-
c ~
.c",
!:"i:
~ ~
>-
oi
.9
U
'"
0.
~
.5
2
Ci3
~
.
;;:
~
~
c
.8
:;
.!
~
0"'0 t::: Q t':S 4-<
..... (J,) 0..... 0 0
01)15 "Vi e..... 0
000"'0"'0
;..c; S ~ j:: ~.9
1-00 t::""]
8o.dB.eg
: g.5 ~ en ~ r.n
,,-., 11) ~ 8 (l).S
~..o 0. ~..o CI)
~~8Ja~-S
~. o::I..c:: co
~'-'VJg3:~
L..; V) -::;:n.p.!2 r:::
r.- Q) t) u .... 0
-< .~ E I: Q)-O;;
~gt:~-BB
~ d: [g.5 (J,)
Q) U t::: E
~ EO '-a ""'
j E ~ ~ .~ ~
- ~'i:: C!j co
rJ') to ~ '"0 v,.Q
~ ~.S ~.5 V)
~:EgpbI)"3E
o ..... W Q rJ) 4)
~ ~ Q) 'C "'0 ~ V)
'-'o:I-S.g~~]
c ci
.,g~
~ .
.~ :
:': 0::1
:;:~
-
en '"
'" '"
u""
.;; VJ~
~ E
o~
J:: "
" ~
0._ "'
u ~ '"
'" '"
g..o 'C
;>-'V) gp]
.c 2: B (/)
Q.) (1) -v; -g
::> "'0 v ~
~ c"'O vi'
oj '" '"
=OD]~
~ .5 u "
S.1:::S::::vJ
c';:;:j': 8
MOos:::::
.- "'0 u ~
~ ~.~.:::
c<:S e "'O.V}
-S 0 (J,)
o..<nvJ
8 (J,) ~
2~..o
"''''
~ ~ E.
'"
gpE.-O
.- 0 OJ)
a Q.5
~~ ~ [:
.~ Po........ g
_ "'0._
8:.E''"3 gp
~U(Q~
_...:
. .
0.0
=--v
~:~
'~g x
QU
o .
. c
=--8
o c
- ~
ooS:;
oi
.9
U
'"
0.
~
.5
2
Ci3
"'0<1).....-_
oc:ggo
~ ~"'O S
s.. ro 8 u
5f'O ::I .....
~ '" ~
IU E 11) ::s
..00-"'0
u 8
'"~
"" ~
~ " ~
en '"0 ..3
~ ~";;
~ $ ""8
" 0. '"
o '"
'p 8 gfca
2 ~'p s
1;; :u e:E
>s:::.sg:g
t: 8 ~ ~<
~ ""g ~;g .
...... > V"'d d
~ tt~ 0
CI C ::: gf'~
a::~-B--
- -.- 's 's
~ ~ ~ '" '"
N
~ 0
~;E
'" ~
~ .;:
'0
5: C s:::
'" '"
bl) bl) Ii;
.S s::: <I)
~ 'C g
~.g '00
a: ,::2
-g S
.- '"
Q,~
o..~
'"-5
17
"'d"'d "'d"'d "'d"'d
~~~ ~~e ~~<5-
~i.O gfi.O gpio
.- ",' ~ .- ",' ~ .- '" bl)
~ a Q .5 ~ ~ Qs ~ ~ Q "5
a~b1)~a_b.l)~!;_b.l)~
o ~.8 g u p.,.8 g u p.,.5 <U
:.=: '" '::'.:'=: '" '::'.:'=: "'.5
8:.f''3 a 8:.~"S a 2:.e"S gf
~u(Q~~u(Q~~u(Q~
~
oi
.E
u
'"
0.
~
.5
2
Ci3
'"
;:
'"
0..
o
~ .
0..==
v'o..
.<> ~
'"
'" ~
""
~
~
~
~ "
'j:; "'d
.<> "
~ ~
",-
~]
1:: .~
:.a v
v u
.D E gf.g
:::: ~ 3 ~
~ >-. ~ 0
..s:::::ttI..s:::::.....
~ '" '"
<I) ;;:...~ v
"E "'d u t
~.5 2 ;:;
~ ~ f--o u
'"
~
oi
.E
u
'"
0.
~
.5
2
Ci3
'" '"
v.<>
;>
[~
"'""
" ~
~
" ~
0.0'
~
~ 0.
] v
-73
",""
'" -
8.~
~ "
o
3 ..,
o <.>
-9 g
~ "
'" 0
"'"U
~.5
S
cO
N
~'"
v '"
u u
~ 15
~...
< ~ E
",.
"''''
~~fj
" '"
bl) .~
" 1:L~
...... <U ~
_ ~ Q.s
a - b1) t
o p.,.5 g
:.=: ""d
0. ~'" '"
o........::s c:
~u(Q~
~
~
o
~
c.
oi
.E
u
'"
0.
~
.5
2
Ci3
oi
.9
U
'"
~
.5
2
Ci3
""g8SBr.c;
;> "
'"'"
0..~"E ~g
o 0 ~ ..... ttI
~.....;s;:I"'O
... (,) e ca
ob "'O..t::
"'Ov~ v~2
V~(1)..cc..c~
-.-;:: 0 (d..... d
:a."Ec<;:ItU..2~1::
<n e e e u a: '"0
.::2 e (1) B: <u ~ 2
-. .- ..... < .0 -tI ~
.g o..~ to
'"0 ; 3 _.S ~
'" 1:L';:; ~.E '"
s::: <u (ij . <n"'C;l1.H
ctI ::: 0.. 'E "'0 0
t: VI Q) VI Q) VI-ci
-o4.;e2.......2~
:.0.0 0 v'oo ~ ._ <u
> <u 0.......
o 7' ~ ~
e.Q.Q 0 ~
..........t:io
00213
g g"- ~
d d '? ~
8868
'"
.<>
'"
""
~
<I)~= s:::
",,"0
ro..c .-
"'0 <I) d
ciG&v
"0 U <n"O
~ ::s._
c~'?..c:
0" '" '"
~ ~ ;>
V)
'D
<(
....
c ......
CD
E
..c ..: . ..
u ..
~ ..... .
8
8
<( .: Q
U
..
CD
....
C
CD
U
o
....
::I
<(
::i
QO
CO)
,
....
o
,
!!2
I
I
I
I
....
f.1
..,;j
=.
<(
Eo<
'"
.
'1ii 'C 'ia
~ 0
Q. .
~ .~
,"" u :.s
Eo<
~;
~!
Ui:
.....
~
u.
~H
",..
0:
~
~.
",'
'7:
;:;I.
E-<.
~..
o
~.
~.
~.
!2.
<(
'"
~
~
o
E-<
.....
Z
o
~
z
o
.....
E-<
<(
'"
.....
E-<
.....
~
.
:is
';;j .c
= -
o =
"''''
.
0:
"'0"'0 "'0"'0
iiHj~ aa15.
~ IU " IU
.,,_ODf4.'? ~~O
"":::! .- 0 OJ)
... a a.s ...... a 0 .5
~~ gpt a~ 01>10
.~ 0... ._ ~ .~ 0... .5 g
_ '0 .=: _ '0 ._
f5:.f''S c f5:.f':S gp
-o:u~~-o:u~~
~ =
o .8
".
= -
--I.;:
8.-
.- -
f-o .
..
x
~ =
o Q
-.;1<=
Q ~
~'"
tj";:
:;>
c
.g
u
"
"'-
~
.S
2
Vi
"'0""'2
" ~
",-u
'" "
~:a
'0
a :@
-'0
~ad
'0 " 0
~::a .~
~.- I-
o ~ IU
.a 0 t::
>,"'-"
..c:~bI)
'" 10
~ ~.g
CI:I.~ 8
..c:" "
~ 0"'0
~ ~ e
"'0 0
a 8.~
"'00'_
~ou
~ > "
~.g-s
o:5E
.
-
~
.
.
:;:
=
.~
.
~
~
g~
'';: <I.>
. -
.~;:
.- .
:;i
r--
x
c
.g
u
"
"'-
~
.S
2
Vi
-g ~ .'~L8 6-5 ~
:e 0 ~ ~.~-:S
"'O.~ c:: < ~
~'8 gf.9 -g B
o~t)--gc..__
:€ 1-0 r:.g ~.e- 1:
~r.8bJ}e(1)g.~
1:: rn 0.0 u...c ;>
S ~'E .~ ~ ~ 'g.
0........ ::Sc;j~ IU
.,.... >- "'0 tj ...... c; 5
6-<n u C,..c:'-'
Q.) c::"'O IU V) <f)
"0 .g ] E...... g OJ
~ .... vi.g. :;: .bI)- U
....... u'-<;:::.~ .......... c
u .~ .... ~ 0" 8 ~ ~
.s.5 IU:~ IU .& _ v
In "'0 ;::f v i:J
8 ] : g ~ ~ ~ .~
:>'t:$C6C::1-.J,....,
+.->" ........g 0.. 0 IU E
~.~rnub'B~o
~ .E -0 .5 .S .5 1! i:i
~~~g]g~:€
.............,8uOJ)uO'~
00
....
..
~
.~
<i.
"'-
-0:
~~
Q.,U
~...;:
= .
'i: =
~~
..,
. .
Joo' c ><
~"a'
N
"",.=
......~
ii5;;:
~
'"
0..
>''0
-'" "
""
J::.-
oJ::
",-"
" U
~
.9
-;;
E ...:
" 0
S 1ij
" ;<.S
.g.~ "E
> > 0
o c:: G.:I 0
,s~<>::u
-;;
E
" ~
S a
" ~
1U .g ~
t:: >"
" "0
~ ro IU u
CO"'Oo~=b1::o
,""...c ~ c:: S ~.- 11) .b
VJ= OJ)....::t fl)U e c::
~ ~.s ~ ca ;g ~ -g 8
~ en ~.s~ ~~B-Q
('j '8 - ~ e ~ .D 0 .9
4-o0.p..>~dC;~:s
o ~ .g ~ 1-0 4-0 ;>.;:: =
~ .~ ~ ('j 0 0 "t:I 0
u < > t;: ~ ca 6.:-;::: p..
c .- '"t:I en 0.::1
~ Qc~oQ1::Q1-o
~ -ci"3 ~.~ sr '"t:I "t:I :.;::
'0 ~ 1-0 ~..s:: '"t:I ::1._ c C
Q cS o.-ffi u.: g''"t:I ~ (OJ :.>.
.t:: ~.- 4-< Q 1-0 '"t:I ~ otJ.....
c :.>..;:i '0 0 -:S 4-0 a ~ c 3
8..D 1-0 S C>..... - _ '> .2 0
'"t:I 0 ~ .- ~ ..... ('j ~ a U
-;; ,_.__~ ~ '"t:I U E 5 ~ 1-0_
..s::- ~~t::ens1-op..O
:t: gf..D.;3 ca ~ ~tE23 ~
CJ'J c 8.-E; 0 0 ~ 0. 1-0 '"t:I .~ ;.::::
Q ~""'''''''......en~~>-
Q ~ ~ ...... en '"t:I - .- 'fi .E
~ 2:~ g SO.E.SO 8 ~ ] 1 ~ i
N Q ::I '"t:I "t:I e "'0 en ::I...c: .b
< ~ ~ c:::-;:::...o:-;::: ~ C en U "t:I .:
_~OO::l::l~en~~4-0c;'::::
... r-' U u...o en I-l-ol Q P.....o 0 Q _
caB
E '"
" .-
S E
8~
.= ~
i:u
"....
" 0
'"
..c:B
.'t:: Q
;<.n
'"
<C
-
C
ell
E
..c: !!J
u 0
l! ~
.
.
<C 0
u
....
i";1
...
~
-<
!-<
"-
ell
-
c
ell
()
o
-
::I
<C
:J
00
M
.
....
o
.
!:Q
"
..... '0 .
'" Q
~
C. ~
. ]
0
u :.5
E-<..
U'J;
~"
UJ
i";1
lIt
u
~...
\.:).
o
i:.::
~
\.:)
Z
...,
!2
o
~
~
!2.
-<
\.:)
2S
i:.::
O.
!-<
...,
Z
o
:E
z
o
...,
!-<
-<
\.:)
...,
!-<
...,
:s
~
:E
'~ C-
o .
o . E E ~ ~
~.. '" '"
~ .~ .~ .~ .~
'" 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
<t: <t: <t: <t:
:><:
~ 0
o .~
".
o "
.- I.::
. .-
.- .
f-< ~
> :><: :><: :><: :><:
,..,
"
1;1'
..
~ 0
o 0
"0"=
o ~
~~
>' ~
>
t::"O~
o v ~
o..t+:: v
".- 8
~ t;::
:u u e
t:: ~ ......
" ~ >
~,.Q5
'"
.8 E ~
" 0
E 8 ~
~ g ~ ~
~ .~.~ 5
C Il) C '1) 0
8;s",,~u
~
.
c
~
.
~
o
..
;;
~
>'
.S.8] ~ ~ -g ~~:€ gp
t';$ ~ C:::..J:::: U ~ ";; ~:.a .
: ~ ~.~ ~ ~ -B ~~ ~.~
~ ~ 8 Eo '''o</} g .5 -::: e g,
..D'- '+:< '" VJ ." (1)
.1f I >....... @- ~ v ..t:: s.. "0 bJ)
""0 "'0 Q ~ ;:;;'u V) ;:::: c
~~vU~o;::"'O.8~:g
""' .1-. .. s::
- - C 4-< 11.) '+< bO ~ c; OJ) ':;
C'CI ""0 ctt 0 .D .,;: C'CI U > ;::: ,.Q
~ ~ c ~ ~ E C '5 e'~ ~
.~ t+::: :~ U') ~ (1) o.~ 8: ro c
.~ c...:;;;; Q)...... 0..],0 c<;t;:;:'2
'';:: 8 O.s a "'2 ;:I 0 ""0 'C;
~ 4-< ~ ;>...~.!:: ~ b ~ Q):O
_ - "'0 .D 0.. g. I-.< C'~ -s 0
o' ""c:I Q.. IU "d 0...... 0
.=-g5~C'CIl-.gU..g4-<~
.- I-. ~ l>= v v c::..... 0 0
"0';::; .J::.......r::..:=; "":= 0 ""'" .....
S 6-"0 v f-<':: () .;:::.5 <I} ~
vvo -o;@~~....
.g 1-.0"'5 .~: - o...c u 63
o .~ ~ ~ c ""2 ~....... e E
..... >....r:: ~ ~ '2 C'<;I 1-0 0 C1. 1:::
5 ~ ~ ] E 'E v ~ g.~ ~
;t ~.~ 8 ~.g ~.s 0. -s a
o "
oZ
'.0:::; ""
. .
.~~
.- .
::;::
'"
'"
-
"-0
o
"
.S --=--
~ ~
~ ~
's .';:::
.D E
" "
</) 0.
&1'082
.. :;.... e C'CI
0'" ""_
~ ::; 8:.::
;::0,:l..""O
oUe; Q)
.~ ~ E'~
.~ ..... 0 E
0..0 0
0..- U u
'" ~ M
C 'g ~ g
ctt V ~''';::
.~ c.. v:.a
s v ~ c:::
.D ""0> 0
" ~;:> <.)
VJ...r::_=
c; ~.;g ro
..cQ~-:S
VJ 1-0 .g 'fi
~&~ -0
,~ ~ ~ b g
_ - bl) a.. V)
~,~ (\) E,~
~ 1;:; 0 8,~
~.g~-oE
f--.5~&11!
-
i?
"-0
o
~ E ~
0,.-:., (\) 0
'~ UJ E '.g
'E~ [S
-gt:: ~(\)_
V1 8.. li: 0 g
:;; ~ ~~ ~] ~ ,e,;;;g,~ ca ~ ~
bl) 'r:: :.0 '- '- U P.-.g E '5J ~ 0
;::0::; Obl)O ~~t.8 c.~
'..... ~ ....... - 0 ~ 0 '..... UJ 1::: VJ
,S E g E s.'~"'" Q) -5;>>,. ca S ~ (\)
~ ...... E 01) (.) C ==.J:: U e..;)....I::!
.cUJUJ~t:"'tj.......a c'" ""o";j;;l
~ 5'~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.s s 01) 8
t.8"E = 0 I-...,g,~ :!:::: bl);:: 01) .=: 0
~ " 0 0... " ~ e'-"O u.. '"
:E~~ ::::08 t::EO-o.cO"'tji_~
...... ..c: ~ - 8.. ~ t) B O..c: 01) E:
~ 0 ~ c~ 2 - ~ Q) ~ ~ - :i; ~
8. - ~ 3 -0 .@ .g p.. -5 v . B 5 E
~13"38 ~ Q) p.. .~o - V] 00-0 - ~
--~ ~a.. ..c t.8]0\~ d)
01)~_ .s..c:~ 001-.-u080
.ce-=o~~o 1-<0bO~c...:.=:!
:;; U bl) 0 v; 8 :;; iI: B .5 8 ~ ~ .g
..s::: ~ ..8 .~ ::r: -0 ~ ..c: ';;j -g 00 ;>. 1:3 ~
.: 'g -0 0 (; (\) a..'~ ~ ~ 6 00\- 0 0
a Q) a ~ .~ 0 _ 1a:> 0 ~ ~ ~ 0.-5
,~ 0... (J) t:: (J) ..c g, (.) 0 0 o:.a ] ;>>,.
