The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/04/28 (6) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of APRIL 28, 1993 Page #1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-26: reauest to establish an educational facilitv at 660 Bav Boulevard (National Universitv) - Foster Properties A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant, Foster Properties, in connection with the potential lease of the property to National University, has submitted an application for a conditional use permit, PCC-93-26, to establish a university/continuing education facility in an existing office/research structure in the I (General Industrial) zoning district at 660 Bay Boulevard, (Attachment "A") not to exceed 150 students and 10 staff. The property is in the Coastal Zone and subject to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. 2. An Initial Study, IS-93-28, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on March 1, 1993. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommends that the Negative Declaration be adopted. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-28. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PCC-93-26 recommending that the City Council approve PCC-93-26 subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution based on the findings contained therein and subject to the adoption of the required Coastal Development Permit to allow subject use in the I (General Industrial) Zone as a conditional use. C. DISCUSSION 1. Zoning and Land Use: Zonina Land Use Site North South East West Office/Research Building Office/Research Building Vacant Freeway RR Tracks/Utility Lines 5"-1 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 28, 1993 Page #2 2. Existing Site Characteristics: At present the 1.8 acre, triangularly shaped site is occupied by a 34,452 sq. ft. office/research building, of which National University will use approximately 8,000 sq. ft. Access to the site is from Bay Boulevard at the northeastern and southern tips of the triangle. Parking consists of 113 spaces. To the west, southwest and northwest a SDG&E high power line and rail road line run parallel the property's boundary. Further to the west, beyond the power line and rail road tracks, Rohr Industries operates several industrial buildings. To the east across Bay Boulevard, the 1-5 right-of-way runs in a north-south direction, while to the south, also across Bay Boulevard, is a vacant parcel. 3. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to establish an educational facility for National University in order to serve the South Bay area. Classes are proposed to be held weekdays from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p,m., with office hours beginning at 7:00 a.m. There will be about 10 staff and teachers and 150 students. D. ANALYSIS In its present configuration, the site meets the parking demands for 150 students and 10 Staff by providing 113 parking spaces. Chula Vista does not have a specific parking standard for higher education facilities, but relies on information provided by the applicant and comparative data in order to ascertain an appropriate parking ratio. This is based on Section 19,54.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. This provision applies to all unclassified uses, of which the proposed use is one. Specifically this section states: 19.54.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities. Off-street parking and loading facilities for specific use proposed shall be determined by the planning commission in the event such requirements are not enumerated in Chapters 19.62.010 through 19.62.140. Since university facilities are not enumerated in Chapter 19.62, Staff drew on the parking rations for university uses form other jurisdictions. As a comparison, the County Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee and one space for every two students for universities or educational institutions, while the City of San Marcos requires the same. These ratios have :\H 0 ME\PLANNING\MARTIN\NA TUNI\9326PC. RPT .s... ~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of April 28, 1993 Page #3 been in effect for some years in these jurisdictions and no apparent problems have resulted. Using these ratios on this project would result in a minimum requirement of 85 parking spaces (150/2 + 10 staff or 75 + 10 = 85). Since the site provides 113 spaces, Planning staff is satisfied that parking will be adequate. At such time as National University may wish to expand, a parking agreement for parking spaces on the parcel to the north may have to be executed, depending on the increase in the number of students. The project is conditioned to include 8 parking spaces for bicycles for those staff/students who wish to use their bikes rather than drive (ratio of 1: 20). This is also based on County of San Diego standards, since Chula Vista has no such requirements. This is, however, consistent with and implements Objective 6, Goal 1 of Section 3.2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which states: "Provide related facilities and services necessary to permit the bicycle to assume a significant role as a form of local transportation and recreation". The site can be accessed at two driveways, one at the southern tip of the triangle and one at the northeast tip. These driveways were part of the original approval at the time the site design was reviewed and have proven themselves to be adequate and safe for ingress and egress to the site. To ensure that no parking or traffic conflicts occur between businesses that may in the future locate in this building and arriving students, National University has arranged their class schedules to begin at 5:30 p.m. Since most businesses operate until 5:00 p.m. this will provide a 30 minute window between employees departing from and students arriving at the site. At present, the use is not permitted under the Local Coastal Program (LCP). However, LCP Amendment No. 11 will be considered by the Coastal Commission sometime in May, 1993. This amendment was already considered by the City Council/Redevelopment Authority on March 23, 1993 and approved. Once adopted, the amendment will conditionally allow the proposed use after consideration by Council. In addition, the project conforms to and implements the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\NA TUNI\9326PC. RPT 5..3 " J m ....&...I.i""""" .... ...- ,,- " . -.-----, l:.J ,_. ~~ m :"-' :-.. ., I ~.~i~ ~ ~{~ I - I ...... I . I I I ,:; r]~ -:..~T LI I I I . 'Ll -- . . I I ~ -- -1 I I - -- ,- I - - I ~r I f-- - ff<<)J I >-- - I ~ - -, c r-- I - i.DUrnCN 1 '-- - ..... IUI - - - - I ~ - - - I - - /L f-- f--- I >-- - I HAL.SE'i -- f-- I -- f-- '/Q I - - - II- I I W w I -~ ::> ::> z- , z I , ~ W W w I I > > > > I - < < < C(- , I I - T a; I I - l.- I I ! \ ~I 0If>1: ~ -- 1 I . H . . i-- , D .--, ~ - ~ I"", ...- - - ,(" (.; .:. ,'. r(. .-"_" .) ARINAVIEW PARK".':,I .- , .;..... _ _ _ ':::. _ _' ~ _ (4.0__'W \~ - I- - I- I- I / - 1- - f- - I.- m s- if - ~ EY ~ - ~. - - - -i:! .- 1-- - Z Z 1- 0 , ~ ~ 1ft' ~ 0 < <- C( ...J ...J 4 ~ a: 0 :0: - 0 0 < ...J 0 - 0 ~ - u I "-' ~f~~ ,....,.. - - . -- - - . - . - ~ q L I- - r-"-'>- I-- 1-- - - , ~. .- - -. .- - . 1--" - -- .- - I--- I- - - "- ~-Attachment "A " ~ -- . ....l_ ----- ( NA'flol-lAL - UNIW\2.$>I1Y fRVO eA Y aND NnR;~ ( P//C---"17 -7~ ) LOCATOR te fC;"'-A~SH A\o...I ~:;')~llCNA\" ) !:'AC,\ \...\n; .'\11 'I' Z-DNe I I I I' ' I I I I J ' ~. ., ~ I' " , , , , , o . o ~ ~ o .; ~ i \ ' : ' d <i .. , o M '" ~: I ~' 5 '~ ~ .... . : == ; w =' ti C) oCt z D: oCt :iE :! \ ., .~. 5-> I I I I I I ' I I I I I s.~ ~i ~l ~ " ~ .. 0 C/) :. . :} > z ;; ..J <I: aJ ..J >- . a. a: <I: ..J. UJ aJ U. C/) 0 I- <I: <0 C/) UJ <0 ,- ..J ~~, ~ " " ........... IL~"-'-U / ro-r- - ~..,-- '0-'1 i ~ . ~ N.-4 8 , $-7 ~ ci > CJ) ..J z ce <( >- Ii ..J <( ..J a. ce u. UJ o 0 CJ) <D Z ~ <D N ..J. f\ ~ \ @/ ;/ ~ ~ / )< , <b, ~~ y ~/ ~ / ~ ~ I if I. 8 ~ ! I ~ ~ \ I L I -----€ -- ~ ._- u _ _ .--.r.. --~ ----€ ~"6 ,,'''''c' ';!",,~!'~t,:-:,.~ , (.' . ""~::~ ~?<O."" . 0 cc > 0 ..J 0 t ea ..J > U. ~ <I: I- ea (/) 0 cc <0 - <0 U. t t . ~ , , , I , , , .................... '" , 5-1 I 1 . a: 0 0 >, 0 ..I ..I en LL >- 0 . <t Z en 0 0 () <0 W <0 (f) . . t . 5-/0 THE CIIY OF CHULA VISTA PARIY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Foster Properties PI1M Corporation HSG Corporatlon 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Stanley Foster P.Michael McDonald Lillian Greenwald 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No 1L- If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Bennet B. Greenwald 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a CounciJmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which Councilmember( s): Pcrq)n is defined as: HAnyindi\'idufll,jirm, co-parmerslzip,joinl venture, association, social c/ub.frnternal organization, corpornrion, l'SWI<', 111ISI, receiver, syndicate, this alld all)' olher COl/llty, cit)' and col/nll)', I"t.i. municipality, district or other poli/ical subdh'isioll, 01' an)' olher group 01' combillation actillg as a I/nit." ~) /' (0:GTE: Attoch allllilionol pogcs os ncccssory) /. 7f C..J/r D:lte: 1/27/93 .It me 6f contractor/appl cant ster Properties, /0 The Greenwald Compan: Bennet B. Greenwald, President Print or type name of contractorhpplic:1I1t [RC'\'I~l'd; I] .""'U')O] S.,/ - 1.\ : 1 '.\:DISCLOSET\T] RESOLUTION NO. PCC-93-26 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTINUING EDUCATION/UNIVERSITY FACILITY AT 660 BAY BOULEVARD IN THE I (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 28, 1993 by Foster Properties, a General Partnership ("Applicant") in connection with a proposed lease to National University; and, WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a conditional use permit (PCC- 93-26) to allow a continuing education/university facility for 150 students in an existing structure in the I (General Industrial) zoning district ("Project") at 660 Bay Boulevard ("Project Site") (Attachment "A" in the Staff Report); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit application 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 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely Wednesday, April 28, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission must determine that subject use meets the parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommends that the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-28 be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby finds that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-28. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 19.54.050, the Planning Commission finds that the Project requires 85 off-street parking spaces and, as proposed, has adequate off-street parking for 150 students and 10 staff. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution which adopts Resolution No. PCC-93-26 April 28, 1993 Page #2 the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-28, and grant the conditional use permit to Applicant in connection with National University, based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions contained therein, and subject to the adoption of the required Coastal Development Permit to allow subject use in the I (General Industrial) Zone as a conditional use. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 28th day of April, 1993 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Susan Fuller, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary : \HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\NA TUNI\9326PC. RES D R AFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA CITY COUNCil APPROVING PCC-93-26, A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTINUING EDUCATION/UNIVERSITY FACILITY AT 660 BAY BOULEVARD IN THE I (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 28, 1993 by Foster Properties, a General Partnership ("Applicant") in connection with a proposed lease to National University; and, WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a conditional use permit (PCC- 93-26) to allow a continuing education/university facility for 150 students in an existing structure in the I (General Industrial) zoning district ("Project") at 660 Bay Boulevard ("Project Site") (Attachment "A" in the Staff Report); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28, 1993 and voted _ to _ recommending that the City Council approve subject Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said application 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 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May 18, 1993 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-28. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby grant PCC-93-26 subject to the following findings: 1 . That the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on 15-93-28. The City Council hereby finds that the project will have no significant environmental impacts in that no mitigation measures are proposed as part of the Negative Declaration for IS-93-28. Resolution No. Page #2 2. That the proposed use at the 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 conditional approval of PCC-93-26 at the proposed location is necessary and desirable in order to provide a service which will contribute to the general well being of the community in that there is an existing, under-utilized facility in place, and the service to be provided by National University will contribute to the community by providing an educational facility for the South Bay area. 3, 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 conditional approval of PCC-93-26 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 project vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the project vicinity in that class hours and business hours do not conflict and adequate ingress, egress and parking are provided thus minimizing the possibility of traffic and parking conflicts. 4. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The conditional approval of PCC-93-26 complies with the regulations and conditions of the Municipal Code in that the project is conditioned to comply with the requirements of all applicable City departments and will not generate excessive traffic and will provide 85 off-street parking spaces in accordance wit the Planning Commission determination, pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 19.62.050. 5. 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 conditional approval of PCC-93-18 will not adversely affect the General Plan, the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, or the Local Coastal Program (LCP) of the City of Chula Vista in that universities are :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\NA TUNI\9326CC. RES Resolution No. Page #3 unclassified uses which are allowed in any zoning district upon approval of a conditional use permit. The recently approved LCP Amendment No. 11 has make the proposed use a conditionally permitted use under the LCP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby grants conditional use permit PCC-93-25 subject to the following conditions whereby the applicant shall: 1 , Improve the Project Site with the Project for a maximum of 150 students and 10 staff. 2. Prior to allowing occupancy by National University: A. Provide a minimum of 8 bike parking spaces (1 space for every 20 students), the location of which shall be approved by the Director of Planning. B. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and applicable Fire Department and Building Department requirements, as appropriate, 3. 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 can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 4. This conditional use permit shall be in full force and effect during the term of the lease between Applicant and National University for the use specified herein, and any extensions thereof. 5. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year form the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. :\HOME\PlANNING\MARTIN\NA TUN 1\9326CC. RES Resolution No, Page #4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby grants conditional use permit PCC-93-25 subject to the adoption of the required Coastal Development Permit to allow subject use in the I (General Industrial) Zone as a conditional use. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\NA TUNI\9326CC. RES negative declaration PROJECT NAME: National University (660 Bay Boulevard) PROJECT LOCATION: 660 Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista. The project site is located on the west side of Bay Boulevard, north of J Street See Exhibits 1 and 2 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-330-20 PROJECT APPLICANT: Bennet Greenwald, Foster Properties CASE NO: IS-93-28 DATE: February 22, 1993 A. Proiect Setting The National University site is located at 660 Bay Boulevard, and is within the ChuIa Vista Bayfront (Local Coastal Program (LCP) area and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Area. The building already exists, and is located on the west side of Bay Boulevard, north of J Street. The project area is urbanized. Rohr Industries, Inc. surrounds the site to the north, west and south; 1-5 is located on the other side of Bay Boulevard to the east. See Exhibits I and 2 which show the vicinity location and site plan. B. Proiect Description The National University project proposes to use approximately 8,000 square feet of a 3'1, '/5). 1J,452 sq. ft. existing building for 7 classrooms and associated office space approximately 150 students are expected to use this facility, The hours of National University would be 5:30 to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays, with some academic daytime seminars or academic activities. The discretionary approvals required are: a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City to allow the educational uses in this Industrial:General category. Upon approval of the LCP Amendment and CUP, a Coastal Development Permit from the City would also be required. LCP Amendment No. II is presently being processed by the City, and if approved, would allow educational and child care uses within the Industrial General category of land use, with a CUP. No change is being proposed to the land use designation of the LCP Land Use Plan, the General Plan, or the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. Thus, the proposed activities do not create inconsistency with the aforementioned plans. C. Identification of Environmental Effects Based on the Initial Study (attached) the City finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Thus, an 8 ~(It- S-I -,- .._-~-;: -- -- city of chula vista planning department environmental review section CIlY OF CHUlA VISTA ~rA Iii::: \,-~ "" ~~~,\~" :::c..... -:1,'" ~ ~~~~ ,,'I.':. .'. .t ~\" ~>0 . .. . ~ \, t'.'~~ ~ O~ ~\""~\"~~ \-' <,,~:.~.>i:~~f ~.~ _", ~, ~,,_. '\:., " ,,~J ',j<,,~,;, ,~~" ' ,~ "" ~' '" ~ 0 S\i~ ~" _"~.-' --;,' ''xi;'''''' · "'", # "v C<, ~' ~ s' 0 \ \~\ \~~'" ,I\..ft-ti ~'~\i ...J---'~~o.;:.:~:~.~. - f ~' R ,II; '" ~ _ _ '<-,)~ Y >-7 .... ~- "'f\\'Y.'" ...""",.',\c J.t(I'..." , . _,~._' _ 0' - . ,~,.' ",0 , ' ,-" ' ,- " -,.. ~, " ,- .. ,,' - "-,, . ~ ;\n.. f ~,;....\' ~ f",,;',\' ,,,,' ,~'o'! '?' \'" . "" 'C ,,~ "" ' .", '= " .., "~,,, # ff '1t: "!~1:';:!'" ~ ~If. ,~~';' ~,~ 'n';'\."J. , 1 ' '" ",~,,~.u-, ) w _......>.i ._r'" "" '" \, .., . ~ ,.- "" 1 . "'" · 1 "- "' '~ ' '''''{~ ...:...._ ---!_o~---F3.1 ~ ~ Wo_- /K'~' :::~' T '~.' ~ I. f--: __ A~ \I 14~""''''''-'''-' I "Z0I _ " """ '"" 7. _ _ .,-' ";. " ~ '., \ 1 '",,{'~C, ~ ~.>~ >(I..,\)!.-:;..... -...-..';-S"" ""~~'o'4- -po 9.,;:;--'" \4:::"'~"'~'1 0 ' , I~ ~ ",~"", .? """- ' "' __ ,c>" ."C,_.,,," $'-' ",,,,,, 'f" .... ,"" _ ' ~{'t-Ir;'U~ I! ,;.-.- I --d' \ C~,I>\~' \ Jh.-"'.~~ V' \ A ". rr h ~\Of; \~-::"b\ /p \ ,-,>. h" Ii! - ,"-""'- ~ : , - ",;,., ~"_'" ;C'," -. "'~~~ ' ,~~: I ____ ",' 'I .., "I'" · ", 1'i.\IT <' , ",,",.0, 1 ,,_~.. ,,' " ,,'''., ofl", 1 - ,-1';"'" I' "..' ,,0 ,',..~' ' '" ~ >> R N"~ <;;;.\Y "';"~~... /\' (j.. ~~, -;,:.c. IS" ER ~~..."-. s::.--~~ ~ iH .J.o~: s' l. ~"'" '<. '" '<-) '?~ . ' ~.,... ,'"''''' _I!;;! ~ ",,< "" 0 ",",-", "-. ,7 \ 1 " , ~ " ' ~'''' "" -. .~"" , ~,,~' ,~~ ~,;:,~~@.:: ; _ i ,I \ g , \ '." y?-:5<.Y,' .;,~ti'~ 1 _ _ _ _ r-.-J- " I \ <c, !O. ~~'" 0 *2'~ ~,A;Y .c.J>"OO \\ \';. '<- 5-:"':1.~ ~.' ____,_'- 0 '.-.--- ,,,w, _ -;- ~".. . 0' ~ sew ~\' --+ I" O.()OS ,C '"",",OR", '1 ~ C\~~~ I UW~NCH ~"~/r" \ ~ Ie' ," --;.. '<;1,",~""~'4,1~ ~ C::~i:: y \ I \ ~ L i:I..~I;\ ,:-"'" -'- ~;~~~~~.::: _ I ';:~' I ~ CHU~'~""'" '" \ ....'5'< ~' ~ ,,,, 0 ,,'." " , ~ ,/) .~ ~ ~ bS:;;!!:f \ ~~ ,,_ I ~ ,;Z~~\:. /;'" ,,"/J::;7 -;;,~ ~U-~~... ~ ",,~\...S(' \ > '" ~ y ""~'~: '/:flijps " ~ \"p _\ \ vd I <..~ c. ~"\ i:. ~ -s"'l w '0" ~fd ' \L ,,0' cp-' I \ "-' A. """'.<< 'l. 0 ~ \ ~~ ,f \. ~~ \ ? ~ ~. ~ I _ '" n.~ " , ~~ ,," 'i' , ~' -': ~03i:,f'. " .- \' _ _ _+ boo___ = E1' j \....;& \~"" \\~\ ~~ I,~~':"'~' ., '~;\cJ>"'''' 1 ~ ,~"- I I""" , \ "'f.i \ W;", ,;-j'o ,,",' ":J;," .' , ' 1 _ (_ ,i T - , '~0~ ""'" \tI - \" < ~ . 1m" " ." " , ,y' ,~," ,- ~ I \ 1"~\ 1'f ~~\'<-\'<-'f\"':I,"L\:,-. a "v~~; I "" I S c >,'She" '?, \ \ . ,,,,"~+~.Y i ~ i :_;:' \I:';~~~ ;.~ ~~!'<- ~~\ ~ff1 ~s ~!'.I ~'.':C"';~ 1 ~ \".,.,'''' I~ /..l'\ , ' ' " :1.- ,,, ..."J"" ,c. . I I . \ \ ~ '" \ \~. "'-":' I,..JL ('tlli 1 I ". ""t:..)- y ....'" ,,:\ ~l 1/1\ \1 "' \ -<' ~~ >\ /~ \ VICINITY MAP ..-\""" ",,<'S~I .~, .iZ7 r- - I L .--~\- """ GUNPOIo11)ER PT . . \ . ~. . \ . . EXHIBIT I $--Ir ~ ,- ".'1 ........... .....-.,.... ......_.....,..~, Y"'::>C1Q, !Oln..HY':} t,-Y/>P-ZC<' ',~~"i '<'NQ~ -}dt'<jJ -ox uns "YI>IJIW T"Iv< ><i.<>Yi 101: sr::B..LI~V NOSlIN''I? 3dd3lS ! . I j ..'. !l I! !~ . qill~W! ~ p i~,dj 11 inli~H !!f!h!'11 '/lf1{!~!!I . f,~!!I!li'IH ,1\1\ i~!1!! < m~ i!WI! ,j1!W! i!! il'l !! I: : \;'. I ~ j ; i: 1 J II .1 j ~: ~ I' t:;i Ii! j 1; ~ Ii! ;iiJ\ i,';'1:1;;:!' 'i ., I~' l' ~I!!! i"I I :.i \1 i I :1:,1 '~i<:I:I!~!!I!:I!: ~ 'I', !lib;,., I!;I_ 1_ 11,.;11 hili:! !!! !:!.'! II!! 1_' (.':11 lIi';I\ ~:! 'j"!1 IIII 1"", .11':;IJlI....ij.j!;'".. j' p " '''.. "", "I t,I'! 'i,I!I"",lj,iJ" II:ql ;i!J~-f iii . !(Ji '.: . : Jd,:i li!!Ji ;!Q,ii !a I ~ I - . '.'I.!. , Iii I:, . I .": IIJ ,- f II' II. ,"! , II Iii I. I:f!j' If f ", ~iJl'! td I' '{. .J'm! 11 ' II:!'I',.,I" " ." :" m; jil: ) 1 ~ . J" I'i 1)1 :.11" I. ~i . I I ,I i"\ I' I~ 1.1 ",I! J:i j j I' ',C ,I 1,1, ~. 1,1: > p! _ j'. .J. Ii A' il~ '1- I !, '1 ! ': II I if,-- r;.~. i Hij;Ii 11 L I' i i IlL !: ! ~I!; ~!~ i! I ,I !i'i"II!!;!!!'" 111 ~ In~ 'I I ~J!; ~ i;1' J~ d ~ Ji;; jj j :;1..,! Ii i! J J:j~'" '"" I ,[, ""~r;.;.1',lIc~': c. o ~"~':Ir/(li;. ~t',~, _;:-. ,~~!~'1?!J.:.>.S' I , ,\\i~~~\:I:}'" :'- ; : ". "N.~~ ~-' ' . I "'.IIl,...LH.tI.:..". ....., . \~!,.'."~..., .~~.~ I ....~"". , .;;'4' "" ,. j' . . ~ ..:~ .,,r.1 -1: IJ .",:. ... ,;. {I ; _ ":'..... .:~-; I. '.0 (" , "~"l.: . - -. ':Z.? ".);'-.,.,""-<... :J;--;-T'.. T- o ?,"~'O.-~.bl-.t:)1:1'\ ,-' ""'_.._~~: "' t$'l.tJ..