The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/06/08 (4) Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 1 3. PUBUC HEARING: Consideration of the followin2 annlications fIled bv Charles Tibbitt for 0.67 unincOJ:porated acres located at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lvnwood Drive. a. GPA-94-02. Amend the General Plan From Office Professional Commercial and Residential to Commercial Visitor. b. PCZ-94-B. Prezone to C-V-P. Commercial Visitor Precise Plan. c. PCC-94-23. Conditional Use Permit to ODerate a full service carwash. A. BACKGROUND The applicant, Charles Tibbitt, has submitted applications for an amendment to the General Plan, a Prezoning and a Conditional Use Permit for 0.67 unincorporated acres at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive. The proposal is to redesignate the site from Office Professional Commercial to Commercial Visitor, prezone the parcel to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor with Precise Plan, and establish a full service carwash. The Precise Plan for the proposed carwash received conditional approval by the Design Review Committee on February 28, 1994. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-94-04, of possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the initial Study and the Negative Declaration fmd that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council take the following actions with regard to the 0.67 acres in question. 3 -( Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 2 a. Adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution amending the land use designation of the General Plan from Office Commercial To Visitor Commercial. b. Adopt the attached Draft City Council Ordinance Prezoning the property to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan, in accordance with Exhibit A, attached hereto; c. Adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a full service carwash. c. DISCUSSION The 0.67 acre site is irregular in shape and is located at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive within the unincorporated area of San Diego County. The site is also located within the Sweetwater Community Planning Area. 1,.~~ The property, which is the consolidation of the existing 0.26 acre frontage parcel with C:::- ~cres from the southerly adjacent residential lot, is presently vacant and relatively ~ level, except for the southerly 30-40 ft which contains a 40 ft. high slope that separates the site from a single family dwelling located adjacent to the south. Adjacent land uses include commercial retail to the north (across Bonita Rd.) commercial office and retail to the east (across Lynwood Drive), residential to the south and 1-805 to the west across a flood control channel. The present Sweetwater Community Plan Designations (County General Plan) are as follows: Site Office Professional Commercial Residential Low Density (2 dulac) Neighborhood Commercial Residential Low Density (2.0 dulac) Public, Semi Public Impact Sensitive Area East (across Lynwood Dr.) South West North (across Bonita Rd.) (see Exhibit D) 3 - ~ Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 3 The present City General Plan designations are as follows: Site Office Professional Commercial Residential (2 dul ac) Retail Commercial Residential (2 dul ac) Residential (2 du/ac) Open Space North (across Bonita Rd.) South East(across Lynwood Dr.) West (see Exhibit B) The present zoning (City and County) is as follows: Site C-30, Professional Office (County) R-R-l, Rural Residential (County) C-C, Central Commercial (City) R-R-l, Rural Residential (1 du/ac) County C-32,Convenience Cornrnl.(County) Open Space (County) North(across Bonita Rd.) South East (across Lynwood Dr) West (see Exhibit C) C. PUBLIC INPUT On February 10, 1994, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum to familiarize the residents of the immediate vicinity and the Sweetwater Community Group with the applicant's request, the planning process and public hearing schedule. The issues raised at the public forum primarily concerned the additional traffic and signal delays at the Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive Intersection. The residents pointed out that the County had recently approved a church/school in their neighborhood, and since the Lynwood area is served solely by Lynwood Drive, the proposed project would further contribute to the deterioration of traffic conditions on Bonita Rd. and the traffic signal phasing (delays) at the intersection. In regard to the proposed land use issue (full service carwash) and the project design, the residents in attendance stated that the project was attractive and offered a service presently unavailable in the immediate vicinity (the nearest full service carwash is located at the northeast comer of Broadway and "K" Street). . There were no representatives of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group at the public forum, but in a letter received by the Planning Department the Group voiced the same concern as residents regarding an increase in traffic along Bonita Road, and delay 1-3 Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 4 in the traffic signal phasing at the Bonita Road Lynwood Dr./Plaza Bonita Rd. intersection. D. ANALYSIS In 1989, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Chula Vista General Plan and, by reference, adopted the Sweetwater Community Plan for all the unincorporated parcels within this Planning area. The Sweetwater Community Plan, which encompasses that unincorporated portion of the San Diego County south of Route 54, east of I-80S, and north of the existing City boundaries ((see Exhibit E), was adopted in 1977 and amended in 1988. The Community Plan shows an Office Professional Commercial designation for the site and contains design guidelines to guide the development of the area and maintain the community character and gateway qualities. The existing commercial uses along both sides of Bonita Road are for, the most part, specialty retail shops and commercial offices. The architecture and site arrangement of the existing commercial developments are diverse and do not form a cohesive urban pattern. In regard to the issue of compatibility, the land use designations found in the "gateway" area surrounding the Bonita Road and I-80S interchange range from Office Professional Commercial to General Commercial, and Central Commercial (see Exhibit B and C). The land use designations on this segment of Bonita Road are diverse and allow for a variety of businesses. However, commercial uses are primarily commercial offices and retail shops. Therefore, redesignating the subject site from Office Professional Commercial to Commercial Visitor appears to fit the already established land use pattern in this area and is consistent with the commercial goals of the Sweetwater Community Plan. The redesignation of 0.42 acres of the southerly adjacent residential property from Residential Low Density (2 dulac) to Commercial Visitor will result in a more suitable parcel for commercial development and will allow access to and from Lynwood Drive. The lot split will not affect the livability or the amenities of the property in question It is important to mention that recently the City rezoned 2.23 acres of property located at the northwest comer of Bonita Road and Plaza Bonita Road from C- V, Commercial Visitor to C-C, Central Commercial to avoid automobile oriented uses such as service stations, drive-thru restaurants, carwashes and other automobile oriented uses. While this 3 ,1 Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 5 contradicts the staff's recommendation for this project, the issues and constraints in the case of the northerly parcel are substantially different. But the principal factor that led the City to restrict automobile related uses for this parcel was the traffic conditions along Plaza Bonita Road, the relatively closeness of the freeway on-ramp to the site and street intersection, and the visibility that this parcel has from almost all angles. On the south side of Bonita Road, the traffic pattern and traffic conditions are different primarily because Lynwood Drive does not have the traffic volume that Plaza Bonita Road has, and the freeway off-ramp does not restrict access to and from Bonita Road. Based on this and the information and conclusions of the traffic report, the City Traffic Engineer concluded that the carwash can operate on the subject site without the frictions that the northerly parcel would have with a similar use. A noise study was also conducted to determine the potential impact from traffic as well as from operational aspects of the proposed land use. The study concluded that the project will increase the existing noise levels by.2db which in the context of the existing 66 db noise level in the area is considered negligible. Nevertheless, the proposed carwash facility will be conditioned to ensure that the outdoor operation do not exceed acceptable noise levels. The existing land uses in this segment of Bonita Road do not generate high traffic activity at the Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive/Plaza Bonita Road intersection is high and has been the concern of both the residents of the area and the Sweetwater Community Group. To address the issue of traffic and signal delays raised by the residents of the area at the public forum and those raised by the Sweetwater Community Group, a traffic report was prepared. The traffic report includes the traffic generated by the recently approved and presently under construction church/school facility and the data provided by the San Diego County Traffic Division The Traffic report reveals that a good portion of the traffic at this intersection is generated by the Plaza Bonita Shopping Center located about 1/2 mile north of the subject site, by the Freeway interchange and Bonita Road which is the main avenue to the Bonita community. Based on the above mentioned traffic report, the City Traffic Engineer has concluded that the traffic generated by the carwash, although substantially higher than office or even retail shops, is spread fairly evenly over the day and, as illustrated in the table below, is not expected to create any significant changes to Bonita Road and Lynwood/ plaza Bonita road intersection and traffic signal delays. 3,5 Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 6 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE BONITA RD.lPLAZA BONITA ILYNWOOD INTERSECTION CONDITION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay(sec) LOS Delay(sec) LOS Existing 24.0 C 26.6 D Existing + Project 24.1 C 28.6 D LOS = Level of Service (sec)= in seconds The following table also illustrates the traffic generated by three different land uses; an Office, a retail building and the proposed carwash. Land Use Rate Intensity Daily trips Peak Hr Trips/looo Trips sq. ft. Carwash 900/site 250 car/day 900 41 Office Dev* 20 12,000 sq.ft 240 31 Retail Dev** 40 10,000 sq.ft 400 36 The figures show that the traffic generated by the carwash is substantially more than with office development or retail use. However as indicated in the traffic report the trips generated by the carwash will be spread evenly throughout the day and will not impact the traffic peak hour nor the present level of service (LOS) or signal phasing (delays). The project will be conditioned to dedicate a sufficient area fronting Bonita Road to meet requirements for a four-lane major with dual left turns (54' centerline) to meet city street design standards. Regarding the need for a carwash in the vicinity, the nearest full service carwash is located about 1-112 miles away from the subject site. Thus, the proposed carwash will provide a convenient service an reduce automobile trips to central Chula Vista. 3-(, Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 7 To ensure compatibility with area and conformance with the established community character, staff has recommended the following Precise Plan Standards, which we believe would ensure compatibility even if other use occupy the site: 1. Development in this property shall be in conformance with the Sweetwater Community and Design Guidelines. 2. Development in this property shall be limited to a single tenant. 3. Building setbacks shall be as follows: Bonita Road Lynwood Drive Rear (south) Side (west) 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Oft. 4. Building height shall be limited to 2 1/2 stories or 45 ft. whichever is less. 5. A 20 ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along both street frontages. 6. All Parking shall be screened from view from the public right of way with dense landscaping, landscape mounding, low walls or a combination of any of the above. 7. Driveway along Lynwood Drive Shall be 28 ft wide. 8. Business identification signs shall be limited to low profile monument type signs, wall mounted signs and directional signs as permitted in the underlying zone. 9. A lighting plan addressing security and light spills onto the southerly adjacent residential area shall be submitted as part of the building permit submittal package. 10 Land uses in this site shall not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day and 55db by night. 11. Development of this property must agree to not increase water consumption or participate in water conservation or fee offset program the City may have in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 1-7 Chula Vista Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994 Page 8 E. CONCLUSION The redesignation from Commercial Office and Residential Low Density, follows the pattern of other parcels along this segment of Bonita Road and is consistent with City Zoning at other freeway intersections. The full service carwash, as conditioned, will provide a convenient service for area residents and because the site improvements are in substantial compliance with the Sweetwater Community Design Guidelines the project will result in a positive contribution to the overall community. The Conditional Use Permit will be condition to restrict outdoor hours of operation to further ensure that potential noise impacts will not adversely affect the southerly adjacent residential neighborhood, The topographical separation (approximately 40 ft.) between the proposed commercial site and the residential neighborhood above, the safeguards established in the form of Precise Standards to address compatibility and potential impacts, and the assessment of the City Traffic Engineer that the project will not adversely impact the existing traffic conditions at the Bonita Rd. and Lynwood Dr.lPlaza Bonita Road intersection, leads staff to recommend approval of the requests in accordance with the fmdings and subject to the requirements and conditions contained in the attached resolutions and ordinance. (f: \home\planning\luis\gpa-9402 . rpt) ~-I' EXHIBITS ~.., \// / / / / / - - - ......;- ...... ...... ...... / ... I - - ~ --J ..., \ EXHIBIT "A'" SCALE: CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CllY COUNOL ON CASE NUMBER: ACREAGE: DATE: aT\' QfIUC !>>on CHECKED BY: C) NORTH ZONING MAP - 3-/" ~I~ .. <><<'fA ~ DRAWN BY: T ! U1 [. J :[9)' t t > . !J@@@[1i)@] LAND USE IlESlDENTIAl D low c::=J I':::::j k;./i-j ."'~,J COMMERCIAL IT:::: ~i:'l t~/1 ~ ~ du/ac 0-3 Low- 3-6 Medium Medium ..." Medium- II-I' High High 1'-27 Fletail Ttwoughtare VI.lto, Prot...lonal & Adminiltrative INDUSTRIAL ReHlrch I Limited Manufacturing ~ ~ liS &linera' PU8UC 8 OPEN SPACE J:-: : :~ Public & Quaai Pubtic o Parkl & Recr.ation o Water CJ Open Spece _CI4l PL4N .\REA ~ Ia.tern Urbln ~ Center .' .... "'t' o '. . :::>>:>: EXHIBIT "B" r CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT (!) APPLICANT: Charles Tibbit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GP A _ ......d ,.... aftIce A ....1dMd:I.aI to ADDRESS: SW comer of BoDIta BeL ....-.....Pdal aad 1.,-11..00II Dr. PCZ.Pra8De tD CVP. C"ftlllwwrdal Vldtor SCALE: FJJ# ~f~: PCC.. CQlldltlnaat U. Permit to ODerate · NORTH A- ,z,,94-B faD IIrva d....uh. PCC-94-13 ~ - ~ I '\ .... ...... ... ", ", ...... ./ ,;' ./ ./ ./ ~~^Th!Z- ~~ ~ ~ - \ - - , -- ... I -__ I -~ ..., ~ \ EXHIBIT "C" CHULA VI ST A PLANNING DEPARTMENT C) APPLICANT: Charles Tibbit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CPA _ A.~Bd from aII'Ice .. ...Weatlal to ADDRESS: SW comor of BoDlta Rd. .....merclal and L).....ood Dr. PCZ.Prezoae to CVP. C....meftl.al Visitor SCALE: Fb'#. NUMfERl' PeC _ CDDdItioIDaI Ute Permit to ~~te · NORTH 1" - 200' A-94-0 . P z..94-B faD _rva e&....uh. PCC-94-23 '3-I:l ~ ~ ! ~ z - I I i a: z ~ w ::> ~ I~ ....<(:iEz ~: I~ ~ !~ Cl)w:iE5 Q i~ i~ !Ii I Wa:O ffi . I!!" ii ~<(oa.. ~ II!!~ Iii~ II!!~ IiiQ ~ ~ I ~~ ... - z_ ..; ,.; .,; ..; - ~ ,.; - po: ~ ~ - - -..-..