- -~Eo :':::~=V]_(J)_..c
0.-0 ~V1;:: bl)bJ) 0."30- 0 8:::::-0
0. ~ t; 0 bJ),S ;:: ~...c ~ .~ u ~ ~ B
~ ...... ,- = -0 :.a u .... - !:;
Q) g. E (\) :> .:; :-::: - 11) - B Q)...... -0 ~
~~~-5~~&5]t:~~8~~a~
N
M
-
-
I
..
GI
-
C
GI
U
o
-
::::J
<
:::i
CO
M
.
....
o
.
~
<
-
C
GI
E
~
u
~
<
'""
1";1
..
~
~
~
..
.
E
E
o
U
.
"" ;;
~ Q
.
C. ~
~ ~
u :.s
...'
en
~.
U
1";1.
IJ<
U
::;::'
~
(.:I
o
1:1:
~
(.:I
Z
.....
...
1:1:
o
~
1";1
1:1:.
~
...:
C;
z
.....
1:1:
o
...
.....
Z
o
::;::
z
o
.....
...
...:
C;
.....
...
.....
::;::
.
"
~
~
~
=
.~
~
.f!
:i:
"'"
o " "
c:C\1-:S
~-.8
:a 3j c:
(],) t: .-
S <I) ~
'" >> E
" .... "
~,,-
.;; S 4:
~ 0 "
blJ-
~Ei::
:< 0 "
......:::2 ~ --.:
o ~"
..s e: o..ro
~~.8~
g l ~.::
~15~.t;
4-< ~ 11.} ..c
o :g.::: '5
c c: 1-0 0
o (1) -0 OI"J
...... > ...c V1
~<r::;.....
~"Es.;~
~:.E v e
_~.s
E
.
E
cl<
.- ~
u.
"Q
Ii '"
=
~ "5
u "
- =
"E."on
0.=
<:UJ
><
><
c
2
U
"
'"
..s
"
<;i
.
"" vi
M ~
.... "
o u
S g
" u
E S 4)
";:: e t)
E - 2
ro ~t::..8
(!)~B'O
.J:I 6 0 (1)
c;z,E
..c: ~
<.')0(;
>>"" ..c:
~ 5 V)
,,-
.::: c;
-6.8>
E...c "I:
(1)~"'O
...r::::.- ..c
t :::::i
g.5 s.;
~v~.B
~~t-ot;
=
E
cl<
- 0.
u.
"Q
a ~
~ "5
u "
- c
"Q.."@J
0.=
<:UJ
><
><
c
.g
u
"
'"
..s
"
<;i
'"
~
:E
I-
gf .5
~~
blJ_
.5 01)
-€b
" ~
u .
'" "
" 0
~ 'is
] ~
~ ~
.S
(;.8
..c: "
~
'"
E i::
'" 0
~<b
~g
'" "
" "
..c: >
1-<
:::
...
"
gj'
Q.
u
o
"
.,;
:;;
~
ii:
0::
::;
::;
'"
M
o
\'J
~
"
~
in
rn
"'
'E
;;;:
1<
<(
::;
rn
c
'E
c
'"
~
~
Case No.IS-OI-038
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: F. Leland Hope
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: P.O. Box 6029
San Diego, CA 92166
(619) 220-7115
4. Name of Proposal: Lightning Auto Center
1616 Third Ave (Third Ave. & Montgomery St.)
Chula Vista, CA 91911
5. Assessor Parcel No. 626-132-10
6. Date of Checklist: November 13, 200 I
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
"
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
o
o
o
"
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
o
o
o
"
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
o
o
o
"
Comments: The 0.28:!:-acre (12,320 sq.ft.) site, located on the northwest corner of the Third Avenue
and Montgomery Street intersection, is currently developed with a single-family residence. A chain-
link fence surrounds the perimeter of the property. The project proposes to remove the residence and
construct an auto center that provides automated carwash (1,240 sq. ft.) and fast lube service (721
sq.ft.).
19
Stacking for six cars entering the carwash, and stacking for two cars entering the lube center, is shown
on the site plan. The property frontage on Third A venue would be improved to City Standards with
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk currently exist on the Montgomery Street
frontage. The maximum height of the building would be 18 feet.
Water used in the carwash wi]] be fi1tered and recycled through the car wash system. A 469 sq.ft.
customer area would be located between the lube center and carwash. The lubrication services would
be limited to basic oil changes and related service. Business hours are proposed to be from 8:00 a.m. to
6;00 p.m. in the summer months and 8;00 a.m. to 5;00 p.m. in the winter months. The proponent
estimates that approximately 75-100 cars would be washed per day, and approximately 20-25 cars per
day would be processed through the lube center. Three employees would staff the car wash and two
employees would staff the lube center. Other employees include a manager and cashier.
Automobiles would enter the car wash and lube area from Third Avenue near the intersection with
Montgomery Street (south end of the site). Autos from the car wash would exit to an existing concrete
paved a]]ey at the northern property line. Autos from the lube area would exit onto Third Avenue near
the northern end of the site. Employee and patron parking is provided adjacent to the northern property
line. The parking area would be accessed from the northern site entrance on Third Avenue.
The proposed auto center is consistent with the CCP (Central Commercial - Precise Plan) zoning
designation, CMO (Commercial - Retail) General Plan designation, and the city's environmental plans
and policies. The project is also consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan, which designates the
site as Mercantile & Office Commercial. The site is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and
is consistent with the Redevelopment Area Plan.
The project site is on the northwest comer of third Avenue and Montgomery Street. Surrounding land
uses are:
North - commercial (auto body and paint shop);
East - commercial (restaurant across Third Avenue);
South - single-family residences (across Montgomery Street); and
West -multi-family residences.
The proposed Lightning Auto Center project is compatible with these surrounding land uses. The
proposed project would not impact the physical arrangement of the established land uses along Third
Avenue.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
u..."
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
o
o
o
"
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
o
o
o
"
2
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure) ?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
o
o
"
o
Comments: The project is surrounded by existing commercial and residential development and does
not involve an extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. One vacant housing
unit would be displaced. The loss of one housing unit would not be a significant impact. In addition, it
is a legal non-conforming use within a CC (Central Commercial) Zone and CMO (Commercial Retail)
General Plan designation. A car wash and lube center is consistent with the General Plan and would
not exceed the regional or local population projections.
Mitigation: No mitigation is required because the project would not result in significant impacts.
PotentiaUy
Significant Les.oithan
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 "
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 " 0 0
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 "
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 0
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 " 0 "
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 "
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion, which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 "
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
3
d.-D
Comments: There are no known geophysical conditions present that would expose people to geologic
or earth hazards. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone; the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
is approximately 21 miles to the north, and the La Nacion earthquake fault is approximately three miles
to the east. Compliance with the building design and construction requirements of the Uniform
Building Code requirements would avoid potentially significant structural impacts resulting from
seismic activity.
Approximately 10-percent of the 0.28-acre site is covered by the eXlstmg single-family structure.
Impervious coverage of the new facility would increase to 9,643 sq. ft. (78% of the site). The project
site is essentially flat (3% slope) and 964 cubic yards of material would be excavated for a basement
area under the lube facility. If the excavated soil is not to be used on the project site it will be relocated
to another off-site area. The applicant will be required to obtain a Transporting Permit from the
Engineering Department will regulate the route that will be used to transport soil to ensure that the
operation will not adversely impact traffic circulation. Mitigation measures to reduce fugitive dust
associated with the hauling operation have been included in the Air Quality Section.
Standard engineering conditions require that a geotechnical/soils study be submitted with the first
submittal of improvement plans. No significant effects, such as a change in topography, geologic
hazards, etc., would result from construction of the facility.
Although grading operations wi1l be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended), significant erosion impacts could occur during the
excavation and construction period due to disruptions of the soil. Soil erosion could result in
sedimentation in the storm drain system resulting in a significant impact unless mitigated to a level of
less than significant. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
Permit Order No. 2001-01 and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to be implemented
during and after construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain
system.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
PotentiaUy
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless SignificaBt No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
IlDpact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 0
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 "
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 0
4
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
1) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 " 0 0
i) Alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters? 0 0 0 "
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 "
otherwise available for pubJic water supplies?
Comments: The site is not located in a mapped flood zone and no significant flood impacts would
result from developing the site as an auto center. Existing drainage patterns would not change as a
result of constructing the new facility and the project would not result in potentially significant off-site
flooding. Approximately 10-percent of the site is currently covered with structures and paving. The
Engineering Department reports that the on-site drainage facilities are not adequate to serve the new
facility. A condition of project approval will require that on-site drainage facilities be included in the
first submittal of grading and improvement plans. The on-site drainage system will discharge to the
curb and gutter on Montgomery Street that flows westerly to a storm drain curb inlet at the intersection
of Montgomery Street and Fresno Street.
The project would be subject to the provisions of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) for the treatment of runoff if construction commences after February 21, 2002. If
constructed after that date, the project would also be subject to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit Order No. 200 I-a I.
All grading operations will be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) construction permit is not required because the site contains less than five acres. However,
the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are included as a mitigation measure
during and after construction would reduce erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain
system to a less than significant level. Short-term erosion would be reduced to a less than significant
level by the installation of temporary desilting and erosion control devices as specified on the Site
Plan. These devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the
storm drain system.
5
,;)..,(
Groundwater could be contaminated if automotive fluid spills occur on-site, or if contaminated water
from the automobile washing equipment is spilled. These potential impacts are addressed in Section
IX (Hazards). The applicant will be required to submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge
Permit to the County of San Diego Industrial Wastewater Control Program, who will determine if an
Industrial User Discharge Permit is required for the proposed auto center.
Adequate public water service is available to the site. Groundwater level would not be impacted
because there would be no additions or withdrawals from the local aquifer.
Mitigation: See Section XIX for hazard related mitigation measures.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignUkant
Unless
Mitigated
u>ssthan
Signincant
Impact
No
Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
o
o
o
I2!J
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
o
I2!J
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
o
o
o
I2!J
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
o
o
I2!J
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
o
o
o
18!
Comments: The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction-
related activities to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. During
construction, dust generated by grading and the combustion of fossil fuels by construction equipment
would create emissions. Fugitive dust would also be created as a result of clearing, earth movement,
and travel on unpaved surfaces. Although air quality impacts resulting from construction related
emissions are potentially significant, they are considered short-term in duration since construction is a
relatively short-term, one-time activity. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
During construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined below in
Section XIX.
The proposed auto center is consistent with the General Plan commercial designation that was used as
the development intensity for the Regional Air Quality Model. Negligible air quality effects would
result from the emissions of the project's 650 ADT that are consistent with the assumptions of the air
quality model and emission projections. No sensitive receptors are located in the adjacent areas.
Operation of the facility would not result in odor impacts.
6
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
o
o
"
o
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
o
o
"
o
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
o
o
o
"
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
o
o
o
"
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
o
o
o
"
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
o
o
o
"
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
o
o
o
"
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
o
o
o
"
Comments: Third A venue is classified as a Class I Collector and provides two lanes of travel in each
direction. Curbside parking is generally prohibited in the project area. Montgomery Street is an east-
west unclassified residential roadway with one lane of travel in each direction. Curbside parking is
permitted along both sides of the road. Main Street is classified as a four-lane Major Arterial with two
lanes of travel in each direction. Curbside parking is generally prohibited in the project area.
A traffic study for the Lightning Auto Center (dated October 4,2001) was completed by Linscott, Law
& Greenspan, Engineers. The carwash is projected to generate 470 average daily trips (ADT) and the
lube center is forecasted to generate 180 ADT. The PM peak-hour traffic is forecasted to be 33
inbound ADT and 32 outbound ADT. Twenty percent of the project traffic is forecasted to use Third
Avenue north of the site and 75% of the traffic is forecasted to use Third Avenue south ofthe site. The
remaining five percent is expected to use Montgomery Street.
Third Avenue is a Class 1 Collector street and has a 22,000 trip capacity (with Level-of-Service C).
7
~
The existing ADTs is 15,210 and with the project proposal will increase the vehicle trips to 16,230.
Third A venue currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A, and is forecasted to continue operating
at LOS A with the addition of the project traffic. The Third Avenue/Montgomery Street intersection
operates at LOS A and would remain at LOS A with the addition of the project traffic. The Third
AvenueIMain intersection operates at LOS C and would remain at LOS C with the addition of the
project traffic. The northern entrance to the project would operate at LOS B.
Queuing calculations concluded that a queue space of six vehicles for the carwash, and a queue space
of two vehicles for the lube center, would provide adequate queuing space. The site plan for the
project includes a total of eight queuing spaces. The project will be conditioned to widened Third
Avenue by seven feet and to install a curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
The traffic study indicates potential for significant circulation impacts and recommends the following:
a) Installation of a four-foot wide raised median on Third Avenue, between Montgomery Street, and
the south project driveway to prevent left turns into the project's south driveway b) the northern
driveway be a minimum of 30 feet wide to allow for two-way traffic access and the south driveway be
constructed as an alley type driveway, striped for ingress only c) Third A venue frontage should be
painted as a red curb to prevent on-street parking. Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce potential impacts to circulation to less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially u_ Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 iii
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 iii
0 0 0 iii
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 iii
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 iii
1) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 iii
efforts?
Comments: The site is not located in a biologically sensitive area as identified in the City's General
8
, -^._,_.._-_._"._---_.-.__.~._.---_._----~_._.._,._-~--_.,-
Plan. The site is fully disturbed and is located in an urbanized area. There are no sensitive plant or
animal species on-site. No biological impacts would result from the proposed use of the site.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignifICant
Unless
Mitigated
usslhan
Slgnirlcanl
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
o
o
o
II!I
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
o
o
o
II!I
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
o
o
o
II!I
Comments: The proposed Lightning Auto Center does not conflict with the recently adopted C02
Reduction Plan. The project will add a curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Third Avenue frontage that
will provide for pedestrian circulation in the project area.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with the energy requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and, therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner. The project is not located in an area designated for mineral resource protection as
defined in the City's General Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Lesstban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
o
II!I
o
o
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation pIan?
o
o
o
o
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
o
II!I
o
o
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
o
II!I
o
o
9
23
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
o
o
o
II!I
Comments: Groundwater contamination could occur if petroleum products or water from the
equipment washing facility is spilled. Demolition of the existing buildings could result in the release of
airborne asbestos fibers if the structures contain asbestos materials or lead paint. Release of airborne
asbestos fibers or lead paint residue would result in a significant health hazard. The auto center would
not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 II!I 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 " 0
Comments: The City ofChula Vista Municipal Code (~19.68.030) establishes commercial land use
noise standards of 65 dB during the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 1O:00 P.M. on weekdays (8:00 A.M. to
10:00 P.M. on weekends) and 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays
(10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. on weekends). Business hours are proposed to be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. in the summer months and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the winter months. The proponent estimates
that approximately 75-100 cars would be washed per day, and approximately 20-25 cars per day would
be processed through the lube center.
Dr. Leslie E. Penzes, Acoustical Consultant, completed an acoustical study, dated June 4, 2001, for the
auto center. An amendment to the study was submitted on September 28, 2001. The analysis was
based on noise measurements taken at two similar car wash and lube center operations in the San Diego
area, noise measurements taken at the site, and acoustical modeling. All mechanical equipment for the
car wash will be located within the carwash structure. The acoustical analysis determined that noise
generated by the carwash blowers would exceed the City's noise standards by 10 dB(A).
To reduce the noise level at the property line to 60 dB(A), the project design was modified to extend
the western wall of the car wash building 30 feet beyond the entrance to the carwash, and to extend the
wall at the exit of the carwash by 10 feet; the height of these walls will be 14-feet. The building
extensions do not interfere with site clearance. The western wall of the carwash building is adjacent to
the multi-family residences on the adjoining property; a six-foot setback is provided between the
building and the property line. The extension of the walls, as shown on the site plan, reduces the noise
level at the property line to less than 60 dB(A).
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required because the design of the project has been modified
to reduce the noise level at the property to less than 60 dB(A).
10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than No
Significant Impact
Impact
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
o
o
o
181
Comments: No significant impacts would occur because no new or altered public facilities
would be required to serve the proposed Lightning Auto Center.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potential!
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XII.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
o
o
o
181
As described below, the proposed project does not result in significant impacts to
any of the Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to
respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5
minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that
this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is two miles
away and would be associated with a four-minute response time. The proposed
project would_comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: According to the Fire Department, the Lightning Auto Center will not impact
the current level of service and this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire
station is at Fourth A venue and Oxford Street, approximately one mile away. No
significant impacts to fire/EMS threshold standards would be crcated as a result of the
proposed project.
I]
;A'f
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Police
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of
Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to
62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average
response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project
would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: According to the Chula Vista Police Department, the proposed project will not
impact the current level of service. The Police Department reports that the proposed
project, Auto Lightning Center, would not result in a significant impact to the Police
Threshold Standards.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
o
I. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average
travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak
hours a LOS of"D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
2. West of/-80S: Those signalized intersections, which do not meet the
standard above, may continue to operate at their 1991 LOS, but shall not
worsen.
Comments: The project would generate 650 average daily trips (ADT). The Engineering
Division reports that the LOS "C" level would continue to be met on Third Avenue. The
additional trips would not result in the traffic threshold being exceeded.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres of neighborhood
and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of
Interstate 805.