~~~. ~ <0>1"- ~.b..;.~5i>-,~,'':'~ \ 1..L01~;!m 1 , , " . ~ i. , . ....."..._:r-~ ....-. -'1 , I , , I~W c . . ' 1 ' i ~ ~" ~ G :)! ~ ~~-J ,.Ii ([ i~ J ~ Iii ([ " "'t. ~!P .......,IJJ [. ~ I: i u~ w ~ t:! ~ <J) , ...\ ' JmL,~ " ,.'J\, _ o(~11~ ~?1 ! ~~(i ~ -! i.. 11<,1 [i' jf i~)4 ,,~ " 3~~ If ~~~ 5 It3~ .!;~ 't~~"~ ~~~ Jl I.ia:'~ 1i ~J;j ~,~ !I.~ Jt~ i h~~{ ,~~ .. EXHIBIT 2 SITE PLAN (BUILDING ALREADY CONSTRUCTED) s. ~o Environmentallmpact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15070 through 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. D. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required or necessary. E. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Garry Williams, Planning Maryann Miller, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Marti Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Pamela Buchan, Conununity Development Dept. Rich Rudolf, Assisrnnt City Attorney Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Mr. Bennett Greenwald, Foster Properties 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (amended 1989) Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan (1974) Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for proposed National University Project (KMB Consulting, February 16, 1993) ~.:JJ \\'PC F:\HOME\CO~1MDEV\58J.93 Page 2 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. !b-NU tu/~t'VJ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) Attachments: Vicinity Map Site Plan >....:2~ wpc f:\HOM.E'COMI\IDEV\58L93 Page 3 APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) Background 1, Name of Proponent: Foster Properties c/o the Greenwald Company 2, Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 740 Bay Boulevard, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Date of Checklist: 2-17-93 4. Name of Proposal: National University 5, Initial Study Number: IS-93-28 Environmental Impacts 1, Earth. Will the proposal resuit in: YES MAYBE NO g, a, Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? . D D b, Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? . D D c, Change in topography or ground surface relief features? . D D d, The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? . D D e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? . D D f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siitation, 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? . D D Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? D D . Comments: The National University (660 Bay Boulevard) project would be located in a building that is already constructed. Parking would be located on the existing parking lot, Thus, no disturbance to the ground would be necessary to achieve this project, and no significant impacts would occur, 14 $...'2..3 2, Air. Will the proposal resuH in: YES MAYBE NO a, Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air qualijy? 0 0 . b, The creation of objectionable odors? 0 0 . c, AHeration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, eijher locally or regionally? 0 0 . Comments: The National Universijy Project would not directly produce any emissions, as the building already exists, and the uses will be classroom, Vehicles accessing the sije produce emissions, but as shown in the attached Traffic Impact Analysis, the Universijy-related trips are minimally greater than trips associated with commercial-office uses (at most, 380 trips/day greater), and occur during the off-peak times. Addijionally, it is anticipated that this National University location would relieve longer distance trips to other parts of the county, thereby reducing the amount of emissions associated wijh these trips, No signrricant air quamy impact is thus expected, 3, Water. Will the Proposal resuH in: YES MAYBE NO a, Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 0 0 . b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surtace runoff? 0 0 . c. AHerations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 . d, Change in the amount of surtace water in any water body? 0 0 . e, Discharge into surtace waters, or any aHeration of surtace water quality, including but not limijed to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 0 0 . f, AHeration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 0 0 . g, Change in the quantijy of ground waters, eijher through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqurrer by cuts or excavations? 0 0 . 15 ~ r2,c h, Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? . o o i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? . o o Comments: The National Universijy project would not affect, nor be affected by water movements, . The project sije is already constructed, and has sufficient drainage systems to convey runoff (see Engineering Department Routing Form). Thus, no significant impacts to water movements would occur. Regarding water supply, the National University project would not use water other than to service typical personal needs, and would not consume unusually large amounts of water. Thus, no signijicant impacts to water supply would occur. 4, Plant Life. Will the proposal resu~ in: YES MAYBE NO a, Change in the diversijy of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? 0 0 . b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of pia nts? 0 0 . c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? 0 0 . d, Reduction in acreage of any agricuijural crop? 0 0 . Comments: The National University project would not affect biological resources as the facility is already bum, and no change in building structure or exterior lighting will occur. The entire project site and immediate surrounding area is urbanized and supports no substantial natural resources, 5, Animal Life. Will the proposal resu~ in: YES MAYBE NO a. b, Change in the diversijy of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? o o . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? o o . 16 S r :2.5 c, Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? o o . d, Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habifat? o o . Comments: The National University project would not affect biological resources as the facility is already buln, and no change in building structure or exterior lighting will occur. The entire project sife and immediate surrounding area is urbanized and supports no substantial natural resources. 6, Noise. Will the proposal resuif in: YES MAYBE NO a, Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 . b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 . Comments: The National University project would be located in an existing building, Potential noise impacts to students of this facility would be avoided as the classrooms are located inside, and protected from the high noise levels associated wifh 1-5, Traffic noise from vehicles accessing the sife would be insignificant, and overwhelmed by the adjacent freeway noise, Also, no sensifive receptors are located along the anticipated route of travel which is 1-5 to J Street and north on Bay Boulevard, 7, Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO 00. Comments: The National Universify facilify would create no new exterior lighting, Vehicles, however, would be present until 10:30 p,m" creating new lighting from vehicle headlights, The paths of travel along Bay Boulevard and J Street are not adjacent to residences or to wetland resources of the bay, Thus, no significant lighting impacts are expected, 8, Land Use. Will the proposal resuif in a substantial aiferation of the present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments: The National Universify educational uses would be located in a building constructed for office uses, Classrooms for education are different than the previously anticipated uses, thus requiring the CUP and the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment. LCP Amendment No, 11 is presently being processed to allow educational and child care uses with a CUP in the General Industrial Land Use category of the Bayfront LCP area, Since no land use designation changes are necessary for this project, no changes to the land 17 5';l~ use designations of the Baytront LCP, the City's General Plan or Redevelopment Plan are proposed, 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal resuit in: YES MAYBE NO a, Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? D D . Comments: The National University uses would not create a substantial increase in the use of natural resources. In fact, the buildings are already buiit, thus, occupation and use of the structure is not a signfficant new source of natural resource consumption, 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: YES MAYBE NO a, A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? o o . b, Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? o o . Comments: National University is not expected to use hazardous substances as part of the curriculum, However, use of such substances is regulated by the County Department of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Management Division, and by the City's Fire Department. Any use of such materials requires documentation of the safe use and disposal of these materials, No other regulation is necessary. 11, Population, Will the proposal aher the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE NO o D . Comments: The location of National University in this facility would not substantially aiter the population/housing structure of the area, as this facility is being proposed to provide a location for an existing need for educational facilities in this portion of the County, 12, Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO o D . Comments: The location of National University in this facility would not substantially aiter the population/housing structure of the area, as this facility is being proposed to provide a location for an existing need for educational facilities in this portion of the County, 18 5.~? 13, Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal resull in: YES MAYBE NO a, Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 0 0 . b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 0 0 . c, Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? 0 0 . d. Allerations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 0 0 . e, Allerations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 0 0 . f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 0 0 . g, 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), 0 0 . Comments: See "Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed National University Project," attached, The conclusions of this report is that no signiticant traffic circulation impacts would occur. 14, Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or resull in a need for new or allered govemmental services in any of the following areas: YES MAYBE NO a, Fire protection? 0 0 . b, Police protection? 0 0 . c, Schools? 0 0 . d, Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 . e, Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 . f. Other governmental services? 0 . 