HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2002/12/16
Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Corporate Plaza Parking Structure
PROJECT LOCATION: 678 Third Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 573-240-02
PROJECT APPLICANT: STBX Partners, LLC
CASE NO.: IS-03-10
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: December 16, 2002
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERV A nON COMMISSION MEETING:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
A. Proiect Setting
The approximately L7-acre project site, located within the City of Chu]a Vista at 678 Third
A venue, between I Street and J Street, contains an occupied muJti-story commercial office
bui]ding and 166-space surface parking lot (see Exhibit A), Land uSeS surrounding the
project site consist of the following:
North: Salvation Anny Community Center
South: Hemy's Market grocery store
East: Medical offices
West: Single-family residences
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of a three-level (ground level
with two levels above) parking structure within the rear (western) portion of the project site
to accommodate the parking needs of the existing on-site commercial office building (see
Exhibit B), Construction of the proposed parking structure would increase the number of on-
site parking spaces from 166 to 239, a net increase of 73 spaces. Ground level parking on-
site, comprised of surface parking to the east of the parking structure and the ground level of
the parking structure, would decrease from 166 to 138 spaces. Levels two and three of the
parking structure would contain 51 and 50 spaces, respectively. Level three of the parking
structure would be open with no roof or cover, and would be lighted with 12-foot high pole
lights, The existing 6-foot high masomy wall along the northern, western, and southern
property lines would remain. The existing surface parking lot extends to approximately three
feet from the wall along the western property line; the proposed parking structure would be
set back 10 feet from the western property line wall, with existing trees maintained and new
trees planted within this 10-foot setback area, Existing Carrotwood trees along the entire
perimeter of the project would be retained and six new 24-inch box AlIeppo Pine trees would
1
be planted in between the Carrotwood trees along the western property line. The proposed
parking structure requires the approval of a Design Review Permit by the City of Chula Vista
Design Review Committee,
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The project site is zoned C-O (Administrative and Professional Office Zone) under the City's
Municipal Code and is designated "Commercial - Professional & Administrative" under the
City's adopted General Plan, The proposed parking structure would be compatible with the
existing zoning and land use designation of the site.
D, Public Comments
On Novcmber 22, 2002, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a
SOO-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period closed on December 6, 2002.
No comment letters were received.
K Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required, This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
.
Noise
Single-family residential properties, separated from the project site by an existing six-foot
high masonry wall along the western property line, are situated immediately west of the
project site. Commercial properties are situated to the north and south and medical offices
are situated to the east of the project site across Third Avenue, In order to assess the
potential noise impacts of the proposed parking structure, a noise technical report was
conducted by RECON, the results of which are contained in their report dated December 12,
2002, and are summarized below.
Noise Standards
The noise technical report assessed the proposal with respect the regulations contained in
Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards and Noise Control, of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (noise ordinance). Pursuant to the noise ordinance, no person shall operate, or cause to
be operated, any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any
noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which
exceeds the following equivalent sound level (Leq) for anyone-hour period, expressed in A-
weighted decibels, dB(A), at or beyond the property boundary:
2
All Residential (Except Multiple Dwelling)
Weekdays: 10:00 p.m, to 7:00 a,m. Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p,m,
Weekends: 10:00 p,m. to 8:00 a-ID. Weekends: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p,m.
45 dB(A) Leq (one-hour) 55 dB(A) Leq (one-hour)
Commercial
Weekdays: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m, Weekdays: 7:00 a,m. to 10:00 p.m.
Weekends: 10:00 p.m, to 8:00 a.m, Weekends: 8:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m.
60 dB(A) Leq (one-hour) 65 dB (A) Leq (one-hour)
Noise Measurements
The official business hours of the office bui1ding are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and 7:00 a,m. to 5:00 p,m. on Saturday, Although employee access to the
parking lot and office building is not limited to these hours, based on current usage and
observations, nighttime activity (10:00 p.m, to 7:00 a.m.) and weekend activity is atypical.
Noise measurements were taken on the project site on two separate days. Measurements I
and 2 were taken on Monday, October 21,2002, consisting of two 20-minute measurements
taken between 10: 15 a,m. and II :05 a.m, Measurement 3, consisting of a three-hour
measurement, was taken on Thursday, November 21, 2002, between 6:00 a.m, and 9:00 a.m.