Comments: The proposed project is located west of I-80S, therefore, the Parks and
Recreation Threshold Standard does not apply. No park pad obligation will be required
because the proposed project is a commercial use.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
12
e) Drainage
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plane s) and City
Engineering Standards.
Comments: The City Engineering Department reports that the project will be required to
construct new on-site drainage facilities. The facilities will be shown on the first submittal
of the project improvement and grading plans. These new facilities, and the existing off-
site storm drain facilities, will adequately serve the project and that no significant impacts
would occur. No new off-site facilities are required. The proposed project would comply
with the Threshold Standard for storm water flows.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
I) Sewer
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: The City Engineering Department reports that the existing 8-inch sewer line
located on Montgomery Street is adequate to serve the proposed project. No significant
sewer facility impacts would result from the proposed project. The proposed project would
comply with the Threshold Standard for sewer service.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Water
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and
those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation
or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
Comments: The Sweetwater Authority reports that a l2-inch water main is located in Third
A venue and an eight-inch water main is located in Montgomery Street. No additional water
service would be required to serve the project. The proposed project would comply with the
Threshold Standard for water service.
13
d.~
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Stonn water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
o
o
I!II
o
o
I!II
o
o
I!II
o
o
I!II
o
o
I!II
o
I!II
o
Comments: No new utilities would be required to serve the proposed facility. On-site
drainage facilities will be constructed as approved on the project's improvement and grading
plan. The City Engineering Department reports that an 8-inch sewer line is located in
MonIgomery Street. A wastewater generation study will be required with the first submittal
of the improvement and grading plans. No significant utilities or service system impacts are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
14
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
o
o
o
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
o
o
I!II
o
o
I!II
o
I!II
o
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with
Section l9.66.100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
Comments: The proposed facility is located within an urbanized area and there are no scenic
vista or viewpoints on, or adjacent to, the property. The entrances to the carwash and lube
bays are oriented to Montgomery Street and will be screened by landscaping along the
Montgomery Street frontage. The exit from the carwash is oriented to the alley along the
north property line. The Third A venue frontage will be landscaped with planter areas
containing a massing of vegetation at the northeast corner and center of the project site.
Another planter area will be located at the corner of Third Avenue and Montgomery Street.
The western side of the carwash building, adjacent to the multi-family residential building,
will be stucco with a repeating pattern of split face concrete block. The setback area will be
planted with Italian cypress and trumpet vines on trellises. The proposed Lightning Auto
Center would not result in significant aesthetic impacts or create additional light spill. The
proposal will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change, which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not
15
~~
identify the project site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential cultural resources.
The site has been previously disturbed by residential development. The site currently
contains one single-family residence. The residential structure contains no distinguishing
historic features and is not historic according to City inventory records. No significant
cultural impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will
the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
PotentiaUy Potentially
Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 I8J
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does identify
the project site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential paleontological resources.
According to Tom Demere, Museum of Man/Paleontological Curator, the site is noted as a
moderately sensitive paleontological resource area given the history of what has previously
been discovered. However, according to Mr. Demere, based upon the relative shallow
depth of the project digging and the small area that is to be excavated there will be no
significant paleontological resource impact, nor will monitoring be required.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
o
o
o
~
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
o
o
o
~
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
o
o
o
~
Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Parks and
Recreation Element. The proposed facility does not increase the need for new parks or
recreational facilities. Park pad fees would not be required as the project is a commercial
land use. No significant recreation impacts would be created as a result of the proposed
project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
'i:;nn;r,;p~'"
16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Lesstban
Significant
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration Jor
mandatory findings oj significance. If an EJR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
o
o
o
Comments: The site is fully disturbed and is located in an urbanized area. No sensitive
plant or animal resource impacts would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-term,
environmental goals?
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed project will not affect long-term environmental goals of the City
because the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Draft
Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (dated October 9, 2000). The project
site is slated for development. The proposed project would not negatively affect long-term
environmental goals.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed project would not result in cumulative effects because the site
and surrounding area is fully developed. No other projects have been recently approved in
the area, nor are there any known future projects. No significant impacts would be created
as a result of the proposed project.
17
d.-7
--/''''
No
Impact
[8]
[8]
[8]
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
I>]
Comments: No significant effects on human beings are anticipated to result from
approving the proposed Lightning Auto Center.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented
during the design, construction and operation of the project:
GEOPHYSICAL & WATER
Erosion and Sedimentation
1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) as approved by the City Engineer, shall be implemented during and after
construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain system. Short-term erosion would
be reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of temporary desilting and erosion control devices. These
dcvices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
HAZARDS
Asbestos and Lead
I. The applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for
the presence of asbestos in buildings to be demolished. A report shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department that identifies whether or not asbestos is present. If required, a remedial work plan
for the removal and disposal of asbestos shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
2. Prior to demolition activities, a lead-based paint survey is required. If confirmed lead-based paint is scheduled for
demolition an environmental consultant certified by the State of California shall remove it. The applicant shall be
responsible for obtaining all the required permits from all affected state and local and regulatory agencies including
the Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to precede with this process of
the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building permit.
Petroleum or Contaminated Water Spills
I. The applicant shall submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to the County of San Diego
Industrial Wastewater Control Program and comply with all conditions contained in any permit issued.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits related to hazardous materials from state and
local regulatory agcncies, including the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, and shall provide
proof of having obtained such permits to the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
18
3. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department for any maintenance work done on-
site or for the storage of hazardous materials exceeding those listed in the California Fire Code 1998 (CFC 98).
Petroleum spills shall be immediately reported to the Fire Department, and spilled petroleum removed from the site as
directed by the Fire Department.
AIR OUALlTY
Construction Related Emissions
I. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-
generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry
weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills.
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-suspension of
particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City to
reduce dust generation.
7. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be
utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
Also, construction equipment shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Construction-Related Impacts
I. Installation of a four-foot wide raised median on Third A venue, between Montgomery Street, and the south
driveway to prevent left turns into the project's south driveway.
2. The northern driveway shall be a minimum of 30-feet in width to allow for two-way traffic access. The south
driveway shall be constructed as an alley-type driveway and striped for ingress only.
3. Installation of red curbing along Third Avenue frontage to prevent on-street parking.
19
,;)$.
Nov-14-01 03:25P A_D_HINSHAW ASSDC_
619 258 8214
P_04
xx, AGREEI\U:NT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MF:ASURES
By signing the lin~(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) .mulor Ol'crator(s) stipulate that they have cach rcad, understoou
and have their respc(,;tiv<,; company's ;:wtburily to and do agrl;c to the mitigation mcasures contained hl.:n.:in, and will
impkmcnt same to th(,; sat.isfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure t.u sign the Jine(s) pruvided helow
prior to pl)S!ing of this lMitigalCd] Negative LkclaraIion with the County Clerk shall indicaIc the Applicants' andlor
Operator's c.k:sirc that the Prujed be hc1d in abeyanr..:o;.: without approval and that Arplicant(s) and/ot' Operator(s) shall
apply tor <\11 EnVlronmclltalll11pac~t cpurL
F. Lp c::::> C
~mne fin JfPt'of'erty w cr
. Ac..p.,...l of' O~
wiler
~~I
Printed Name and 'l'itk ofOperatol'
Signature of Operator
Dat~
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL }"ACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Thc environmental factors checked helO\v would be potentially afr"ctcd by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Signitkanl lIn.lcss MitigaIed," as indicatcd by the checklist on
the following pages.
0 Land Lise and Planning . T ran spo rtat ion/Ci ICU hi ti on 0 Public Scrvices
0 Poru1i1tion and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 UtiliLics and Service
Systcms
. G~ophysicaJ 0 Energy and Mineral Resourcc~ 0 Aesthetics
. Water . Huards 0 Cultural Resources
. Air Quality 0 Noise.: 0 Recreation
0 Paleontology 0 Mandatory Findings ofSignincance
20
Nov-14-01 03:26P A~D_HINSHAW ASSac_
619 zsa 8214
XXTI. DETI::KMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effee! on the environ"'ent,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATlON will be prepared.
1 find Ihat altholJgh the proposed project could havc a significant effect on the
enviromncnt, there will not he a signifji;ant effect in this case because the mitigation
meaSlJres dcscribed on an attached sheet have bcen added tu thc project. A MrI'IGA TED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find Ibat the proposcd projec.t MA Y have a significant elfect on the cnvironment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMf'ACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effec.t(s) un thc environmunt, but
at. kiist one eflect: I) has been Jdcquatcly analyzed ir'l an earlier ducument pursu;Jnt to
~jpplicah1e legal st<mdards7 f)nd 2) has been addressed by mitigation n1\.:a~urcs hased on thL:
earlier analysis as described on attached shects, if the effeel is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potcntially significant unless mitigatcd." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is rcquircd, but it mllst analyze only thc crFccts that remain to be addressed.
I find that "'though the propuscd project could have " siglli nean! effect UI1 thc
environment, (hcrc WILL NOT be a signitlc"l1t effect in this "'"" because alt pUlentially
significant etfects (a) have been "lMlyl.cd adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) havc been avuidcd or mitigatcd pursuant to that carlie,' ElR,
including revisions or mitigatiun measures that arc imposed upun thc proposed projcet. An
aduendlJm has been prepared to provide a. rcc:ord of this lk:tcrmination.
~({?tNJ{>&,
Environmenlal Review Cuordinator
City of Chili a Vista
(1/1'1/0/
D;tf r
1: \PJ<l!H,ing\M ARIA \1!1 i rial StuJy\1 s-o 1-5 oc hk ISL.J"l'
21
d-.! '
P_os
o
.
o
o
o
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUPS-01-05) TO
PERLA BARRAZA/SMART-MEX, INCORPORATED / LIGHTNING AUTO
CENTER PARTNERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMATIC
CAR WASH AND TWO-BAY LUBE CENTER AT 1616 THIRD
AVENUE/304 MONTGOMERY STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose
of general description is located at 1616 Third Avenue/304 Montgomery Street ("Project
Site"); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2001 duly verified application for Special Use Permit
SUPS-01-05 was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department and the
Community Development Department by F. Leland Hope, Architect ("Applicant"); and
3. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct an automatic 1 ,240-sq. ft. car
wash and 840-sq. ft. two-bay lube center, and 435-sq. ft. customer service building,
including required on-site parking, landscaping and driveways ("Project"); and
4. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, in absence of a Southwest Project Area Committee, and pursuant to the
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624), the
Planning Commission has been designated as the body to provide recommendations
for development projects located in the Southwest Project Area presented to the City
Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration pursuant to the authority
granted in the Zoning Ordinance and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission advertised a public hearing on the project for
December 12, 2001 that was continued to a public hearing on January 9, 2002, where it
was continued again to a public hearing on January 23, 2002 and voted X-X-X-X
recommending that the Redevelopment Agency (approve/deny) the project in
accordance with Resolution SUPS-01-05; and
5. Redevelopment Agency Record of Application
3Q
Resolution No.
-
Page 2
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the project was held before
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on February 5, 2002; to receive
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearings on this project held on December 12, 2001, January
9, 2002 and January 23, 2002 and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project requires a
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the Resource Conservation Committee
for review November 19, 2001 and was forwarded without a recommendation to the
Design Review Committee for lack of a quorum, and the Design Review Committee
recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on December 3, 2001.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
E. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as herein below
set forth, and sets forth, hereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding
to be made.
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed use at this location will provide a service or facility that will contribute
to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. The project redevelops
an underutilized parcel designated for commercial use, and assists in the elimination
of physical and economic blighting conditions as found in the Otay neighborhood and
within the Montgomery community and will provide necessary services that are
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Specific Plan and/or the
Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan.
31
Resolution No.
-
Page 3
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
The design of the lube center, customer area, and car wash will conform to the
design manual guidelines for commercial developments. In addition, a complete 15-
ft. wide landscape setback per the Montgomery Specific Plan can be provided along
Third Avenue (arterial thoroughfares) and along Montgomery Street (residential
collectors), unless a Zone Variance is granted from the Montgomery Specific Plan by
the Zoning Administrator for a reduction from a 15-ft. width to a 1 Q-ft. wide landscape
setback along Montgomery Street.
Landscaping and a screening wall will also be provided along the rear property line
adjacent to the existing apartment building to provide noise attenuation and to
minimize visual impacts.
The driveway access to the site will be limited to one exclusive entrance driveway
along the Third A venue street frontage for the car wash and lube center, and one
exclusive exit driveway for the car wash and lube center; All car wash and lube
center access and stacking will be conducted on-site. The employee parking spaces
will be accessed from the existing dedicated alley, satisfactorily minimizing overall
circulation conflicts onto public right-of-ways and dedicated alleys.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The proposed development conforms to the zoning restrictions and development
standards and is consistent with the regulations of the CCP zone and the
Montgomery Specific Plan, and is in conformance with the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan.
The construction of a lube and car wash center has been analyzed within the
environmental document and determined to be a less than significant noise and
traffic impact to the Third Avenue commercial corridor.
If the Special Use Permit is approved according the proposed site plan, the applicant
may request a Zone Variance from the Montgomery Specific Plan from the Zoning
Administrator for a reduction from a 15-ft. landscape setback to a 1 Q-ft. landscape
setback along Montgomery Street.
4. That the granting of this Special Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation
of Central Commercial with a Precise Plan, and the goals and objectives of the Land
Use Element regarding commercial development, which identifies automobile-
oriented services in conjunction with other central commercial uses in the vicinity.
:D.
Resolution No.
Page 4
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Permit SUPS-01-05 subject to
the following conditions whereby the Applicant and/or property owner shall:
1. Prior to the issuance of any of the following permits required by the City of Chula
Vista for the development of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the
applicant shall satisfy the following requirements:
Planning and Building Department Conditions:
a. Provide revised plans and elevations incorporating all conditions of approval. The
revised plans and elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permit.
b. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of approval. The
planting and irrigation plans shall be revised in conformance with a revised
conceptual landscape plan, subject to review and approval by the Landscape
Planner prior to issuance of building permit.
c. A water management plan shall be required in conjunction with the conceptual
landscape plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to issuance
of building permit.
d. A fencing plan shall be provided indicating all perimeter fencing to be provided. The
fencing plan shall be incorporated with the planting and irrigation plans and
submitted for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to the issuance of
building permit. The fence on the west property line shall connect to the southwest
corner of the wing wall.
e. Lighting for the facility shown on the site plan shall be in conformance with Section
17.28.020 of the Municipal Code. A lighting plan shall be provided prior to the
issuance of building permit that includes details showing that the proposed lighting
shall be shielded to remove any glare from adjacent properties, and shall be
reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
f. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This
shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project
shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
regarding graffiti control.
g. All building permit plans shall be reviewed for conformance with this Special use
Permit. Building Plans shall comply with 1998 Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and
National Electrical Code article 500. Building shall comply with handicapped
accessibility requirements and 2001 Title 24 energy requirements. Show fire rated
walls on plans. If the car wash wall is adjacent to the property line it must be a one-
hour fire rated wall. No wall openings shall be permitted if less than 5-ft. unless fire
protected. Fire protection is required if less than 10-ft. separation. Adjust the
33
Resolution No.
-
Page 5
building occupancy type from "M" occupancy for the office to "S3" for the lube and
car wash (areas with cars inside). Firewall separation is required between differing
types of occupancy for construction. Provide ladder as a secondary exit from the
lube pit area.
h. A separate building permit shall be required for the wall sign permits. All proposed
signage shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to the application
for the building permit for conformance with Design Review Committee
considerations. The wall sign permit application shall include scaled plans ensuring
that the channel letters for both the "Shell Rapid Lube" and "Lightning Auto Center"
consist of similar font style and size, in addition to the proposed logos.
i. Revised plan shall be submitted which complies with the landscaping requirement of
the Montgomery Specific Plan. As an altemative, the applicant may apply for a Zone
Variance for a reduction in the landscape setback along Montgomery Street from a
15-ft. to a 10-ft.
Environmental Section (Mitigation Monitoring) Conditions:
m The applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of
California to conduct testing for the presence of asbestos in buildings to be
demolished prior to the issuance of building permit. A report shall be submitted to
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department that identifies whether or
not asbestos is present. If required, a remedial work plan for the removal and
disposal of asbestos shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Chula
Vista Planning and Building Department and San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District.
n. Prior to demolition activities, the applicant shall conduct a lead-based paint survey
and shall submit the results to the Planning and Building Department. If the
presence of lead-based paint is confirmed on any structure scheduled for demolition,
an environmental consultant certified by the State of California shall remove it. The
applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required permits from all affected
state and local and regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the Air Pollution
Control District, and shall provide proof to the Planning and Building Department of
having obtained said permits prior to the issuance of any building permit.
o. The applicant shall obtain an Industrial User Discharge Permit from the County of
San Diego Industrial Wastewater Control Program and comply with all conditions
contained in any permit issued prior to the issuance of a building permit.
p. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits related to
hazardous materials from state and local regulatory agencies, including the San
Diego County Department of Environmental Health, and shall provide proof of having
obtained such permits to the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
31-
Resolution No.