\.t.ot w :I:-' ....c ~~ i z 0 - Q I- < 0 0 ...J ~ I- """" 0 = U.I ~ ~ 0 ~ a: ~ ~n <( w a:: <( z <( -I c.. ~ z ::> :E :E o (,) a:: w ~ ~ w ~ en w i=~ Ir~ ii ~ E-4 ~ = ~ ; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3 -IS RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-02 I PCZ-94-B RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONE 0.67 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND LYNWOOD DRIVE WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL VISITOR AND PREZONE C-V-P, COMMERCIAL VISITOR PRECISE PLAN. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan amendment and Prezoning were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 1, 1993, by Charles Tibbett; and WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan designation on approximately 0.67 acres located at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive within the unincorporated area of San Diego County be changed from Residential Low Density (0-3 du/ac) to Commercial Visitor and that the parcel be prezoned C-V, Commercial Visitor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan Amendment and Prezoning 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 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 11, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, The General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year; and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration IS-94-04; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan and prezone 0.67 acres 3 -I' located at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive in accordance with the attached City Council resolution and Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE 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 11th day of May, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Thomas A. Martin, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary (f: \home\planning\luis \gpa-9402. per) 3 -1'1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-94-23 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was f1led with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 by Charles Tibben, and WHEREAS, said application requested permission to operate a fuIl service carwash at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 1000 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 7:00 p.m., May 11, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission 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-94-04. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION fmds as follows: 1. The nearest fuIl service carwash is located about 1/2 mile from the subject site in the central part of Chula Vista. Thus, approval of this project will provide a desirable service in the area and reduce the trips to central Chula Vista to obtain this service. 2. The topographical difference between the subject site and the residential neighborhood above (approximately 40 ft) will provide a natural separation that added to the proposed site improvements will result in a positive contribution to the overall community. 3. The project will be required to comply with all applicable conditions, City codes, and regulations prior to issuance of construction permits and on a continuing basis thereafter. 4. The proposal is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan upon the issuance of this conditional use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby grants the conditional use permit contingent upon approval of GPA-94-02 and PCZ-94-B, and subject to the foIlowing conditions: 3-/8' Resolution No. PCC-94-23 Page 2 a. Approval of this Conditional Use permit shall be contingent upon approval of GPA-94-02 and PCZ-94-B. b. The outdoor hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00am and 10:00pm Monday through Friday and 8:00am to 10:00pm Saturday and Sunday c. Driveway along Lynwood Drive Shall be 28 ft wide. d. Permitted land uses shall not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day and 55db by night. e. Implement the project as described in the application and as approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC-94-16). f. Comply and remain in compliance with the conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee (DRC-94-15). g. 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 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 Of 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. h. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. Code Requirements i. Comply with all the fequirements of the City Engineering Department Including but not limited to the following items: Construct one half of raised concrete median within ONE WAY sign on telestar post base and sleeve or apply for a waiver. Install a 250 watt HPSV street light on the south side of Bonita Road. Specific location and to be determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Dedication of right of way as follows: Bonita Rd. provide 54 ft from center line Lynwood Drive provide 28 ft. from center line 3-''/ Resolution No. PCC-94-23 Page 3 Replace asphalt berm with curb and gutter and sidewalk at 43' from existing centerline. Provide an 8 ft. sidewalk within a 10 ft. parkway. R-99 Handicap parking only signs shall be installed on all handicap parking spaces. Obtain a grading permit if the exemptions in the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance are not met. Sewer, traffic signal and development fees All on-site utilities shall be underground j. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Building and Housing Department to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. k. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution 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. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of May 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Thomas A. Martin, Chairman ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary (f: \home\planning\luis\pcc-9423 .per) ~ -el~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE '3-~1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONE 0.67 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND L YNWOOD DRIVE WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL VISITOR AND PREZONE C- V -P, COMMERCIAL VISITOR PRECISE PLAN. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan amendment and prezoning were f1Ied with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 1, 1993, by Charles Tibbett; and WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan designation on approximately 0.67 acres located at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive within the unincorporated area of San Diego County be changed from Office Commercial and Residential Low Density to Commercial Visitor prezoned C-V, Commercial Visitor; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan Amendment and Prezoning 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 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised; namely, June 7, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration IS-94-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City Council, the Council fmds that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04. 3. ~ ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan designating the property "Commercial Visitor." Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney (f: \home\planning\luis \G P A94-02. ccr) 3.;;'3 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABUSHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE PREZONING THE 0.67 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND L YNWOOD DRIVE WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA C-V-P, COMMERCIAL VISITOR PRECISE PLAN. WHEREAS, property consisting of approximately 0.67 acres located at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive and diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Prezoning was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1993 by Charles Tibbett; and WHEREAS, said application requested to prezone 0.67 acre parcel C-V, Commercial Visitor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said prezoning 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 1000 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 7:00 p.m. May 11, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission 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-94-04; and WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the prezone is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04 and voted - to recommend that the City Council the prezoning of the parcel to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby fmd, determine, and ordain as follows: 3,:J,'f SECTION I: Based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council does hereby adopt the Negative declaration issued on IS-94-04. SECTION II: the City Council finds that the prezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good Zoning practice, support the prezoning to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan zone. SECTION III: that the parcel located at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, as shown in the attached Zoning MAp, be prezoned C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan. SECTION IV: Pursuant to Section 19.56. 041 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the following circumstances are evident which allows the application of the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District to the Subject site. Commercial development is usually located adjacent to high density residential developmentlzoning. In this case, the 40 ft elevation difference between the subject site and the southerly adjacent residential neighborhood provide an adequate transition to justify the coexistence of this two land uses. However, in order to ensure that development on this property is compatible with the surroundings and consistent with the surroundings the following Precise Plan Standards are necessary to allow the City sufficient control to achieve the desire community character. 1. development in this property shall be in conformance with the Sweetwater Community and Design Guidelines. 2. Development in this property shall be limited to single tenant. 3. Liquor Stores and or sale of alcohol, and night clubs shall be permitted uses by conditional use permit. . 4. Building setbacks shall be as follows: Bonita Road 20 ft. Lynwood Drive 20 ft. Rear (south) 25 ft. Side (west) 0 ft. 5. Building height shall be limited to 2 112 stories or 45 ft. whichever is less. 6. A 20 ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along both street frontages. 7. All Parking shall be screened from view from the public right of way with dense landscaping, landscape mounding, low walls or a combination of any of the above. 3- ..;l.,S 9. Business identification signs shan be limited to low profile monument type signs, wan mounted signs and directional signs as permitted in the underlying zone. 10. A lighting plan addressing security and light spills onto the southerly adjacent residential area shan be submitted as part of the building permit submittal package. 11. Land uses in this site shan not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day and 55db by night. 12. Development of this property must agree to not increase water consumption or participate in water conservation or fee offset program the City may have in effect at the time of building permit issuance. SECTION V: this Ordinance shan take effect and be in fun force the thirtieth day from its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney (f: \home\planning\luis\gpa-9402.ceo) ~ ..~(, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ~. a 7 - . Pi!\1 >- no, w .;~i .:: " _ ~t E- j ~..~ UI fl! U Ei~" : I';i A. IP t'hc 4 ..'!" ~ u~t 8 .," A iLl. _ r.hl' o ,'E= I- .p.~ ,:1" r~,= . . , ; i . . 1 r t-7 ~ II r ~ . i ~i j .~ . J :1: td ii~ ~~ i~ Ii tr~ ~ ~I= ~. I i~. iE I~i !! .... r ~ ; I p~; . -I" I.. i~l: ~'i~f~ SII ~ .." "I ""~. " .'"IIWI iiii iT'd' ~ ,p;'\ii' \<01'0 ~pJJ> ~~-----. % c 4 \ \ , \ \ , \ . I . : ~ . .. ~ b t I ~ :~ I B I~ ." .. / I ~' L C . ~ ~ ,~ ~ > I ., , ~ \ , ,--- --- 'g 'Z'; ~ ~ . " . r . . 0 i G"CI2-05 -W~~ ,. I. !~ . . I Ii =:&f~~ I<<aQ1 I I HSYM HY?~~IN08 . I I c u i.i~ ,< ~ ~ ----- ~- ;/" << ~ .-5 >5. ! I I I c ~ a I/:' I; . ~ . . iii! -G. o 7- 2 ~I . ;~ i!'! ~~s I al~ I U I r! ~ I I I " . i~ .U'~ ~. . ~~:II 0' ~S~:' ~ ~~~i gJ.. "~:J: i~~ "i!~o ~~M , . - < ~ ----.- 3 . 8?_L__ '- - , .-...- '\- \--. ~J '.~~ j> :s ",,^,. -( ',,; ~\c~ '" '" ....-.+--. '\ ',,- ..J C. C'" ~--~ 'o...,j~,. ,"--' ,. , ...,...,.. j _1 " i ,4 I \ I re z en ~ ~U .. ~~ D::i ~~ J ~ ICI: iii t: ~& Z- O!iii mU iI -"? ~, C' n' "- - .~ ., -' ----- --'-- ;;,> - '~ ,n << , , I 1 f-~: . ~:j " << \.. .- -- -- ',' -' " . / ~, 3 cl <~, (" ' , Ie : 11\ !Cm ~!tI D:i 8 J I!C m !:: Di ~i III ~" '0 OJ o Q '3 .~ " I: II Ii Ii ~! I ! fY ). o ,)"/ ''j:: . x.;p " \?<,', ',,:,,,.<. ; ,~--- , , ~:~r~,..-. '. t;\\:.... - r.> -)t, l..-' O->,D Ir' o \" 1:::'1{;"':;' ~= - -''''.~~-'-- "'::-.~~~ ' \. ~ (. ( ~ ' " GrS 007(- .'<' ,Q; '<'. (', ~%..:<~ . ~,~~:: ;~,.: '"" \ - ......., o iJ, 'j~:, '," \ J?V'G,1 ; ~t " \ ':]'{;.:'. - - ".~i1', ----'., ! "/ i;~-..:',~ :.> ~ ~ -;:; .,'~: fI <."e<- %...1, C () ,/' .,..... .'"'~ , I .1 01 00\ 9'91 " ' ~.. cD ~ CO , , i ' .1, ''''' C!.:_:_~ , I ; , 1_--1 ' ---: J d,," .100, i ';C,~: .--.'- :-r: - ",-",.._, I ~\ ':-'-1 \ : I _j' \ ~f.,,_ :Q1.-,c" i ':;t:::{\ "_<1'-\ II ) ',...' 0 &'< ' '_' _ 1(-...., ' -t--,r. 1-- \ " i ,'~f,' iC;", \ iei,--7------'--- -~j", 18', : ~ · . n . .{ f" :,. IU :. J --\&: 4:f . . 1, . --1 -r- I 1JJ -H ~ ! i_~~ ) I en ~ cr: <( u <: w 0:: <: -' <: I- w CJ i i I ---~..- , r;L, ;Jic~ (I,Q., ~,~ L)~:.;'t'_ ~ ~ --'.-!i,j.,\~.~:,:,~ /"',....;,fr '~'': '-' ~ '.",- \'~ 3.. g ( ~ ::I: 1/1 ~!!! III: I C ou ~ ~IJ :;;I!i z_ 011 III [8 J {)iLc,' \ / I' , ) /) I / L !(Ii: },/6j/ ( j' --'-~' ) '/,' i : i~ , hv 1,)'...1 \ o-f, '-~ ,\' \., \1'" ,y/ (' \~, r'~ ) \~ .,i \ .,.;1\/ ,\j~' \ ,,\ \1\ " \ ,. '.J '" \\\ , \\j L v 00. ! . 0 ~FT " , 0 t5 LJ o .' ' z <( ex: o . '. ....'. 0' o ex: .... o o ex: w ...J i= .J. S ":2... ~ Z <J:: -.J CL 0:: o o -.J l.J.... o Z C\J t_- . . <<"<<1-005 _~'O'THJ " . ~:&.~"*' 1I01II~ =: fe . , , HSVM HVUJ.INOS . & 'L ~/.:.: r:;- ~ ( ~~, ,- '-fr oo-iJl. ," k,.-:.. _':,.,C i :: ~ 0:0- ~ {j ~./i.. ,.~~ ~ i o' 8 . ...~- . ( ~~- . '~ . .' ...:-~ .i: 0......... _(I .~ > ) .-- ~ -~ 1~7" ~\'I:D. o*f'-.. o..-??-P!....t. ' i- 3'1 :'~ "...-" --- .. <0 i <0 '" i <0 i ImU ~.- Le '" on n 0:1 ;! z_ :i:1 .- It) jj ;;;(;f;"" '''"''::;Ie;>. : "" ' =- 1 I ; ~: Q) ... . , r_" . ONIa.Olli .. 'n 'vlSlo'. me , I =:&.1~ v:I~= f= ~ I ,~.I.. I HSVM IIV:> \f~INOS . '1. '1 Q3S()o<)jd I ~- ~ '" .. n .." I c ~~ z_ <0 iil <0 0) I ! <D Ie i ~j t ~~ 1 c i~3f ~ 'L~,...::.: -:~~ ~ - '-f~ o -iJ) " . k...,,,, -'~...- '~ ~O"'" e "'I" ,,~~ 0" 8' . Ya..cf: I,(~. ~".i: 0,:0 _ (\ .~;N. , , .- ....... -~ ~< ~.ID. n.......... ." , O...,..,~"L.' .-~ ... ", . '..... -- - -"",..-1. ~~~ ~ ~ , I , , ~; cD ... . ~ ~ ~ i II .... INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3. as negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Bonita Car Wash PROJECT LOCATION: 3048 Bonita Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 570-220-30 PROJECT APPLICANT: Charles Tibbett, 3907 Massachusetts Avenue, La Mesa CA 91941 CASE NO: IS 94-04 DATE: February 2, 1994 A. Proiect Setting The project is proposed on a vacant 29,108 square foot (.67 acre) site located at 3048 Bonita Road (the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive) in the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego. The project site has an average graded slope of 5% and a maximum graded slope of 30%. Two single family dwellings are located south of the site. Pier 1 Imports is located to the north across Bonita Road and administrative, office and professional is adjacent to the east. The Rice Canyon flood control channel is immediately west of the project site and 1-805 is immediately west of the flood control channel. B. Proiect Descrintion The project will involve the construction of a single two-story structure incorporating a 1278 square foot commercial carwash bay, 245 sq. ft. office, 193 sq. ft. mechanical room, . 231 sq. ft. cashier area, 165 sq. ft. restrooms, and a 200 sq. ft lounge. The flfst-floor will contain the car detailing area, cashi~r, restroorns, mechanics room and the carwash bay. The second-floor will have the office, lounge and a roof deck area. The access to the building will be at the west end of the building. There will be six parking spaces, and an area for drying and stacking (area where cars enter and exit carwash bay). The proposed carwash will be open from 8am-6pm and there will be eight employees, five full-time and three part- time. One hundred twenty five (125) to 250 customers are expected per day. There will be two deliveries of supplies per month. The discretionary actions necessary to implement the proposed carwash project will include: an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, a Prezone, Precise Plan approval. the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. a Grading Permit and an amendment to the existing sewer service and annexation agreement for this site (agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Phil Creaser, George M. Warwick and Kenneth W. Baird, June 19, 1990) or a new agreement. , The project consists of a proposal to amend the current City of Chula Vista General Plan land use designation from Residential Low (0-3 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial Visitor. The site is proposed to be prezoned C-V (Commercial Visitor). ~(f? --.