All measurements were taken along the western perimeter of the project site adjacent to the
single-family residences to the west; measurements 1 and 3 were taken directly west of the
office building and measurement 2 was taken to the northwest of the building,
The location of measurement I was shielded from Third A venue traffic noise by the office
building; the overall noise level for measurement I was 53,1 dB(A) Leq for the 20-minute
measurement period. The location of measurement 2 had a small, but direct line of sight to
traffic on Third Avenue; the overall noise level for measurement 2 was 52,2 dB(A) Leq for
the 20-minute measurement period. Traffic in the on-site parking lot was counted during
these noise measurements and was classified as to the area of the lot accessed by each car;
the time each traffic activity occurred was also noted, In the absence of parking lot activities
and other single events, such as sirens and aircraft flyovers, the background noise level
without parking lot activity was estimated a graph of the noise measurement data to be 47
dB(A) Lcq. This background noise was subtracted from the overall total measured noise; the
resulting noise was assumed to be the noise level produced by parking lot activities alone.
The result was a noise level of 5 L9 dB(A) Leq at 45 feet from the source. This reference
noise level corresponds to an activity volume of 33 vehicles over one hour and a per-vehicle
noise level of35.8 dB (A) at 50 feet from the source.
The location of measurement 3 was shielded from Third A venue traffic noise by the office
building; the overall hourly noise levels for measurement 3 were 54.4 dB (A) Leq between
6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a,m" 55.6 dB(A) Leq between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and 53.1 dB (A)
Leq between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Traffic in the on-site parking lot was counted during
the noise measurements and was classified as to the area of the lot accessed by each car; the
time each traffic activity occurred was also noted, During the heaviest-use hour of 8:00 a.m.
3
to 9:00 a,m., 67 vehicles accessed the rear parking area, 8 parked in the area to the north of
the building, and 23 parked in the area to the south of the building. These traffic counts
correspond to 23 percent, 68 percent, and 69 percent of the spaces to the north, south, and
rear of the building, respectively. This measured hour is assumed to represent the busiest, or
worst-case, daytime hour for parking lot activity. Although the total noise measured was
loudest between 7:00 a.m, and 8:00 a.m., the heaviest use of the parking lot was between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a,m. The higher average noise levels in the earlier hours can be attributed
to background noise from the roadways and other sources. Therefore, the data from 8:00
a.m, to 9:00 a.m. was used to establish a reference noise level for this noise measurement
The average background noise level without parking lot activity was estimated from a graph
of the noise measurement data to be 50.4 dB(A) Leg, This value was subtracted from the
measured noise level, which resulted in a noise level of 50.0 dB(A) Leg at 52.5 feet from the
sourcc due to parking lot activity, This reference noise level corresponds to an activity
volume of 67 vehicles over one hour, which corresponds to a per-vehicle noise level of 32,2
dB(A) at 50 feet from the source.
Projected Existing Noise Levels
In order to obtain a reference noise level for use in noise projection calculations, the per-
vehicle noise levels obtained from the measurements were log-averaged, resulting in a
reference noise level of 33.7 dB(A) per vehicle at 50 feet from the source. The reference
noise level was adjusted for distance and the number of vehicles accessing the site in order to
calculate the existing noise level during the worst-case daytime hour at the western property
boundary on the residential side of the existing six-foot high masonry wall. Taking into
account noise attenuation associated with the wall, parking lot activity noise was calculated
to be 49.6 dB(A) Leg (one-hour) on the residential side of the wall. The existing worst-case
daytime noise level at the commercial project boundaries, on the adjacent properties' side of
the wall, due to parking lot activity noise was calculated to be 50.8 dB (A) Leg (one-hour) to
the north and south of the project site,
Field visits were conducted to assess weekend and nighttime usage of the parking lot At
3:45 p.m, on Saturday, November 9, 2002, eight cars were parked in the lot At 11:10 a.m.
on Sunday, November 17, 2002, six cars were parking in the lot At 9:07 p.m. on Thursday,
November 21, 2002, three cars were parked in the lot Based on these observations, it is
assumcd that the busiest nighttime-use hour is weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m, The
existing noise level for the nighttime hour at the residential and commercial project
boundaries (between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.) was calculated to be 41.5 and 423 dB(A) Leg
(one-hour) due to parking lot activity, respectively.
Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts (Residential - Daytime)
To calculate the future worst-case hourly noise level at the residential-use project boundary
due to parking lot activity, the reference noise level of33.7 dB (A) per vehicle at 50 feet from
the source was adjusted to reflect future conditions with the proposed parking structure.