0 19 ~ -.2 S Comments: a. g, Fire Protection: 1) National Universffy building already meets Fire Department requirements for occupancy, No addffional requirements, (See Fire Department Routing form), b. Police Protection: Police services will not be significantly affected by the operation of the proposed National University project; no impacts have been identified by the Police Department. c. Schools: National Universffy creates no impact to elementary and secondary schools because no students would be generated. Since no new construction is associated wffh the National University project, no statutory fees are required, This facility is providing educational facilities to serve needs, resulting in beneficial school impacts, d, Parks/Recreation: No demand for parks/recreation would be a result of this project (see Parks Department routing form). Also, public access to the recreational resources of the Bayfront would not be affected by the proposal. e, Public Facilities Maintenance: National Universffy would not substantially affect public facilities, thus not requiring additional maintenance, f. Water: New water infrastructure, or substantial alteration to the existing water infrastructure may be necessary to provide the National University site with water for fire flow requirements. This is not considered a potential environmental impact, rather a necessity to coordinate water planning between the City's Fire Department and the Sweetwater Authority which provides water service, Based on Sweetwater Authority's Standard procedures, the applicant must submit a letter to Sweetwater Authority stating Chula Vista Fire Department fire flow requirements, Sweetwater Authority will then determine the abilffy of the system to provide the required fire flow, Facility improvements may be required, which would be the responsibility of the applicant to provide, Occupancy permits would not be issued by the City until fire flow is assured, This is standard Sweetwater Authority and Cffy procedure, and not mffigation required as a result of any environmental impact. Sewer: Sewer facilities are adequate 10 serve the National University project (see Engineering Department routing form), 15, Energy. Will the proposal resuit in: YES MAYBE NO a, Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? 0 0 . b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 0 0 . Comments: Substantial amounts of new fuel would not be required to operate the proposed educational facility. 20 ~-2i 16. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the C~y's Thresholcl/ Standards Policies? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments: As described below, the proposed educational facility does not adversely impact any of the eleven Threshold Standards, A. Fire/EMS The Threshold Standard requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls w~hin 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and w~hin 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases, The C~y of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest lire station is approximately 3 miles away and would be associated w~h a 5 minute response time, The proposed project will comply w~h this Threshold Standard. B, Police The Threshold Standard requires that police un~s must respond to 84% of Prior~y 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Prior~y 1 calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62% of Priority 2 calls w~hin 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less, The proposed project will comply w~h this Threshold Standards as the Police Department has indicated that their ability to meet response time would not be adversely affected by this project, C. Traffic The Threshold Standard requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "COO or better, w~h the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections, Intersections west of 1-805 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 w~h freeway ramps are exempted from this policy, The traffic generated by this proposed project will comply w~h this Threshold Standard, See attached traffic report, KMB Consulling, for detailed comments, D, Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,OOO population. The proposed project will comply w~h this Threshold Standard; as ~ is not applicable, since no new population will be generated, E. Drainage The Threshold Standard requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed C~y Engineer Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and C~y Engineering Standards, The proposed project will comply w~h this Threshold Standard, as the National University s~e is already adequately drained, 21 .-.s~ F. Sewer The Threshold Standard requires 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 will comply with this Threshold Standard, as the National University site has adequate sewer infrastructure, G. Water The Threshold Standard requires 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. The proposed National University project applicant must worK with the City's Fire Department and Sweetwater Authority to ensure that adequate infrastructure is available, Proof of adequacy must be given to the City's Planning Department prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, This is standard City procedure. and not a mitigation measure required by this Negative Declaration, H, Schools The Threshold Standard requires that the City provide the school districts with a 12 to 18 month development forecast, and request student absorption ability information from the districts, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard as it does affect it, The proposed project does not generate students or create impacts on the school districts' abilities to accommodate students, I. Libraries The Threshold Standard requires 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 population, The proposed project does not generate additional population and will comply with this Threshold Standard because it does not affect it, J, Air Quality The Threshold Standard requires that the 'City provide the San Diego Air Pollution Control District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast, and request an evaluation of its impact on air quality and managemenf plans, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, The proposed project will not create air quality impacts, K, Fiscal The Threshold Standard requires that the Growth Management Oversight Committee be provided with an annual report which provides an evaluation of fiscal impacts of growth on the City, The proposed project does not directly affect this Threshold Standard, though implementation of the project and its fiscal effect will be included within the annual report and evaluation. 17, Human Health. Will the proposal resuit in: YES MAYBE NO a, Creation of any heaith hazard or potential heaith hazard (excluding mental heaith)? o o . 22 5-31' b. Exposure of people to potential heatth hazards? o o . Comments: No human heatth hazard would be created by classroom uses of National Universtty, nor would the students be exposed to any human health hazard in the existing 660 Bay Boulevard building. 18, Aesthetics. Will the proposal resutt in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal resutt in the creation of an aesthetically offensive stte open to public view? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments: Occupation of the 660 Bay Boulevard building by National Universtty would not change the aesthetic nature of the project area, 19, Recreation. Will the proposal resutt in an impact upon the qualtty or quantity of existing recreational opportuntties? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments: No demand for parks/recreation would be a resutt of this project (see Parks Department routing form). Also, public access to the recreational resources of the Bayfront would not be affected by the proposal. 20, Cultural Resources. YES MAYBE NO a, Will the proposal resutt in the alteration of or the destruction ot a prehistoric or historic archaeological stte? 0 0 . b, Will the proposal resutt in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? 0 0 . c, Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 . d, Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 0 0 . Comments: The National Universtty project would be located in the existing 660 Bay Boulevard building; no impacts to cuttural resources would occur. 23 5 -.:3<.. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. YES MAYBE NO a, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlffe species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Calitornia history or prehistory? . o o Comments: Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study no signiticant impacts were found to occur to biological or cultural resources because the National University project would not disturb any part of the natural environment, nor are there any cuitural resources at the project site, b, Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage or long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future,) . o o Comments: The project would implement long-term goals of the City's plans regarding establishment of necessary facilities, especially because the existing building is already developed for use, but is empty, Additionally, no loss of natural resources which could provide long term environmental benefits would be affected by this project. c, Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is signiticant.) . o o 24 s..~ Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no cumulative impacts, and found no individual impacts, d, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o D. . Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found that no direct or indirect adverse effects would occur to human beings from the National University project. The issues relevant to this finding included air quality, water, noise, light and glare, land use compatibility, risk of upset, population/housing, traffic, public services, human heanh, aesthetics, and natural hazards (earth). 25 5-3'0/' III. Detennlnation (To be completed by the Lead Agency, Check one box only,) On the basis of this innial evaluation: . I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signnicant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that a~hough the proposed project could have a signnicant effect on the environment, there will not be a signnicant effect in this case because the mnigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED, o I find the proposed project MAY have a signnicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, 1/:(;.v:L I 177) Date /)c CiA'<L) t"-f.ad;./,---- Signature For C~h "'1 (.jcLI-lDe (),S~ U 26 S - 3..5 DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AS 3158) . It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, eijher individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project, o It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fee in accordance wijh Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk, J;Vvt\CU [uIW_4J ,~ Environmental Review Coordinator fhJ:u,..J.. J I J 9 73 Date WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\642.93 27 Sr.