- r.....~.... _ ~- ..... city of chula vista planning department em Of environmental review .eclion (HULA VISTA ~-~<. In the Sweetwater Community Plan, Part XIII of the San Diego County General Plan, the site is designated Office, Professional and Commercial. The site is zoned C-30 in the County of San Diego. The applicant is requesting that the City of Chula Vista annex the site and that the General Plan be amended to designate the site as Commercial Visitor and prezone it as C- V, in the City of Chula Vista, to accommodate the proposed project. The physical development of the project relating to the requirement of a grading permit will involve excavation and fill of 2600 cubic yards of soil that is currently on the project site. The project is considered to be in the floodplain and as such, the project, if approved will have to comply with city adopted FEMA standards for building in a floodplain: that the lowest floor elevation (to include basement) of nonresidential structures be elevated or to a minimum of one foot above the regulatory flood elevation or that the project be fIoodproofed. The applicant will also be required to pay additional fees to the Spring Valley Sanitation District pursuant to the City's agreement with the S. V. Sanitation District, for the use of the District's outfall sewer. The applicant will be required to pay the following fees: public facilities development impact fees, traffic signal fees, transportation development fees, sewer capacity fees and fees imposed by the Spring Valley Sanitation District. The applicant will be required to dedicate a sufficient area fronting Bonita Road to meet requirements for a four-lane major with dual left turns (54' centerline) and to provide street improvements; curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street lighting, drainage improvements and A.C. pavement. A right-turn-only sign for the Bonita Road entrance will be a condition of project approval. The applicant will be required to widen the proposed 24' driveway on Lynwood Drive to 28 feet. For ease of use, the applicant will also be required to provide a 20' wide entrance and 20' wide exit on Bonita Road to meet Fire Department standards. The project will employ eight individuals, generating a negligible impact on public services. The impact is less than significant. However, the Chula Vista School District and Sweetwater Union High School District developer fees will be assessed on the project in accordance with state law that currently provides for a developer fee. The proposed project site is located in a 100 year flood plain. It is not known what impacts downstream channel improvements to the Sweetwater River Channel may have on the floodplain elevation at the site. The existing on-site facilities allows surface flow northwestward to Rice Canyon Creek, which is immediately west of the proposed project site. The off-site drainage facility is the Rice Canyon Creek. which discharges to the Sweetwater River channel. Analysis has indicated that offsite drainage facilities including the Sweetwater River Channel at the confluence of the Sweetwater River and the Rice Canyon Creek are inadequate to serve projected flows from this and other projects. Engineering staff state that the requirement for the applicant to build the project one foot above the floodplain will reduce any potential impacts to a level below significant. C. Comnatibility with Plans and Zonin2 The project involves a proposed change of the current City of Chula Vista General Plan designation of "Office Professional Commercial" (Sweetwater Community Plan) to WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9:tRef. 1021.93,1022.93) 3 -37 Page 2 "Commercial Visitor." The site is proposed to be prezoned "C-V" (Commercial Visitor). The property is currently located within the County of San Diego unincorporated area and subject to land use controls established within the Sweetwater Community Plan. In July 1989, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Chula Vista General Plan and referenced the newly-adopted Sweetwater Community Plan as the basis for land use designations within the unincorporated portions of the Sweetwater Valley that fall within the City of Chula Vista General Plan area. This action was taken primarily due to the fact that the County was in the process of updating the Sweetwater Community Plan during the same time period that the Council was considering the adoption of the updated General Plan. Property located to the east, across Lynwood Drive, also in the County, is designated "Office Professional Commercial", and property located directly south and elevated above the level of Bonita Road, is designated "Retail Commercial" and zoned "C-C" (Central Commercial). The Sweetwater Community Plan does not directly address properties oriented to major freeway access and the City of Chula Vista has, in many cases, designated developable property at major freeway interchanges and "gateways" to the City as "Commercial Visitor" in an effort to limit the range of land uses to those oriented to tourism and the travelling public (e.g., hotels, motels,restaurants, car washes ,etc.) Proposed modifications to the Chula Vista General Plan for areas located within the Sweetwater Planning Community need to consider the Sweetwater Community Plan fabric but at the same time land use compatibility within areas currently located within the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed General Plan land use designation change to "Commerical Visitor" and prezoning to "C-V" (Commercial Vistior) is considered a compatible land use at this location. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Traffic The project will be conditioned to dedicate a sufficient area fronting Bonita Road to meet requirements for a four-lane major with dual left turns (54' centerline) to meet city street design standards. The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The proposed project approximately will increase the ADT (average daily traffic) by 900, per a traffic analysis submitted by Darnell & Associates, in behalf of the project applicant. LOS"D" occurs for no more than two hours per day, thus complying with the City's LOS standards. The conclusions of the City Traffic Engineer and the above cited traffic consultant are that the proposed project is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood A venue traffic. The traffic generated by the carwash is spread fairly evenly over the day. This reduces the potential for significant impacts occurring. The intersection of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive is controlled by the County of San Diego and the applicant WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93;Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) .3 .33 Page 3 will comply with county standards and requirements. The traffic study recommended that the proposed 24' driveway on Lynwood to 28' for ease of use. Bonita Road is currently classified as a four-lane major roadway with bike lane. Sufficient dedication is needed to meet half-width standards of said designation. Also, the applicant will be required to widen the street to half-width standards along the project's frontage with bicycle lanes and provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street lighting drainage and A.C. pavement. Street improvements of Lynwood Drive will insure the project's compliance to current County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista standards. This will allow for the future buildout of Bonita Road as discussed in the General Plan Circulation Element. Fire The Fire Department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel. The Fire Department requires that the applicant provide a 20' wide entrance and a 20' wide exit on Bonita Road to meet Fire Department standards. E. Mandatory Findin!!s of Si!!nificance 1. The project has the potential to substantiaUy degrade the quality of the environment, substantiaUy reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fISh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site is in an urbanized area and has previously been cleared and no sensitive vegetation exists. The proposed project, the construction of a commercial carwash with an office, mechanical room and carwash bay, does not have the potential to degrade or reduce any existing habitat. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. This project will require an annexation, general plan amendment, a prezone (rezone), a conditional use permit, a sewer agreement and a grading permit. Concerns regarding potential environmental impacts raised by staff, community groups and citizens were the following: Traffic A traffic study provided by the applicant stated that the project traffic is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Drive. The applicant will be required to dedicate a sufficient portion of the site to meet four-lane half-width requirements, which will allow for future buildout of Bonita Road. As a result of Engineering's requirement for the roadway dedication, the proposed project will be consistent with the long-term conditions discussed in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\J020.93:Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) ~.~r Page 4 Noise Noise levels are above current standards for the area at 66 db and the increase created by the proposed project, .2db, is negligible. As 2.Odb would be considered a significant impact, the estimated increase is below a level of significance. The proposed carwash will be constructed in a developed area, of which a majority is designated as retail-cornrnercial. The impacts of traffic and noise have been found to be less than significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required. Therefore, the project d oes not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. All impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required. The project does not have the potential for individually limited effects being cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project will not cause any significant impacts and it is in compliance with threshold standards for fire, police, schools, libraries and other public facilities as discussed in the threshold section of this document. As discussed, the proposed project will not significantly impact air quality, noise levels and traffic in the project area. The project will not cause adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. F. Consultation I. Individuals and Or!!anizations City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew. Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Ken Lee, Planning Duane Bazzel, Planning Ed Batchelder, Planning Luis Hernandez, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:.Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) 3 ~ '" t!) Page 5 Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Torn Silva Applicant's Agent: Charles Tibbett 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19. Chula Vista Municipal Code UDdate of Geotechnical Report Bonita Car Wash (Reference: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Jaric Office Building, Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, Bonita, Califomia, April 19, 1990) Addendum to 1990 Environmental Site Assessment Report, November 1993 Letter from Hans Giroux & Associates, Environmental consultants, re: Bonita/Lynwood Car Wash Noise Impact Potential, November 9, 1993. Sweetwater Community Plan, Part XIII San Diego County General Plan Traffic Report For Bonita Car Wash, Darnell & Associates, Inc., Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering, January 20, 1994. Revised Traffic Report For Proposed Bonita Car Wash, Darnell and Associates, Transportation planning and Traffic Engineering, April 21, 1994. 3. Initial Studv 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 this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. E~i~~~h~~~'~~RDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/93) WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9-XRd. 1021.93.1022.93) 1J - 'II Page 6 APPUCATION CANNOT B. .i.CCEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-112 X 11 FOLDER A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title BONITA CAE. IIJA5H 2. Project Location (Street address or description) ('_\-$)LA $I"",A I'A. . INITIAL STUDY For Office Use Only 'f:ase No. IS- 9y...or bpsL AmnL IU~ Receipt No. /2D7~'Z- Da1c Rec'd. - - 'AccepCcd by I{t? ,~~:Or:t;;~ , OP No, lIellIed <'Ii'" No'_ City of Chula Vista Application Form 3D48 Ii:::.CN.ITA R..oAD 3. Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. Brief Project Description FuLL ~ER\J,c.E eA-R.WASt-! w/l)E.TAIL xrt:;~ , 4. Name of Applicant CHARL6'S TI fb'e:>ETT Address ~07 MA~ACHOSE T1S AV6. Fax# Phone (",97-74(. r City LA ME~ State ~ Zip --3J94- ! 5. Name of Preparer/Agent j?0 ~.LLA.tlF- Address ~qo I MASSALI-\. USETT" At;, Fax# Phone G9 7 - /':~" City LA M2'5 A State (1,4- Zip 9J%/ Relation to Applicant ~~\oye'" 6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents mquired by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Pennits or approvals mquired. L General Plan Amendment ..L- Rezone/Prezone _ Grading Pennit _ Tentative Parcel Map ~ Site Plan & Arch. Review _ Special Use Permit ..L Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project ~ Annexation ..L... Specific Plan ....,:::.. Conditional Use Permit Vuiance _ Coa<tal Development Other Permit - If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b. Enclosures or documents (as mquired by the Environmental Review Coordinator). _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map Precise Plan = Specific Plan TraffIC Impact Report ::x: Hazardous Waste Assessment Arch. Elevalioos = '''''''.cape Plans _ Tcnwive Subd. Map _Improvement Plans Soils Repon I Geotechnical Repm j(. Hydrological Study _ Biological Study _ Archaeological Study Noise Assessment = Otbcr Agcw;y Permit OtiIcr ~ . ,,~ Page 1 wpc~021.""93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1021.93) B. PROPOSED PROJECf 1. 2. M 3. a. Land Area: square footage ~ or acreage o. ~o5 k. If land area to be dedicated. state acreage and purpose. b. Does the project involve the c:onsttUction of new buildings. or will existing structure be utilized? N E. hI r (") N ~ "n;:~ ( '''-II eN Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use. a. Type of developrnent:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Muhi Family Townhouse Condominium Total number of sttUctUreS Maximum height of structures Number of Units: I bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom "- 4 bedroom " '"" Total Units Gross density (DuI.~otal acres) Net density (DUltota1'1ICIeS minus any dedication) " Estimated project population, Estimated sale or rental price range Square footage of structure . "- Percent of lot coverage by buildings or sttUctures '. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided , Percent of site in road and paved surface b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. I. . '. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use. a. Type(s) of land use ('l"I""fr!Ef? r./A L rAt:< \!A::1 b. Floor area II B!:) Height of structures(s) eo c. Type of construction used in the structure...:r:t.PE. If' Ihr ?-, ~ 'TYPE 1Z" of1:rc-E: . Describe major access points to the structures and the orimtation to adjoining ~s and streets = 10 ~~p ~~. u~ ~ hi\~~t l&J'-'tfl {\u ~ 4"~ ~t~",+~J,~~ L ~ i ft. Number of on-site parking spaces provided (p ~ 't;t:l,~i~ g !)rjl;"~ ~Jld". Estimated number of employees per shift ,p, " PH IU:,,,,. ~ p:ltt.J:mte Number of shifts I Total A Estimated number .of customers ~ day) and basis of estimate ~~:'\o~ ",n +r",J~':tl' ~\nl..J ~~'Pric..e or- d. e. f. g. ,,2.. ~ ';\u tJ i Lt. 3-+"3' Pap 2 WI'C~011.A.!J3 (Jd. 102D.93) (lot: 102293) h. Estimated number of deliveries per day .0 (p 2. /flloNi 1-1. . i. Estimated range ofservicc area and basis of estimate 5 ""':\~ r...o\~..c:...~ b~<-o,..l (')v\. "o~.c...{~ c~~~.::v("'~ j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings ~\N(l (')1== ('APc..,/ "DR-YI N~ O~ l'.A-I2~ k. Hours of operation _P:> : 00 A~+o (o:?M 1. Type of exterior lighting ~~ \ t=L DE. D ~ .J"{ 4. If project is other than IeSidential, commercial or industrial complete this section. N L a. Type of project ~, :. b. Type of facilities provided c. d. Square feet of enclosed strUctures Height of strucnuc(s) - maximum ~ Ultimate occupancy load of project Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided Square feet of road and paved smfaces Additional project characteristics e. f. g. h. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)? ~O 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated? YE. S If yes. complete the following: a. Excluding ttencbes to be backfilled, bow many cubic yuds of earth will be excavated? C&O-I-oloo(!.'( ~a~ + I.()Ot!1( ArNSS LYNWOO~ b. ,How many cubic yanIs of fill will be placed? ~ lCD:;>t') C. V. c. How much area (sq. it. or acres) will be graded? . S -4d"P c::. d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut (01 Average depth of cut 2.' Maximum depth of fill '3' Average depth of fill 2.' 3,"I~ Pqe3 wpc~021.""93 (W.l020.93) (W. 10229.!) 3. 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.) A\12 (\rn,H',)\'T,()"h1'l..(<r) f) Q..\~r~;"-"'\ \".\^.\..t,c--" 'n..... (\A-f'I.J~H_ 4. Indic~ the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or 1IC1'eS) ~,k t'>@"n ~p'ilr P tue. lA~rjl/J,.J lInd..wJC,f fIIp'J ~ 5t.>CDO ~.1==". s. H "" pro"" will ""'" .. MY 1- ~ ........ "" ...... ... "'" """" ~6~~) ~~n:~::'~:Y1 ;rr~ ~. ~\i;.:: II\~~~ J~~,. l1\opbL 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? -..No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? .!It. --.:1 ~ 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements ~ary to implement the project, and their points of access or cOMection to the project site. bnprovements 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. C"rb ~,,~ 111\,1 !"-,;~ "i l?\jb I :1~~ ("~ -b .. '~ ~"'("\'I ,?,J ~fT ~~? 1'\. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. GeololZV Has a geology study been conducted on the property? ...:fJ=-~ (If yes, please attach) Has a soils report on the project site been made? YE~ (If yes, please attach) 2. HvdrololZV Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? _YES (H yes, explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? NO ~ -45 Pqe4 WPC~02I.A93 (W. 102D.93) (W.l022.93) b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or .Jjaccnt to the site? YE':>) 'FLOoD [.o'N-rK-CL <!..I-\A),l~L c. Docs runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply. lake. reservoir or bay? - No 'F LQ) t::> C-I-\H!.I\'E.J d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to .Jjaccnt areas? l\.tor LlrF-L'T'" e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. S;-\-e, Jr-:Olh~" ~ (1"",,,,+ wI E~~TlN4! A~M S-TQc.lrTtJPt. N.IJ. C!.l5~ DF '5/TE. 3. Noise a. b. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may imDact the project site? -110 . Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals. schools. singlc- family residences)? -C:leJ 4. BioloEV a. Docs the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation'! NO b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? NO - 'PAR.T I ALLY c. If yes. has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No ~ (Please attach a copy.) d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location. height. diameter. and species of trees. and which (if any) will be removed by the projccL 'C'lte. h~J bu.n p.rRv;t'\oAF-.~ e.\C1::1red. 1--1" Ma.ftlr, d~;bhf:v, 5. Past Use of the Land *,~E.E. ~~\lIRO'N Me:NTrtL ~ ITE A.~c;.E. 'S~I'>i.sNT. a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? N.O b. Are there any known paIeontological resources? _NO c. Have there been any hazardous marerials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? .110 d. What was the land previously used for? ~.F. R. . 3...J,lG. Pop S WI'C~021.A.93 (lid. 1020.93) (W. 1m2.93) 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses cmrently existing on the project site. e..'I..\c,."T'\ "-$4 t?~b\l""'S 1.\::1\\ ~_~..1 ~.~R. 1=OI.A.hJ,~lioY\ . t\\(") c ~u. ('r~ Y""\t- t ).t;....C b. Describe all structures and land uses CUITeIItly existing on adjacent property. North .J::::LFI..\ -p\~ 12ph:\ South 'R.cz...$.;d..t.I'\t:,'::1~ East ~OrNV\vr~~-J;'h'1 \ West 'Fl..oC>d. '0\ c\-.~n\'\(>\ . \L1JY. Bo<:> / 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? ~O If so, how many? b. Are there any current employment ~ on site? -lJo If so, how many and what type? 8. Please provide any other infonnmon which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. !\-IE. c..AR. WA~f:I WILL RE..C-LAI},1 qSck of:' IJJA.""~P t~<..F1\ IN THE.. lo./hf...fiINe;, OF- (1,4-1<<". J2n.J~ a.,4~<'" 'PER -HDtAR.. ctr.p 'E.x4=>Ec... TF:$ WI.\\c..I-\ AvER.A~E'<" ArEROy.i 14-!\4A-7':::L'T' 1 (1 A-,t? Fx.1 TIN '=1 Eve-R.Y <\ tvh N UTe: 5 wpc~021.A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (W. 1022.93) 3..'1'1 P.., 6 E. CERTIFICATION I, as owner/owner in escrow* iliJAR LEe:." 12. '\ I e,~T T Print name or I, consultant or agent* Print name 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 infOnnaUon concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. r:h/l f.~P Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature or Consultant or Agent Signature J -2-7- 13 Dale *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. ~..1.{8 WIC:F:~02I..u3 (W 1020.93) (W 1022.93) p.... 7 INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT Name of Applicant CJ.JARLE':::. -,- I P" 12:. F " AddIas:.3QOi MA'f..c....,AC.HO<"E'TT< AU. City: L.A /VI 5SA S1BIc lJA Name of Authorized Representative (n signatory): AddRss: City Stale Apecment Dale: DeposiI Amount I/"'rf) ---- This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of ChuIa Vista. a cI_ ...... mwlicipal c:orporaIion ("City") and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreemrnt Date set forth above, is made with n:fc:n:nce to the following facts: Phone U/l'1 (cQi-7<1rGr ZAp ClI"\"t\ Phone Zip Whereas, !he Applicant has applied to the City f(l' III Initial Study of the type Ifmrderenced ("Initial Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting the Applicant to develop a parcel of propeny; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said Initial Study through the various depanments and befme the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas, the pwpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection wi!h providing the Processing Semces; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: I. Applicant's Duty to Pay. The Applicant sha1I pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing SeMce n:Jated to applicant's Initial Swdy, including all of the City's ditect and overhead costs reJated themo. This duty of the Applicant shall be n:femd to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay" A. Applicant's Deposit Duty As partial performance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay, the Applicant sha1I deposit the amount af<nreferenced ("Deposit"). I, The City sha1I charge ita IawfuJ expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against the Applicant's DeposiL If, after the conclusion of processing the Applicant's Initial Study, any poI1ioo of the Deposit mnains, the City IhaII recum said bIIIance to the Applicant without inlerest thereon. If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial Study, the IIIIOIIBI of the Deposit becomc;a emausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the City, upon notice of same by the City, the Applicant sha1I forthwith provide such additional deposit as the City IbaII c......I..~ as JaSonably IlK = III Y to continue to provide Processing Scnicca. 11Ie duty of the Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein requited IbaII be known as the "Applicant's Deposit Duty". n. City's Duty 11Ie City shall, upon the condition that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Pay or the Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in n:Jation to the Applicant's Initial Study application. 3, "f '1 Pqe8 WPC~D21."'93 _.1_93)_.1022.93) A. The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study application, or for failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time frame requested by the Applicant or estimaIcd by the City. B. By execution of this agreement, the Applicant shaI1 have no right to direc:t or otherwise influence the conduct of the Initial Study for which the applicant has applied. The City shaI1 use its cIiscretion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study application without regard to the Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services. or the exetWon of the Agreement. m. Remedies A. Suspension of Processing In .&Iition to all other rights and remedies which the City shaI1 otherwise have It law or equity, the City has the right to suspend urd/or withhold the pocessing fA the Initial Study which is the IUbject mattes' of this Agreement, IS well IS the Initial Study which may be the IUbject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. B. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity, the City has the right 10 coUect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees had costs. IV. Miscellaneous A. Notices All notices, demands or requests Imvided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed 10 have been Imperly given or served if personally SClYed or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identifted adjacent to the signatureS fA the parties represented. B. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and constnted in accooIance with the Laws of the State of Calif<mia. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state comts located in San Diego County, State of California. and if app1icable, the City of Chula Vista. or IS close themo as possible. Venue for this agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of OIuIa Vista. C. Multiple Signatories H there are multiple signatories to this agreement 011 beba1f of Applicant, each fA such signatories shall be jointly and IICvaally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein IICt forth. D. Signatory Authority The signatory to this agreement hem!y warrants and n:presents that it is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly ..thorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement 011 behalf of the Applicant, Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized to,execute this Agreement by the Applicant, 3- S.. PI8C 9 wpc~011.A.93 (W. 1020.93) (W. 102293) E. Hold Harmless App1icant shall defend, indemnify and hold bann1ess the City, iIs e1eded IIId appointed offictn and employees. from and against all c1aims for damages, liability, cost IIId expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) lrising out of pnx:eaing App1icant's Initia1 Study, except only for those claims lrising from the sole negligence or sole wiDfu1 conduct of the City, incurred by the City, iIs officcn. &gellIS, or employees in defending against IIICh c\aims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Far1her, the App1icant, It ill own ex.peIIIC. 1Iha11, upon written request by the City. defend any such suit or action brought against the City. ilS officers, agenlS, or employees. App1icant's indemnifcation of the City IIha11 be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the App1icanL F. Adminislrltive Claims Requiranents IIId Procedures. No suit or arbitralion shall be brought arising out of this ....ocI.ieIIt, apinst the City IWess a claim hu first been preaellted in writingllld fi1ed with the City of CIula Villa and IC1ed upon by the City of Chula Villa in accordance with the procedurea let fonI1 in 0IapIcr 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. as same may from time to time be 1IIIended. the provisions of wbich are incorporated by the reference as if fu1\y let fonI1 herein, and such policies IIId procedures used by the City in the implementation of 1IIIIe. Upon request by the City, the App1icant shall meet and confer in good faith with the City for the pUI]IOSC of resolving any dispute over the tams of this . Ap-eemenL Now, therefore. the parties hereto. having read and understood the tams and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the tams hereof by IICtting their hand hereto on the date let forth adjacent thaeto. City City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chulal!!:l1910 By: I CL~ Dated: $-2'1'- 73 App1icant (or authorized representative) By; By; Dated: 3-5( Poae 10 WI'C~02I.A.93 (a./. 1_93) (a./. 1022.93) , THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interats, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require disaetionary action on the part eX the City Council. Planning Commission, IItd all other official bodies. The foUowing information must be discl~ 1. List the names eX all persons have a financiaJ interest in the contract, i.e.. c:ontraclDr.lUbc:ontraclDr, material 1IIpp1icr. CHAk?LE~ 1:::. T\~. l...cJIc. Mf8')R~PA} ?AOL D. ....,At;,"J"-r-r.......: 'A . rIA i2' MIl=:" A MA(~ ).!I'rT'T() 2. If any penon identified pursuant 10 (1) abIwe is a c:orporation or p80 b~. list the names of all individuals owning more than 1M. of the shares in the COIJIOI1IIion or owning any partne.ship interest in the pannenhip. ~ . s-i, CHAR.LC':-o e, \\fb~ET\ , '1 nl'S MDi?'F,RA''2. 'PAUL 'D ilAAt,..\j,.,rT., f1A'162'f\II+="" A MAr.,"'t-J.l'\,-,-1l.215'" ." 3. If any person identified pursuant III (1) above is non-pofit orpnization or a buSt, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustee of the trust. '-.- . 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of ~ transacted with any member of the City staff. Boards. Commissions, Committees IItd Council within the past twelve months? - N() S. Please identify each IItd every person, including any agents, employees. consultants or independent contracloJS who you !!ave assignM In re~t you before the City in this m~. 6. Have you and/or your offICers or agents. in the aggregate. contributed more than $1.000 10 a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ) No N If yes, state which Council member(s): Pena:tildefJDedu: .Jmy~fum,~.joiDI~UJ . .......lDCiIId1Ib.fnllcn.lorv--~~-r- l;....,.__.1r'Dst. _, 1j'DdK:oIo, Ibis IDd my ...... _. dIy .... _. diy, ........,...'''>'. dilClid 0<""" poIiIicoI oabdiviaioD. 0<'" ...... ...... 0< -...:........ ..... U . .uL" (N(YI'E: _ -........-')') eLL! ttu Signature of contraclDr/app1icant Date: <S - &7- 1} C.HAgLEs Tl~DE'TT Print or type name of contraclDr/applicant ~AS~ WPC:F:IIIDMIN'I.ANNIN021.A.93 (Ref. 10211.93) (Ref. 10n.93) Pqel1 APPENDIX III CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zonine: on site: C.30 Commercial (County of San Die,!O ZoninlZ) North: CC South: R-I East: CO West: Onen 80ace Does the project conform to the current zoning? No. Once the Droiect site is annexed. it will confonn to the current zonine for the City of Chula Vista. II. General Plan land use designation on site: Office. Professional Commercial North: Retail & Service Commercial South: Sinele-Familv Residential East: Administrative. Office & Professional West: Flood Control Channel Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes. Once the Droiect is annexed and a eeneral Dlan amendment is aDDroved. the Droiect is Drezoned. a Drecise Dlan is aDDroved and a conditional use Dermit is issued. it will conform to the Chula Vista General Plan Use DialUam. Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? .A flood control channel is located west of the DroDosed Droiect site. Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? Yes. Bonita Road from 1-805 to SR-125 is a scenic route. (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). The orecise Dlan orocess reauires a lanrlsc3De buffer and e:uidelines for the orientation of the buildinli!:. which will Drotect the scenic auality of the route. III. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Not applicable Units Prooosed Generating Factors Students Generated From Proiect School Caoacitv Enrollment Elementary Junior High SenioT High .30 .29 .10 IV. Remarks: The oTooosed Droiect will be in confonnance with Chula Vista zorn",! and e:eneral Dlan desi2t1ation once the site is annexed and a e.eneral Dlan amendment and rezone is 8DDTOVed. '7] ifro, ~I (7?" j) ~-<d ) Director f Planning or Represent tive II' :::/f;...f1 ~, Ie; 9 y Date ~-S.3 Background Case No. IS 94-04 APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) 1. Name of Proponent: Charles Tibbett 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3907 Massachusetts Avenue. La Mesa CA 91941 697-7461 3. Date of Checklist: Januarv 26. 