-
Page 6
Resource Recycling and Conservation Coordinator Conditions:
q. Applicant shall have the proposed trash enclosure, including proposed bins or carts
approved to the design specifications of the Recycling and Conservation Coordinator
prior to the issuance of building permit. The locations and orientation of storage bins
and dumpsters shall also be pre-approved by the City franchise trash hauling
company. Trash enclosure shall provide sufficient space for designated recyclables
as determined by the Recycling and Conservation Coordinator. The Recycling and
Conservation Coordinator may permit a shared paper/cardboard bin, along with food
and beverage container cart with other storage. A commercial trash enclosure large
enough for solid waste, mixed paper, and a cart for food and beverage containers
must be provided to meet the minimum 50 percent recycling requirement. Contact
the City Conservation Coordinator at (619) 691-5122 prior to the issuance of building
permit.
Fire Department Conditions:
r. Obtain all necessary permits from the Fire Department. Applicant shall obtain a
permit for storage and use of hazardous materials. Provide a fire extinguisher per
3,000-sq. ft. or every 75-ft. of travel distance, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, or
the building must include a fire sprinkler system. A fire alarm is needed and must be
approved by the Fire Marshall prior to installation. Fire hydrants must be available
within 300-ft., or a fire hydrant will be required at the time of construction. A one-way
check valve between the post indicator valve and the Fire Department connection is
required at the time of construction.
Public Works Department Conditions:
s. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met prior to issuance of
the building permit. Applicant shall guarantee, by mechanisms to be determined by
the City Engineer, and install all missing street improvements along Third Avenue,
Montgomery Street, and the dedicated alley, including the two driveway approaches
per Chula Vista Construction Standard No.1, and installation of new curb, gutter and
sidewalk at 32-ft. from centerline and installation of curb return with handicap ramp
on Third Avenue to match existing sidewalk improvements on Montgomery Street.
Right-of-way dedication along Third Avenue will be required 42-ft. from centerline.
Handicap ramps are required at curb openings if alley type driveway openings are
proposed. Installation of 100-watt street light standard on Montgomery Street,
including conduits traffic signal pull box, and relocation of existing street light
standard on Third Avenue. Applicant shall submit a striping plan, which shall match
existing striping for street improvements prior to the issuance of building permit.
t. The City Engineer shall approve all directional signage and striping at the time of
construction. Due to traffic conflicts that may be imposed by left turn movements
from northbound Third Avenue, a 4-ft. wide raised median shall be installed to
eliminate left tums beyond the intersection of Montgomery Street into the facility, and
shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
building permit.
3S~
Resolution No.
-
Page 7
u. Applicant shall pay all required fees, including, but not limited to fees for sewer
capacity and connections, development impact for public facilities, and traffic signal
fees as defined in the development checklist as part of the building permit
application.
v. Applicant shall provide a sewage generation study/analysis showing the flow to be
generated by the project and determining the adequacy of existing infrastructure, or
the need to upgrade the existing infrastructure to accommodate the proposed
development prior to issuance of building permit.
w. The applicant shall submit plans for car wash water recycling at the time of the
submittal for grading and improvement plans. Storm drain inlets shall be protected at
all times during the demolition of existing buildings, and construction of the new
buildings and improvements
x. The grading and improvement plans shall include temporary and permanent erosion
control and pollution prevention components, as well as all drainage facilities. A geo-
technical/soils study shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of grading permit and prior to approval of improvement plans.
y. Applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for a high priority commercial facility, in conformance with the NPDES
Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01, and comply with the relevant requirements and
conditions of the permit, including implementation of minimum Best Management
Practices for pollution prevention, and site inspections as needed. Contact the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board at (858) 467-2971 to insure compliance
with the relevant laws and regulations.
Police Department Conditions:
z. The security lighting fixtures shall be low wattage bulbs. The lighting for the signage
and interior nightlights shall be independently wired so that they can be
independently used. This will aid in complying with the Governor's Executive Order
0-19-01.
aa. The final site plan shall show a wrought-iron fence along the west property line
between the apartment building and the car wash to provide better security in
conformance with crime prevention unit specifications.
bb. The applicant shall obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the
Police Department prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicant shall
comply with all reasonable requirements of the Crime Prevention Unit related to
access control, surveillance detection, and police response. In addition, training of
management and employees in security procedures and crime prevention shall
coincide with the commencement of operations. The Crime Prevention Unit should
be contacted at (619) 691-5127 for more information.
Other Agency Conditions:
cc. Due to the proximity of the project to the Sweetwater Authority's existing and
proposed demineralization facilities, the Authority is concerned about the use or
3~
Resolution No.
-
Page 8
storage of potentially hazardous chemicals that may be harmful to groundwater. The
applicant shall provide the Sweetwater Authority with the necessary information
about the use or storage of potentially hazardous chemicals, and modify the site plan
as required by the Authority prior to the issuance of a building permit.
dd. The Authority will determine if there is a need for new or substantial alteration to the
existing water systems available on site, as well as the availability of water for
operational and fire protection purposes. The applicant shall contact the Chula Vista
Fire Department about the fire flow requirements for the proposed project site and
then submit a letter to the Sweetwater Authority stating the Fire Department
requirements.
ee. The applicant shall pay all applicable school fees for the Sweetwater Union High
School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District prior to issuance of
the building permit.
2. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the
following requirements shall be met:
a. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans
which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors,
landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions
contained herein, Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and the Montgomery
Specific Plan.
b. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building.
c. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in accordance with the
approved landscape plan and the comments of the City Landscape Planner.
d. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.,
shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a
combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
e. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment
and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be
architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans.
f. A fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute for duration of three (3) hours must be
provided. The back flow preventor shall be screened from view, and the Fire
Department connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor.
g. Best Management Practices (BMP's) according to the Engineering Department, shall
be implemented during and after construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation
in the downstream storm drain system. Applicant shall control short-term erosion to
by installing a temporary de-silting and erosion control devices. These devices
37
Resolution No.
-
Page 9
include de-silting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
h. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust
control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days
until dust emissions are not visible.
i. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust
and spills.
j. A 2D-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project
shall be enforced.
k. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
I. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
m. Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as
possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
n. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems
for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities.
Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. Also,
construction equipment shall be equipped with pre-chamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) together with proper maintenance.
o. The northern driveway shall be a minimum 3D-ft. width to allow for two-way traffic
access. The south driveway shall be constructed as an alley-type driveway and
striped for ingress only.
p. The applicant shall install red curbing along the Third Avenue frontage to prevent on-
street parking.
q. The Special Use Permit approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or the
approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval,
unless a written request for an extension is received prior to the expiration date.
3. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it
relies upon this approval.
a. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of Title 19 of
the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
b. Buildings and Landscaping shall be maintained according to the approved plans
unless modifications are approved by the City of Chula Vista.
3<g'
Resolution No.
-
Page 10
c. Fire lanes shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20-ft. width and 13-1/2-
ft. vertical clearance.
d. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department for
any repair work done on-site or for the storage of hazardous materials exceeding
those listed in the California Fire Code 1998 (CFC 98). Petroleum spills shall be
immediately reported to the Fire Department, and spilled petroleum removed from
the site as directed by the Fire Department.
e. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
f. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest
related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be
heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a
substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of
the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
g. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attomeys' fees (collectively, "liabilities")
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and
issuance of this special use permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other
permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the
use contemplated herein, and (c) applicant's construction. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this special
use permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and this provision
shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
h. Applicant shall be responsible for any and all relocation expenses related to the
project. Applicant indemnifies, holds harmless, protects, and defends City from any
and all relocation claims arising from or related to any action taken by the Agency,
including the consideration, and/or approval of this Special Use Permit or related
documents
i. Obtain an annual inspection of the lube center from the Fire Department.
J. The Design Review Notice of Decision is subject to any and all additional conditions
as required in the Special Use Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission
and Redevelopment Agency.
k. The Car Wash facility shall comply with Section 19.58.060 of the Zoning Code,
meaning that all car wash equipment will be sufficiently soundproofed, the hours of
operation shall be limited to 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (summer) and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
.5.8'
Resolution No.
-
Page 11
(winter), stacking will be limited to six (6) vehicles in front of the vacuum manifold for
the car wash, and two (2) vehicles in front of the lube center, and site drainage will
conform to required mitigation for sewer and storm water systems.
I. The Automobile Service facility shall comply with Section 19.58.280 of the Zoning
Code, meaning that all automotive services will take place within the lube center
building, and that automotive services to vehicles outside the automated car wash
will be limited to the interior vehicle vacuum manifold area entering the car wash and
the drying area located at the car wash exit adjacent to the alley. In addition, no
outside sales, display, or accessory outdoor uses, or other items offered for sale on
the site shall be allowed. No provisions are provided for canopies or other services,
such as auto detailing, to be provided outside the enclosed buildings.
G. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at
the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of
this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the Agency's
secretary. Failure to return said document to the Agency's secretary shall indicate the
property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the Agency's office and known as document No. _'
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative of
Lightning Auto Center
Date
Signature of Representative of
Shell Lube Center
Date
H. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE
The Redevelopment Agency directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a
Notice of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
I. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions
are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or
3'/
Resolution No.
-
Page 12
unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney and Agency Counsel
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 5th day of February, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Shirley Horton
Chairman
ATTEST:
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista,
California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
No. _ and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
Dated: February 5, 2002
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary
J :\PLANNtNG\HARO LD\RESoLUTIONSICARWASH SUP .DOC
Y-o
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3_
Meeting Date: 1/23/02
Public Hearing: PCC-02-31, modification to Conditional Use Permit C-68-20,
for an existing self-service car wash located at 298 Broadway.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 5 categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15305 (f) --- minor conditional use permit
which does not result in significant change in land use or intensity).
ITEM TITLE:
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDA TION: That the Planning Commission adopts the attached Resolution PCC -
02-31, based on the tlndings and including the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
1 . Site Characteristics
The project site is located on the northwest corner ofF Street and Broadway. There are commercial
uses on all four corners of the intersection, but there are mobile home dwellings on both the rear and
side property lines not fronting Broadway and F Street
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The project is located in a commercial (CT) Zone, with a General Plan Land Use Designation of
Commercial Thoroughfare.
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
GENERAL PLAN
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
ZONING
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CURRENT LAND USE
Self-Service Car Wash
Mobile Home Park Dwellings
Bobar Liquor/Gas/Shopping Center
Seven-Eleven/Shopping Center
Mobile Home Park Dwellings
3. Proposal
The proposal is to require that the car wash be cordoned off, by whatever method necessary, such as
an heavy-duty chain, to prevent car wash patrons from using the facility during the prohibited times of
operation (I I PM to 7 AM).
BACKGROUND:
The self-service car wash has been in continuous operation since the Planning Commission approved
its Conditional Use Permit (C-68-20) back in 1968. The current operator of the car wash has leased
the property since August 1997. Over approximately the past year and one-half there have been
complaints about the occasional use of the site beyond the permitted operating hours, and the
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/23/02
accompanying noise of vehicles and loud radios beyond the hours of II PM and 7 AM. A formal
complaint was first filed with the Code Enforcement Section of the Building Division on June 9, 2000
(for loud noise between 4:30 AM and 5:30 AM). Another formal complaint was filed on October 30,
2001 (for car wash operations occurring after IIPM).
A resident of the Trailer Villa Mobile Home Park that surrounds the car wash to the north and west
made both complaints. The complainant, Angelique Williams, lives in the mobile home located in
space #1, which is adjacent to the masonry wall on the westerly property line of the car wash parcel.
Of note, the same landlord owns the car wash property and mobile home park.
Ms Williams has also spoken at City Council meetings expressing frustration with the noise situation
and the City's lack of response to her complaints. As a result, City staff has met individually with Ms.
Williams as well as the current car wash operator, Jeffery Jackson, to clarifY issues and to seek a
resolution that would be amenable by both parties.
Mr. Jackson attempted to abate the first complaint filed by installing signage prohibiting loitering,
loud noise, as well noticing the prescribed hours of operation. According to Mr. Jackson, an
attendant was also hired to watch over the property. With regards to the second complaint filed, Mr.
Jackson states that a master timer was installed to shut off power after business hours. In addition,
Mr. Jackson claims that in June 2001 that the property was barricaded on a regular basis, with an
attendant installing poles that can be chained up at night across the access driveways.
However, there have been occurrences since September 200 I when the attendants failed to lock up
the property on time or on a regular basis, and as a result, the noise problems at night began to
reoccur during the prohibited non-operating hours. Mr. Jackson has since hired a security person
through the trailer park manager's office to barricade the property nightly, to prevent any further
lapses in barricading.
Nevertheless, staffis requesting that the Planning Commission modifY the Conditional Use Permit by
adding a requirement (Condition #11) to the original I 0 conditions requiring the barricading of the
property to be a condition of approval (see attachment #3).
ANALYSIS:
Mr. Jackson has shown good faith in attempting to resolve the complaints about loud noise and
controlling the hours of operation. In the meeting with Ms. Williams, she stated that she would be
satisfied if the site was secured by some mechanism such as barricading the property access (i. e.
chain-link) after hours. Therefore, the methods being used should be able to solve the problem of
customer use of the car wash beyond the allowed hours of operation, and as a result, solve the
problem of loud noise during the night. However, before the City can enforce this operational
technique a condition of approval must be added to the existing Conditional Use Permit to
memorialize the methods used to control the hours of operation. In this case, the operator has agreed
to secure the lot during hours of non-operation by placing a chain or barrier across all points of
vehicular access. Therefore, the following condition is recommended:
;;J-
--,-~--~-_.__...__..-
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/23/02
11. Permittee shall secure the lot dnring hours of non-operation by placing a chain or
barrier across all points of vehicular access. Isolated violations of this provision, which
do not aggregate into an offensive condition to neighboring properties or
improvements, should not be the sole determining factor in the Planning Commission's
decision to modify or revoke this permit.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed modification to the existing
Conditional Use Permit as stated above, subject to the modified findings and the additional condition
found in the draft Planning Commission resolution.
A TT ACHMENTS:
I. Locator Map
2. Site Plan from 1968 (C-68-20)
3. Resolution of the Planning Commission No. PCC-02-31 (Revised C-68-20)
J:\PLANNINGIHAROLDlPcc-02-31.DOc
3
QV-
S"(R~~"(
Q,,\lIQSO~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT CITY OF CHULA VISTA / PLANNING PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 298 BROADWAY
AOORESS: Request: Proposed modification of Conditional Use
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: Permit # C-68-20 for the car wash at the 298 Broadway.
NORTH No Scale PCC-02-31
h:lhomelplanningIDAlllocatorsIPCC0231.cdr 01/08/02 ~
/00' I
I
\'
.~
/20'
t;;' Nt'6N wAt" "c/
r-20'-j
40'
.,
:~
.I::'
(,IT/totTY ItOOItll
~
3'J(~'
5/&'"
,
;JS-
IS' TYPICAL
.:. ""rt.lNI' 4TR.ET . ,
-=:-=- __..",~ _ ,-_--:.--_-=.::-a.
:.: WIPIAltA!6 "'1J'" ,~.
-','
,
" "
F
.5TREET
~
.
.,
.'
,
,,~'..
~
C)
~
~
,,'
:~:!
9M ;4tt 1f/eat'-e't () fte'eatitJn
TYPE GR - CLOSED GABLE ROOF
Any number
of Stalls....
This popular Monitor Building is the top
in quality and all weather use. . . featur-
ing completely enclosed construction ,...
framed wash stall openings front and
rear . . . bright colors for eye.catching
appearance. . .
.
I
I
I
I
l=-"~~:r~~
! I
!
~ I
a
1".00
10'-(1'
T -I
~~
.
ALSO AVAILABLE IN TUNNEL DESIGN!!!
1,~r~ -=---~
10'-0" Lb'-2"
~ -'--~
TYPE FR - CLOSED FLAT ROOF
With Mansard Facia
. . . any number of stalls
Modern looking - with its great-great new appearance. . .
practical . . . efficient. . . specifically styled and built for the
modern car wash market. , . the Mansard Facia adds much
elegance to your building with small cost.
~
I ------------- I
I . I
I 11
I I.
I I g
I I i
I
-1 ROOF J
t-'CoulL.!'!!-t:;j-----j J
b'-a'
.- 16'-;?" 10'-0" 16'-2"
All Monitor Buildings
are available without
Equipment Rooms if
Console InstallMlon Is
desired. ' ~
ALL BUILDINGS AVAILABLE
WITH GALVANIZED STRUCTURE
~
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-02-31
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C-68-
20 FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH WITH SIX BAYS
LOCATED AT 298 BROADWAY
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City ofChula Vista Planning Department on October 31, 1968 by William R. Nager, Jr.; and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to modify the conditional use permit was filed by
the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on December 21,2001; and
WHEREAS, said application requested that the applicant be granted a conditional use
permit to allow construction of a self-service car wash with six bays on property at 298
Broadway more particularly described in the application, and which was zoned C-2; and
WHEREAS, said application to modify the conditional use permit to the existing self-
service car wash with six bays on property at 298 Broadway is now zoned CT; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the proposed
modification to the conditional use permit is a Class 5 categorical exemption from environmental
review (CEQA Section 15305 (f) n_ minor conditional use permit which does not result in
significant changes in land use or intensity) with regards to the effects on the environment in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for the original public
hearing on said application and notice of said hearing was given by the mailing of a letter to
property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for the modified conditional use
permit public hearing and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
within 500-ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the original public hearing was held at the time and place, namely 7:00 p.m.