Adjustments to this reference level and resulting noise levels were calculated for each section
of the parking lot (side section-north, side section-south, rear ground level, rear second level,
and rear third level). The future hourly vehicle activity volume for each section was assumed
to be 69 percent of the parking spaces in each section, which was the highest level of hourly
4
activity observed among the three existing portions of the parking lot. It was assumed that
half of the traffic accessing the parking structure would pass through each side lot and,
because the ground and second levels of the parking structure will provide access to the third
level, adjustments were made for the volume of vehicles passing through the ground and
second levels, Five decibels was subtracted ITom the rear and side ground level parking area
noise levels to account for the reduction provided by the six-foot high masonry wall on the
western property line, Reductions to the noise levels on the second and third levels of the
parking structure were made to account for the three-foot high concrete panels proposed
along the western perimeter of the parking decks. The resulting future worst-case noise level
at the residential-use project boundary on the residential side of the wall due to parking lot
activity noise was calculated to be 54.2 dB (A) Leg (one-hour), which would not exceed the
City's daytime hourly noise standard.
Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts (Residential - Nighttime)
By using the reference noise level of 33.7 dB(A) per vehicle and the applicable distance and
wall noise level adjustments, the maximum number of cars that could access the parking lot
per hour, distributed evenly throughout the lot, without exceeding the residential nighttime
noise limit, was found to be 40. Furthermore, under a worst-case scenario assuming all of
the cars accessing the site were to park in the upper levels of the parking structure, the
maximum number of cars that could access the parking lot per hour without exceeding the
noise limit was found to be 23. Since no typical nighttime activity is expected, and
occasional use would be low, this number of cars per nighttime hour is not expected to be
exceeded; therefore, noise levels are expected to comply with City standards,
Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts (Commercial)
The future worst-case daytime noise level at the northern and southern commercial-use
project boundaries due to parking lot activity noise was calculated to be 53,6 and 53.7 dB (A)
Leg (one-hour) on the adjacent properties' side of the wall, respectively, Use of the parking
lot during nighttime hours is anticipated to be inITeguent, but would not be prohibited, By
using the reference noise level of33.7 dB(A) per vehicle and the applicable distance and wall
noise level adjustments, the maximum number of cars that could access the parking lot per
hour, distributed evenly throughout the lot, without exceeding the commercial nighttime
noise limit, was found to be 850, which is much less even than the worst-case daytime level
of activity and is greater than the proposed number of parking spaces,
Construction Noise
Noise associated with earthwork and construction would result In short-term noise
generation, Although construction activities arc exempt from the exterior noise standards of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code described above, the Municipal Code prohibits construction
Monday through Friday from 10:00 p,m. to 7:00 a.m. and from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on
Saturdays and Sundays. Compliance with the allowable construction activity periods of the
Municipal Code would ensure that construction noise would not cause a significant nuisance
noise impact to residents and businesses in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
5
-
Aesthetics
The western façade of the proposed 25-foot high parking structure would be set back ten feet
from the western property line of the project site, which is separated from single-family
residential properties to the west by an existing six-foot high masonry wall (see Exhibit B).
Therefore, a portion of the proposed parking structure would be visible from the rear portion
of single-family residential properties to the west. Existing mature Carrotwood trees are
situated on the project site along the masonry wall that separates the project site from the
adjacent single-family residential properties, To achieve a greater degree of vegetative
screening of the proposed parking structure from the west, six new 24-inch box Alleppo Pine
trees would be planted in between the existing Carrotwood trees along the western property
line (see Exhibit C). Three-foot high concrete walls are proposed along the western façade of
the second and third levels of the parking structure, which, in addition to attenuating vehicle
noise, would aid in screening vehicles parked along the western perimeter of these levels.
The proposed parking structure is an allowable accessory structure with the C-O zone in
which it is proposed to be constructed, The existing six-foot high masonry wall, the existing
and proposed new trees along the western property line, and the proposed 10-foot setback
between the wall and the western façade of the parking structure would screen and minimize
the intrusiveness of the proposed 25-foot high parking structure. Although the proposed
parking structure would result in a change to the viewshed of the adjacent residential
properties, given the zoning of the project site, the location of the site on an established,
intensively developed commercial corridor, and the moderate height and bulk of the
proposed structure, the impact of this change would not rise to a level of significance under
the California Environmental Quality Act as implemented by the City ofChula Vista.
The proposal includes downward-facing, non-spill exterior lighting on 12-foot high poles on
the upper level of the parking structure. Pursuant to Sections 19,66.060 and 19.66.100 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, no direct or sky-reflected glare shall be permitted from lighting
so as to be visible at the lot line of an establishment or use. The proposed lighting would be
required to comply with the glare regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and,
therefore, would not result in a significant glare impact.