1994 4. Name of Proposal: Bonita Car Wash 5. Initial Study Number: IS 94-04 Environmental Impacts 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? . o o b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? o o . c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? o . o d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? o o . e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? o o . f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? o o . g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? o . o ~~s~ Comments : The project applicant submitted a Soils Report that was written in 1990. The Engineering Deparnnent required an updated report. The UDdate of Geotechnical Reoort-Bonita Car Wash was completed in November 1993 and submitted to the Planning and Engineering Deparnnents for review. The updated soils report concluded that the recommendations and conclusions of the original geotechnical investigation are still valid and appropriate for the proposed construction. The report calls attention to the stockpile of undocumented fill that was noted in the original report in the northwest corner of the property and west of the drainage swale that slopes down to Bonita Road and recommends that the fIll be removed and recompacted. Also, the reports notes that there was evidence on site of a shallow surficial slope failure in the slopes above the existing retaining wall located along the eastern boundary of the present property. The plans may result in the area of the failure being removed during planned excavations. If the final plans do not modify this area, this slope failure will require repairs to restore its original configuration. The project will involve excavation and fill of 2600 cubic yards of soil that is currently on the project site. The original geotechnical report did not cover the adjoining easterly property which is now proposed to be part of the current project. The updated report recommends that a geotechnical investigation including subsurface exploration be conducted in this area to provide information on the foundation's support characteristics and the parameters for lateral earth pressure that would be required by the designer for retaining wall design. The City Engineering deparnnent will require soils information described above prior to issuance of a grading permit. No unique geologic or physical features exist on site. Cutting and fIlling is involved in the proposed project and as such the topography will change. As there are no unique geologic or physical features on the site, this will not be a significant impact. a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE NO 0 0 . 0 0 . 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? o o . Comments : The project, if approved, will meet City "LOS" threshold standards and generate an additional 900. ADT (average daily trips). The roadway currently has a 44,730 ADT. Nine hundred (900) is not a considerable increase in traffic flow and will not significantly impact the air quality. The applicant will not be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District(APCD). ,.. S~ WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 2 3. Water. Will the Proposal result 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 surface runoff? . 0 0 c. Alterations to the course or flow or flood waters? 0 . 0 d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 0 . e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 0 0 . f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 0 0 . g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 0 0 . h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 0 . 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 0 0 . Comments: The project is considered to be in the floodplain and, as such, the project, if approved, will have to comply with City-adopted FEMA Standards for building in a floodplain; that the lowest floor elevation (to include basement) of non-residential structures be elevated to a minimum of one foot above the regulatory flood elevation or that the project be floodproofed. Site-specific drainage improvements will be required. The off-site drainage facility of the project site is the Rice Canyon Creek, which discharges to the Sweetwater River Channel. Analysis has indicated that offsite drainage facilities including the Sweetwater River Channel at the confluence of the Sweetwater River and the Rice Canyon Creek are inadequate to serve projected flows from this and other projects. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) ~,&'" Page 3 Engineering staff state that the requirement for the applicant to build the project one foot above the floodplain will reduce any potential impacts to a level below significant. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Change in the diversity 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 plants? 0 0 . c. Introduction of new species of plants into into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 0 0 . d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 0 0 . Comments : The proposed site had been previously cleared and no sensitive vegetation exists. Since vegetation is non-existent, the proposed project will not significantly impact any sensitive plant species. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? o o . b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of anirnals? o o . c. Introduction of new species of anirnals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of anirnals? o o . d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? o o . Comments : The site had been previously cleared and as such has no wildlife habitat. Thus the proposed project site will not significantly impact fish or sensitive species. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Increases in existing noise levels? o o . ~'S7 Page 4 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNJNG\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o o . Comment: The existing noise level measured by a Sound Level Meter is 66 db (decibels). This measurement was taken at 3:40 p.m. on January 14, 1994 at a point near the single family dwelling adjacent to the proposed project site. The carwash, with the tunnel parallel (per site plan) to Bonita Road, is expected to generate an additional 0.2 db to the site. An increase in noise is perceivable if there is a 2.0 db increase. The 0.2 db increase generated by the project is not significant. Thus, after review of project characteristics, the acoustician has concluded that the proposed project will not have a potential for a significant impact at the nearest homes and no additional study is warranted. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO . 0 0 Comments: The proposed car wash is already in a well lit, developed area. The project will incorporate compliance with Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements relating to lights to minimize any impacts to below a level of significance. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments : The proposed project site is currently zoned C30 in the County of San Diego and designated office, professional and commercial in the Sweetwater Community Plan in the County of San Diego. The applicant intends to apply for annexation to the City of Chula Vista, and apply for a General Plan Amendment to the designation of Commercial Visitor and prezone to Commercial Visitor. An approval of the annexation application, a general plan amendment and a rezone, conditional use permit, sewer agreement and grading permit will allow the project to be in compliance with the zoning and general plan designation and other requirements of the City of Chula Vista. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? o o . Comments : The proposed project will not require an increase in the rate of any natural resources. The applicant has stated that 95 % of water used will be reclaimed, thus placing no demands on the current water supply for the area. Air conditioning and five electric motors for the carwash will be used. Since the proposed carwash is a small scale operation and the area is already developed, the energy use of these devices will not significantly impact the natural resources in the area. 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 .3 ..s 8" WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRcf. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 5 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 : No highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances will be used or stored within the project site, preventing a risk of upset on the project site. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population or an area? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments: The proposed carwash which will employ eight persons people will not cause any increase or distribution change in the area population. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments : The proposed carwash will be employ 8 people on the project site and it is expected that these people will corne from the community. No impact will result on the local infrastructure and no new housing demands will be created. 13. Transportation/Circulation, Will the proposal result 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. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 0 0 . e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 0 0 . f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 0 0 . ~- 50' WPC F:\HOME\PLANN'NG\STORED\l020.9~Rer. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 6 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). o o . Comments : The proposed project will increase the average daily traffic by 900 per the traffic analysis submitted by Darnell & Associates on behalf of the applicant. LOS "D" occurs for no more than two hours per day, thus complying with the City's LOS standards. The study also stated that the proposed project is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Drive traffic. Traffic generated by the carwash is spread fairly evenly over the day. The intersection of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive is controlled by the County of San Diego and the applicant will comply with county standards and requirements for the intersection. The Darnell & Associates study did determine that the L ynwood Drive entrance should be widened from 24' to 28' for ease of use. The requirement for a right-turn-only sign on Bonita Road will be a condition of project approval. Bonita Road is currently classified as a four-lane major roadway with bikelanes required for the area fronting Bonita Road to meet requirements for a four lane major with dual left turns (54' to centerline). Also, the applicant will be required to widen the street to half-width standards along the project's frontage with bicycle lanes on Bonita Road and provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street lighting, drainage improvements and A.C. pavement improvements on Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive. The improvements on Bonita Road will meet City standards and improvements on Lynwood Drive will meet County of San Diego standards. This will also allow for the future buildout of Bonita Road as discussed in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental 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. Libraries? 0 0 . f. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 . g. Other governmental services? 0 0 . Comments : The proposed project will meet City Threshold standards and will not result iri a need for new or altered governmental services. State law does require the applicant to pay school developer fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Park and Recreation fees do not apply, since the project is not residential. 3-~C) Page 7 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? o o . b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? o o . Comments: The proposed project will require electricity for five electrical motors and for air conditioning. The demand will be less than significant. 16. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? YES MAYBE NO o 0 . Comments: As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. A. Fire/EMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 3 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The Fire Department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel. The Fire Department requires that the applicant provide a 20' wide entrance and a 20' wide exit on Bonita Road to meet Fire Department standards. B. Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The proposed project will comply with the threshold standards, but the Police Department identified that they do have an ingress and egress problem. The requirement for a right-turn-only sign on Bonita should alleviate this concern. 30 - <./ Page 8 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Rcf, 1021.93,1022.93) C. Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Time surveys in 1992 indicated that Bonita Road in the vicinity of the proposed project performs at LOS "D" during no more than two hours during the peak period of the day, which complies with the City's LOS threshold standard. A site specific analysis completed by a traffic consultant states that the ADT (average daily traffic) anticipated to be generated by the proposed project is 900. The current ADT between 1-5 and Plaza Bonita is 44,380 and after the project is 44,730. The project traffic is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood A venue traffic. Traffic generated by the carwash is spread fairly evenly over the day. This reduces the potential for significant impacts occurring. The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the report by Darnell & Associates. While the Traffic Engineering Division's conclusions are the same as those of Darnell & Associates (no adverse traffic impacts result from the project), the consultant's report shows a lower vehicle trip generation rate than was noted in the City's Initial Study report. The consultant's trip rate value was based on employment and estimated daily car washes. The Traffic Engineering Division's trip rate value was based in a generic relationship between land use and land area. D. Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll ,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The proposed project is not residential and is not subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements. E. Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The proposed project site is located in a 100 year flood plain. The applicant is required to build one foot above the floodplain. It is not known what impacts downstream channel improvements to the Sweetwater River Channel may have on the floodplain elevation at the site. The existing on-site facilities allows surface flow 3-~':a- Page 9 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) northwestward to Rice Canyon Creek, which is immediately west of the proposed project site. Analysis has indicated that offsite drainage facilities including the Sweetwater River Channel at the confluence of the Sweetwater River and the Rice Canyon Creek are inadequate to serve projected flows from this and other projects. Engineering staff state that the requirement for the applicant to build the project one foot above the floodplain will reduce any potential impacts to a level below significant. F. Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The existing sewer lines for the site are 18" PVC Rice Canyon trunk line and they are adequate to serve the proposed project. The applicant will be required to pay additional fees to the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the City's agreement with the Spring Valley Sanitation District for the use of the district's outfall sewer and to amend the existing sewer service and annexation agreement or to enter into a new agreement. G. Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants will be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The proposed project will reclaim a majority of its water and will not jeopardized water quality in area surrounding the project site. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health? o o . b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? o o . 3 -G. 3 Page 10 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) Comments : The noise and air analyses in the initial study found that project impacts will be less than significant and therefore will not create any health hazards. No other aspects of !he project will impact health. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? o o . b. The destruction, or modification of a scenic route? o o . Comments: The proposed project site is located in a developed area and does not obstruct and scenic views or modify a scenic route. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE NO o o . Comments : The project site is not residential and does not impact recreational opportunities. 20. Cultural Resources. YES MAYBE NO a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 0 0 . b. Will the proposal result 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 . e. Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? 0 0 . Comments : The proposed project site is located in a developed area and has previously been cleared. There is no evidence of any cultural resources on site. ~...