November 18, 1968, Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the hearing for the proposed modification to the conditional use permit was
held at the time and place, namely 6:00 p.m. January 23, 2002, Council Chamber, Civic Center,
276 Fourth Avenue Avenue, Chula Vista before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
7
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCC-02-31
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED BY THE 1968 PLANNING COMMISSION
(York, Adams, Stewart, Chandler, Hyde, and Rice) on November 18th 1968 as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide
a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the
neighborhood or the community.
A car wash is a desirable adjunct to an automobile-oriented commercial area such as
Broadway, which is designated as Thoroughfare Commercial on the General Plan.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The fence and hours of operation should reduce the use to a sufficient degree of
inoffensiveness.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the Code for such use.
The conditions imposed and the applicable Ordinance requirements will msure
compliance with the Code.
d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan would not be adversely affected by the approval of this request.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION
finds as follows:
1. That the proposed modification to the use permit at this location is necessary or
desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well
being of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed addition of a condition that requires the operator of a car wash to secure the
lot during hours of non-operation at this location is necessary or desirable and will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.
2. That the proposed modification will not under the circumstances of the particular
case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed addition of a condition that requires the operator of a car wash to secure the
lot during hours of non-operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
S'
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCC-02-31
Page 3
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or InJUrIOUS to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The proposal to impose an additional condition along with the applicable regulations for
car wash facilities found in the zoning ordinance will insure compliance with the Code.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency would not be
adversely affected by the approval of this modification to the Conditional Use Permit.
IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1968 Planning Commission granted a
conditional use permit to William R. Nager, Jr., to construct a self-service car wash with six bays
on property at 298 Broadway. Approval of the conditional use permit was granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to II :00 p.m.
2. A solid 6' high masonry wall shall be erected on the north and west sides of the property.
3. All signs shall be neither moving nor flashing and shall be subject to approval by the
staff.
4. Concerning traffic circulation, the Traffic Engineer concurs with the staff that the
following requirements be imposed:
a. One-way traffic circulation be required on the property with the entrance on "F"
Street and the exit on Broadway.
b. A double-faced sign be placed at the exit. On the street side of the sign would be
printed "exit only" and on the interior side "no left turn."
c. The curb cut on Broadway shall be reduced to 20 feet.
d. The building shall be located 10 feet further west to allow more maneuvering and
drying space in the front of the building.
5. Planting and irrigation plans, which shall include the "F" Street parkway and street trees,
shall be subject to the approval of the staff.
6. The property, except for the landscaped and building areas, shall be paved with 2" of
asphaltic concrete over a base approved the City Engineer.
!
Planning Commission Resolution No. PCC-02-31
Page 4
7. The parkway area on Broadway shall be filled in with concrete with two tree wells
located thereon.
8. All lighting shall be directed away from adjacent property.
9. Building plans shall be submitted to the staff for approval. If they find any problems
with justifying the proposed building, then it shall be resubmitted to the Planning
Commission for approval. Masonry construction is desirable.
10. This conditional use permit is granted with the knowledge that the initial installation shall
be not only as delineated but that it shall be permanently maintained in the condition as
installed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 2002 Planning Commission maintains grant of
conditional use permit for self-service car wash with six bays on property at 298 Broadway
subject to the following addition to the above conditions:
11. Permittee shall secure the lot during hours of non-operation by placing a chain or
barrier across all points of vehicular access. Isolated violations of this provision,
which do not aggregate into an offensive condition to neighboring properties or
improvements, should not be the sole determining factor in the Planning
Commission's decision to modify or revoke this permit.
PASSED and APPROVED by the CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 23,d day of January, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Kevin O'Neill, Chairman
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J: IPlanninglHARO LDIResolutionslRESO-PCC-02_31 (C-68- 2U).doc
jD
~II?
---
"""'" 7
~.~
<!tYOF
GlUIA yto;y;'I.
Deparbn.ent o:f' Plan.n.in.g and Building
Date:
January 23, 2002
To:
Planning Commissioners
J;m S,.d,,,~ A".".t PI~';'g D~re't" f'
John Schmitz, Principal Planner l
Issues Related to Accessory Second Units
Via:
From:
Subject:
On November 7, staff presented a report to the Planning Commission on the various issues that would
need to be addressed if the City of Chula Vista is to adopt a local ordinance regulating accessory
second units. Given the length of time since that first presentation, staff has attached a copy of that
report.
The Commission directed staff to prepare a summary matrix so that each member could note their
position on each issue in relation to staff s recommendation. In December, that summary matrix was
distributed (Copy attached). This meeting is to give the Commission another opportunity to go
through the issues listed, and direct staff on how to proceed in the drafting of a local ordinance for
accessory second units.
At the January 9 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Bill Tripp addressed the Commission under
public comment and reminded them of the California Government Code requirements for notification
on discretionary permits. Mr. Tripp has stated before that he believes that the City should publish a
notice in the newspaper for all conditional use permit applications for accessory second units.
Attached is the section of the Government Code dealing with public notices. Staff would point out
Section 65091 (3) which requires noticing to be "mailed or delivered" to property owners within 300
feet, but give the City the option of publishing a notice ifthe number of owners is greater than 1,000.
This issue is listed as item 10.B in the original report and the matrix distributed in December.
Attachments:
1 - Issue Paper on Second Units
2 - Summary Matrix
3 ~ Government Code Sections on Public Notice
/
~Yt.-
~-:
-
--
--
A71A C 1-1 /L{ e: A.J T
(
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
Memorandum
Depart:n:le:nt: of PIa.:n.:nin.g an.d Build.in.g
Date:
November 7,2001
Fronl:
Planning Commissioners
/1 (1
Harold Phelps, Associate Planner~ /
To:
Via:
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director
Subject:
Issue Paper
RE:
Accessory Second Units in Residential Zones
Attached is a copy ofthe Issue Paper that will provide the majority of elements for consideration that
staff feels are the most relevant with regard to the subject of creating an accessory second unit
ordinance.
It is our jntention to review the various elements presented here at the IVednesday workshop. Your
comments will assisI staff in the preparation of the draft accessory second unit ordinance.
Please note the summary/recommendations at the conclusions oftbe Issue Paper.
,
~
ISSlE P.-\.PER: ACCESSORY SECO:\D l::\ITS 1:\ RESIDE:\TIAL ZO'\ES
DEFI'\'ITlON:
Accessory second units are attached or detached residential dwelling units that provide complete
independent living racilities for one or more persons on the same parcel as a main dwelling. Section
65852.2 of the GO\'ernment Code mandates that accessory second units be allowed either by local
ordinance or by state standards relating to size, parking and other development regulations generally
applicable to the zone.
ISSl"E:
. Should Chula Vista adopt a local accessory second unit ordinance or continue to rely on the
State government code provisions for such units?
. If the Citv chooses to create a local accessory second unit ordinance:
o Should it exclude anv zones or geographic areas?
o What development standards should be included?
BACKGROUND:
The California State Legislature has enacted legislation declaring that accessory second units are a
valuable form of housing in California, providing housing forfami/y members, students, the elderly,
ill-home health jJro\'iders, the disabled, and OIhers, at helow market prices within existmg
neighborhoods. \\nen this legislation was enacted back in 1983, it required that cities and counties,
including charter cities (such as Chula Vista), adopt a local ordinance or follow state law allowing
accessory second units if they met the state mandated criteria.
Cities, counties and charter cities could either adopt Iheir own ordinance to allow or make findinf!s 10
prolubit such umrs (based oll.tindmgs relatmg to rhe adverse impacts on the public health, safet)'.
alld welfare) by Julv ] _ 1983 or within 120-days of their first application received for an accessory
second unit. In absence of such an ordinance, a city or county would be obliged to follow the
gO\unment code with regard to the processing of accessory second units, including granny flats.
In fact, the intent or the "granny flat" legislation (sub-section 65852.150) was to encourage local
agencies to adopt their own accessory second unit ordinance (section 65852.2), recognizing the need
for provisions related to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, bulnOl so
arbin"alT, excessil't;, or burdensome so as 10 unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to
crcare second 1/7711.1' m ::ones ill which thev are authori=ed by local ordinance.
Of note, State law provides that any accessory second units added as a result of state legislation or
local ordinance provisions shall be considered consistent with General Plan and/or Zoning Code
densiIy regulations Thus, accessory second units are unaffected by local land use density.controls.
History and Demand
In Chula Vista, the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council recognized the issue
.3
ISSlJJ',,-EER:
ACCESSORY SEC()';O l:~ITS
PAGEl
of preparing a local ordmance addressing accessory second units back in 1983. Howe\er, no
ordinance was adopted at that time Therefore, between] 983 and 1999 persons who were interested
in developing accessory second units could either rely on the State law, or utilize Section 19.58.130
of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to dwelling groups in certain zones. The dwelling group
provisions allow additional units on oversized lots without a subdivision based upon the sites ability to
meet Ihe underlying zone density and satisfy other development regulations.
In recognition of the fact that there were no provisions in the code for accessory second units as
allowed under state government code provisions, and the fact that there were many public inquiries
regarding accessory second units, Ihe Planning Division began the process of preparing a draft
accessory second unit ordinance in March :WOO.
Since then, a number of pre-application conferences have been held with property owners interested
in developing accessory second units as "granny flats" (units with restrictions as to the age of the
occupant) or accessory second units (no restrictions on occupancy). Seven (7) cases have been
approved; four (4) were approved administratively as "granny flats"; Planning Commission approved
the other three (3) as accessory second units. Another four (4) applications have been accepted and
submitted for re\'iew, so at least eleven (1]) applications have been made in the last 1 a-months
(December 2000 10 October 2001).
Pro's and Con's of a Local Ordinance:
The City may chose to continue to process each accessory second unit by way of public hearings
before the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis, utilizing the state government code in
conjunction with the development sIandards of the underlying zoning for each individual property
The advantage \0 this would be that Ihe CiIy would not have to go through the time and effort 10
develop a local ordinance and conduct public hearings.
However, based upon the City's recent experience processing requests for second units, there are at
least four major issues of concern That have been raised that could be addressed by the adoption of a
local ordinance. These issues include, (1) how to address the retroactive permitting of exisIing
illegally constructed accessory second units; (2) how to address accessory second unit conformance
WiIh existing development standards; (3) how to address the accessory second unit size and parking
requirements, and (-4) how to address accessory second unit as they affect density issues, particularly
on t\\o-family and multi-family zoned properties. These issues provide good examples of why a local
ordinance governing The implementaIion of the accessory second unit provisions might be necessary.
In addition, Chula \ 'ista, along with the rest of San Diego County, is experiencing a significant rate of
gro\\1h at a time when there are also increased housing costs and a limited supply of affordable
housing. The combination of housing demand, costs, and limited affordable housing will surely
increase the pressure to allow more accessory second units as infill housing throughout the City in the
immediate future ' .
The Housing Element approved last year by the City Council for the five-year cycle ending in 2004
recognizes that the City of Chula Vista has met, and will continue to meet, the majority of its
'f
ISSlT PAPER:
ACCESSORY SECO"D r"ITS
PAGE3
affordable housing obligations through the development of multi-family housing projects, especially in
the eastern portion of the City. However, the Housing Element also recognizes the need for
providing more affordable housing oppor1unities. The section titled "Constraints to Housing
Provision" mentioned land use controls, such as residential zoning designations. Housing
opportunities are mentioned such as density bonus provisions, mixed-use development zones, and
residential projects in certain commercial zones. The "dwelling group" provisions are also mentioned
in the Housing Element, without elaborating on the double-lot size requirement.
Most importantly, however, is the "Goals and Policies" section listing as part of Goal #3 - Ensure
that an AdequaIe and Diverse Housing Supply is Available to Meet the City's Existing and Future
Needs" ---
3.4: AdopT a Two-uniT or second-unit ordinance to provide additional low-cost
housing opporTuniTies To residenTS, parTicularly/or seniors and students, In 2000-
2001, The Cftv, wiTh direcTion from The Planning and Building Department, shall
adopT an ordinance ThaT permits second dwelling units under cerTain conditions.
ANALYSIS:
Elements of an Accessorv Second Unit Ordinance:
Should the City of (hula Vista decide that it would be appropriate to establish a local ordinance
rather than rely upon the State standards for accessory second uniIs, decisions would have to be made
on the following poims
A. AFFORDABILm': Shall the fJl'O\'lsions/iJl' accessory second uniTS he based on the demand/or
affordah/e housing? Should accessOl)' second uniTS he required to participate in affordah/e
housing programs. such as rem control?
It seems that the justification for the allowance of accessory second units could be based upon the
demand for affordable housing, since the state government code allowance was, and still is, based
on the need for more affordable housing, especially for seniors, disabled persons and/or relatives
of owner-occupied single-family residential dwellings.
In the City of San Diego, the ordinance adopted (known as the "companion unit" provisions),
mandates that there must be less than a 5 percent vacancy rate in rental units in order for a
companion unit (accessory second unit) application to be accepted. It may be prudent for the
City of Chula Vista to also recognize that the demand for such units is tied to the availability (or
Jack thereof) of alternative affordable housing units. In doing so, the City recognizes that its
approval of such units is to allow for accessory second units under special circumstances, such as
the lack of affordable housing. ' .
However, it could be very difficult to administer a floating "moratorium" on accessory second
units since previously approved units would remain as examples to property owners even without
an affordable housing crisis. .t\n appropriate vacancy rate could be open to much debate. ,t\nd
S-
ISSIE P >.PER:
ACCESSORY SECO"D r"ITS
P>.GE-t
tinally, propeny owners may also object to the control of their land based upon a vacancv rate
factor that is difficult for them 10 fully understand.
One method for the City of Chula Vista to be able to count the accessory dwelling units toward
meeting the affordable housing objectives of the Housing Element, and of maintaining the long
term afford ability of these units, could be through the imposition of rent control as a condition of
approval. Such a restriction might allow the City ofChula Vista to report these units for credit
towards meeting affordable housing goals set in the Housing Element or the redevelopment plans.
Conversely, such a restriction could create administrative problems with monitoring the various
scattered propenies for compliance with the rent restrictions.
in the interest of simplicity, staff would not recommend that eiIherthe control by vacancy rate, or
the imposition of rent control be applied as part of a local accessory unit ordinance.
B. OCCUPANCY: Shall occupancy of the accessOl)i second unit be limited to use by persons most
impacted by the lack ()f affordable housing, namely (1) seniors, (2) disabled persons, (3)
relatives of the owner-occupied main single-familv unit, (4) students, (5) single-pm'ent or single-
I17come households, (6) resident care givers, etc.? Shall owner-occupancy ()f the main or
accessOlY second unit be required?
In formulating an accessory second unit ordinance, Section 65852.15 of the State Government
Code appears 10 give the City the authority to limit occupancy of accessory units to persons 62
\'ears of age or older. In the past. some jurisdictions have also required that either the main or
accessory second unit be owner-occupied to address concerns about the creation absentee-owner
situations on a properties in single-family neighborhoods that are predominately homeowner
occupied.
l'nfortunatelv, it appears from recent court decisions that attempts to impose any requirements or
restrictions on age, disability, relationship to the owner and owner occupancy would not be
constitutional. In recent hearings to consider accessory units, the City Attorney has advised that,
in an abundance of caution, no restrictions on occupancy be included in a local ordinance.
C. LOT SIZE: Should a minimum lot size be required as part of the provisions for permitting an
accessol)i second unit in any zone? Should the same minimum lot size requirement apply to all
zones, or should It differ for certain Planned Communities and/or Specific Plan areas and/or
communities neighborhoods?
\1inimum lot size is an integral part of zoning standards imposed on single-family zones with
regard to lot co\'erage and setbacks. Currently all single-family zones have a minimum lot size of
5,OOO-sq. ft. where the General Plan and the traditional R-I zoning code development standards
define the zones. In the Planned Communities there are single-family lots that are as'small as
4,000-sq. ft. or even less in some specific cases.
There may need 10 be some discretion as to which ofthe "PC" areas could qualify for accessory
second units. For example, in one Otay Ranch de\'elopment, there is a proposal by the McMillan
&
ISSlT PAPER:
.\CCESSORY SECO~D l"dTS
PAGE5
r,mpaw. to utilize accessorv second units on single-family lots a\'eraging 4,000-sq. ft. in size as
"11 integ! <11 pari of their affordable housing set-aside. In these areas, only the neighborhoods or
subdivisions that possess alley access would be eligible for an accessory unit. These lots are
designed with the alley providing access to a two-car garage and an additional off-street parking
space located next to the garage, with the accessory second unit located above the garage.
In other Planned Communities, where lots are less than 5,000-sq. ft. and do not have alley access,
there generally are not the same options for accessory units as described above. Accessory
second units could not be accommodated without adversely affecting the infrastructure and
appearance of these master planned neighborhoods.
Of note, with regard to affordable housing, all of the existing Planned Communities have met the
affordable housing requirements as part of their General Development Plan through the various
multi-family developments that were required. Therefore, only in future cases where the accessory
second unit was to become an integral part of the affordable housing set-aside would the
requirement to include them in any Planned Community be necessary.
However, it may be appropriate to provide provisions to allow for accessory second units in some
of the Planned Community areas, under certain conditions by way ofa local ordinance. Of note,
the first "granny flat" unit approved in Chula Vista in December, :WOO, was located in the Rancho
Del Rey Planned Community.