F. Mitigation Necessarv to A void Significant Impacts
No mitigation is required.
G. Consultation
L Individuals and Organizations
City ofChula Vista:
Frank Rivera, Public Works Department-Engineering Division
JeffMoneda, Public Works Department-Engineering Division
Muna Cuthbert, Public Works Department-Engineering Division
Silvester Evetovich, Public Works Department-Engineering Division
Majed AI-Ghafry, Public Works Department-Engineering Division
6
Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office
John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department
Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department
Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department
Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department
Others:
Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 1989
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No.
88-2, P&D Technologies, Inc., May 1989
Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October
2000
Noise Technical Report for the Parking Structure for Corporate Plaza Office Building,
Chula Vista, California, RECON, December 12, 2002
Geotechnical Investigation - Corporate Plaza Parking Structure, 678 Third Avenue,
Chula Vista, California, Geocon Incorporated, October I 1,2002
3. Initial Studv
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study and any
comments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista, Further infonnation regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~~tp~1i' Date: /c2~5/t>';¡'
.
Marilyn R, F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
7
SALVATION
ARMY
~e
/ ··/Vs'
~ --/ ~
~ j HENRY'S
} PROJECT) @ MARKETPLACE ____
LOCATION) Bß ~
\jJ-& ,,)" S\~
ALBERTSON'S
~/ MARKET
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Œ) APPLICANT STBX PARTNERS, lLC INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT 678 THIRD AVENUE
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed construction of a two level parking
SCALE: FILE NUMBER; structure over the existing parking lot
NORTH No Scale IS-03-010 Related Case: DRC-03-21,
C:\DAIFILE\/ocators\IS03010,cdr 10/30/02 EXII/eITA
Case No. IS-03-10
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: STBX Partners, LLC
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 303 H Street, Suite 300
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 426-6388
4. Name of Proposal: Corporate Plaza Parking Structure
678 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
5. Date of Checklist: December 16,2002
Potentially
Potentially Significant Ù'sslhan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposar'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or D D D .,
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or D D 0 .,
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 .,
(e.g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 .,
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments:
a) The project site is zoned C-O (Administrative and Professional Office) under thc City's
Municipal Code and is designated "Commercial- Professional & Administrative"
under the City's adopted General Plan, The proposal has been reviewed and has been
found to be consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation of the project site.
b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or
policies, Furthennore, the proposal would not encroach into or indirectJy affect the
Habitat Preserve area of the Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Program Subarea Plan,
Page - ]
c) The project site is neither in agricultural production nor adjacent to property in
agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources.
d) The proposal would neithcr disrupt nor divide the physical arrangement of an
established community. The project site is presently developed and utilized as a
private surface parking lot for the commercial office building located on the subject
property,
Potentially
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal: Impact Mitigat{'d Impacf Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 Ii
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 Ii
directly or indirectly (e.g" through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 Ii
housing?
Comments:
a) The proposal would have no effects upon regional or local population.
b) The proposal would not directly or indirectly induce growth.
c) The project site does not contain any housing; therefore, no housing displacement
would result from the proposaL
Potentially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significanl ussthan
Significant Unless Significant No
expose people to potential impacts involving,' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 Ii
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions. displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 Ii
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 Ii
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 Ii
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 Ii
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 Ii
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?
Page - 2
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 ø 0
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure. or similar hazards?
Comments:
a) A geotechnical investigation of the project site was conducted by Geocon,
Incorporated, the results of which are contained in their report entitled "Geotechnical
Investigation - Corporate Plaza Parking Structure, 678 Third Avenue, Chula Vista,
California," dated October II, 2002, The purpose of the investigation was to observe
and sample prevailing soil conditions underlying the site and to provide
recommendations relative to geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The
scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, field investigation, laboratory
testing, and engineering analyses.
The field investigation was perfonned on September 14, 2002, and consisted of a site
reconnaissance and drilling three exploratory small-diameter borings, which were
drilled to depths of 40 feet. The soil conditions encountered in the borings were
visually examined, classified, and logged. Laboratory tests were perfonned on selected
soil samples obtained from the borings to detennine pertinent physical properties for
engineering analyses, The soils encountered during the field investigation consisted of
undocumented fill and fonnational soils of the Bay Point Fonnation. Groundwater was
not encountered during the field investigation and is not anticipated to significantly
impact the proposed development.