% KMB Consulting Traffic Engineering _ Transportation Planning . Impact Studies --,', ~- r " February 16, 1993 Ms, Diana Richardson City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 SUBJECT: REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT Dear Ms. Richardson: In a previous letter dated December 22, 1992, KMB Consulting presented the results of study addressing potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed use of approximately 8,000 square feet of an existing building located at 740 Bay Boulevard by National University, We understand that National University subsequently withdrew their application, and that they are now proposing a similar facility at 660 Bay Boulevard in Chula Vista, The proposed project remains substantially unchanged from the previous project submittal. Therefore, we have concluded that the National University project would not result in significant additional traffic generation to the surrounding street system, The proposed National University project would involve the operation of a not-for-profit college level institution within an existing building located at 660 Bay Boulevard in the City of Chu!a Vista The property is within the coastal zone Current permitted uses for the site include general industrial and industrial/business park uses, as well as other specialized uses identified in the Bayfront Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP), The existing building is a traditional multi-tenant office building, Although located within the general industrial zone which permits various industrial and limited commercial uses, buildings such as this are typically occupied by non-industrial, "commercial office" uses, National University proposes to occupy 8,000 square feet of the existing building, The applicant anticipates operating six to seven classrooms which would each serve an average of 20 to 25 students, for a total anticipated student population of 150 students, National University is an institution which primarily serves working adults, so that classes are generally at night S-~? CJf1hh 8usi!ws" P,nkAvenue, Suite 107. San Diego, CA 921 31 . (6191 689-.VJ..t-i . r AX (619) 689-4994 Ms, Diana Richardson City of Chula Vista February 16, 1993 Page Two The proposed project would offer classes between 5:30 p,m, and 10:00 p,m, weekdays, but would also hold some daytime seminars and academic activities at the site, Exhibit 1 summarizes expected traffic generation which would result from the National University project, and compares this traffic generation to trips which would be expected without the project, assuming the space were occupied by an office use, Assuming that the average daytime student population is 150 students, or approximately equivalent to the expected night attendance, university activities would generate approximately 540 daily trips, This is based on the assumption that night classes would generate traffic at a rate of 2 trips per student (a worst case, assuming that each student is in attendance and drives alone), and that daytime activities would generate traffic at a rate of 1,6 trips per student. The rate of 1,6 trips per student is consistent with the average trip generation rate published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the San DieQo Traffic Generators manual for 2-year, junior colleges, When project traffic generation is compared to trips that would be generated by commercial office uses, using the average trip generation rates for commercial offices published by SANDAG, Exhibit 1 shows that the project would result in an increase of approximately 380 daily trips to the surrounding street system, In the vicinity of the project, Bay Boulevard, a Class II Collector street, would be most impacted by project. Bay Boulevard currently carries between 3,400 and 4,100 vehicles per day based on the most recent daily traffic volume counts for this r~adway (1991), These daily volumes are well within the maximum level of service C daily traffic volume of 12,000 vehicles per day for Class II Collector streets given in the City of Chula Vista's published Roadway Capacity Standards, Additional traffic which would result from the proposed project would represent at most an increase of 9 to 11 percent on Bay Boulevard, and impacts would be localized, Therefore, project traffic would not constitute a significant addition to area traffic volumes, During the critical peak hours, the project would result in only a nominal increase in traffic during the morning peak hour and in approximately 148 additional trips in the afternoon peak hour. It should be noted that the increase in afternoon peak hour traffic would be in the inbound direction, while existing industrial/business related uses in the area generate primarily outbound traffic in the afternoon peak hour, Since morning peak hour project-generated traffic would be minimal and since afternoon peak hour project traffic would be in the opposite direction of existing peak traffic flows, the project is not expected to significantly impact area traffic operations or level of service, In summary, the proposed National University project would not result in significant additional traffic generation to the surrounding street system, s -.s t!!t Ms, Diana Richardson City of Chula Vista February 16, 1993 Page Three Please call me if you have any questions, or if you would like additional information, Sincerely, KMB CONSULTING C//~ ft7 e5~ Kristi M, Berg, P.E. Attachment -S-iiJ1 81 '" :: "- :IE D.. .51 Z '51 Q",O ~ : a:,,- W:IE ffi C( .51 CI "- ~ &;1 ~~ > : "';= > 'if .,. a: B~1 0 ~~ '" '" :::!!cn G ~ "- ;:)a: _:IE "I N cnw .!!.D._ ....z~ '" !::oz W 'if >- m-;:) '" - '51 .,. :E!;(..... ere-o z", x a: <I: o '" ~ - G Wwz !;("- zo a: :IE "I N w- w",_ ,,!;( z> W'" "" c..Z ..~ "- a: a: G> CD (/) 1-==1; ~ ~ . Ga: :E- '" '"- :>>.= 0 > '" '" "- (/) J 8 as :E ~ u " 5 . ~ "ii . '0 ::J ~ c E - E ;1 . 0 " 0 w " .,. '" 1;) ~ o ~I ~ .,. N "' @<OI :8 ~ + ~ 0"'1 '" + '" o rei re + 8 ~I 0 ~ "'''' ;g + " '" " i >< ~ ~ W E 'if 'if I> g 0<0 ~ citri (/) G U ~ " G 'if 'if :;; = 0.,. is ON "' "'~ z...: 'if ...'" -0 z_ ~ 1-1- Q?Q? . . a. a. E:; 0<0 N"': . . c1: ~ ~ "'0"'0 ~ ~ win gg - - . . . ~ . (3 ~ ~ _0 -">- "'.. 20 , , ~~ ] . o o ct """" '0 '(i) Qj G3 > > 'c 02. ::J::J "'ij3co c c o 0 ~ .~ zz N 0> 0> ~ g- .0 ~ ~ c ~ .~ if ~ ~ "c E :::> E "ii ~ c > 0 o '" ~ ~ c ~ ,2 "0 " ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ <( Q. o .. ~ g Q g. c '" ~(Ij g- - Q. u ~ :s -0 g .s ~~ 113:::: Q:I,a ~ ~.S ~ 11>-(;;...... ~ ~ (1) ~ ot>>~g. :t::.!!Q)@ e c: S Q} t--: ~ U)...o o....~1) ~~e"5 -- It! t: 0 C to).Q ~ 5jCl:S~15 CJ)~~:c Qj ~ QI '=: u Cb OJ U) ........ Q<D ~~~~ l! c ~ "0 .iJ '" " t- '" ;; ~ e ~ 0- '" l' .. . o o f3. " "- ~ ;; ~ e ~ 0- '" " ~ -- ~~~~ 5rY~ 8:! 2 ROUTING FORM DATE: February 12, 1993 ,~ TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Current Planning ~ Frank Herrera, Advance Planning Bob Sennett. City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber. Library (Final EIR) Other FROM: Maryann Mi ller Environmental Section SUBJECT: MJ Application for Initial Study (IS-93-28 IFA- 615 IDP - 997 ) D Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB- IDP ) 0 Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- IDP ) D Review of Environmental Review Record FC- IERR- ) The project cons.ists of: This office building is existing and the project proposes to use 8,000 sq. ft. for National University of Classroom and associated office use. 150 expected students wi~h 7 classrooms. Location: 660 Bay Boulevard Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 2/19/93 / ~L!:-~cJJ ~ p~ ~~ , "'/J-1k5 s- t'1 ~/ r! , Comments: 1s -5(0 { G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Case No. :cs...q:s-2g, 1. Dra i naoe a. Is the project site within a flood plain? yt=;:;. If so, state which FEMA Floodway Frequency Boundary 5()D Y~~DklEVEK If.fE l$fJll-DI!J6 PAD 1"7 $(JFFIC-fa-lTLY AeoiIF 71fEO 1 CD- YEAR i DIVA)" J P/Z.IJ.l6E TO C/+{pt.'( /VITH FE:MA AND CoMMVNf"TJ/ S'TAJ.iI::ARbS. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? <;;'lJ~ ~w 77) BtlV --"J<EVA~I:> Ai.JD7r'> CL->~ >WA~ 7?APA~L-"7r> W~~~I2LY ~ ....AlF' . b. c. Are they adequate to serve the project? y~<. If not, explain briefly. f.l/A d. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? y~~. If not, explain briefly. -i~ 2. Transportation c. a. What roads provide primary access to the project? BAY Bt>lJL-EVARD AND ",J" <;;T12EET ... b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? 3t..,..e, A1:>T (JVER EXI<;;nf,/,e; (/<=;;=. What is the ADT and estimated project completion? Before A.D.T. BAy ~<-EV'A=_ "2'10 ".T" 5T1lEt?i - 7320 L.O.S. BA.Y Bo<.JLB/ARD -L-o<; "A" flU" t;T1l.EE"r" - L05, I~ " 1 evel of servi ce before and after After 'fe,59:> 7{;,1>,P, Lo.:;.....A" '-oS ';4" If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. NIA I d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. YES. WPC 9459P -14- 5-4!:a. Ys- -56 I e. Case No. T<S-43-2P, Are there any intersect ions at or near the poi nt that wi 11 result in an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS)?J..1o. If so, identify: Location ~/A Cumulative L.O.S. ^(1.4 A~ II<REvoCA6t..E. OFR!;K. . OF 1>E:t:>It:;4'rtc>,J Is there any dedication required? ,MAY, ~,~U/~. '_ If so, please specify. B<!,y'B':xJl.WMZ.hlS t:oEoSr~T'!<hAs A ('J A <;6 rr t:.olA..EcroR.. WrT# BrI4'-'W.dY<; /1<1 T1IE ~=fEllAL 'PtJ.<f. S"Fr=-Ic.r~..,r D{;;"l:>ICA,tr>A! M""Y ~ RL<:;vrJ::E;D ~ t--1QEr WE fJd./.F-IYtT:JT'H srAM~R.D6 OF s.-,t:> Df;$/~"'{t~ Is there any street widening required? Nn. If so, please specify. ~/A f. g. h. Are there any other street improvements required? AID. If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements. ~/-4 3. Soils /'IA. EXI'f,TII'-I6 'BVI/.-DI,.J(i. /-.ID N.EiV CC>^lS71<Uc.nbf..1 I~ P'RDfOfEb. a. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? b. If yes, specify these conditions. c. Is a soils report necess~ry? 4. land Form G.1ZAPED a. What is the average natyral slope of the site? 2'7'0 b. What is the maximum ~ft~tl slope of the site? 50%{rvETERI.-Y5Ld'E). 5. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the app 1 i cant? NO. 6. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid proposed project per day? ND CtrANGE: IN S~LlD $01 id WASTE r$pAfI"PAno-..! (sewage) waste wi 11 be generated by the 'f25 G.4t..l.D~<;/~y (/.t. EDU) ovE;t<. L iauid Exr5,1"'';; <;:;FW~E" bo;:NEI2A-"D<.! What is the location and size of existing. sewer lines on or downstream from the site? 2.[" (r...rC/!ErE 'PIA=:. A(.q..j6 WP<9r'EP.LY Prz.O'PfCITY Ut-.Jf;: W~ICIf TJICfI-fAW-.FS -r7:) 7Z/(MFT7ZD S~t>F'J2. =WNs:r/2E4I0. I Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? YEES. WPC 9459P -15- '5 r 1"'.,., \lpe 9459P YS-5fo! Case No. I5-,,!'3-22> 7. Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaln1ng potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. City CA /;(0/93 Date I \; -16- $ -~,y Case No. Js-7'?-~ H-l. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Is project su 'ect to Parks & Recreation Threshold requirements? If not, please xplain. Provide land? Pay a fee? 6. Remarks: are necessary to serve 2. How many acres of project? 3. Are existing neighborhoo adequate to serve the popula Neighborhood Community Parks 4. If not, are parkland dedications of the project adequate to serve community parks increase re~ g proposed near the project from this project? as part Neighborhood Community Parks To meet City reqUireme~ will 5. ~~ ~~ Parks'and Recreation Director or Representative ";2 -n. f ~ Date WPC 0413p/9459P -}3- 5-'(.5 ROUT! NG FORM DATE: February 12, 1993 / TO: "JJ Ken larson, Building & Housing John lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engi~~ering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Current Planning Frank Herrera, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City landscape Architect Bob leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other FROM: Maryann Miller Environmental Section SUBJECT: m Application for Initial Study (IS-93-28 IFA- 615 IDP - 997 ) D Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB- IDP ) 0 Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- IDP ) D Review of Environmental Review Record FC- IERR- ) The project cons,ists of: This office building is existing and the project proposes to use 8,000 sq. ft. for National University of Classroom and associated office use. 150 expected students wi~h 7 classrooms. location: 660 Bay Boulevard Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 2/19/93 Comments: / ~~~"S \J \~. ~~ ~~o:::::.,. >-1'~ Case No. ~s;-9?