It may be that within planned communities zoned and developed with lots greaterthan 5,000-sq.
ft., it could be possible to add an accessory unit. In addition to constructing a new unit on the lot,
it may be possible for a large home to be modified to allow to creation of an internal accessory
second unit. For example, a five-bedroom house with three bathrooms could be converted to a
four-bedmom two-bath home with a one-bedroom one bath accessory second unit within the
existing building envelope.
Except in the PC zones, which may have special provisions, 5,000-sq.ft. seems like a good
minimum lot size for allowing additional construction and parking for an accessory unit without
adversely affecting setbacks, height limits and open space in most single family neighborhoods.
D. U:\1T SIZE: Shall the si:;e of the accessory second unit be con17'olled by the local ordinance?
Shall the number of bedrooms in an accessOl)' second unit be controlled by the local ordinmlce?
II may be desirable to limit the overall size of the accessory second unit. The original state
government code provisions in 1983 limited the size of the unit to 640-sq. ft. Currently, the state
government code allows for a detached unit to possess up to L200-sq. ft. offloor area, larger
than some single-family units in Chula Vista.
,
II seems that the original floor area requirement of 640-sq. ft. is closer to an accurate depiction of
the size an accessory second unit should be. Based on the minimum floor area required by our
own code, a one bedroom multi-family unit is required to be a minimum 500-sq. ft., and a two-
bedroom unit in an R-3 development must be a minimum 650-sq. ft.
7
-_._.__.__..._---_._-~---_._._---_._._---_...__.__..._.--.
hSlT PAPER:
ACCESSORY SECO:-;D l":-;ITS
PAGE6
Thc number uf bedrooms \Vas an issue that was addressed in the Planning Commission Code
.'\rnendment in 1983, which proposed that an accessory second unit only possess one bedroom.
However, if t\\'o elderly persons, or a disabled person were to be accommodated along with one
other qualifYing person, a two-bedroom unit would certainly be more appropriate, and mav be
necP-3sary for handicapped access.
It seems that a maximum square footage of650-sq. ft. is therefore appropriate. This would still
provide for one or two bedroom units as necessary.
E. LOT COVERAGE: Should lot coverage he a consideration in the accessOJ}' second unit /oca/
ordinance? Should the /ot coverage requirement of the existing zoning prevail, or should they
he allowed to increase for certain lots, such as those that are only 4, ODD-sq. ft. in Planned
Communities and 5, ODD-sq. ft. prevailing in the Montgomel)' Specific Plan area compared to the
larger lots (6,000 - 7, OOO-sq. ft. or greatel) in the traditional R-l zones ofChula Vista?
The issue ofJat coverage is maybe more important than minimum lot size, since the lot coverage
allowed may determine if an accessory second unit can even be built on the subject property
Availability would depend on how large the main single-family structure is, and how many other
accessory struclUres already impact the property (i.e. garages, patio covers, cabanas, and
workshops).
In traditional R-l zones, maximum lot coverage ranges from 40 to 50 percent total coverage
allowed. In Planned Communities, the large floor areas of the main single-family structure
combined with the small lot areas often results in lot coverage that range from 60 to 70 percent.
The ability to include an accessory second unit on such lots is questionable.
In light of the need to maintain a certain level of open space through setback requirements in
single family neighborhoods, it would not be beneficial to allow lot coverage to exceed 50
percent. In Planned Communities, where lots are less than 5,000-sq. ft. and lot coverage is
already over 50 percent, the accessory second unit may have to be developed within the existing
building envelope. meaning no additional square footage could be added to the lot.
F. OFF-STREET PARKING: W7wtlevel (jf off-street parking is appropriate for accessOJ)' second
units? Should the accessOJ)' second units be required to provide additional off-street parking in
addition to the minimum requirement for a 2-car garage? Shall access from the street be
required or 11ou/d a dedicated alley access be acceptable? Shall the off-street parking be
allowed in a requlredfront or side yard setback area? Shall screening, carports, or garages be
aI/owed or required? Shall tandem parkillg be al10wed if 110 additiollal parking call be provided
on the site?
.
The City has required at least one additional off-street parking space for the previously approved
requests for granny flats and accessory second units. This is in compliance with the provisions of
the state government code, which states that no more than one parking space can be required for
accessory units. Of note, carports/garages have never been required for these type units.
/?
ISSIE PAPER:
ACCESSORY SECO.~D L:>ITS
I'AGE-
Staff believes thaI the issue of off-street parking should be tied to whatever unit size limitations
that are adopted If units are limited to 650-sq. ft. and 1 - 2 bedrooms, one additional off-streeI
parking space would be an appropriate requirement. The added parking space should be adjacent
to existing parking or an alley, and vehicles should not be allowed to park in tandem with other
required parking. Although staff would not recommend that the parking for an accessory
dwelling unit be under a carport or within a garage, it should be appropriately screened from the
public right-of-way or adjacent residential properties Ifno additional off-street parking can be
provided, it may preclude the applicant from having an accessory second unit.
G. AESTHETICS: ,rhat role should aesthetics play in the consideration (!f accessory second units a~
part of a local ordinance? Should the Zoning Administrator or the Design Review Committee
review the architecture of the accessOlY second unit (Should a conceptual landscaping plan be
required)? Should units be attached or detached? Can units be above garages or be second
.floor units above existing single-family homes? Should there be controls on the visibility (jfthe
access to the accessOlY second unitfrom a public street, alley or private easement road?
The Planning Commission's proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance in 1983 required that
such units not create a second front entrance or other street side entrance that would signal the
presence of the unit or to otherwise alter the single-family appearance of the property In
addition, the City Council would have further required that the accessory second unit be attached
to the main dwelling structure.
Of note, without the enactment of the 1983 ordinance, the City has in the past approved
accessory second units above new garages, attached to the side of new garages, as well as
attached or detached to the rear of the main single-family dwelling unit.
Requiring thaI all accessory second units be attached to, or detached from, the main dwelling
structure might be overly restrictive given the wide range of options that properties have in terms
of topography, lot size and surrounding uses. It seems that the City's design review process
could adequately address the compatibility of a proposed accessory second unit with the site and
jIs surroundings. \\Iith a clear set of development standards to regulate an accessory unit, it
would be appropriate to allow the Zoning Administrator to review and approve the design of the
proposed unit.
H. UTILITY CO)\,,-rCTIONS: Shall utility connections be a consideration in the accessOlY second
unit local ordinance? Should the accessOlY unit utilities be tied to the main single-family unit or
possess separate connections with regard to water, sewer and electric meter connections?
Accessory second units, just as all residential additions, are assessed development impact fees due
to their cumulaIive effect on infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewer systems, traffic-impacts,
parks etc) In addition, an evaluation of the adequacy of public facilities for all of the above
issues is already a part of the permit evaluation for all accessory second units, utilizing the same
criteria used for all new residential developments.
9
lssn: PAPER:
ACCESSORY SECO~D Ur\lTs
PAGES
1t is not a requirement that water and sewer connections for an accessory unit be separate from
the main unit. For example, an apartment building or a commercial building is allowed to ha\'e
only one water or sewer tap into the main lines within a street. According to the City Engineering
Division, new saddles for additional water and sewer laterals would hasten the deterioration of
existing water and sewer mains. The only separate utility connection that would necessarily be
required might be a separate electric meter, for billing purposes.
A separate address should be the prerogative of the property owner.
I. EXCLUSIONS: Shall accessOl)' second units be limited or exempted from certain specific
geographic planning areas and/or neighborhood communities ()f the City? Should accessOl)'
second units be limited to those areas ()fthe City that are zoned R-I and excluded from areas
Ihat are zoned R-2 and R-3, even though those lots may only contain single family homes?
State law requires that specific health and safety findings be made if a local agency wishes to
exclude any residentially zoned areas from the provisions for accessory second units. In Chula
Vista, two-family and multi-family zones can provide additional units by way of Design Review;
therefore the only benefit to applying for an accessory second unit would only be to reduce
development standards, such as parking. A finding could easily be made that multi-family zones
already allow more than one unit on a lot and therefore do not require accessory second unit
prOVISIons.
Other than the single-family PC zones discussed previously, staff is unaware of any definable
areas in the CiIY that could exclude accessol)' units under the provisions of state law. Future
studies by the General Plan update team or the City's Growth Management Oversight Committee
could someday identifY areas less suited to accessory units due to traffic congestion or inadequate
infrastructure In the mean time, all A, R-E, and R-I zones would seem to be eligible for
accessory second units.
.J. DISCRETIONARY PERMIT: By what discretionaJ)' permit mechanism should accessOlY second
ifnits be approved? Should the process of sending Conditional U~e Permits to Planning
Commission continue, or should the Zoning Administrator be allowed to approve accessOl)'
second units? fnJat public notice process is appropriate? Should the application be advertised
in a newspaper of general circulation, even if a vublic hearim! is not required bv the adovted
avvroval voliC\' (e. g. if it is determined that the Conditional Use Permit may be decided upon by
Ihe Zoning Administrator, rather Ihe Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, or City
Council) for all aCCeSSOl)' second unil applications?
As discussed earlier in this paper, it may be appropriate to allow the Zoning Administrator to review
and approve these type units if the accompanying regulations can better insure that the new unit will
be accessory to the main house. Such actions could be appealed to the Planning Commi~sion and
City Council. As an alternative the City may decide that it would be preferable that these units go to
public hearings before the Design Review Committee and/or Planning Commission for approval.
\Vhatever process is selected there is still an issue with the level of public noticing that would be
/D
ISStE PAPER:
ACCESSORY SECO."D U"ITS
PACE'!
appropriate. E"I.:n for an administrative permit, staff would notif)' property owners within 500 feet of
an applicant's property. However, as part of recent applications there has been public testimonv
alleging that accessory units are of significant city-wide interest that each should be noticed in the
newspaper. Again, with additional regulations to limit the scope and impact of an accessory unit a
local mail-out may be an adequate level of noticing.
SUMMARYfRECOMMENDA nON:
Staff is ready to draft an ordinance for public hearing to establish local control of accessory dwelling
uniIS. Said ordinance would include the following elements unless directed otherwise by the Planning
Commission.
,-\. AFFORDABILITY: There would not be any stipulations, such as rent control on accessory
second units.
B. OCCUPANCY: There would not be any stipulations, such as owner-occupancy on accessory
second units. In addition no stipulations as to their use by seniors, relatives, disabled persons,
students, etc will be included.
C. LOT SIZE: There would be a stipulation that a lot be a minimum size of5,000-sq. ft. in order
to qualify for an accessory second unit.
D. UNIT SIZE: There would be a stipulation that the accessory second unit size be a maximum of
650-sq. ft. to ensure that the unit will truly function as an accessory second unit to a main
dwelling uni!.
E. LOT COVER4.GE: There would be a stipulation that the addition of an accessory dwelling unit
on any single-family zoned lot would not result in lot coverage exceeding 50 percent. An
exception would be made for lots in a PC zone that already allow lot coverage greaterthan 50
percent, in which case an accessory second unit would not be allowed if it would result in lot
coverage greater than stipulated maximum (ie. 50 to 70 percent)
F OFF-STREET PARKING: There would be a minimum one off-street parking space provided,
and it shall not be provided in tandem or within a setback. The off-street parking space does
not require a carport or garage but should be appropriately screened from view.
G. AESTHETICS: The Zoning Administrator will be given authority to review the design of
accessory second unit to ensure the compatibility of the accessory second unit with the main
dwelling uni!. A conceptual landscape plan shall also be required and reviewed.
H. UTILITY CO:\"'ECTIONS: The water and sewer service for the accessory second unit will be
required from the laterals connected to the main dwelling unit, but a separate electric meter
and address may be provided.
I. EXCLUSIOXS: Accessory second units will be precluded from Two-Family and Multi-Family
1/
ISSIE PAPER:
ACCESSORY SECO:"D l':"ITS
PAGEIO
zones (R-c. R i)
Also, accessory second units will be precluded from all Planned Community Multi-Family
Zones, as well as Planned Communities Single-Family zones where lots possess less than
5,000-sq. it, unless the Planned Community General Development Plan contains express
provisions Ihat allow for the development of accessory second units. Exceptions v.~1I be made
for accessory second units developed within the building envelope of the existing approved
structure where parking can be provided.
J DISCRETIO:"ARY PERMIT: The Zoning Administrator will approve accessory second units by
way of an administrative design review permit A public notice will be sent to all property
owners \vithin 500-ft. Upon request, the Zoning Administrator will hold a public meeting for
all interested persons regarding the proposal prior to making a decision. The Zoning
Administrator's decision may then be appealed within 10 days of the decision to the Planning
Commission.
.T :\I'LAN!'o.-r.NG\HAROLD\OTIIER\PCWORKSHOP2l\1> U1'\'IT.s-.JS2.DOC
, .
10(
...
CI>
C
o
II)
II)
E
E
o
u
C
!::
!::
n:I
a..
-
c
CI>
E
"C
C
CI>
E
ex:
CI>
"C
o
U
CI>
(.)
!::
n:I
C
"C
...
o
:::
c
::)
"C
!::
o
(.)
CI>
en
o
II)
II)
CI>
(.)
(.)
ex:
o
N
,
o
o
,
:2:
U
a..
..
CJJ
'-
Z
'"
~
....
:;:
~
~
U
.."
5
u
z
a
U
..
z
a
<:
<::
z
'"
~
....
:;:
a
u
'"
~
,~
'-
;::
iFJ
'"
::0
CJJ
CJJ
-
z
;;0
<::
z
~
,..,
~
'"
C/J
;..
~
~
~
CJJ
CJJ
'"
U
U
<
;;.:
t:
d
=
..:
o
a
""
""
<
o
z
~
if)
'"
....
If
I-
I~ .5 ~
.j
~ "
~
~
~
~
........
o
;z:
~
E :-::
1~ - ~
": - ~
.~'. ---:::;
t) I... r::
~:..::: .:J
2 v ,~
.5
~ .-21=
o ~
~
"
~ OJ
':..) (5....P
.- g.p
~ :r. ,0
~ ~
:g ~,'"C=j
:/] 0
~
_ u
- '...) -
.~ ~ ~
-
?;::-
::s
'-J"'::::
~ :;
:~
- -
;-. -
:.-: :".
~ "
",- :--
'"
"
~-
-
---::; ~
u-
>:::~ -::: ~'
:.. -- :,. :"..
0: ~ '~",' ___~
: ~ -
o
z
I,..;
~
-<
-
u
en']
53 ~
~ c;
~ OJ
o v:.
OJ C.
'" 0
rJ iji
~ OJ
~ OJ
r:: u
"
.~.
~
'VJ
~-
- g c
~
v
.~'~
~ -
~ ~
5.-
.- ~
t1 '"3 ~
o 0
z~-'
.:,--
c:j v
- ts
g ~
~
-
~'
~ -~
:-:::; :.-:
;:; ~
::;-" :.J
-. ~.
;:: '~
"'-
~~
.~ ~
~ ;:::;-<
-=:::~
-8 ~
-.c::. -.c::
~--:
@,--
~~
....:. "-.
:g ~ .~
63 ~ ~
~
i:Q
~
>-
u
z
~
u
u
o
.0
I~
I~
t; 0
I
~
01$
OJ
U)..:3
~ c...
>-
U-.,5
Z ~
'< VJ
Q.,
-
u
u
o
::9
;6 Q
.9 In
--' ;....-,
~ [~
B d
o u :..>
Z 0 r::
-
v
"
u_
"2 .~
~ ;;.
~ '='
~.
?-, ~
~...t::'
" -
~ ";:::
::::'-'::::
G -
;;J g-g
, '"
- '"
"" ~ i:;;
" -
,','.... S i:'
'"
~
;:":::-.. r...;
- u
/< ~ g
- -
N
~i' c
'3
~-o
~ S
-"
~
...
.D
OJ
~
"
~
~'='
OJ
OJ
:~....P
~ ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ .~
~ v5~
g tr. ; [/J ~
c. vi"..=:;
8 .~ -3 ~ ~
[J) :- r./j
r--' ~
;.-.
o ~ :;
5 :::5 ~
C -0 ij
:J .2 u
;Z v:. t/j r.:
.5-
~
"- ;..--..~,.';::o-,,-
-.c::'::::::' -- __
- ~
~ ~,2:. ~
:...J ;:,,;,
8 ~ E:: ~
~ -- ~ ~
:.r;. '--
!
-
,.
~~~
:::: -.....:.. '::.{
'- -
:; '-":: c...: ::::
~ ~ ~:.-:
g -:::::.r;
:-:: ~
::: --- ::::...--
-:S ~~~
~;..\-i5~
- -.c:: :"'-.c::
?-, "-.J,c ~
~ :c-:_" ~.....,
:..:: - t;.~
~ '
~'-~~
G ~ '-' ~
g 2 ~ ~-
:::::.....-95
'..i - ~.;:: ~
~~~~::::
"'-
- ~
~ --:
~
~
~
~
i:Q
~
13
,
'"
~'
i:
~ t;
"
~~
~:;.,
, u
-2 :.-
~-..
.::~
'"
'-' ".:
.5:~~
S-~~
G ...!:::
~ '<.J
, ~ ;;
z. - ~
~-2..s::
,- -~
~ - ~
'" ~ "'-.
~ ~ ~
____:J
AlTACI-fMeAJT 2.