A review ofthe geologic literature indicates that there are no known active or
potentially active faults at the site or in the immediate vicinity and no evidence of
faulting was encountered in the subsurface exploration program, The Rose Canyon
Fault, located approximately 6,5 miles northwest of the site, is the closest known active
fault. Earthquakes that might occur on the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, Newport-
Inglewood-Offshore, Elsinore, and other faults within the southern California/northern
Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site,
The Rose Canyon Fault, postulated as having the potential to generate a maximum
earthquake of magnitude 6.9, is the most significant potential source of ground motion
at the site due to its proximity. The site could be subjected to moderate to severe
ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on any of the faults within the region.
However, the seismic risk at the site is not considered significantly different from that
of surrounding developments,
No landslides were encountered during the site investigation and none are known to
exist on the property or at a location that would impact the proposed development.
Due to the high density of the underlying soils and the lack of penn anent near-surface
groundwater, the potential for Jiquefaction occurring at the site is considercd "very
low."
Based upon the results of the geotechnical investigation, the proposed project is
considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering point of view provided the
structure is designed in accordance with the applicable building regulations and
provided the engineering recommendations contained in the report are followed.
Page - )
b) See IILa, above, Proper engineering design would ensure that no such soils-related
impacts would result.
c) The proposed site has been previously graded; further changes in topography to
accommodate the proposal would be nominal.
d) No unique geologic or physical features exist within the proposed development area of
the site.
e) Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the
preparation of final construction plans and will be implemented during construction,
All portions of the development area disturbed during construction will either be
developed or appropriately landscaped in accordance with final construction plans for
the project. Therefore, no significant increase in soils erosion would result.
t) See IILe. above. No significant erosion or siltation impacts are anticipated to result
from the proposed development.
g) See IILa. above.
PotentiaUy
Potentially Significant Less than
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant No
Impad Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 ¡¡¡ 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 ¡¡¡
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 ¡¡¡ 0
alteration of surface water quality (e,g"
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 ¡¡¡
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 ¡¡¡
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 I>J
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 ¡¡¡
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 ¡¡¡
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 ¡¡¡
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 ¡¡¡
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Page - 4
Comments:
a) The proposed construction of a parking structure on the entirely developed project site
would not result in a change in the on-site absorption rate. The site presently drains via
sheet flow towards Third A venue, where a stonn drain inlet exists in the street
approximately 250 feet to the south, The submittal ofa drainage study would be
required prior to the issuance of construction pennits to demonstrate that existing
in!Tastructure would be adequate to serve the project; no significant impacts to the
City's stonn drainage system are anticipated to result from the project.
b) The project site is beyond the limits of the 500-year floodplain and is not in proximity
to any bay or oeean; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water related
hazards would result from the proposed development.
c) Through construction pennit conditions of approval, the proposed project will be
required to implement construction and post-construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs), where applicable, in accordance with the City ofChula Vista Stonn Water
Management Standards Requirements Manual in order to prevent pollution of
downstream water bodies,
d) Based on the size and nature of the proposed development, and the location of the
project site relative to natural water bodies, the projeet would not result in any changes
in the amount of surface water in any water body, in eurrents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters,
e) See lV,d. above,
f) According to the geotechnical investigation prepared for the projeet (Geocon,
Incorporated, 2002), groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings. No
changes in the quantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected
to result from the proposed development of the site.
g) See IV.f. above,
h) See IV.f. above,
i) See IV.b, above. No alterations to the eourse or flow of flood waters downstream of
the site are expected to result !Tom the proposed development of the site.
j) The construction of a parking structure is not anticipated to result in a significant net
inerease in the consumption of water otherwise available for publie consumption.
Potentially
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal,' Potentially Significant Lt:ssthan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impad Impat:t
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 Ii]
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 Ii]
P'-Ige - 5
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. 0 0 0 ø
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 ø
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 ø
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
a) Based on the limited amount of site !,'Tading necessary to accommodate the proposed
development and because the proposal would not result in an increase in traffic
generated by the existing on-site office building, the proposal would not result in the
violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
b) The operation of the proposed parking structure is not anticipated to result in an
increase in the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. To the contrary, the
provision of ample parking to meet the present needs of existing office building tenants
is anticipated to reduce the time spent by employees and clients searching for on- and
off-site parking, thereby potentially reducing automobile emissions generated in the
vicinity of the project site,
c) The proposed parking structure is not anticipated to significantly alter air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate.
d) Neither development nor operation of the proposed parking structure is anticipated to
create any objectionable odors,
e) Because the proposal would not result in an increase in traffic generation, the proposal
would not result in an increase in non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions would be
associated with the proposed parking structure.