-..:J P H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the di stance to the nearest fi re stat ion? ADQ what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? ..:5",,~L~ ~M,",.J . 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for ~he roposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? S 3. Remarks N~ w/'-?HuvTS /l'7 7h'd ~;o ~ tv /~ F e Marshal d-//i/c; 3 Date WPC 0413p/9459P -12- :5-"'7 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D. LARt:iy CUNNI~JGHAM SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R SA~DOVAL SUPERINTENDENT JOHN F. VUGRIN, Ph.D CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOUL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 9]910 . 619 425~9GOO EACH CHILD IS AN INDNJDUAL OF GREAT WORTH February 23, 1993 Ms, Maryann Miller Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 MAR (j 1 799-' . ~) , ~ ~, RE IS-93-28/ FA-615/ DP-997 Location: 660 Bay Blvd, Project National University (In existing bldg,) Dear Ms. Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Initial Study for the National University School project referenced above Since it appears no new construction is involved, no school fees are required. Should this situation change, school fees for commercial development would be due. The current fee of $27/square foot is distributed as follows: $,12 for Chula Vista Elementary School District, $.15 for Sweetwater Union High School District. Even though no fees appear to be necessary, the District is still required to sign off on the Certificate of Compliance, Sincerely, ~rs~~ I Director of Planning & Facilities KSdp 111ol11 fik!1\gJ W1J'''.n<.Xol1lfc~ 5-~e ROUTING FORM [tECEIVED FEB 1 7 IYYj PlANNING Df.8.r.. DATE: February 12, 1993 ... TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Current Planning Frank Herrera, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Dir~ctor Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson ~Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other J FROM: SUBJECT: Ma ryann Mi 11 er Environmental Section m Application for Initial Study (15-93-28 e==] Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- e==] Review of Environmental Review Record IDP - 997 ) IDP ) IDP ) IERR- ) IFA- 615 IFB- IFB- FC- The project cons,i sts of: This office building is existing and the project proposes to use 8,000 sq. ft. for National University of Classroom and associated office use. 150 expected students wi~h 7 classrooms. Location: 660 Bay Boulevard Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 2/19/93 Cormnents: See At tached! ! / 5-"1'1' REQUEST FOR COMMENTS /~/( t<ECE Vi / IVED : , FFB 0 j I~~,) PLANNING DEPT. .. Chula Vista Planning Department DATE: February 2, 1993 TO: x X X X X Graphics Fire Marshal Building & Housing Advance Planning Engineering/Land Development Div. X Landscape Architect X Env. Review Coordinator X Chula Vista School Dist. X Sweetwater Union H.S.Dist. X Ken Lee C(tlotice only) X Police Dept. FROM: Martin Miller Planning Department (Current Planning) PCC- 93-26 P- ZAV- PCZ- PCM- PUD- PCA- GPA- Conditional Use Permit Project Name National University Precise Plan Variance Location 660 Bav Blvd. Zone Change Mi scell aneous Request To establish an educational facilitv in the "I" (Industrial) Planned Unit Development Zoning Text Amendment zone General Plan Amendment Other Deposit Account Number DP- 994 Planning Commission Meeting Date March 24, 1993 Zoning Administrator Hearing Date February 12, 1993 Comments to be received by: COMMENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73t.7C-"'L/X e7/~/7;"-7 :>/7hlcTZ//?<;,--, n,z.e- D"->'/'7 ?n!.Id-=-;:; f HC ~L7'" 4~5E'~$"c d;ee;7? r,/:'o> 73E''/; C.',Zlc7?'7&1:>, ;-,,6 /';/'.4-< /.- 0<.' /7;V;-5yd.: /::> 7,~t? IF .t-k7<r /?7l<:n.t.S Coufr,a/~~ ~1-'C{)"ffifr-/77/7'fi'" /2'i",~J4r.lJ1r 7/:.-r/cCp 73//';'0/':'-,., ~"7Mrl /.?s<rarlcr 5-5~ L~uv J/ -:r/,//"J /,//;//'/- APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS fOLDED TO fIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X II fOLDER fOR OfFICE USE INITIAL STUDY Case No. T, 7.?_7~ Deposit ';:'C'c1- 1)/997 Receipt No. //5/c'/"~ Date Rec'd ,~'7_// 9-? Accepted by ''>:" . Project No. ,L>~//..)- City of Chula Vista Application form A. BACKGROUND ]. PROJECT TITLE 660 Bay Boulevard 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 660 Bav Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 571-330-20-00 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION This office building" is existinq ~nd_the projec proposes to use 8000 square feet for National University of classroorr -~ and "associated office use. 150 expected students with 7 classrooms. 4. Name of Applicant Foster Properties Address 740 Bav Boulevard, Suite 200 Phone 427-l900 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 91910 5. Name of Preparer/Agent The Greenwald Company Address 740 Bay Boulevard, Suite 200 Phone427-1900 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 91910 Relation to Applicant PiJrtnE'rshiD 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Amendment ___ Rezone/Prezone Precise Plan ___ Specific Plan -X- Condo Use Permit Variance -X- Coastal Development Permi t ___ Design Review Application ___ Tentative Subd. Map ___ Grading Permit ___ T enta t i ve Parce r Map Site Plan & Arch.Review Project Area Co~~ittee Use Permi t ___ Public Project ___ Annexation ___ Redevelopment Agency ___ O.P.A. ' ___ Redevelopment Agency D.D.A. .1L Other LCP b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ___ Grading Plan L Parcel Hap Precise Plan ___ Specific Plan ___ Other Agency Permit or Approvals Required Arch. Elevations ___ Landscape Plans ___ Tentative Subd. Map Improvement Plans ~ Soils Report Hazardous Ihste Assessment ___ Hydrological Study ___ Biological Study ___ Archaeological Survey Noise Assessment === Traffic Impact Report Other s- S / B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. a. Land Area: sq. footage 78,606 If land area to be dedicated, state or acreage I. 73 acreage and purpose. b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structures be utilized? existing c;t-rnrt-nn> nt-ilized 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of structures d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Tota 1 un its e. Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use. a. Type(s) of land use Tnnl1c;tri~l nffirp r1nili1in'J b. Floor area 34,452 Height of structure(s) ?R fppj- c. Type of construction used in the structure rrmrr"to d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets See attached Site Plan Number (2) Two for eqrpss Ann ingrpc;c; e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided RS f. Estimated number of employees per shift 28 , Number of shifts one Total 28 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate ___ 150 students per day h. Estimated number of deliveries per day 5 5 - SOl. i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate South Bay Region j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings n/a k. Hours of operation 8:00 a.m to 10:00 D.m diJily 1. Type of exterior lighting hi9"h Sodium 14 ff po1p pXTPrior 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industri al complete this section, a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them." NONE 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated No (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill 5-~ L}Dr n~l?n/Ot.r.CD ~ 3. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from po i nts of access wh i ch may impact the surroundi ng or adjacent land uses? No 4. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Existing HVAC package units 5. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) approximately 200 square feet of garden court yard. 6. I f the project will result in any employment opportun it i es descri be the nature and type of these jobs. 16 faculty, 8 clerical" 4 ianitorial ~ rnmpllTPr 7. Will highly substances site? NO fl ammab 1 e be used or potent i ally or stored explosive within materials or the project 8. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 432 automobile trips per day, 150 students X 2, l6 faculty X 2, and 50 general employees X 2. 9. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. None D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geoloqy Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No (If yes, please attach) Has a Soil s Report on the project site been made? V"'~, ~"''' ~tt~Qhod (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydroloqy Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? No (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? subsurfacp w~tpr nh~pr'TP~ ~+- In fpPT b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? No $-S.y \.IPC 04J3n/94t;OP --"- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? Nfi d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adj acent areas? NO e. Describe location. all drainage facilities to be provided existing drainage facilities. and their 3. Noise a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? NO 4. BioloGY a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? This is an existing project b. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No _____ (Please attach a copy). c. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location, height, diameter, and species of tree.s, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. During construction, site was completely graded and revegetated with lawn and trees for parking and access areas. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical or located on or near the project site? archeological NO Fesources b. Are there any known paleontological resources? NO c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NO d. What was the land previously used for? Ncr Vacant Land s...~ \oIPC 0413p/9459P - 5- 6. Current Lo1d Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Industrial office buildinq b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Office/Warehouse Building Entrance to cnUl.a v l.SL.a lVldL IUd South East Vacant Land and Hiqhway 5 West Warehouse Buildinq 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) NO 8. Please provide any other information which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. $ -.!5t;. IIPe 0413p/9459P -6- E. CERTIFICATION I. or Owner/owner in escrow* J, ('t.:~ \t~: (0 \ ) 9~ AJ( ~ Consultant or Agent* / A(C-,Y7 f HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been included in this appl ication for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: ;;;2 - /0 - 93 *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. 5..5"7 IJr-r .... A' ""'! _ In A r,.., n 7 SITE PLAN CONTENTS 660 BAY BOULEVARD 1. 660 Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, california 91910 2. Parcell of Parcel Map No. 13581 in the city of Chula Vista, county of San Diego, state of California, as filed in the office of the county Recorder of said San Diego county, December 6, 1984 as File no. 84-455741 of Official Records. 3. 