~
[;j
5
...
I
o
~
if]
'"
>
....; c::
'- ,
.~,
. -
-'-
V;~
, -
o 0- ~
g 0 --
- ~ ~
'1', 2)"'d
~~'"2o
~ 0 2j
00 r.r.
f-
a
..J
<J
N ,_
'v) --::i ;""'-,
OJ
"'0 !- i2
~ OJ
_ ~ 8
- "
-..5
.- ~
= --::i !-
c2
- 0;
-<-;nO
;::
'"
'"
.S{
,:::-::> - "-
:::....,:::
,>::::: is ...
- -
::: .~ ~
::;:;-~
~..;: '"
...r:: :,..
'^
~~~
'-
.~
~
~
'"
::
'"
'-
"'-
.
"
-'.,::::: ~
>.< ~ ~
~
""
~
<'i
~
~
~
.. . ---.,,--.,.-------"
~ &.g ~
~ ::: ~
~ g..]
"(/j .......
2:: 3 ~
~~.......
...... ;,.... ::::
~V)B:::
2""2~
(3
OJ
OJ
~
OJ
~
o
OJ
~
OJ;
0::
;::
0>
~
"
"'8.......~
,~ ;;..:::-'
-
c: _ 5
:'..) :'..)
0. ~
o.~
o 0
(.fJ :'..)~
o G r
.....J-o~2~
~.
~ -=
o
~.r:;
~ ~
OJ
c:: r.f)
-2 '_ '-' ~
~ ~ ""
~t:t3:::
;:::;:-- ?oJ ~ ~
;:S-0 '8 ""
'"' .~
~ -."" ~
::: :...::::~
~ :..::
'2 ~,2
s.>-s ~ .
~ ~ .~
'- "'- '-
~ '- 7' S
.~ ~~ : ~
:2 ~I_' ~ ~
:::: ::.:'"'::3
.;,:)' ::
~- () ~ ~
- '"' ~ ~::::
t; ~ ~ .:: ~
_ N..... ...
~ t: $! ~
..s:: - ~ ~ ~
~t;~\.:):.::
~
i:Q
~
._,--_._---,"-
;.:
Q)
c:
o
'ii)
rn
E
E
o
u
c:
c:
c:
<II
c..
-
c:
Q)
E
"C
c:
Q)
E
<t
Q)
"C
o
U
Q)
<..)
c:
<II
c:
"C
I-
o
;t:
c:
::J
"C
c:
o
<..)
Q)
en
o
rn
rn
Q)
<..)
<..)
<t
o
N
,
o
o
,
2:
U
c..
UJ
;-
z
""
:2
~
""
o
U
'"
~
u
z
o
U
..
z
o
'<
Q
Z
""
~
""
:;
o
(.)
'"
~
'-
G:
;:::
Or,
..
'-'
~
UJ
:!2
-
z
=-
Q
Z
o
~
ZJ
;.
.,
(3
UJ
UJ
""
U
U
~
o
z
;.;
N
in
,..
Z
=-
o
z
--
if;
'"
;;.
'" .~ ~
t:S -.:
rL'J ~
b;:!
z is
~ u
u
~
~
Ii
I..,;~
~
("j s; ... ....
U E
..D ~ ~
"
o
_~ :5 6
~2
~ -' g
r.
is
~
~
u
u
u
<
u
- .D
....... ::g
w ~
~
u ~
- u ,-
Vi _ .~
. -' c::
- -' t::' tJ)-
o :::: ,-.
~
.= ....... u;-
.... U:J u;
j :'J U ~ 0
g..:o z
;--.
~-
...!. ...::
or.
>:; -
3 .~
u
~
~
'"
u
- u
-- :::
E
'"
..""
~' ~
~
;.; :.-:
~ :-
'"
u
'"
-
"
"::::: :.,
,?-
, ,
~ -- :--
:.-: --'~
u
~~~
~ :...;
s:: :3 ~
co
u
"
~
-
2 --
~
-.~
~' -~
~-=:::
" ;.::
ci..::;
g
~.
~~
--~ ~.
.~ :~ ,..
:'-:'l--
.~ ~ ~
-......... t;
~...... ~
'"
~ ~ ~
:...; '-':;
::-- "'"
.~ .~ ~
~ .:: '-"
:Q
~
""
o
...:
'"
!;'
o
U
f-o
o
,.J.
o
Z
-.:..:.
UJ
'"
;;..
~~
,.,
"9 :3
~ ;-
o
" u
C> a
0-
~
~ r::
u '5
u ~
co
i.i
()
...:
'"
'"
;;> .- ~
g~~~
~ c VJ 0
o "
.J 0 ~
~
u
'"
:g 0 ~
c::"'Vi~
.,g:llI
f-
~
-
..
~
':: ..g
& ~-
>c..; ";; ~
~ ~
t5 '-'
'"
::;; ~,
u
~ ~
:..;
~ "-'
?!Ji3
;-... c:
~
"
~
....I
.~
~
:; .2
'"
:::::::: ">
'-' 2
~ ~
lvi ~
~
.~
I
I
~ ~
.- .2 .8 r:::
Vi c::
-000
~ ~-'
~ is
~ N
0)
-ou
~~
~,.,,::
ir.:::;
~
u
,,"
u u
r.: :::
.3
c;
]-'~~
~ is
? 88
~
~
~
.~
'"
u
:2 E
~ a
E';,:;
2 E
tJ)~ ~
.....,,,B ;:
U ::!;'j C ;:;
~ur.:-:u_ ;....
J ~ ._ -': ~
:-g~ ~~"E]-5~.:?!J
o~_ :'J g_ ~
:::u~.....~=~P. ::::
::..... ~o.._~-o .5
"= g
::o~
u
:u)'r,
co
0":::'
;;;. ....
8 ~
'"
.=
u .
..D.~'
"
='
o _
Vi '3
gU
"
,..., u 'n ;:! ""0
0":= :3 0
~a =~u_~()O
wJO::~_ ~~
Or
.:g- -
u
'd
-:S ~ ~
.~. ~ ~
-~
~
~ - "
~ -
- S:'",::::::
~ ~ :..,
~ ~-::; :
.- ~
~"::::-::
~ . <-
~ c ~
~
~ --.: 'CJ
~ '0
::
'"
~
u
:...,
- ~ u
- ~_' t;
- ,- ~
~:.: ;:;
~ R "~
:Q
Ic/
08
~
2~
"
::: ;.J
o R
~
;--.
"'"
co
"
~~
rj':;=
~
u
;-- ~
82
.- :,.,-
~ ~ g ~ '"'
s .2.'J :s ::;
-~::?!""
"'.......... ,
-- - 2
....:::. '- --
~~ "~
"g 6i ~
-' 2' e
:::)J::
~
'"
"- ~
~
"
~ ~c
,.J
..:::
'0 c:.;~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ :.-;
'-': ;:::;:
~ ~
"- ~ -
~tj~~
~~
'" -
~ -
- -
~ -
-"'"
-,.:~
f
~
",,-
;e
is
~
~
-
- ~
3::'::::
.
.6'
co
"
"
c~
o ~
~ - ~
o >-,";:::::
80
("::~
-g~
-
2':..1
'->:-2
"- ~ ;S
;..-, 0
o
c:: ;:::
"~ r
- '
;..-, -
-' 5 ~
u
"'"
"- :"-.
,
;::-~
"
~
~~
i:~
- "
-,-
--
~ "B'
:;:
:;:'
~
~
~o
~~
'- c
:::::c ::.JJ
'"
""~
\r) ~
.
"
~
o
u
N
,
"
~
U
-2:"'--
~
- ~....;;
;:."::"
.2 -
"
~..:::
51J;'"
"2.
-2.
;.=-~
~,
~N
~ -
,. ,
""~
""~
"" -
,
'"
2]
\.2 _
"
.
....
Q)
c:
o
<11
<11
E
E
o
u
c:
c:
c:
It!
c..
-
c:
Q)
E
"C
c:
Q)
E
<C
Q)
"C
o
U
Q)
t.>
c:
It!
c:
::c
....
o
:::
c:
=>
"C
c:
o
t.>
Q)
en
o
<11
<11
Q)
t.>
t.>
<C
o
N
,
o
o
o
:2
U
c..
en
~
<oJ
-
<<.
;.:::
o
U
'"
Z
g
I%.
-<:
""
f-
\oJ
~
f-
rJJ
,
'"
'"
o
..
0::
;:0
U
Z
o
U
o
z
-;;.
(J)
'"
"'"
,I ::::
<:: -
o
..
OJ ~
"
z
~
~
...
~
::;,
Z
<oJ
-
<<.
;.:::
o
u
oJ
:::::
..
,~
,-
'"
Z
~ ~ -:)
<< ~
~": [;
~ r:: if. :...
.c::: :)
~.D
rJJ"d
rL -' ~ ...
~ 1 _-
o If.
~ ~
o
01)'
::::N
<
0rJ
~
.CJ ~ _
~ :)
F= :f. ,~
~
:0
en
en
-
: .g--
- '-
..=, :s--~ ~
~ 2
::s:::
'"::::
.;:: ~
~ !~
.~". S,:::
::..
F v
- co
~ ~
-
'.
z
....
- -
.~ ~
"'-
f:
::;,
z
~
,.
~
<oJ
rJ;..
>-
0::
~
~
cr.
cr.
<oJ
v
U
<
~
"
- co
~ ~ ~ ".
~ e
"
g
= ~
:::: --
-- :;. _....: &
~ t 2
.2:
~ g
~ ~
--".
.,
~
~.
~
~
'-
"2-
'-'
-:=_v ~,
,,;::-
018
':::-: ~ ~
o
z
1...0<
I ~
-"
~ ~-~
<-~ ~
~ s '-
e ~ ~
~ ...r::: '-.1
'.,j :..-
:::::: 1;;: ~ ...:
I::; __ -::S: _"'_ "
....:::: ~ -- '<..\
J:) -c::..., :..-, '-
g~~~o
~:) ...::.:::
Vj g
.D
"du
'"
8
Vi
"d
8
Vi
OJ
OJ
"'
-
.5~
OJ
~-=
s-: :)
..... :J
~2
~ OJ
o r.n
~
~
~5
t) c-
o <.:
~ "
rr. <.:
e:: :)
o
~
:.-: ~ -- ::.J ~
~ "" -c:: ~
~-
~ ~e
:::r.':::; -2,~ ~
......-1 ~:
-;
~ :-- --
::::::--
- ~
~ ~:
~ ~
- -
-
--~:-'::
__:2 -- ../'.
~ s ~
'-':: ..r:. 2
~,
--
"
'"
G
"
~
:::i
~
~ ~
~-
0......
'";::: :)
.:.: ':.J
"
~
" ::; ~
~
.~ .-
- -
::::;-. '""
2 ?-'
;> g
gp('j
""
~ is
2.~
~
~
"'8-0
~ OJ
.::: ;:.
0-0
Q.) = -<;:::-'
~ "
~ OJ
..2 :) t)
('j"O ~ if,
~ "
"d OJ
~ ; 5 3
;::.:
Vi
"d
"
:::
50
OJ
~
'"
" "d
:::: () :...>
o~]~~
o ~:)
~.= < v:.
~~
_1
~ -
--"-
~~
-
~
._ ::.J
~-
.t:;
~
~
~~
~ 8
;,
~ '"'
--- ::;
-- ~ :::_~:::." ~.
~ ~ -
.~
~.
:g .~ --
ti :.-:
-2
::~
::..
"
co
~
~"...
~~
"-,,
;:. "-
" "
2:f ~
'" ::..
;...--,
OJ
_3
=]
~rr.
~
OJ
~
~ ~
]-5:= a-
"'g ('j .~:::-:;:
o ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ --:;:.. :--..;:;
~""B s .~_ -'"
:-'::"3:' "
J) ~ 2
"-~. -- ~
co
".. ""
:,..: :.-:
'~::' f
"
~
~ B
~
~
u
E
:t
I;;
'"
~
o
~
I;IJ
<oJ
"'"
Q <..0-. (1) .... ~
..0 O....c t::: ~
.... ...... :::I 0
"'0 50 ('J U ~
:::I 'u) I.. .3 U'.I
s: ('J ~
UjuC:(]c
.5 () ~ ~
;;.. 3 8
.~.<::: g
>
OJ ~
~
..
~
o
-
'"
;::
'"
~
~3
"" <.::-
~.~
=-5
- .... ?-->.',>
o -' 0 -
N ~ ~ g
;d Q 8 U'.I
-.::: u g
r- bl) ('j ~
;.:.. ..:::
C;i";::::
'''';::::: ':::
--
I
-
.~
.~ ~ ~
-. ~
~ ~
~ '-':: .g
g ?, ~
B :g
'.) ;;:::
"'""S
'"~
.::3
~, ~",
-~ .........
'2 ~ .~
.~ ~
";;:
:: "
~-5
I ~ ~
'"" ::
I:. ~
'"
~
'-=$:
/~
<1:
OJ
.q-5
.D ~
.;:: "
~:;
-
g
" '"
'"
"-
I~
-
~
":s..
B
~
"
'"
-
2
"-
--"'- "
-. g
::; c:
.~ ""
-'" '"
~-
~"B
~63
?
"
1
L
"
"S
co
~
Q
;<
is
OJ
()
.D
~
8
Vi
;!l
is
]
-6 ~
OJ
~ ~
_ If.
0- 0
2 ;z:
()
~, :)
.:: .~
~
3J ::::
~.~ ~
"
()
""
~ ~-"
15~
~
-"
"
-'"
'~
.2
~
~
-;;
"
.~
&
~
.:::: ~
- ::
-'"
- '"
~ ~
t) _-
~ ~ ~
, - "
:-. '-:J a
3~--g
"'-5
~
co
g
::
-;;""
" "
...:: ..!:::
- (.) \.)
'"B 2 2
~t5t=
~
:::i
~
.g
~
OJ
.D
3
"'
,
"
'::.[
:i:
~
'"
~
.'2
]
.~
~
o
;z:
-
... ,..;.
'"
::: ~
~ E;
'-":: :.-::
~.~
~
;j .~
:..J .
~
~ ~.
'oS
~
"
~
S-' "-.
~ ,...
~ ~
~ ~
"
~ ;::;
~ ~ ~
~ ~ c:
-- \::; :-:
b
63 3i
"2.
~'
~
~
.-c
"
-?
-
"
~
U
~
._-~.._--~-~.-._--- "---
..:
Q)
c:
o
In
In
E
E
o
u
c:
'i:
c:
ca
c..
....
c:
Q)
E
"C
c:
Q)
E
ex:
Q)
"C
o
U
Q)
(,.)
c:
ca
c:
:c
....
o
....
c:
::>
"C
c:
o
(,.)
Q)
en
o
In
In
Q)
(,.)
(,.)
ex:
o
N
.
o
o
.
:2:
u
c..
~
Z
w
:E
:E
~
U
..
"
=0
W
Z;
o
'-J
..
z;
Q
'-
<:
,:;0
z
w
:E
~
,.,
'-'
'-'
:2
'-
:;;:
,...
'JJ
;;.;J
=0
:/J
:/J
-
z;
~
~
~
Z;
o
w
;..J
'JJ
>-
"
o
:/J
:/J
W
W
W
-<
o
z
iIi
z
o
6
~
z
o
u
>-
,..
:3.
-
,..
~
o
z
-,.;,;.
{/)
'"
;>
>: .~' ~
~ -:J
..' -' 2
OJ
-:J
.~ ~
::; Q
~
j
~
c.
o
~
v;
OJ
U
U
-<
'-
.~ ;"'
- .f
2 :::
-2
.:::;: ---
~
~
G ~
'"
\::; :.-:
'"
-'"
:..- :..-
::: :.-:
,~ .S c.,
'';t t; ~
it u
!: ~
E 8 :.-
::;; ~'::
;;:
~
:,: t:;
~
.0$
I
.5.5.53
VJ E
~::S! ~
'" ~
Q 8 f':I
.~ Uj -
?- B
E3......~
~
~
~
-5
"
~ 0
":'""'" ;2
t} 8.. f=
~
Q C."B
~ 0 ~
" -
..... i2 Q
OJ
U "
U 0
" u
~ :;:; C.;
~ -
~ "'c G
~ ~ :.:
".
."
~E
::
g ~
G~
'"
~ -2
"
~~
'"
f~
~
~
~
~
~' ~ ~ ~
;:; "- ;:
U "...
U
"
~
.3 ~ fFJ
v;
"
.:a
-0
::::: d
"@-"
;;
~
3
~
"-
u
""-
~
-
~
.5~
8
:s
;< 5
-
";;i
;:...-. "
~
_M
8~
u..
.~_ b
:::-
;;)~1
OJ
v;
~ ;;...-, tJ) r.
.3 U .':::
:::: 5"::) ~
;::;...... ~ 0
~ -:J
~ ~
5 .F
g -' -
N ?
~ .~ g
~^
;;...-.
~
.~~
-
......~
g:= (3
- ~
5--.9
~C;
;>
og
v; ~
]~
Q ::;
~
~
;>,
:~ ~
""
_ v;
122
50
g If"'J
~
. (:j
,r'...::
5 .....
~ ~
~ ~
gB
OJ
~ d ......
.- ~
~ '0 fFJ
5 .:3
u -
OJ
B~__~
Q. c:
~
3
.~
;>
o
5.