Potentially
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Potentially SignmC3Dt Lessth:m
Significant Unless Significant No
the proposal result in: Impact !\tiCigated Impact Imp"l"1
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ¡;
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" 0 0 0 ø
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible USes (e.g" farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ø
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ¡;
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 ø
bicyclists?
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ¡;
Page - 6
alternative transportation (e,g, bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ¡;¡
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ¡;¡
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips,)
Comments:
a) The project site is directly accessible from Third Avenue, which currently operates at
level of service (LOS) C The proposal would not result in an increase in vehicle trips
generated by the existing on-site office building and, therefore, would not result in an
increase in congestion.
b) Vehicular access to the project site would continue to be taken from the two existing
driveways on Third A venue. No traffic safety hazards are anticipated to result from the
proj ect
c) The proposed site plan provides for adequate emergency access from Third Avenue.
d) The proposal would result in a net gain of 73 on-site parking spaces; all on-site parking
spaces would be used exclusively by the tenants of the existing commercial office
building on-site,
e) The proposal would not result in any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
I) No conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation would result
g) No rail, navigable waters, or aircraft facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site;
therefore, the proposal would not result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts,
h) The proposal would not result in an increase in traffic generated by the existing on-site
office building; therefore, the project is not considered a "large project" under the
Congestion Management Program.
PotcnliaUy
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the PotentiaU)' Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal result in impacts to,' Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Endangered, sensitive species. species of 0 0 0 OS!
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage 0 0 0 ¡;¡
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g" 0 0 0 ¡;¡
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)?
d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 ¡;¡
vernal pool)?
Page - 7
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ti
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 ti
efforts?
Comments:
a) The project site is presently a fully developed commercial property. No habitat for
endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for
listing exists on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
b) No locally designated species are present on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
c) No locally designated natural communities are present on or immediately adjacent to
the project site.
d) No wetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
e) The proposal would have no effect upon any wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.
±) The proposal would not affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant UnleiS Significant No
Would the proposal,· Impacl Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ti
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 ti
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ti
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments:
a) The proposal would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
b) The proposal would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency
regulations. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result
in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
c) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City ofChula Vista General Plan
Update (Chula Vista, 1989), the project site is not designated for mineral resource
protection by the State of California Department of Conservation,
Page - 8
Potentially
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve,' Potentially Significant l,essthan
Significant Unless Significant N"
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 i2
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 i2
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 i2
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 i2
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 i2
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
a) There are no proposed features or aspects of the proposal that would represent a risk of
accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances.
b) The proposal would not result in interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would be created as a result of the
development of a parking structure on the project sitc.
d) No known sources of potential health hazards exist on the projcct site or in the
immediate vicinity,
e) The project site is not situated within or immediately adjacent to an area containing
dense flammable vegetation; furthermore, the proposed parking structure would be
constructed of steel and concrete,
Potentially
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in.' Putentially Significant ussthan
Significanl Unœss SignifICant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 i2 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 i2 0
Comments:
a) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
b) See Negative Declaration, Section K
Page - 9
Potentially
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have PotentiaUy Signmcant I..{'ssthan
Signmcant Unless Significant No
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? D D D 181
b) Police protection? D D D 181
c) Schools? D D D 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including D D D 181
roads?
e) Other governmental services? D D D 181
Comments:
a) The proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered fire protection services.
b) The proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered police protection services.
c) Because the proposal would not induce any population growth, no adverse impacts to
public schools would result.
d) The proposcd facility would be constructed and maintained entirely by the property
owner.
e) The proposal would not have a significant effect upon other governmental facilities.
Potentially
Potentially SignifICant Less tban
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact D D 181 D
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards,
Potentially
Potentially SignifICant Less than
SignifJcant Unless Signmcant No
Impact !\-fitigated Impact Impact
a) FirelEMS D D 181 D
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 determined that this threshold standard will be met
Page -10
PotentiallJ
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact I\fitigated Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 0
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 1
calls of 4.5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62, 10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7
minutes or Iess.
Potentially
Potentiall}' Significant Ltssthan
Signifiunt Unless Significant N"
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic 0 0 0 0
L City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel
speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D"
can occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
2, West of I-80S: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above
may continue to operate at their 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Potentially
PotentiallJ Significant ussthan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 0
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.