(,'I WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 11 21. Paleontological Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? YES MAYBE NO D D . Comments : The proposed site is in a developed area and there is no evidence of any paleontological resources. 22. 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 wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to e1irninate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant animal or eliminate important examples or the major periods of California history or prehistory? . D D Comments: The project site is in an urbanized area and has previously been cleared and no sensitive vegetation exists. The proposed project, the construction of a commercial carwash with an office, mechanical room and carwash bay, does not have the potential to degrade or reduce any existing habitat. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of 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.) . D D Comments : This project will require a annexation, a general plan amendment, a prezone(rezone), a Conditional Use Permit, a Sewer Agreement, and a Grading Permit. Concerns regarding potential environmental impacts raised by staff, community groups and citizens were the following: Traffic A traffic study provided by the applicant stated that the project traffic is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Drive. The applicant will be required to dedicate a sufficient portion of the site to meet four-lane major with dual left turn lane requirements, which will allow for future buildout of Bonita Road. As a result of the Engineering Department's requirement for the roadway dedication, the proposed project will be consistent with the long-term conditions discussed in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3.-~.5 Page 12 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.9~Rer. 1021.93,1022.93) Noise Noise levels are above current standards for the area at 66 db and the increase created by the proposed project, .2db, is negligible. As 2.Odb would be considered a significant impact, the estimated increase is below a level of significance. The proposed carwash will be constructed in a developed area, of which a majority is designated as retail-commercial. The impacts of traffic and noise have been found to be less than significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to achieve short- term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-tern environmental goals. 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 significant.) o o . Comments: All impacts both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required. The project does not have individual impacts which may be cumulatively considerable. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o . Comments: The proposed project will not cause any significant impacts and it is in compliance with threshold standards for fire, police, schools, libraries and other public facilities as discussed in the threshold section of this document. As discussed, the proposed project will not significantly impact air quality, noise levels and traffic in the project area. The project will not cause adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. :!-,,~ WPC F:\HOME\PLANN1NG\STORED\I020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 13 Mitigation Measures (To be completed by the Applicant) I, as owner lowner in escrow' Print name or I, consultant or agent' HEREBY AGREE to any mitigation measures required to avoid significant impacts. Signature Date Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency. Check one box only.) *95 Choose N, MND or E1R On the basis of this initial evaluation: . I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ';6 ~h''/ ~f' ~ ~~/ ) Environmen I Revie 'Coord tor " ~J.).Jq'l I ' Date 'If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. ~-(..9 WPC F,\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.9~R.f. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 14 Case No. IS-94-14 APPENDIX n DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158) . It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either 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 with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. ,--"," ,? '/~ ~) /J ~ J '-C (o..,. /' 1 /) !\u-c-/ Environmental Review oordinator d/d- /0 '-/ Date . .30 - ~ i"" Page 15 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93) ROUTING FORM D~E: September 1, 1993 TO: ..-n Lar~n, Building . Mousing '~ohn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) JIOger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) ~ichard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only) Irol Gove, Fire Departn.ent rty Schmidt, Park. . Recreation rime Prevention, Police Department rrent Planning ~J.dv" h'vward, Advance Flanning j::c"v iAFL ~ob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, A'ate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS' EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other FROM: DOUQ Reid Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS- 94-04/FA-~/DQ-035 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP) Review of Environmental Revi..,w Record FC-____ERR-____) The Project consists of: Full service cir wash with detail area, office and lounge. The project will include prezoning and annexatiol Location: 3048 Bonita Road (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd and Lynwood Drile. Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9/10/93 Comments: 3-"1 DATE: ~rt zfRO : -, -f! SUBJECT: . ~ ~~ ROUTING FORM F,r!,"-';,' . -;-_.~ -,'" C t:: ' ,~ - ,,-:'" - ~ ., ~ Xen Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) clirr SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIRI2) Richard Rudolr, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty schmidt, Parks & Recreation crime Prevention, police Department (H.J. Diosdado) CUrrent Planning Gordon Howard, Advance Planning Bob sennett, city Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Xate Shurson SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other 6~ /lo :o~ Environmental Section ,. Application ror Initial Study (Is-jfQtIFA-~DQ03.) ) Checkprint DraH EIR (20 days) (EIR- _IFB- _IDQ ) Review or a Drart EIR (EIR- _IFB- _IDP ) Review or Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-_) The project consists or: Location: Please? T2Vi,W the document and rorward to me any cOllUllents you have by I~ 10 ..!1~ COllUllents: ~.7,J ct... . g,.: ~/' q1 q. II' !>,?c:5 \}\~ '\ ROUTING FORM D~E: September 1, 1993 - 2'0: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineeri:lg (EIR only) Cliff S~anson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Assistart city Attorney Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department Current Planning Gordon Howard, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Lei ter, Planning Dil'ector Chu 1 a Vis ta El emen tary School~t;:i~t. JCate .shU-1'SQJ1 (~sw~etwater unionH:'S-;--r>~strIct Tom Silva (IS & EIR) aureen ,. y (F~nal other -u r- ;r:. ~ (EIR onl~)" .' c) '._'J ,..... V_I :' J - . r', _._ ,. . - I..} l..; FROH: Doua Reid ____Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study, (15- 94-04/FA-~/DQ-035 ) Check print Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP) Review of Environmental Review Record FC-____ERR-_) The Project consists of: Full service car wash with detail area, office and lounge. The project will include prezoning and annexat1o' Location: 304B Bonita Roao (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd and Lynwood Drive. please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9/10/93 Comments: .4-1'/bP.... ~ Ar 1M! l;:'p___e-~ ,MrF P""' I.- ....fV/m ~~ 7C I~#rt>r 8u;~p~. 7"'4!-'r~. ~~.. ("11'$~ '!...."'), . '...- .. - MEMORANDUM , DEe 2 9 1993 J ....;u .~. ...'"\ ' .'..'-,:.3 December 16, 1993 File' ZA-OSO SUBJECT: f DuaDe Bazzel, ptllnnil1g Department "' Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works Directo City Engineer William Ullrich, Senior Civil Engin~ ~fJ1 Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Enginee\f< Request for Zone Change to Construct a Car Wash at 3048 Bonita Road (PLZ-948) TO: VIA: FROM: The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal. We do not propose the inclusion of any conditions of approval for the Zone Change. However, we request that you provide the applicant with the following list of items which will be required in conjunction with the Building Permit uner the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: 1. Public improvements may include, but not limited to, the following: .. Sidewalk 8 feet in width b. Half of concrete raised median (may be deferred) c. Three driveway approaches. d. Street light 2. A construction permit will be required for any work performed in the sueet right-of-way. JP:sb cc: Ken Lee. plllnning Department (1:IIIOWI!IINCJINI!I!I.\PI!DIITIIZAII5.JP) :!>,7(;( MEMORANDUM November 2, 1993 File No. YS-577 ) TO: Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Roger L. Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer (AJ1 FROM: SUBJECT: IS-94-04 Bonita Car Wash - Sewer Service Agreement Revision This memorandum is a follow-up to our Initial Study Review dated September 10, 1993 for the subject project in which we indicated in Section VII that the Sewer Service and Annexation Agreement dated June 19, 1990 (approved and adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15684) may need to be updated. Upon further review of the agreement, we have determined that an update will, indeed, be necessary for the following reasons: 1. When the agreement was entered into in 1990, the applicant proposed to construct an office building on three consolidated parcels, The applicant now proposes to construct a car wash. Also, it us our understanding that the applicant is in the process of acquiring additional property in order to satisfy specific Planning Department design requirements with respect to site layout and building orientation. These represent substantial changes from the applicant's original proposai in 1990, upon which the agreement was based. 2. Because the net area (gross area minus dedication) of the current proposal will be greater than the 1990 proposal, the Transportation Development Impact Fee and Public Facilities Development Impact Fee, which are both based upon net area, will have to be recalculated. In addition, these fees have increased since 1990. 3. The Traffic Signal Fee, which is based upon expected trip generation, will have to be recalculated because the expected trip generation for the currently proposed use is higher than the expected trip generation for the 1990 proposed use. KPAlkpa cc: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner (F:\HOME'ENGINEERIADVPLANIYS-S77.001] a-?3 \ ( RECt::\VED NQV 1 0 1993 ys -'5'7 ~~~ ~~,,~ PLANNiNG ROUTING FORM DATE: No~u... 10) 1"t13 f(2otv\ ,!PO : Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) )IT Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) ~Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdadc?; Current Planning Gordon Howard, Advance Planning :.2 Bob sennett, city Landscape Architect (-J Bob Leiter, Planning Director r Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shur~ SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other \V:~: . ~~~ Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (Is-91--DtFA-6:;~S;DQ 'b3.5) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _IDQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_IDP) Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-~ The Project consists of: FVI.-I- ~VIGt= CAlL WAsH Wtfl'l ~1l""""e',."'IOF'Fla, AUT? J,..&JV,J(;E. . 7"/.IE. ;>Ili>;Tru::rw{r.-'- 'AlGl..Vr>/E. ~'Zp.Lj,J(;, ioN'/? NlJ-llE"",-r,c.J . Location: 3D '-Ie '&NI~ Yi'I'-t:> (>WC.OF S't..J,~ t4z.'/? hlb~Yf.J..fAItx1p'J4z~ 1<6"VI~D ~l~ ?LAJ. Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by lilt tJ I'(?l. . , , Comments: ~N"IIJU(Z..INGo DIIII';'r<<>>-t ~~ -r!1A1A~ Pt~..Fct2- THe:. fZf:v~ ~-n:; f't.H! Wrnl IZ~~~-r 1"t> -nfE ~1N.aI!J,.l(;. DII/,.s,,,,.J ~fbIJ';'~ Folt.. -n+~ ~((;.(/.JAL <;;rn;. F"!JW AIlE 1~r7FrEP- BY' ^ C.(~ Af(o<.IJt:> THt: QU~$nC>N1 fTE:M NUMB~R... )...? ~ YS - '577 Case No.:r:S~'f-()l-f ~I~ INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION I. Drainage A. Is the project site within a flood plain? YEAr;. If so, state which FEMA Floodway Frequency Boundary. 100 'IJ"...", . rr 1<:' ~ /t:..,-.w./ lV~r (M , C~a.. Y WNt> fio'G;:t &IN F~/N el.b'~oa I'<T" 1T1!!. . .. ? B. at ~ the location ana aes-ctlptlon of exiStmg on-site age facilitles. '" u.e~"" f'I r.kJ NDIZ'TU~h -rt> fllt::.E CAA.ly~... '~-K. WNtG"" Ie;.. (~b~T"CE:LY IAI~/':)r:: mE. , PRo,~b Aao..."nI'./_T" ~~. C. Axe they adequate to serve the project? /Jf). If not, please explain briefly. ~ITE- ~F'I!&./FIGo "nRA1~ IM.PI2bIlEM9.1~ IAI'L.L.. *' I21::'~JI~TI . D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? 12.\~ QW_I qr::..~k:.. JNUlaI 't:'f~D" ~ -n'> -ruE ~A~L tttvE<<. C.......JoJJJ.6rI.- . O~ TliE E. AIe they adequate to serve the project? /Jf). If not, please explain briefly..-a,e,c. '~~IJ""'-n:;. ~PA.l:.1T)" IN fLI'; ~~V",.J ~~" , ~/!!Grt"l-l 16 t>u~ 'A2I~..n'LV Tb ~klAoICT7H!~ !'..Am".,.."! ~~I~..MJ ~ 1'&J'''''PJ:'~ ^ SWf.E'TWA,Efl fl"/EIl. AIJt::> A.r~ CeNFLUaJrz I!III"'T'UE ~-..,.........,.. IZI_ ~b !l.(C;~ UItoIVC>N G~~E'''-. "Of~e: ~IT'Y P""1P f",..& ~ JQ56;~ /'io$<J1O<S ANO TransDo~~on""~ (F'IGNITJoY I#I4PACTED 15Y' j1+t!. ~~SE.t> ~c.,..., n. ~11'7 A B. What roads provide primary access to the project? &.fo! log. 'I?AA.~ What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. qo~ A1'7r A.~IC1r'~L~Y ~" "1= WIIIU( AIlE.. ~~tC.(~"~r;, -'<C"~I2,,! 71tIps. , .,...."II!!:.-r~~ -ruE. ~'liil> PDAT)::'J":-r I~ I!fx~.r~~ -r"Z) PD~DOOlt!!.....' ~~~ What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the primary access roads before and~AI1r after project completion? Street Name A.-.d,"Ia- ~ Before I/4"'Rn . After 1+LI.7W> , ....-'"..- Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (LO.S.) .C" design ADT volume? If yes, please specify. YE5. ~ T'Q4VEL- TIMI!!. 4ultllt!:"'~ "" /CRz. . 'NDt:t:".4T1!n- ~r ~1n1 ~ IAI TJ.IIE V'G4&JIT'V LJt:-r""'UE. -DD~SEt:;) ~"'nF'~ ~ ~r !...OS If])" bU~ f,.(r:. AMo.QIIE ~ TI1/r) ~lI'~ hc.J~ TJ.f.E ~t'.. P~..c> of 'Oft!. x:,.Y, Wf.l(~fo{ CbMPHes. Wf'rn 'T1(I!. C rry 5 L.oS TwtzE6fiou> S~p. wpc~,~CJ\STORID,)On93 !Rd. 1021.93) (lid. 1020.93) ? I::. Pille 2 '!t~ 7 D. E. F. Ys -577 Case No.1:SJf+o't IZJ=:V(~ H the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. N jJ>. . Axe the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? JJn . H not, please explain briefly.'RI->tJmIo.. z..a.1' b...E:~ &1,,-r M...e...... ?U.~N(~~ ~J~) ~"nb.InI.12nI::. W,T'U tZI!'~...,- TZ> &>.....P'WA Y ~H.? -I"'fjI _ Hb""~1I2.. 41T'Y..-un~ Hct.o , Af-U7 ~~Ir.e ~-~ A~ GoUElJ:n-Y Mf!'r. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to I. or in the vicinity of the project site? NO. ~~~1~':=-'~~ ~..~~~~~':t' H id if L . '- e&vf.JTYC>F .~ ;>(e~o.",p,.",~,.c~~""'F1P'" so, ent y: ocatlon fJlA ~.-..A...",-v lAI{rH I"IYJIJ'rY c:uJu.~~h ..a::,uU- C I. rL 0 S I. M&N~ F#(fL 'TfIe f~~rrlPM. umu anve . . . "'JD , Is the proposed project 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). H yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TIA will have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance. Yes )( No The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. -\" -,~e I . d? Y 0......-2 v Is a traffic study reqUire . es ..:c'ia'~..Y ~ ~~.r") & Is there any dedication required? Y". Jl.i.DN(; ~- ,--.;; "f4 _mo. 12Q6.t) Mr::> L.V>.IM>cr> ~. ~~'(i'~ .,)"'~ H so, please specify. Ba.t1~2Jo>&~ ,,,,,r. '<;or-oOlI':,E.DA-S.A ~.w-UW1<: ~ rzr.A.....a..Y, if 'S ~ \--eD,...to~; tlrv.:t.A...ut-:~ ti.c "T1H::. ~T'Y~ "~,,'~lI&k ~. SUR:'IGo/"""'-])EOrl:ATiw ," I:I'c'1r)'.P't""i'"Z> cef' ~J.,(~t' ~iU-r ~W("T'H ~~ eF swr.,p ~1~"'e.J. CoMPLy W'IT1f ~T"'/ 01< ~ ~~~ b(C~ f2C::~)t"'u~T'!; \c::" AM"J &::i:X2.. t...V...r","""" ~I"IL. WPCJ',IHOME'l'LANNlNG\STORIDoJ022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Ref. Ib2D.93) 3. '7" Pile 3 @ H. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of the proposed project? X Yes No H yes, please describe. WIl>EJ.JII4'" l>f: 8014111 ".~'" Au:Jl,Jt; 'OlE. ~'""'...,.... FIlIV.J.~, tJO c..EFr T"tJ~S 6I-Im RnI.I f,..A 00.6.r> ~-( T1:te ~~:r s,'T7::? AIJr:> ND u:.P'r -rtJi2I.jS r>>JT1:> 1:b",,..o:v.r $rre. ~ ~ I'D.. t:?~. Is the project cO!l~istent with the criteria established in the City's TranspolUtion Phasing Plan, General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed project. Lln. '"1"1te. 'J4'^Tl:J..:r c;,'T'E. ,~ (,.,. tD~I:..~ ~a:h At" ,.......E.l:o.tfJ'Ir"V ^CQLf 'n/~O --- ~"ILIJL:nrllA..L. IJ~a kIt'fU LJ~/""'-,", Q..c.{pe&r'M~ . -'I"1I2A~tG "~~~TlDl-f ,:oR.. 11iE ~El7 'P~-r EJCI"'R::,....~ -n.tE. ~6a!-&.Jn.." ~-JII!!r:Io IJ~. 'J( No K. L. Ys-'S77 Case No.IS-'N-o<{ IZI'VI~ Is there any street widening required? Y~J ~#J.