~
~ ~ g
(3 0 2) ~
c ~ 5.:: -
~O ~ (5
C'""d :: d rJJ
~ .g ~ .~ (3
U') :::: I VJ
U - ....... 2
g g ::; --;!
-< 5.2
-;;
~
"'S2 :2
- 5 c::i ()
o -' ""::I :::: ~ 0
~~:E5[/)C"
~ g ~ .,;-,
" ~ g '~O_
~ Z'.,.)' ~
- -
~~.g8
2:: ~
.~ 13
.- t;
~'"2::
'"
'-' :2
~ ~ e
~ "" ~
-....:::: c:;
"'-
~~
;'-," ~ ~
:-/..-: \..) ;:u ~
:,-> J
!(>::: ~ ~ ~
y..' ~ -;:5 v
<:--.:~ ~ ;j
~
I""
I
v, -0
2 u
"
_0
~
_r;
'-
~.
"
~
~
"" ~.
~ .~
~;::
;:: OJ:
2 .S
~~
- ~
~~
c..~
......~
, ~
~ ";::;
u
.;:
"
~:g
.3 ;:...
5 g e 2
~""'::J ;.... c:; r::: 0..
o 5-gr.ng-o
::;. rJJ - r./J..D
g ~ -gR-5~;'-"
VJ:r. 0.. - U g_"
"...., a Vi
~
-<
~
c.J -a U) I VJ-a
..D ~ r:::.3 t1 g_
~ vi .~: 8
:;~~C/)t5o:
~ '-" V) tr.I
tij Noi3~
a.-=
-
~
, 0
u
'5
;;--'-a .f'
a :'...)
~-:J
~ "
OJ _
;:... u ~
o U i:::::
~ <r: o..u
-- ~ 1
'"\:; :::-...::::
] ~~
--- ~?
~ >.) ~
""-
~ "';:)'--
~ ~.~
s: "- ";;::
8~:.s
~ 8 ~ ~
~
"
'"
":J~
U
U
U
"
~
~
.:::
::::~
" '"
~ ~
V} ~
~
=
~
(0
.~
~
-
~.
~2
8~
3-J :.-
y ~
~
::;
1--0 -a 0 ::.)
,0 ()....::: I-
-- 0.....::..>
o ~
000....""0
-a;> "'Q ':.)
~ U () r- -a
:::: -a g- a ";::
_ ::..> 0
() ~ :; ~ '"'
..D ....... ,..... u ()
-,:::3 ..D
.,.
.
"
=.L
c::
:2 ~ U) 2
""S! -a C)
8o-a()~
~ g -' ~ ~
~~
~
.s
'5.,
OJ
U
~
[.:J
OJ
;;--.....:::
3 ~
~ "
~-
u
OJ
u .-
r::: :::
~ "
'"' ~
~
::::
~.2
~ 'G
.~ ~
u
~ 8
8 ~
"'-~
~
:..:"; "-.
~ ~
u .S
2. ~ ......
==-- 2 ~ ;j
-~ .t:;: t:; :...
~ - ~ '"\:; ~
~ '5_ u '" ~
""~< ~;:::; t:;
.: ~ ~ --
~
j~~~
- ~-~ '(:;
~ , ~
.J::) N N ~>
;.> -
" ~
t;~
-:::: '"
...f\ t)
=J S
.~ ~
~c::
:) 0
....
QJ
!::
o
'ijj
II)
E
E
o
t.)
!::
!::
!::
ra
c..
-
!::
QJ
E
"C
!::
QJ
E
<(
QJ
"C
o
t.)
QJ
U
!::
ra
!::
"C
....
o
-
'2
:J
"C
c::
o
u
QJ
en
o
II)
II)
QJ
U
U
<(
o
N
.
o
o
.
2
t.)
c..
i
VJ
f-
Z,
UJ
:E
:;;:
o
u
f..:
~
~
UJ
~
E;;
..:
z
2
f-
~
U
en
~
Q
..
:>:
:0
U
Z,
o
U
o
:z:
~
VJ
""
~
..
"""
$2
pu;
~. I- ~
~ B
~ ro-'
Q;;;; 1:: ....;
> "a
~ ~ ~ ;
Z '..J ;;--, ~
o~
~ it: 'f.
~ ?f ~ .=
~ 5 ~ ....;
aN;
z,
o
'-
'<
Q
Z,
UJ
:E
:;;:
o
u
UJ
:::::
,~
1;:
::::
CFl
;2 E:
f=
UJ
:0
VJ
VJ
-
-
- ~
~
'"' .~ '-'
~
~ -
~
-
Q
z
o
W
t.J
rJJ
>-
:>:
~
~
VJ
CJJ
UJ
U
U
-<
t.
.~ ~
~
G
o
:z:
~
:=:$
~. ::::
:::: .~
G
:.-.
~
.~
~
"
"""
."
-
"
~
2:
~
~
~~-
.....; :,., ~
.~ ~
::: ;:;
..::: ~
~~ ;-,
~ 0.- .~'.~ ~
~ ;:: :;: tj
'-' ~ :..J
~N2
-
~
~
~
-~.
.3 3 6 2:' 0
-~u';j
__ -' t.r) .t:
S -' ::: ...... Vi
9 ~
~ Vi ...... 2 := .2
:J ::: ::1..0 ~
.2 :.J ~ 0 <t: u
v:~g~
~ ;....-
.~ 0
-. ~ ~I-=~~ ~ ~-2
,- - -- '"' --;;-
- -- '-' ~ :.:::
~ " s -
;:.\ ~.... ::::
""-~- :' ""
~ + 2
.... ...::) ~ ~. - ~
~~ 1~i~~,;~i
'':'' -...:.... ....... '--'
~ ':;: ~ ~ """ ,-,....
';J ;; '- -'" ~
of: :j s:: ::~:::::: __
;: ~ ~;::: -1-- .~ '- '-'
~. v ~ c::; ~ '-
:: ~, of: ~ .~ ~ ~ ~
:.... ;::: .......::::~ ;...;
~ ~-~ ~
~'"".:'" ~ ~ -
::::: ~.:::: ~:..,
:f ?) :s. "'
s:::=:: '"' ;::: ~ ~
:s::..-: :::: tS. t; ";::::
_ ~ G
~ - ~
"
_ 3_=
g ;-:
.5
is
N -
- ~
~ 2:.:::: '- ~
1 ! ':
~ ~ ~
;;; ::; ~-.
~ ..::::
:>:
~
~
:>-
:>:
<
~
,...
f-
~
~u ~ ~
00 ~ :.:
a -~-,-~~..~~
~ _~ -3 :-- - -=
-- - - "W.- -
:: --::::: ~ J ~
~..::~ "'~:.::
-.. "': -- - ..., -
;....-,.-
,... -
~ ~
~ 0"""';:: r::
a. 2 ;;--.
- ~
~'v;r..::
2 8 ;....-. ~
:.J U
~ ~ :
6-.......
.=0
-
If."'
;.... :J
:J .=
~
s "-
~~
~.g
- -
;::-.:...
- "
::~
v
.:;;
-.g~
",--
-
:=
~
-
-
"
~ ~
o
[JJ~
~ "
" -
0,=
~ ""0 E
B I-
_,...'"2 -::; Vi 0
-"= .::..>'C
~ _ 0-
-~
_c;
~
o
.~ - g-
~ ~
OJ)U
- .-
-3
- '"
o _
N -
~
s
~ 0 -~.
-~<.8'"-
-
OJ)
VJ tJ) ::: 0
._.s:..a VJ
u ~ 8
E ~;
o :::
::::..--::;
~~
Or~
f~
~ ....-::::..
::..
~~
~ :::
0::- .~
'G
\.... .2
-
"-
~\ ~
.~
N
~
or
.2 .~ -~ ~
:..- :.;: ~
::... ~ ~~ '-'
::: -....; '--' c::;
(7
~ ;;.- OJ)
o G c
'8:::: G c
~-:o:
CI) .... .~
.3 ... ~
g::;Q..s
.~
-.
"
"0
""8.5
Ci
..a 5. E 6
~ ~ 5
.~
U
U
"0
tJ)0
".1:0
""~
No
.2
~ ,...-,...
_I- "4-
" 0
::..> 0
.",-" ~
::: .~
-
- -
o 0
uu
or,
,
o
l
-.
~
:-:
'"
~
~
,...
o
Q
"'"'
o
c::
<(
~
Z
::0
z
'(
e;
CA Codes (gov6:"090-6:"096)
Page 1 01'3
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65090-65096
HtTftCHMf3;;1JT3
65090. (a) When a provision of ~his title requires notice of a
public hearing to be given pur SLant to this section, notice shall be
published pursuant to Section 6061 in at least one newspaper of
general circulation within the jurisdiction of the local agency which
is conducting the proceeding at least 10 days prior to the hearing,
or if there is no such newspape~ of general circulation, the notice
shall be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least
three public places within the jurisdiction of the local agency.
(b) The notice shall include ~he information specified in Section
65094.
(e) In additio~ to the
agency may give D8tice of
necessary or desirable.
(d) Whenever a local agency considers the adoption or amendment of
policies or ordir.ances affecting drive-through facilities, the local
agency shall incorporate, where ~ecessary, notice procedures to the
alind, aged, and disabled commu~ities in order to facilitate their
participation. T~e Legislature finds that access restrictions to
commercial estaDl~shments affec~~ng the blind, aged, v~ disabled is a
critical statewide problem; therefore, this subdivision shall be
app~~=able to char~er cities.
notice required by
the hearing in any
this section, a local
other manner it deems
65091. (a) When a provision or this tit~e requires notice of a
publ~c hearing to be given purswant to this section, notice shall be
give~ in all of t~e following wa~'s:
\1! Notice of the hearing sha~l be maile~ or delivered at least lO
days ~rior to the hearing to tte Qwner of the subject real proper~y
cr the owner's d~ly authorized a;ent, and to the project applicant.
(2) Notice of ~he hear~ng s~all be mai~8d or delivered at least :0
days prior to the hearing ~o ea=~ local agency expected to provide
~a~er, sewage, s~reets, roads, schools, or other esse~tial facilities
or services to the project, ~hese abili~y to provide t~cse
faci~ities and se~vi=es may be significantly affected.
(3) Notice of the hearing s~all be mailed or delivered at least 10
days prior to the hearing to al~ owners of real property as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll withi~ 300 feet of the real
~roperty that is the subject c= the hearing. In lieu 0= utilizing
the assessment rell, the local agency may utilize recor~s of the
count.y assessor :Jr tax collector which cor:tain mere :-ecent
information thar: ~he assessme~~ ~oll. If the number 0: owners ~o
whom r:otice woul~ ~e mailed or ielivered pursuant to this paragraph
,:::, ,)2.~2:;;raph (1:' __ greater tha::-:. 1,000, a 10-=:21 agenc~', in lieu c::
;lliilled ::r deliver:::::::i notice, ma~- provide r::c~:.ce by placi:-.g a display
advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper
0: general circulation within t~e local age~cy in which the
proceeding is conducted at leas~ 10 days prior to the hearing.
~f ~he notice is maileci cr delivered pursuant ~o paragraph
(3), the Ilotice s~all also ei~her be:
(A) Published pursuant to Sestion 6061 in at least ODe newspaper
of general circulation within the local agency which is conducting
the proceeding at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
(B) Posted at least 10 days ~rior to the hearing in at least three
public places withi~ the bound~ries cf the local agency, including
one public plase ~n the area dir~ctly affested by the proceeding.
I'i'
http://www.leginfo.ca .../ displaycode?section=gov&group=6500 1-66000&file=65090-6509
12/14/2001
CA Codes (gO\' 65000-650(6)
T]1E: notice 5~all ~ncluae ~he
'sI)e.:::"-=- ::ied
-.,
Sec":ic:-:
'::-lICr:T1c.;tlon
c:s C':::-.; .
In additic:-: :0 the
aQenc. may give ~ctice of
necessary or desirable.
~ Whenever a hearing is held regarding a permit for a
drive-through facility, or modification of an existing drive-~hrough
facility permit, the local agency shall incorporate, where necessary,
notice procedures ":0 the blind, aged, and disabled communities in
order to facilitate their participation in any hearing OD, or appeal
of t~e denial of, a drive-through facility permit. The Legis:ature
finds that access restrictions to commercial establishments affecting
the tl~nd, aged, cr disabled, is a cri~ical statewide problem;
there:cre, this s~bdivision shall be applicable to charter cities.
notlce required b)'
the hearing ~n any
this section, C:. ..i.ocal
other manner it ~eems
6509:. When a pr0vision of this title requires notice of a public
near~~; to be given pursuant to Section 65090 or 65091, the notice
shall also be mai:ed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the
heari~g to any person who has filed a written request for notice with
either the clert 2: the governing body or with any other person
desiq~ated by the governing body to receive these requests. The
local agency may charge a fee which is reasonably related to the
costs of providi~g ~his service and the local agency may require each
reque5~ to be ann~ally renewed.
6509::.
The failure of any person or entity to receive notice given
pur5~a~t to this ~~tle, or pursuant to the procedures established by
a char~ered city, shall not cons~it~te grounds for any court to
inval~~ate the ac~ions of a local agency for which the notice was
glve!"';.
650~';. .l-\s used i=--. -:.1;i5 title, lI~otice 0f a pu::li::::: hearlng" means a
notlce that incl~~es the date, time, and place of a public hearing,
~he i~entity of ~~e hearing body or officer, a general explaLation of
the ~2-:.~er to be ::onsidered, and a general description, in text or
DY di2gram, of t~e location of the real proper~y, if any, tha~ is the
subje=~ of the he2=inq.
6509:. .~y publ~: ~earing conducted under ~his title may be
co~ti~~ed from -:.~~e to time.
6509E. (a) Notwi~~standing any other provision of law, whenever a
perso~ applies to a city, including a charter city, county, or city
and ~ounty, for a =o~ing variance, special use permit, conditional
''':se p::::rrr.it, zon~L; ordinance amendment, general or specific plan
amenci.."C.er..t, Jr any entitlement f8r use which would permit all or any
part ::f a cemeter~' to be used for other than cemetery purposes, the
city, county, or oity and county shall give notice pursuant to
Sectio:-"s 65091, 6.:'J92, 65093, and 65094.
(b Those reques~ing notice shall be notified by the local agency
at th,=: address pr::-,cided at the time of the request.
(c, Notwithsta~iing Section 65092, a local agency shall not
/7
http://V>i\vw.leginfo . ca. ! displaycode?section=gov&group=65 00 1-66000&file=65 090-6509
Page =: u1' 3
12/14/2001
--".--...,---
CA Codes (gO\ 65090-65096)
Page .3 of.3
re::p.:i.::e a. :>"~'_r,lE:;.::;t ::,a.de pursuCint "::.::: :.t,:: 5 .'Cpc:'.:or, t:=-; :::'<2 a:-::1uall:::
rene.'....Ted.
(d rICemetEr~',r' as used in thlS section, has the same meaning as
that word is aeiined in Section 8100 of the Health and Safety Code.
--------- --- ---- -
----__..__.________,_________ ___..._.~.___.___~_=.C
---..------
~o
http//vvww.leginfo.ca .. /displaycode?section=gov&group=6500 1-66000&file=65090-6509 12/14/2001
~{f?
:JC"L _
.~~
- - ~...
CITY OF
(HUlA VISTA
Memorandum
Depa.rtn1ent: of Planning and Building
Date:
January 23, 2002
To:
Planning Commissioners ~
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Plannin-z:;'recta:i:.l\
John Schmitz, Principal Planne
Harold Phelps, Associate Plann
Via:
From:
Subject:
San Diego Country Club Mono-pines (PCC-OO-27-47-S3)
In September 200 I the Planning Commission brought to our attention concerns regarding the
eminent completion ofthis co-location project, specifically as they related to the visual elements
of the mono-pines and landscaping as presented in the exhibits approved by the Planning
Commission in February 2001. Staff was directed to resolve any disparities with the applicants
prior to finalizing the project.
On November 29,2001, planning staffmet with representatives from Cingular, Verizon, and
Sprint to discuss the concerns raised about the mono-pines and the landscape elements
surrounding the equipment enclosures. It was proposed, and staff concurred, that larger specimen
box trees would need to be installed to further screen the site and specifically the mono-pine
"trunk" length where no artificial pine tree branches were installed. It was also proposed that the
Cingular mono-pine be improved so that the artificial pine tree branches would be properly shaped
with a more conical pinnacle.
On January 3,2002, planning staff received revised landscape plans (attached) that specity larger
box size, and therefore the height of the trees within them, pine trees that will screen the lower
portion of the faux pine trees (mono-pine "trunk" length). Essentially, there will be 8 new 60-inch
box pine trees, with an approximate height of25 - 30-ft. installed strategically around the
equipment enclosures. On January 15, 2002, we also received information the Cingular mono-
pine representative that their mono-pine was improved by reshaping the branches with a more
conical pinnacle.
Staff has reviewed and approved the revisions to the landscaping plan, which will make the site
consistent with what was represented on the elevation drawings at the Planning Commission
hearing, as well as what was represented in the previously submitted photographic simulations.
The applicant( s) have indicated that the trees could be installed within the next month, or by a
deadline of February 28, 2002.
J:\PLANNINGIHAROLDlOTHER\MoNOPINEMEMO.DOc