571-330-20-00 4. Foster Properties, 740 Bay Boulevard, suite 200, Chula vista, California, 91910 5. The Greenwald Company, Agent, 740 Bay Boulevard, suite 200, Chula vista, California 91910 6. See site plan 7. Existing building dimensions: Concrete Structure Height 28 feet 8. Existing adjacent structures: 630 Bay Boulevard 9. Industrial/Office space 10. 34,452 square feet 11. See site plan 12. Existing chain link fence along west side of property 6 feet in height. 13. See site plan 14. Existing landscaping to remain the same. 15. None 16 thru 21. See site plan s-s B . REPORT OF FIELD DENSITY TESTING Trench Backfill. Suhgrade and Base Testing Parcell, Marina Gateway Project Northwest of Bay Boulevard & "J" Street Chula Vista_ California JOB NO. 87-4921 05 Fehruary 1988 -S'- S? ~~MO d~MD GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER' GEOPHYSICS' ENGINEERING GEOLOGY . 05 Fehruary 1988 Mr. Mike McDonald GREENWALD-McDONALD 2635 Camino del Rio South, #309 San Diego, CA 92108 Job No. 87-4921 Suhject: Report of Field Density Testing Trench Backfill, Suhgrade and Base Testing Parcel 1, Marina Gateway Project Northwest Corner of Bay Boulevard and "J" Street Chula Vista, Californi~ Dear Mr, McDon~ld: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., herehy suhmits the following report summarizing our work and test results, as well as our conclusions and recommendations concerning the suhject project. A representative of our firm periodically visited the site and tested the trench hackfill soils that were placed and compacted in different areas at the suhject site, and also tested the finished subgrade and base in the parking areas of the site. The field density testing was performed between Septemher 2, 1987, and January 25, 1988. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work ~of our services included: 1, Periodic field density testing of hackfill pl"cement in storm dr"ins, utility trenches, sewer, and. water lines. No continuous observations were provided during the hackfilling operation. s..(&:,~ 7420 TRADE STREET . SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92121 . (619) 549-7222 Marin" Gatewcy Project, Parcel 1 Chula Vista, California Joh No. 87-4921 Page 2 . 2. Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted suhgrade and base material. No continuous ohservations were provided during preparation of the .suhgrade or hase for the "re"s to he paved. Field density tests were performed on finish suhgrade or base. 3. Performing lahoratory tests on representative samples of the fill material to determine the lahoratory maximum dry density of the fill or hase material. 4. Providing professional conclusions and recommend~tions reg~rding the test results. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION The entire property, consis ting of approximately 4.3 acres, is located west of Bay Boulevard, hetween "I" and "J" Streets, in the City of Chula Vista. The property is horde red on the north hy ~ developed property, on the south hy "J" Street, on the east hy Bay Boulevard, and on the west by a railroad track belonging..to San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad. Prior to this testing operation, the property had heen mass-graded under our observations and testing, as descrihed in our report d~ted July 23, 1987 (Joh No. 87-4921). Herein we report the results ohtained in our field density testing of trench hackfill and finish suhgrade and hase materi,,1 of park ing areas. At the time of our last site visit on January 25, 1988, the only soil-related work pending inside the property was the completion of paving of a portion of the driveway separating the northern huilding and the southern buildings. S - 4,/ ~~MO Marina Gateway Project, Parcel 1 Chula Vista, California Joh No, 87-4921 Page 3 . FIELD TESTING Periodic field density tests were provided hy a representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. to check the grading contractor's compliance with the applicahle drawings and joh specifications. The periodic presence of our field representative at the site was to provide to the contractor a continuing source of professioni'I advice, opinions, and recommendations hased upon the field representative's ohservations of the contractor's work, and did not include any superintending, supervision, or direction of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's workers. Our periodic visits were made on request of the contractor's representative (Mr. Chuck Alhright for Collins Construction). Since our visits were periodical and we did not continuously observe the grading procedures, we 0nly report the field density test results ohtained at the specific test locations. The testing operation performed in the following general manner: 1. The soils encountered in the testing operation were from on-site and imported sources, and consisted primarily of hrown, silty sand with clay; dark brown, sandy clay; tan, silty fine sand; hrown, silty, fine to medium sand; light gray, fine to medium sand; hrown, silty sand with clay; red-brown, fine to medium sand; gray-hrown, medium to coarse sand with gravel; and gray-hrown, fine to coarse sand with rock. 2. Fill materials were tested and found to he compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. Areas with failing test results were reworked and/or "dditional compaction effort was provided until acceptahle results were ohtained. Soft or saturated spots on the subgrade were indicated to the contractor for correction prior to $ .(b2, ~~~o Marina Gateway F Chula Vista, CalifL ~ct, Parcell .1ia Joh No, 87-4921 Page 4 hase placement. No ohservation was provided to verify that corrections had heen made, since hase material was already placed at the time of our field technician's last site visit. The contractor indicated that they w ill fix any damage occurring to pavement within the first year after placement. Field dens ity tests taken on base material indicated compaction degrees not lower than 95 percent relative compaction. 3. Field density tests were taken at the approximately locations shown in the Plot Plan (Figure No. I), and at the approxim"te depths indicated in the list of test results (Figure No. II J. TESTS Field density tests were performed in accordance with A.S. T .M. D-1556. Maximum density determinations were performed in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557, Method A (and Method C for hase m"teriaIJ. The relative compaction results, as summarized on Figure No. II, are the ratios of the field densities to the lahoratory Maximum Dry Densities, expressed as percentages. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are hased upon our analysis of all the data availahle from the testing of the soils compacted on this site. General Testinq 1. The soils utilized in the grading operation were from existing on-site soils which were replaced and recompacted, and imported materials which were placed and recomp"cted. The soils primarily consisted of hrown, silty sand with clay; d"rk hrown, sandy clay; hrown, 5 - "3 ~~MO . Marina Gateway Pr~ Chula Vista, Califo ct, Parcel 1 ,a Joh No. 87-4921 Page 5 silty sand with clay; tan, silty fine sand; brown, silty, fine to medium sand; light gray, fine to medium sand; gri'y-brown, medium to coarse sand with gravel; ~nd gray-hrown, fine to coarse s"nd with rock. 2. During the testing operation, the hackfill soils were found to he compacted, at the specific test locations, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. When failing test results were ohtained, rework or additional compaction of the failing ?rea was recommended until satisfactory results were ohtained. Field density tests were also taken in the suhgrade and hase material after the soil or hase material had been placed and compacted. Density test results on suhgrade or hase material at the specific test location indicated compaction degrees no lower than 95 percent relative compaction. Areas of soft or saturated soils ohserved in the suhgrade were pointed out to the contractor for correction prior to hase placement. No verification of corrections could he made hy our field technician since h"se material was ,,'ready placed at the time of his following visit to the site. No continuous ohservations of t,he compaction procedure were provided by the representative of our firm during compaction of trench hackfill or subgrade and hase preparation. Only field density and laboratory test results are presented herein. 3. All recommendations presented in our previous reports for this site remain applicahle unless superseded in writing. SUMMARY Based on our experience, it is our opinion that the testing operation described herein, in general, was performed in conformance with the currently accepted standard of practice in the field of geotechnical engineering. It is to he understood that our test results and opinion of $-~y ~~MO Marina Gateway Project, Parcel Chula Vista, California . Joh No. 87-4921 Page 6 the field density testing general acceptance do not guarantee that every cuhic yard of compacted fill has heen compacted to specification since not every cubic yard has heen ohserved or tested. Our test results indicate the measured compaction degree ohtained "t the specific test location. We can only guarantee that our tests have heen made in accordance with the care and current professioni'I stand"rds in our field. The testing described herein was performed hetween Septemher 2, 1987, and January 25, 1988. All statements in the report are applicahle only for the testing operation performed by our firm. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not he held responsible for fill soils placed wHhout our observations and testing at any other time, or subsequent changes to the site hy others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage, water erosion, and/or alteration of the strength of the compacted fill soils. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location~ of the buildings or improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommen- dations contained in this report shall not he considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. Professional opinions presented herein have heen made h"sed on our tests and experience, and they have heen made in accordance with gener"IIy accepted current geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. S - 4..5 ~~MO Marina Gateway Project, Parcel 1 Chula Vista, California Joh No. 87-4921 Page 7 . Thank you for this opportunity to he of service. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 87-4921 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully suhmitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Enclosures ~tESS!~~~ R ,<.) c---~'-!.(" ~0'S' /~~\- A. C{t?~~.<:-~\ / /;i ['/.::::- 1'0'. <:.;:-. ;\.i - -...; u,"\ .,~ '~ (.:I ......,... _~ . ;',: ( W No~ OO~.~UO/); '.', ,I ex: E 9n~~ )1 ,~~~ / 1:D. ,-,vi: /./ \ ". J _ ~ y.. ~ G,.., ....... ~r_ .' '~~:~>1;t;:"::~):.: ..;/ ~_ "I l'i'- .',' ~.~~~_:....,;~--,"-:--:..",/ ~w>-~~ Jaime A. Cerros Project Engineer/R.C.E. 34422 JAC/pj/170 cc: Addressee (4) Collins General Contractors (2) $-(,(1, ~~MO Compaction Test Results . Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill 0/0 Density Type Compaction SEWER TRENCH TESTS SI 7/2/87 8uilding A -0.5' 9.4 114 pef 1 92% SZ 7/Z/87 Building A -1.0 I 1Z.4 115 pef I ~ 93% 53 7/2/87 Bldg. A auxilIary -Z.O' 8.7 llZ pef I 90% S4 11/10/87 8uilding 8 Z.O' 8.2 129 pcf VI 96% S5 11/10/87 Building 8 3_0' 11.7 122 pef VI 92% S6 11/11/87 8uildin9 8 -Z.O' 17.6 105 pef V 91% S7 11/11/87 Building B -2.0' 21.2 115 pef II 93% S8 11/12/87 Building 8 F.G. 15.6 111 pef II 89% S9 11/1Z/87 Building B F.G. 17.6 114 pef II g2% S10 11/12/87 8uilding B F.G. 15.6 114 pef II 92% STORM DRAIN TRENCH TESTS SD1 10/27/87 410+80 Bay 8lvd. crossing 4.0' 7.0 111 pcf V 97% SDZ 10/29/87 Parallel to J St. 1.0 ' 4.5 104 pcf V 95% SD3 10/Z9/87 Parallel to J St. Z.O' 14.5 1Z1 pcf II 97% S04 10/29/87 Parallel to J St. 4.0' 15.Z 120 pef II 97% . S05 11/4/87 410+80 Bay Blvd. crossing Z.O' 7.0 1Z4 pcf VI 93% SD6 11/4/87 410+80 8ay Blvd. crossin9 4.0' 8.9 131 pcf VI 98% SD7 11/12187 410+80 8ay Blvd. crossing 2.0' 10.0 II7 pcf IV 93% SD8 11/16/87 410+80 Bay Blvd. crossing F.G. 9.9 116 pcf VII 96% SD9 11/16/87 Bay Blvd. box a rea 6.0'/FG 9.3 113 pef II 91% CONTINUED ~UU<JMO Job No. 87-4921 Figure No. IIa $ - (c>? Compaction Test Results Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Dale Location Fill 0/0 Density Type Compaction WATER TRENCH TESTS WI 10/27/87 SW side of parking area 2.5' 7.0 III pcf I . 89% FAIL W2 10/27/87 SW side of parking area 2.5' 13.0 114 pcf II 92% W3 10/27/87 N side of parking area 2.5' 13.1 112pcf II 90% W4 10/27/87 N side of parking area 2.5' 12.7 119 pcf II 96% W5 10/27/87 retest WI 2.5' 8.0 116 pcf I 94% JOINT TRENCH TESTS JI 11/23/87 Parking between 8ld9S A & B 2.5' 8.5 112pcf III 90% J2 11/23/87 Pa rk; ng between Bldgs A & B 2.5' 10.0 114 pcf III 92% J3 11/23/87 Parking between Bldgs A & B 2.5' 10.5 113 pcf III g1% J4 11/23/87 Parking west of Bldg. A 2.5' 11.5 117 pcf III 94% J5 11/23/87 Parking between 8ldgsA&B 5.0' 10.9 113 pcf III 91% J6 11/23/87 Parking west of 8ldg. A 5.0' 8.3 113 pcf III 91% J7 11/23/87 Parking west of Bldg. A 3.0' 10.5 115 pcf III 93% J8 11/23/87 Parking west of ~. Bldg. A 3.0' 10.5 113 pcf III 91% Jg 11/23/87 E. of 8ldg. A 2.0' 9.0 112 pcf III 90% JIO 11/23/87 E. of Bldg. A 2.0' 10.0 112 pcf III 90% J11 11/23/87 E. of 8ldg. A 2.0' 11.0 113 pcf III 91% CONTINUED ~[fU;JMO Job No. 87-4921 Figure No. lIb 5-<0& Compaction Test Results . Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill 0.'0 Density Type Compaction SUBGRADE AND BASE TESTS Bl 1/12/88 see plot plan $.G. 13.6 123 pef 111 99% B2 1/12/88 see plot plan 5.G. 14.2 120 pef 111 97% B3 1/12/88 see plot plan S.G. 9.4 113 pef V 98% B4 1/14/88 see plot plan Base 6.4 141 pef VII1 97% B5 1/14/8B see plot pI an Base 5.7 142 pef VI11 98% B6 1/14/88 see plot plan Base 6.2 143 pef VI11 99% B7 1/14/88 see plot plan Base 5.5 140 pef VIII 96% B8 1/14/88 see plot plan Base 6.7 141 pef VI11 97% B9 1/21/88 see plot plan $.G. 15.6 121 pef 111 98% BI0 1/21/88 see plot plan S.G. 16.3 120 pef 11 97% B11 1/21/88 see plot plan S.G. 8.1 119 pcf 111 96% 812 1/21/88 see plot plan S.G. 11.1 121 pef 111 96% B13 1/22/88 see pI at plan~ S.G. ~ 11.1 120 pef I 97% 814 1/22/88 see plot plan 5.G. 11.1 119 pef 111 96% B15 1/22/88 see plot plan S.G. 12.5 121 pef 111 97% B16 1/22/88 see plot plan 5.G. 11.1 122 pef 111 98% 817 1/22/88 see plot plan 5.G. 17.6 121 pef I 98% 818 1/22/88 see plot plan S.G. 14;3 123 pef 111 99% B19 1/22/88 see plot plan S.G. 11.1 110 pef V 96% B20 1/22/88 see plot plan 5.G. 8.1 122 pef 111 98% B21 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 5.3 130 pef IX 97% B22 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 12.3 129 pef IX 96% B23 1/25/8B see plot plan Base 9.9 133 pef IX 99% B24 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 8.1 128 pef IX 96% B25 1/25/8B see plot plan Base 6.0 130 pef IX 97% 826 1/25/B8 see plot plan Base 5.3 132 pef IX 99% B27 1/25/8B see plot plan Base B.l 133 pef IX 99% 828 1/25/8B see plot plan Base 6.4 131 pef IX 9B% B29 1/25/B8 see plot plan Base 12_3 133 pef IX 99% B30 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 9.9 130 pef IX 97% rONTI NIIFn ~~MO Job No. 87-4921 Fi9ure No. l1e 5- G,f' Compaction Test Results Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill % Density Type Compaction B31 1/25/88 see plot pl an Base 8.1 132 pcf IX 98% B32 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 5.3 130 pcf IX 97% B33 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 11.1 128 pcf IX 95% B34 1/25/8B see plot plan Base 9.3 129 pcf IX 96% B35 1/25/88 see plot plan Base 9.3 127 pcf IX 95% SOIL CLASSIFICATION TYPE DESCRI PTI ON OPTIMUM MOISTURE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY I Brown, silty sand with some clay. 9.5% 124 pcf II Dark brown, sandy clay. 12.2% 124 pcf III Red-brown, flne to medium sand. 10.5% 124 pcf IV Brown. 51 ightly silty sand. 10.6% 126 pcf V Tan, silty fine sand. 7.7% 115 pcf VI Brown, silty, fine to coarse sand. 9.2% 134 pcf VII Li9ht gray, fine to medium sand. 11.0% 121 pcf VIII Gray-brown, medium to coarse sand wit h rock. 8.7% 145 pcf IX Gray-brown, fine to coarse sand with rock. 11.1% 134 pcf - ~~MO s~ ')C> Job No. 87-4921 Figure No. lId ....- -~ ~--I I q \..''In ~ (/ . ,,- \ . . :' (' ~) '- "- \ _/ ( (' / ( , " '- ... -" . l.-/ _J'(' '" r ,,' [i] / ~ ( '0 " \ ,," "'~ \ ../ !..;:. ~ ,'" __...-' '('.;, ,,J . . ~ . ----- ...;. /--==- ... \ r '-- '" ~ I .---- '\ - L /'vJ (f) .. z 0 m " 0 .. z 0 .. :D N 0 Z .. m .. f/) -i m :D z - ~:" :D .. .. c ;: . :D 0 .. 0 I \ \ "'I- I \. ! . ~ . , '\ I I I ~ ( '. . c /' \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 . . \ ~"'~:oo '" :E ... % '" I: ; ; ;; ~ ~ o ... ... ::>:: 01: :J: ~~~;~ ~ ;: z ; 0 ... ("j ("j 0 ~ ~ ... % % 21 '" r . ' '" ... ... '" '" ~ ::: ::: : ~ - % ... ... : 0 '" ; ... ...;:... '" : ;; '" ~ ... Z ... % o . o o ~- '>/ , 7 , '" .. -< r;,l" 0':'- " o . " c " , " . . " m ~ '0 11 HiD : > . , . , . . C 0 . < . , . 0 r 0 0 . m . . " . . 0 m . . Z 0 " 0 . . . c . n " " c . . 0 . c . 0 > . - ~ -...."..........., ...............- -, ~ "';><118' 10' 1uBH'" ,- ~'>h I ~L~J c i . l i .'i. ~ f! It - fiill~W1 .. p !I!"I' ~ 1!!!i~H ~! !!1'?fj,'1 "Pf/t!jl!! j . M!!,!!I~Jn ~\III,,!H ~ _ '"' _T Ii ,,.: !~;! Imm ,ji! Wi m ~ ~ii! '::j!'. i~j ~i;! Iii I :Ii" ,1;"'11<1",: Ii' '~iji [,-;11'1: ;:1' :! ill .,OJ' '" 100!,.1i j"~I' n,I, II 1\, I.' , ill I !II 'i ~'; I: 1- ~ ,!: ~: f! I 'J'I !"I,!. '!!:"'il[ 1101, I,!\I,! - .!d I',; I IF"I~il ,II \"" JII ..II!~ ,'hi.~ ~il HI.,: h; . I' I! I to ..!I, " 11,1.11'1.'" "'I'lj'!" 1i1'!I:!,I,.!jll.' t', It!;., hli I 11(:),1. I' Jtl:: I -j I lIJ ;: '-1, ~t ,I l ; 111fT I :Ii:, ! I IT . , I~I I , , . > ',II.!. i fil i~1 _ j. j: III " r PI II, ,. J , .J, q I. 1:1 'i' II I lu i J I.; . r:1' ,!\ ," -[ ,J; In! : , II'! 'n I -"11", I !Ii: JI~ !!! jl . . .j . ," Ii, III :/1" i~; , 1 ;., ~II I:;! j! r: :~d,1 J;I: ,! 1,1; .1 t'~ - j'. . J . ". I. I'I~ 'I !;;1 1 '.: II I - -, -'''.,"' ~ r :i,I,'!: J 1fn !~~ ;i! "~ !i;!:' II!" ! Ii I: ' H Ii :r!~ 11.! in; II! ~.J ; !; 11" II ~ ~.... ~ I... J: .' - ~ -,.. . , tt t I -, ; i Jt-rf !~ :~rl I~'!:I ,. , , ~ I 1-.-".~8""II~~'...~..' < - J~;~J ""Li;-::-"~':: . ]"J;.~,~.,,~i . I' . - Lm\i- [.1.::: : , , ,\,,~, 1"-lt ..0, : .,,, -'~,.~_. , .. ".n~."HJ~..... :'._-.' I . \ .I""~ .., ~".~.:c;. : ._~~ J ~.. J, . ~ _'r~ ,"': "I 2 'J j .;;t~ ,~_::. I: ~:~ ~ ~,.-'".. ~.;tr ~ I~. ] ~ : ;!~ ~~;;,::-;,.,~.(~ t .l..".'\.{t-r.: 0~_ - - <oJ'" ~.b."'~"",!E..t.,~ \ ~~ ~I~ ~~~ , I~ ::;1 I Ij t I ~h_ ~ ; . z 1 ~. : . '" ~o-I ~ ~ O! .:. :i' . ~ ~!i I )- ~. i aiL i!ifi >- ~ a ,- C) f.. ~qp ..... ~~ i ~. ~ x: . I u~ l1J 1:- t:; ~ ~ U1 i i /!~1u 1 J"Ri~~ 110 f '/- ~ 1: . I, J '~l . r- ~ '. - !H>11~j ~ 11)4,'~ F f~lf ~i~ ~~ /13; .~:~ j !\~~ I;.~ !ij ~I-~..... ~ ~\i ~t~ (/ ~ 't..t i h~~{ tl3~ . S~?Z. , IIIIIIII1111 f'l~frn~NQgrri , , , ~ . ~ j i ... -.~.:t "~';" ~~ :~1. ~~ ~ J ~ pc, .~.h-.1l-.'?f.{~i~1.~d ~ s1i" f"" U'C'~ - 11''r':1=~i''; ~ II ~/i; 11,;~~J B t.:'lfi-:" ,,-.J;! iJ __ ' .. I . ,,' ~,,1 oc ;"1 ; '~I ,. :-"'q G I'!I" :':"11 ,", 'II'''''!;~ . " ,'-1>--;::::=-1 .' ~ '--lI'r J iii, Ii'!;, ,! II <( Wi:: '-<E~~~/ 1, ~::.:;,--,";:, ~ , ~{: \ - ~" <l' . "~.'f ,; ~'~ i }1: i ,. ,;1"';..~ ... L . 'i: o5"1:t-... d.... d ".1v~n~q;~ -~f>~." . <0 ; . H ..~. ~ '; ,ft;!! ,:,: I J,~ I' ',' ,0 '. tt ~': ~i I I ~ I J a.~1=~4' "'''..i,'''''___ ~gt "_0_0-. ..~. ~...; -+ '~:,:~<,:.:.:..-::~-~)..)! \.~j ""~~,..,. -- ,-:- 11 .- .;1 , I \ , t ~, ! l ./' ". \.~ 11 !; :; ;: ::;.~ : ;__t.i ~-.. I ,. [ ik-;' . ~~~A;ii~I f~~ ; 1 i ~ \ " . o ,1 0' Ii "' ~.. ~ _. 0- n; '..~.. ~~ d ),' J"' ~' 51 ~ ~j ~ it.! f1 1 -~ _ :;:.~ ~ f ! ;:i1 :.: .:; ~ I t'Tt- \~~II r :-)tr-'~ \.; ," I. , >: 1J1 - '1:" ~ lj I i ~ tftll [,__ i i .11 < -' ~ --.;,.,t:.. '" J'!" ,~ - / ~ ; .......,......... ~"""'~ , :kB.JS o L...L...... _'*1 U;.Ih'l'\Y't../n.!,,,,,,, --... -"~~-=r _._".....~.,..., ....,,'...........-. .. VO~II (10~ ~..MJJ.~ nI,.n. : I ,. , ~ 1 , , " L ~ ; . ~i J! '0 ! ,,; . , ill i.' " ~ t: 3 ..' v <. J Ii ~ , d ~i ~ <" " '0 , ~~-- ~F . , ~ ' ,j. , ;;Uk, . 1 . , i~:a ,~ . u,.~.. . ~ ., ,., . . ,- , l' , v , : .;~ ~ 2 .~'.' ."'.'" , . ..,.... ~ '-~PJ ::. . . ~ . -, ~,~~, :.~~-.u_..~.. ! i1, ~;; ) . ., t .J..~ \J ~ ~ .' ,~,. ~ ~ "1" 7 f. u - -. "t, tI . ~ .. <!o, '1 .vI ~~ I ~ I ...., j I j ~ . J. ~ It) ~ ~Ll ~ ~ '~ J ~ ( -+ ~! - ~ J ~''''''.L-.o ."",--' . ! ! ~ . it , I " J 1,1, u_ 1-" " !.I . 111 ',Ii! ;~ ),: i ;!i ;: i 1111;1 J: d! 1-"1 !~ I !,,:~,' ! ~ g~ i:1: j1j ;I~ j- d i, j i! ::1:1 -, .', I' " ; r:' ,J, I;J II _! ~. J I.j;1 ~ "! J.I.!. ':. 11_ J, j I" I,. '! 1 I' T.e 1 I' -;.,'~ ' It-' I .. ". .j. !: 1;,' I : 11 ;;;~i ~ , il. ~i i '; I r ':. ..;:i!;! 1: ~ 11 1'1 J I !11~ _I j' I i',! ,.- I rl ... II ~nr: =? , I', , "~I . "I" I " ~. :1, ..," .: ' I ' IT I' ,(I! I j-:; ,,'11, I onj i!.J ~ II I . 1:i!' 11 1!~' ji ; .f., J I:J ~ ~~t :!111.. !. ~ i~ m:j ~ I j- '1-' Ii J "",! ',' "t, III' jli I ~' ,:,.,' J"I;"~'!,. !'. t; '.J... ...... I., "_111. jI- Ii . * ...... ~ . . - ~ . . :.. .?.- i i , , , , , 'l!,d I: ~!t f Hi! t ~ .' . 'ill ,~ 11 ,J!!' J I ;1 !"ol ! f " " l,UI ,I 1- I ';friWU! ;:! , ~i) I' I~'i ! '. :: ~ hi. lih J 1/ H ~ -. '" 2 " I 111 j W ~! i 11J d I fi, 1! i! ~;i ~j I; ji; J~: . II I~l . I,'! ,I ~'I . I:; I l~ !!I ~.; : .. lit ., t . i.11 .: ~ ~~ .; ~ ~ ~ I ~ ; 1- (..1 :'\. Ii; ~~V . ~~ ~ :":~;' ;.;..;~~I''I , ' ~ '1 . t- <1' ." \'J:' Z i ,= \0 , " ; J ~ ,. , , t " r z ( " o , . '" , , ~ ~ ~ j . ' . i ~ : ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~.2 ~ ! 1: ~ .,. ... i; ~.!;!; ! ! !! ! !' !o ....J; : t I I II I] I.. i I' " '1,1. 'I I ~< 'j' I 'I j tll:: .' .' I! I :1 I 1'''1 I' f' s; I'" ,iI );!)I J," {I! ;" I,I!} : .!, ~. ~ ~J ..- ,. , :~ ~ - . .. I ~J TJ~ ,;I ~~i-:r'- JF_--.~-.Jj~~:-;"I'<.'..iI ~ '.;,r---~f ~<i- r;-~:' i .:! ~:i I' 1~! r:=--"j *- ' . I , il~>I!; . , ~ " ",f! ,J x o , , ~ , \ . , . o . S.'7:3 i I ! ~ 1; "ili t " Ii " ~ " t'I' i;il i ~j ; Iii ~ ~! Ii :~! j! Hi ~!. -j ., . ~ " ~ Q :I: f :- ~ ~ f: " ~ I111III1I111 ~.. " , 1 . +.- ,~. -- j j -1'.- ; I {l G t:,;.:; ~t!2!1, ~_~s~29~~~1 '''LI .~,~ ~7V......."""""",,,, s.w.o..-"... C\'inn""""IO""lI1!V~ .$ r?Y 101 >-'I O. 'D .----0 GJ ::0 :r> 'D :r: >< 3: ~ 'D pnd ,I< .~~ , .- \; 0;; , :. \ \ ~ k:"_.----'.- DETAIL "A' SCALE 1";200' @ o " u~t ,,^p,\~ -- -- , -$J" ~ g'Y 5,' '/4.;:,.91'1 4_os ,,,, 6j QSEC 170 .568.88 .y.3"'/7'..3o""iM Q30 09 -:-~ "- Y<$' s , EC 171 L Y", ~ 48 SHT4 A- ';P .L Y", -:- , i- Y", '" -:-~ L ....", A- yO' " ~ " :" ~ 1-<630 r0ti'10 '-:" i(c DETAIL "B" SCALE j'~400' 35 _p: ..gel. ~ 635 . !<I. 13 'J vt.lZ ieol'?" >- '"' >- \ ", .~ '. ""'1:', ....t~. , ~, ~. ~. /'I12-3D3"j1<"'.~' g.o' ~_~. o'-~~ ~ 'Q..~' ~I''l ~ . '_. fI- .... "', ,-,.';;,~~. ",. . ....... ~.. "'''' foI.~~ o ~ , 't.:I.~'O:J- ~'. :+'t.. ~)::;.;.~ o;D <~ ~ " .~ MAP 1198 - BAY VILLA TCT RESUB MAP 166 (M 505) - Rp~CHO DE LA NAC -> -? ~ par OSEC 163, iG4 MM 347,375.399 ROS B8~9J~ 458~( 4.\ ~ ;. 'j:: ,. ~ .