&. -rite 'DI>.....T~.tT'~ t::n......I._r,..o:: If so, please specify. WlbEJJ BONr'71 9~ Tl) M~ I~Lr Wff::1'r"H ~1:>A1U:6....t:' ~~~~~J~~~t~~'(,~'-n+~rvbF ~ ere any 0 er street unp vements requ . ~c. . If so. please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements. ~ufl.B &,~ S'~IA6-~ II!: 'D12./~~ 'S~~ IJ.oC::u-nI-J~. D.a:2.lI~/.&"-- tMPll4>vE_ I . , I . ME.u~ ",.C..PAYEM5W~ ltrc.. , @ Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (Please provide a brief explanation). E.J<:r4T"1N1::. Cl:llJt>''nl>>Jc;;,.~ YEl;,.. / FVTV"''' gut. "^ur-I:J,EJ..JEJi!AL. I . PIAAl ~.hAIr:,~~...Jf;>I.Jl>. S6AII~ fZoA..~ W'U lIE UJt:IIJ.L.-r1!!!b R.V ~"m~ ~LL:1PM~r T7:> 7'r-ff:. ~..,.... -ru~E JMPJAd:..,"", Wlu.. lJE NlI"'f7~...,..,.:o 1M m. Soils CPN<T""'(;;.,-,~ IVI'TH -rH-SE- I>EIIEu:>F'MEl-LT3. A. B. @) IV. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? IJD.. If yes. specify these conditions. JJ fA . . Is a Soils Report necessary? No. /.H)WF.J/I::b PfllEf/ftJr.Jf, ~o,L.!; TZ.F~r F04 'rUE. , p~.,.. 61Tt= MINr.. c.J~~~ M~"" '1oI~~ Nf..WI..y A~utUt> Ffi!CPef!:'rY, p>>/I(t,,1t. '{"" ISJCJ"":cL ..F GL4PtoJ6 '~I""'-. What is the average ~~Iope of the site? 5 % What is the maximum~ slope of the site? 30% Land Fonn A. B. V. ~ Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? Y1E.ti:>.. VI. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid I{gD PDcJt>J.bI;./DAY . Liquid 1/z..;' CA" ~ ~~/r::>AY (t... e; I'hlJ ~ ) What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? J p," f'vc:, 12.(Gf! I'.ANY~ TJtalk.. L.'NE.. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) Ye-:.. WPCJ','HOME\fLANNINGlSTOREDII022.93 (Il.... 1021.93) (Itef. 1020.93) ~- "7 Page 4 YS-577 Case No.:D.;-tfo-/-oL{ ~EVI~[;; VII. National Pol1utant Dischaflte Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Stormwater Reauirements Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Pennit? I-J.o. . H yes, specify which NPDES pennit(s) and explain why an NPDES pennit is required. N/... . Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? Yes X No Additional comments MIA . . @ Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adver.;e impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. (Y~etz. ~~~ AIJD A-1./IJE)(A.TlOLl ~S:MEArr DoI.-rEib .,nJNE. I~i I~O Lf1r::/..J'I,~rr(b#.l Nc>. ft:;&.,p,l.f) WIl-l- ~VETZ>SE UPr:1A-ner:(t:.r::/F .~j.u::'t> """E'MP / :.. ~ ~ ~J"""-'T?> '[)()~ ~I'O ~ fJnll~IMEL :Z11~<t3'). - ~AA1 ~f~ ~Me:I-tlit> n+E.. DWf!!4...L..,..JIi. IJ'Y'~ AT c.f202. /..,{IJ~J:> ,'bIZI\IE. (';""tn"H ~AN'D IlPI-f(U ~. -ruE 9I2r>.TEcr So/TE') M,IS-r RFE. ftZDv'iOF':'C::>. . ~~:~:::-r:~~:~~~:~=~~~::::= 1U:1C: 1....171'"..d.~ j,jS--e-L> '-:, CA.f'''-c='..... ""'^--~" ~ ThE AlEEvJl.-v .A./-<i' It~ 9 b,s=~ ~ <Gf.foLX ~ "fA'If!! Ellll::'c::'...., ~WJ.J. At...C:L:> ,.,...,e:.- 'P,::.\It~ ~~""'s::'~ .A~ . J (r.E. j AIZ~ ~ ~P'!.IAIr...V AC<(I)(JZ.Q;:> 'f1I.(),.s::f-0SHourJJ HA~ -.....( Uit>/c.6tnrn . II )1t1!cr3 . Date A. . eer or Representative WPC,F,'HOMlN'LANNlNCMTOREI)\1022.93 (Ref. 1021.93) (IW. 1020.93) ~.711 PageS MEMORANDUM November 2, 1993 File No. YS-577 TO: Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Roger L. Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer (AJf FROM: SUBJECT: IS-94-04 Bonita Car Wash - Sewer Service Agreement Revision This memorandum is a follow-up to our Initial Study Review dated September 10, 1993 for the subject project in which we indicated in Section VII that the Sewer Service and Annexation Agreement dated June 19, 1990 (approved and adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15684) may need to be updated. Upon further review of the agreement, we have determined that an update will, indeed, be necessary for the following reasons: 1. When the agreement was entered into in 1990, the applicant proposed to construct an office building on three consolidated parcels. The applicant now proposes to construct a car wash. Also, it us our understanding that the applicant is in the process of acquiring additional property in order to satisfy specific Planning Department design requirements with respect to site layout and building orientation. These represent substantial changes from the applicant's original proposal in 1990, upon which the agreement was based. 2. Because the net area (gross area minus dedication) of the current proposal will be greater than the 1990 proposal, the Transportation Development Impact Fee and Public Facilities Development Impact Fee, which are both based upon net area, will have to be recalculated. In addition, these fees have increased since 1990. 3. The Traffic Signal Fee, which is based upon expected trip generation, will have to be recalculated because the expected trip generation for the currently proposed use is higher than the expected trip generation for the 1990 proposed use. KP Alk:pa cc: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner IFoIHOMElENGINEERIADVPI..AN\ys.,nOO1J ~,? 7 ~ . Jew Sct:a.- ~ Cb.uW~ ROUTING FORM DATE: -~ I~ ~7 -v -= f/b,vt : 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 Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (H.J. Diosdado) CUrrent Planning Gordon Howard, 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 ~ MIIM-: JblJ.A,ha.A!1.... ~ Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS't1:::.!!i/FA-l.3?;DQ O~SJ Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-_) The Project consists of: Location: Please/reyi!iJjf the document and forward to me any comments you have by 11,-'11/'1<.:) Comments: ~-gl) Case No. FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the new:est fire stati7 And what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? d2. 5' ,;'( d f :; 4-"c.-; ~"'"' /2. ~f'''^,5 I B. Will the Fire Dep~ment be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or persoMel? )/~j c. Remarks ) /)m?U./I~ fire Marshal 11/4/CJ3 Date I. - '8) Page 6 WpC"",\IIOMNU.NN1NGISTOREI1U022.93 (/Ief. '021.93) (Rd. 1020.93) ROUTING FORM DEC~..-.. 1993 DATE: ;;ec&7l~ /7(1'1'Z-3 D:.. ., ! 1993 Ken Larson, Building , Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cli~~ SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (1S/3, E1R/2) Richard Rudol~, Asst City Attorney (Dra~t Neg Dec , E1R) Carol Gove, Fire Department ' Marty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) CUrrent Planning Duane Bazzel, 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) ___~CO frS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) other is-: ~: '~ .-,: ..51A~ Y1 ~ f1drew/ ~r'.brr4 Environmental Section ,Rc,cI Application ~or Initial Study (1S-W-C'fIFA-fi,25/DQ D35) Checkprint Dra~t EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ ) Review o~ a Dra~t EIR (E1R- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review o~ Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) -- SUBJECT: The Project consists of: t? .pIAU ~Vl/iC_~_AE.4r;.~ Pae k 13h-t 01- ~. 56'~f t..I Yte.. I" .2.0 . "'The CA r u/~Sh ~ ~ DI 'I: e -:II. / j?,.. 8~ t:I ~-e. i5.., .fy?~.:;:Z- cf'..fIcc lvl-S' .5 cA ~/'r6 51.1'1;). Location: 3tJ+ l' /!:JeH1 {-ft7, /2. .; V ':...L' ,. .-J., r / ufJ.fc.Jl'E.., Ree'1~ /er- ,;ne t<-HtnU rr . je:{~:=>1 ~". fUvthey f.4'Ifo IS r'OJU (y~ , ~~e~~!~~ilq2f~e document and ~orward to me any comments you have Comments: ?~"T-- 7U 20 fr. /' - .t.C'~ i'~/'-' /7/) j'V.... j;,h s 7iJ /5 'i ~, 4I~ t-J N) ( ~//v.- . ROUTING FORM DATE: September 1, 1993 fa: Ken Larson, Building & Yousing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff S~anson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineer~ng (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Assista"t City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department ~arty Schmidt, Parks & kecreation Crime Prevention, Police Department Current Planning Gordon Howard, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. Di'. trict, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other FROM: Douq Rei d .____Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Stud.l (15- 94-04/FA-~/DQ-035 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 day!;) (EIR- _/FB- _/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP) Review of Environmental Revi~"\~ Record FC- _ERR-_) The Project consists of: Full service c~- wash with detail area, office and 10unge. The p,',Jject will include prezonin9 and annexat1o: Location: 3048 Bonita ROod (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd and Lynwood Dri)e. Please review the document and forward to me any comments you bave by 9/10/93 Comments: ~ ~~. ~:s ,.b Co~ ~.'8.9 Case No. /.. '> - 7'of'-t) Y PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT A. Is project subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold mqu~ments? If not, please explain. ,..01 Nf.\~ Po . B. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? C. Axe existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community Parks D. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community Parks E. To meet City mqu~ments, will applicant be required to: Provide land? Pay a fee? F. Remarks: ~.~ q. z.4~. Parks and Recreation Director or Representative Date ~"'8~ Pqe7 WI'C:F,~On.93 (J.fI. 1021.93)(J.fI. 1020.93) ROUTING FOR!'; DATE: September 1, 1993 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Rousing John Lippitt, Engineerirg (EIR only) C1irr Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, EngineeriJlg (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudo1r, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Depart;r.ent Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation ~rime Prevention, Polic~Depart.ent ~rrent Planning Gordon Howard, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Di:ector Chu1a Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. Di"trict, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other FROM: OOUq Reid Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application ror Initial Study (IS-' 94-04/FA-_Q..3..5..-!DQ-035 ) Checkprint Drart EIR (20 day~1 (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ ) Review or a Drart EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP) Review or Environmental Review Record FC-____ERR-____) The Project consists or: Full service C"f wash with detail area, office and lounge. The pnject will include prezoning and annexat1o' Location: 3048 Bonita Roeu (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd and Lynwood Drive. Plea.e review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9/10/93 Couents: ~...a.s t 4t ." . _i1uLA VISTA POLICE DEP....... '{I:.. r CRIME PREVENTION UNIT ~~ PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS '~~j , DATE: o/Z,Z../tt3 TO: ~ ~~j lid.,;,;,',,;, VIA: {ieti:tg, LP-f'l-' ~ttfJ . FROM: fY/. r Ws Ur-, 'S ~t9.s PROJEC1':Is -qt..fO'f Pk w3~ CM~sf....-~WfLJ~~J _ The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any corruncnts regarding this project at this time. _ Information on the project, or within the plans. does not provide enough detail to pennit crime prevention analysis. (/" Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available. Elevations (/'" Floor Plans ~ Landscape and Lighting Plans ~ Site Development Plans Corruncnts: ~ jMi':7.P~ - d--1.ff-1t L - ~~~? p~.-Vo) ~D.M/\ 1 A\ ,1 A/\ A1h III ~ IlIf1i-P vA4l'l ~ t, ~ d h P<< U 'I u--- () ~ .)'/'//'1'l 11 J. b~d~ f"2~ ~ ~ P' #V~ ~ ~o-nu:l- tviu. ~aft cc: B~ver. SCA;:t:t~ ~CQA...f) V.A . ~ ~ U~~J;~_ ~ =~,FomI ;EA-e- ~__.., __,' S.. ~ rzvt ~ C#r1.Y~""~-'Yl :YY ROUTING FORM DATE: September Sf)Q 13 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 Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Current Planning (j1J.L dv~~ IISI. :s.Nr 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 EcJ Bd-f:..c-h elder FROM: DOL:) (;&:01 Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (Is-i4 D4/FA-&,3S/DQ -03..5) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP) Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-_) The Project cOl}sists of: Fdl/ S"'io"V,Ce. cc.:r r: tJ,...Josh u,Jr-tf) dccfq,( OtCTI I O-ffICC C/,.nd ILJu./l(i.-& The, proj-ed u...:-dL {/JcLwio prE' cDn L~ CLrlc:f CU7t1e"x Q~t7- Locatio~: 3oq-g 6<71 {-fA 1201 b-rn~-:6 (4;oc1 trN:- 5'4-L-tf1~ COr/rr if aM 6fn tV C7CtI Dr/ ue- - Pleasi re~ by 9, 10, the document and forward to me any comments you have Comments: ~-. 7 !3t'7V_m C~~ Pey D /tOxJ_e/ B. Prolect Description (para. 2) The project consists of a change to the current City of Chula Vista General Plan land use designation from Residential Low (0-3 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial Visitor. The site is proposed to be pre zoned C-V (Commercial Visitor) . Discretionary actions necessary to implement the proposed project include: a General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Design Review approval and Annexation. C. Compatibi1itv with Zoninq and Plans The project involves a proposed change of the current City of Chula Vista General Plan land use designation from Residential Low (0-3 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial Visitor. The site is also proposed to be pre zoned C-V (Commercial Visitor) , which would allow land uses such as the proposed car wash. The County's Sweetwater Community Plan designates the site as Office, Professional and Commercial, and the current County zoning consists of C-30 Commercial. The existing Chula Vista General Plan land use designation of Residential Low has been applied to the project site since 1970, at a time when the entire freeway interchange and location of Plaza Bonita Road were configured differently. Today Plaza Bonita Road intersects with Lynwood Drive at Bonita Road, and the appropriateness of Residential Low at the southwest quadrant of Lynwood Drive and Bonita Road requires close consideration. Xeoevc d 0-4 Cf/c /93 ?1/ ~,9''' BOARD OF EDUCATION J05EPH D, CUMMINGS. PhD. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON GilES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R. SANDOVAl SUPERINTENDENT lISIA S. GIl. Ph.D, CHULA viSTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH September 8, 1993 , ~ Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Section City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chufa Vista, CA 91910 Re: IS-94-04/ FA-635/ DQ-035 Project: Car Wash, Detail Area, Office & Lounge Location: 3048 Bonita Road Applicant: Charles Tibbett Dear Mr. Reid: This is to advise you that the project, located at 3048 Bonita Road, is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 3-4 percent over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.27 for non-residential area to be charged. The fee is split between the two school districts with Chula Vista Elementary School District receiving $.121sq. ft. and Sweetwater Union High School District receiving $.15/sq. ft. to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. The District encourages developer participation in an alternative financing mechanism to help assure that facilities will be available to serve children generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one method to help fund this deficit. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of developer fees. 3..S' Mr. Doug Re,u Page 2 September 8,1993 , The subject project is located in the Allen School attendance area. This school is presently operating at or near capacity, and an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a CFD is recommended. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~~I Kate Shurson Director of Planning & Facilities KS:dp cc: Charles Tibbett ITI5w:c:largecom 3. - 'cO Case No. /.J-91/-t:J9' APPENDIX IV Comments Received During the Public Review Period _ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period 3-"1 . WPC"',~CI\STOREIN022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 102D.93) DE8--14-8: TU[ ~ NRADiV 9j c(:r.~- t'TE~ (".,' ,:)-~ I 'I ..."" I j.. ~:. . I.' ]. ,',-: U' '-Iv SWEETWATER .-/" Community PlannIng Grou~ 14 October 1993 TO: Chula Vis!u Planning Department Attn: Steve Griffin Sweetwaler Com'TllJnity Planning GrJ..;) FROM: SUBJECT: Preliminary Fv..luatiofl of thE; I'rC~'0~IJd C.;F "'.'.;.Ish, C;'::;: :il," i:,,~;; west of Lynwood Drive TI,l' $Wt;~twGltt,r COrTImunlty Planning GroJp hat; h.,r] "Ii' up;':("1UCi'~Y ~u :~,"It.W t~,(; preliminary proposal for a car wash facility on the :'uu',", si;:;o o! Cone, :',:: ".; \, ~,:: of Lynwood Drive, The conceptual design appears!o :,e w;thir~ '11t' ,'c(', (.~.jr:. 'C .)f l:,c approved Sweetwater Commun:ty Design Handbcok Uti'dolir.",; :-::bPcd Cj li',f, Planning Group and the Board of Supervi~ors, Wtlile it is unfortunate that the City insi:;t~ that this p"'I)~':'f l~,; VOl,'" ,,;,(J h, 'J";:' access to sewer servic-e (the Pianning Croup COfdinuC'S ;;. '.I'.'i~':t;;)r, ~i lS ;'It:{;d)...,o rocogn:ze the proponents lack of choice of a1lernatiJC:,-,- The: tr<1fric situation at this location is of continuing con;;er;, ali~) Ih~, (j";",i.:;i \, :;" p",jf:ct !;houlct take that into account It should b6 nQI(,d 1:';:1 ;:,n,'I:::'::" frora fli" p:oje(,'t to l ynwood Drive (for access to Bonita Roue! wc~;t 'Ir F'1e.,:<: lLlli:.J 2c.:id rorth) will cc.use additional cycling of the signals Trll:': W,!; losuil ;,. "d';it,..:::,i:iI ca, .j>;st:on fer the east/west flow of traffic through this comk'ex inter::.e'_1<on, \. \ \:' c:~\.