Potentially
Potentially Significant l-essthan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 0 0
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Slandard,
Potentially
Pottotiall}' Significant I.-essthan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Sewer 0 0 0 0
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,
Page - 11
PotentiaUy
PolentiaUy Signiflcaut Ù'ssthan
SigllUicant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impaçt Impaçt
g) Water 0 0 "" 0
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction,
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments:
a) The proposal would not adversely affect the ability of the City ofChula Vista to meet
this Threshold Standard.
b) The proposal would not adversely affect the ability of the City of Chula Vista to meet
this Threshold Standard.
c) The proposal would not result in an increase in traffic generated by the existing on-site
office building; therefore, no impacts relative to these Threshold Standards would
result
d) The proposal would not induce population growth; thcrefore, the parks/recreation
threshold standard is not applicable to the proposal.
e) Proper engineering design of required stonn drainage improvements to serve the
project would ensure that stonn water flows and volumes would not exceed City
Engineering Standards.
f) The proposal would not result in an increase in sewage flows and volumes; therefore,
City Engineering Standards would not be exceeded,
g) The proposal would not result in an increase in water use; therefore, no impacts to
water storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would result
Potentially
XIII, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would POCentially Significant Ù'ssthan
Significant Unless Significant No
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impaçt Miti¡:ated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 "" 0
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ""
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ""
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ""
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 "" 0
Page - 12
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ø
Comments:
a) The project site is located with an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities
and service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and
connections to such utilities and systems that are necessary to adequately service the
proposal would be implemented by the applicant, subject to the approval of the City
and/or the appropriate utilities and service providers, Impacts of the proposal to
utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
b) See XIILa.
c) See XIILa.
d) See X1II.a,
e) See XIILa. The adequacy of the existing stonn drainage facilities to serve the project
would be detennined prior to the issuance of construction pennits; any improvements
to the stonn drainage system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the
applicant to the satisfaction of the City EngineeL
f) See XIILa. Pacific Waste Services provides solid waste disposal services for the
property. A new trash enclosure is proposed that would house three 4-cubic-yard bins,
one each for trash, mixed paper, and yard waste, along with two 96-gallon carts for
rigid recyclables. The proposed parking structure would not result in a net increase in
solid waste generation,
PotentiaDy
Potentially Significant ussthan
Significant Unless Signifkant No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitig3ted Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 ø
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 0 0 0 ø
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 ø 0
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 ø 0
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19,66,100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 ø 0
Comments:
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site,
Page - 13
b) Third Avenue is not a designated scenic roadway in the adopted City ofChula Vista
General Plan.
c) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
d) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
e) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
PotentiaUy
XV, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the PotentiaUy Significant Less than
Significant Unkss Significant No
proposal: Impa¡;t Mitigated Impact Impaçt
a) Win the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 ¡;¡
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ¡;¡
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
. building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 ¡;¡
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ¡;¡
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 ¡;¡
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments:
a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present
within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e, below.
b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no
prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact
area, See XV.e. below.
c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values.
d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal.
e) Based on the previous level of site disturbance associated with existing site
improvements, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated,
Page - 14
Putentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 ¡;; 0
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments:
a) Limited excavation within previously undisturbed geologic formational material would
be required; therefore, the potential for the project to significantly impact
paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant
Potentially
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal-' Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless SignifICant No
Impact J\litigated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ¡;;
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ¡;;
c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or 0 0 0 ¡;;
programs?
Comments:
a) Because the proposal would not induce any population growth, the project would not
result in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational opportunities,
b) The proposal would not affect existing recreational opportunities.
c) The proposal would not interfere with parks and recreation plans or programs.
Page - 15
XVIII. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: None required,
XIX. 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.
o Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services
o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service
Systems
o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics
o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
o Paleontological o Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
XX. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the .
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
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 enviromnent, and 0
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the enviromnent, but 0
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.
0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
enviromnent, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination,
1:~~!C~13' /07/I'3! () '^'
, Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
Page - 16
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
I I I I I ,
'0 , , , 01
' , , , ,
I I I I I
¡ ¡ , , ,
, , ,
""XIST .
, , ,
, , ,
! ! I
, ,
, , , ,
L___n n_n___J
~m
",x
-<-
-VI
B-1
~z
@Cì
'(ì
-0
¡¡:z
0
-I
N 0
W
~ Z
~
+
~
~
)0
R
~
. I .
, . >
, . z ~
; ~
¡
a , Õ
. . .
c ! z
, >
, , ¡
¡ . ~ <
a 0 .
~ c
,
,
¡
a
I
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
THIRD ^V.NUII THIIII.D AVI!NVI!
zr- øol~ " ....-\ < n
;gm " ... ~t
~< ~".,\y;"· (ì 0 "'C
~m .'..,~',....._,''''"'''. \.
~r- 1....;.<>··.\..· 'd·'·· ,,_, Z
~~ · · VI \1\ -~ ..iHf,.., ::;! þj þj
, , (ì 'I" ",:~....,,::- \. ,.~::.
¡ ¡ >- t ¡--\ W', It ,,',' f·'~· '"0 0
~O " ".... ....-, \ y."
¡ ¡ ." , l : ';~\\" ~~ \\...~ ::::
· ·
)0 I ¡ m ì \ "" ,. \" j,' >- 0 "'C
@ ¡ r- '""'7"; ~'~> 1". ~',~ I,J ."
¡ m ,-; "":.-.--, ¡' '< ... í'l
, Cì 'V'~#' .-'\ H~ ~ 0
! ~ .\~.".....~... /; t-
.- m ....-'. ..""". c
i:j -1~muu ¡ Z U)
~ 0 ~
~ Þ-Ì
~ ~ tJO\
~
~ ~~11r l1~
@ ~~ l~"¡i~ ~ ,.~.~ ~ (ì '"C "'C~
3 r" , " I, " 0
';';8~1 ~ ~~~ -< ¡JIJ Z ~ >~
.z I ~~~~ q ~i9~~ VI
'1 1 .., i · .iI~ C >~þj~
5.. , - ¡~> r-
n \ " ~
" NO~~
· . 0
0 0 Z > ~~
'0 ,
ìJ , -I
VI OþjZtJ
~ :; i
[' ¡
zr- · ~ ø>
a;: ,
31m ~ ¡
~< ~------------------------------------------------------:J ¡ J
)om ~ 00<
¡;¡r- 0
,
z-l , . ! ~ . .
, ~ ~ ~ Þ-Ìtrj
~I I i ~ CO
, ~ ~ C
0;;0 ¡ ~ n ~.
'(;m
)om ~ r-
R g trj e
~ ,
,
Ì1l I z
, ~ ~ . ~I§ Cì t:C n
, ~ ~ ¡;
>< N I I .. Ô 2' Z e Þ-Ì
w O¡QlfTIIIIT à .~~
~
:::r:: -< , "T1
, h~
~ I 0 ~ e
"- , ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~
"'" ~ , ,
~ I I ~"-
)0 0 ~
"- R ~~ÎÌJ ltt .
, , " "~~
~ , ,
'i I I ~ "Q 0
, , §~ Z Z
, , ->
\Ñ I I ~~
~~ ø
u
~~
.
~
r---~- --¡:>[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> --I" · Ii !,fa I-~ '--...-, -- 1
~ · : · , Zn
; I · d ~ ! 8~
· . ·
:z: ~ ~ n 6781òird Ave.
" ¡"g¡
. ; · ''Vm CORPORATE PLAZA
? IJ \!q ¡ Or 6781òird Ave.
".. ..~ J~) Chula VÙbl, CA, 921910 J
I"'''
¡¡ 1m..
-~-,.~-- Oiii
z
0
z
UJr;:;
:1:! -
~;!;
rÇ)
-I
Ç)
~'"" ,_n - . ,~: --- !8
'".,
!ã "....,;.,.. ".';.:,'~ <, ,;;:.,q ¡~
q . I
. .
.. C
C ~
. ~
I ~ õ
õ z
n B z ~
~ Z
¡ ~ ¡ ~ . ·
: . '. X ~
H .~ ~ ,
· ~
< < Z
~ ~ Q ,
Z
Õ Õ ~ Q
z z e
~ ~ F ·
0 "
z ã ]
z e
· ~ 0
~ ~
, , ]
) ~ ·
]
, Õ
Z z
Q Q
~ .
" "
] ~ '.,'
e
0 ~
~
] ]
· .
"(" - g
¡e
.1
. .
~
~
..,. õ
z
~
·
x
¡¡
"
Z
Q
·
e
F
0
Z
Q
!ã
q
..
c
.
<
~
õ
z
~
z
~
~
]
,
Z
Q
~
"
]
ð
~
]
.
n-¡
~
-:::r:
----
tv
----
~
()
~ t> [>[>[>[> [>[>[>[>[>[> õ 1 · i[ I z~ -~,
§ · · ¡ nn I
· 0
ii · .. m 'O~
· p n 678 Third Ave.
~ <¡¥- ~~ ¡"'III
::! I · '''m CORPORATE PLAZA
~ ,õ 0 ~ ¡¡ :fÆ ¡OJ: 678 Third Ave.
'" ,~ J '" > Cbula Vista, CA. 921910
", 1... ...~ ~'"
1m", 1
! Oiii