- ~ \.->. -6 John Hammond Chairperson .. - If.:} P 0 Box .60 Bo",'\-, C..n"p. J ~"k" .".-" .. ...., Ii ~'. ......""'.". _ .... .....J ... t"""v t:' ;0 .. ..... -' - . / r ~'~~~'"'" · ("If November 9, 1993 .--- -- ---'. - city of Chula Vista Atttn: Susan Vandrew 276 Fourth Avenue Chul~ vista, CA 91910 iJ(4 \ __?:o1J\ \ Dear Hz. vandrew: Le~al (E-'.::::':: __.--.-----..- " Re: Bonit.a/Lynwond Car Wash Noi!:ie Impact P We have reviewed the information you provided Tr;lat.ive to the above project_'s noise impact potential otJ'djacent !(,~id~ntjal u>>es, W.., -1150 monlt0n,d noise levels at a ,..':I'parar..lEOo fi\"j')~:,.r",cu~tly equipped \wit.h a new blower/dryer SY51..f'r.t. We c~.~i1uat.(od Ddckglo,mJ noise lev,;ls due to Bonita Road 1;raffic and ~.t"'I1 super:im{Joseu d'1/ possible on-site noise contribution upon the background. B~~au5e of a Jack of site-specific data, we did not include any fre~way cOl.tri bution ever' t:1ough the freeway obviously- al so affects baseline conditions. ~I" noL,.- data thE applicant provided listed a noise leVt~l of 67 c;', ",t ')0 f",1. from the equipment. We measured 66 dl" :,1: IC' f"...t ,1.,. th~ wa~h'tunnel axi5 and 60 dR at 100 feet p~L~~ndj~c'ar to ~ Clxis. ")ur IlIeasurement a9re'~5 exact} y wit" tho:, ......~ 1"' ~, lit~ratur~ on car wash dryers. Rdckgrvund noise levels due to traftic: on Bonita ROad at Lh~ n~are~t Lynwood Hil] residence were calculated to be 66.' JJl th._. car wash '1 faced t,he homes it would add 60 r a COr.lbl,€.j Ci.5 dR (II 0.9 ts lncrease). If the tunne H; p, re C 0 Bon i t/, J~r)OIa as proposed lIt would huve a 54 dB im~' 'sl., of II con,:..i",.'" 66.8 dB level (a 0.2 dB increase). We belie' ~.2 dB I ,It n''''''e would not be detectable given tho:. exif>tL, nd lev.el, particularly when the freeway background is also L.:lke, , "to Iiccount. For an east-west orientation ot the tunnel, and with I.'..,:<"sonll.bJ" limits on the hours of operation, we do not bel i eve that t:c,~, pot,,',,,' jal for a signjfici\nt impact t");i..t.,. at th'" n"arC$t homes (.)1 thi"f: '"'. add;tional study is IoIaLl'<inted. You expres!'Oe-l sora,;, concE', n abQut j nd i cat.ed, tb~t is an OSH^ I SSllf' '-'-T1':::'Y~I~ noi~c cxpusur~. ,.,.) f" t r€;d 1.1 i a r;~t'ter Q= A(> I code I \ I J 3-".3 I I t- '7U4J;Z,'V P~_~I ,'"';PlrJ,. \'(rllp 1.m '.'UU<' r.../it:'JmiA 277i4 .. PI!. I,' I "N.; " ~~/..\tiiN . F.r,-7l.41IS1~MJ: 140....' 03 'S3 J4:57 GIROU>:, -)'~ IHTES ~ ~,2 ,. . -2- compliance. I did, however, calculate the allowable noise exposure tor a car wash employee working in close proximity to the blower for any extended period of time with the following time limits to meet the OSHA allowable noise dose: Distance frODI Blower Allowable Timu 3' 5' 6' 7' 1 Hr 45 min 5 Hr 2 min 7 Hr 8 min No Limitation Given that car wash employees on1y spend brief periods in close proximity to the blower/dryel', 1 do n01, wllevE: t.hat noise protection is an issue for this project. please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /~ 1.).4-.4 Hans D. Giroux ' Senior Scientist Giroux & Associates HDG:ai ~-,,4 /4k. ,4~ MEMORANDUM January 27, 1994 File # YS-577 TO: Susan Vandrew, Planning DepartInr7P Harold Rosenberg, Traffic EngineeN'- FROM: SUBJECT: Bonita Car Wash Traffic Report Subsequent to the information provided in the transportation section in the initial study (case #18-94-04), a site specific transportation analysis was completed by a traffic consulting firm, Darnell and Associates Inc, While our conclusions are the same (no adverse traffic impacts results from the project) the consultant's report shows a lower vehicle trip generation rate than was noted in the City's initial study report, The consultant's trip rate value was based on an employment and estimated daily car washes, Our trip rate value was based in a generic relationship between land use and land area, We accept the consultant's procedure and find his report to be complete, DW:dv cc: Kirk Ammerman (F :\horne\engUtecr\traffic\carw &Sh.DW) ~~".s ~5~ 'memorandum April 25, 1994 File: YS-577 FROM: Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer TO: VIA: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engin SUBJECT: Bonita Carwash Traffic Study I reviewed the applicant traffic impact report regarding the proposed carwash on Bonita Road prepared by Darnell and Associates, Inc., dated April 21, 1994, and fmd it to be satisfactory, Please forward a copy of this report to the County of San Diego, Public Works Department for their review and comment since the intersection of Bonita Road and Bonita Plaza/Lynwood Drive is under their jurisdiction. Please call me at 5180 if you have any questions, WPC F:\bcme\eagiDce:r\lS72.94 ~, ,., r Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORT A TION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING April 21, 1994 Mr, Charles R, Tibbett So-Cal Carwash Services 3907 Massachusetts Avenue La Mesa, CA 91941 D&A Ref, No,: 940103 Subject: Revised Traffic Report for Proposed Bonita Car Wash Dear Mr. Tibbett: In accordance with your authorization, Darnell & Associates, Inc, (D&A) has prepared this letter report addressing the five traffic items identified in the January 6, 1994 memo from Susan Vandrew, City of Chula Vista Planning Department, regarding the subject project. The items to be addressed are: 1, Existing Level of Service (LOS) for the Bonita RoadIPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection with and without the project. 2, Year 1998 LOS for the Bonita RoadIP]aza BonitalLynwood intersection with and without the project. 3, Discussion of intersection safety with and without the project. 4, Proposed project driveway impact to Bonita Road and Lynwood Avenue traffic, 5. Discussion on the site plan circulation system, In addition, this iteration includes the City's request to incorporate the traffic associated with the San Diego Calvary Chapel in the project vicinity, TRIP GENERATION The first step in the analysis process involves the estimation of vehicular trips generated to/from the proposed project site. The proposed Bonita Car Wash is planned to service 125 to 250 washes per day, A total of seven (7) employees will be needed and there will not be any gasoline services provided. The owner anticipates detail services will be provided and are accounted for in the 125 to 250 washes per day, Exhibit 1 is a reduced copy of the project site plan, 1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD' SUITE B' SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 PHONE, 619.233.9373 . FAX, 619.233.4034 3 -,. 7 Mr, Charles R, Tibbett So-Cal Carwash Services April 21, 1994 Page 2 Pursuant to the City's request, traffic generated by the project was estimated using the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) published rates (October 1993) for a car wash, The SANDAG rate is 900 average daily vehicles (ADT) per site, As stated above, the owner anticipates a maximum of 250 washes per day plus employee trips, Therefore, it is our opinion that the 900 trips per day provides a worst-case analysis, AM and PM peak hour traffic was then estimated based on published SANDAG rates, The AM peak rate is 4 % of daily traffic and the PM peak rate is 9 % of daily traffic, equally split between inbound and outbound movements, The resulting project trip generation is as follows: TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Daily I I Use Intensity Traffic In Out In Out I Car Wash i 1 i 900 i 18 'I 18\ 41 I 41 I Project traffic was then assigned to the project driveways and the Bonita RoadfLynwood Avenue intersection, The resulting project related peak hourly volumes are shown on Exhibit 2, EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH & WITHOUT PROJECT Existing AM/PM peak hour counts for the Bonita RoadlPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection were obtained from the County of San Diego, collected in August 1993, Exhibit 3 presents the existing peak hour volumes, The existing level of service was then calculated utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures for Signalized Intersections, The results of this analysis show that the peak periods will operate at LOS C in the morning and LOS D in the evening at this intersection, Table 1 summarizes the results, Project traffic was then added to existing traffic volumes, Exhibit 4 presents the existing plus project volumes, The LOS was then calculated using the HCM methodology, The addition of project traffic to the existing traffic results in the Bonita RoadlPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection continuing to operate at LOS C during the AM peak and LOS D in the evening peak, The results are presented on Table 1, ~-'T'~ Mr, Charles R. Tibbett So-Cal Carwash Services April 21, 1994 Page 3 YEAR 1998 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH & WITHOur PROJECT To estimate year 1998 traffic volumes, the existing 1993 volumes were increased 2% per year, Exhibit 4 presents the results of this calculation, Project traffic was then added to the 1998 base volumes and the results are presented on Exhibit 6, Level of service was then determined for 1998 conditions with and without the project. The AM and PM peak hour calculations result in the Bonita RoadlPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection operating at LOS D for both peak periods for 1998 conditions with and without the project. The results are also presented in Table 1, YEAR 1998 CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE In addition to the 2 % compounded growth factor, D&A also analyzed traffic impacts associated with the San Diego Calvary Chapel located south of the project, D&A obtained a copy of the Entranco-Federhart traffic study performed for the Chapel and incorporated the trip generation and distribution into this study, The Chapel facility consists of approximately 16,300 square feet and operates generally on Sunday mornings and weeknights (6-9:3Opm), During the weekdays, a preschool operates from 8:00am-6:00pm, enrolling approximately 95 students (50 of which are grades K through 6), According to the Entranco- Federhart study, the preschool generates 766 daily trips, 31 during the AM peak, and 60 in the evening peale The peak hour distribution of traffic is presented on Exhibit 7, The peak hour volumes presented on Exhibit 7 were added to the base year 1998 plus proposed project volumes, Exhibit 8 shows the cumulative peak hour traffic for this condition, HCM analysis was conducted on the cumulative volumes and the results are presented in Table 1, The intersection of Bonita RoadlPlaza Bonita/Lynwood will operate at LOS D during both peak periods, The HCM worksheets for all analyses conditions are included in Appendix A, DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION SAFETY WITH & WITHOur PROJECT Proposed project, existing, year 1998, and cumulative volumes were examined as well as the project site plan to identify any safety problems associated with the project implementation, Our review of the project identified two potential safety concerns, The first potential problem is motorists desiring to leave the Bonita Road access drive would cross two travel lanes' to enter the eastbound left turn lanes to either turn left onto Plaza Bonita or make a U-turn to go west on Bonita Road, This condition could occur from any project developed on the site. However, a careful review of project volumes desiring to make these moves is very low and would not be expected to create a problem. '3. . "1 Mr, Charles R. Tibbett So-Cal Carwash Services April 21, 1994 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THE BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD INTERSECTION AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Condition Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Existing 24,0 C 26,6 D Existing Plus Project 24,1 C 28,6 D Year 1998 25,3 D 34,9 D Year 1998 Plus Project 27,5 D 35,2 D Year 1 998 Cumulative 27,5 D 36,6 D LOS = Level of Service (see) = in seconds The second area involves the potential conflicts from motorists leaving the Lynwood access, Because of the long signal cycle length, these motorists could block Lynwood Road southbound traffic while waiting for the signal to change and serve Lynwood. The relatively small project volumes and the low traffic volumes on Lynwood would indicate that this will not be a problem, PROPOSED PROJECT DRIVEWAY IMPACTS TO BONITA ROAD & LYNWOOD AVENUE The project traffic is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Avenue traffic, Traffic generated by the car wash is spread fairly evenly over the day. This reduces the potential for significant impacts occurring, The site could be developed with a more intense use with higher traffic generation than the proposed project, DISCUSSION OF ON SITE PLAN CIRCULATION SYSlEM The site plan depicted on Exhibit 1 and project volumes presented on Exhibit 2 were carefully examined, The general layout of the site was found to be satisfactory, The only area of concern involves the vehicle stacking area at the vacuum area. For traffic arriving via the Bonita Road access there is room for approximately 14 vehicles to queue. From Lynwood, however, there is stacking area for approximately seven (7) vehicles including the vacuum area, To determine the adequacy of the stacking from Lynwood, the peak hour generation of 41 vehicles entering the site was examined, Based on our experience with ~ ... I ....., Mr, Charles R. Tibbett So-Cal Carwash Services April 21, 1994 Page 5 car washes, the 41 vehicle demand can be accommodated without backing vehicles onto Lynwood or blocking traffic exiting the site, The only recommended change to the plan is to widen the proposed 24 foot driveway on Lynwood to 28 feet. I trust this revised letter report adequately addresses the City of Chula Vista comments. Sincerely, DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC, ~E-~ Bill E, Darnell, P,E, BEDlbh 0103CAR1.RPT/94-4 ~-Jc>J EXHIBITS ]-8 .3-IO~ ~ ~ ~ 2 .. EXHIB IT 1 Darnell I< ASSOCIATES, mc, SITE PLAN ~ p 10.3 I I.LI -' 4: U V1 o Z '.. " o -+-' C o CD Bon ita o N o CL CXJ '-..... r0 ~ Road 4/9- r 7 /17 -, \ \ t \ tD OJ U to CXJ co .,....... -............ 0 .,....... -.......................... .............. ..,j- 0 .............. r0 ..,j- co ~ co c >, --l 10/25 ~ 14/32~ LEGEND XX/YY = AM/PM Traffic Darnell. ~m!. INC. EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC ~~ V1 o Z Bon ita 143/559 846/1625 18/41 Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC, o ........, c o m n o LO ('.J ........... ~ ~ I'- ........... ~"""""'I'- ~ ~ o N o u-..J 1 ~ -- ~ , tL u o o S: c >- -1 iti OLO~ n ...................... ...........01'- c..o ('.J ,~ Road 1"-15/49 -1217/1150 r- 8/9 , LEGEND xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC I w -' d<s (f) -t :1-9 z ,* ... 0 -+-' C r-') 0 0 CD LD 0 .........LD~ N ~z:........... 0 ~-.;tr--- - Cl.. ~ . L, Road Bon ita 143/559 ~ 850/1634 -- 18/41 -, '1 L 15/49 -1217/1150 t 15/26 tr- tOr-')N -0 v ~ ~ o ............................... o v r-') ~ 3: r-') ..-- c >, ~ LEGEND xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic EXHIBIT 4 Darnell.. ASSOCIATIS. me. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 3.-IDt. I W -J , ,<( u U1 -E :1-9 z ~ 0 ........, c n 0 LD OJ LD "-.. 1O 0 LDCO..q- N LD"-.."-.. 0 CO - .,- .,- D- ~ I L Bonito , 157/615 --' 930/1788 - 20/45 ~ , "i t I n 1O LD v n "-.. "-.. o "-...,- co o OJ 3!= ."-1 C >- .-J , -....- -- Rood L 17/54 -1339/1265 19/10 ( LEGEND xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic (a) Based on 1993 count expanded to 2% per year Darn e 11 I< ASSOCIATES, INC, EXHIBIT 5 YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC (a) ~ .1'0 '7 W ...J 4: U If) z o -+-' c o OJ I"J L[) L[) .............,-~ L[)N....... L[)............. ....... ,-tDCO o N o CL~.L Bon ita 157 /615 ~ 932/1793 -- 20/45 -, Darnell. ASSOCtiTES. lilt. -0 o o ~ c >, --.-J It I coO'Jco LD~~ ....................................... ,-tD'<:j- -<;j- .,- I Road L 17 /54 -1339/1265 ,20/36 LEGEND xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic EXHIBIT 6 YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ~- u.J ...J ..!{S (/) .o-~ - ,- 0 -I-' C 0 m N ..-- 0 ............ N N 0 ..-- - Road 0.... ~ Bonita ./ '- r- 5/5 28/26 -, , '\ t I / c.ONLD v N..-- "- o ....................... LD o oJ N 3!: N"-- c >. ---1 LEGEND xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic Darnell " ~ INC. EXHIBIT 7 CALVARY CHAPEL TRAFFIC -"~~__.11!!11 I W ..J <{ U (j) o :z .:1; :... 0 -+-' C 1"J 0 LD OJ lO1"JtO 0 .............1"J~ N LD.......................... 0 lOCOCXJ - ,.- ,.- 0.... ~ . L Road Bon ita 157/615 ~ L 17 /54 932/1793 - -1339/1265 48/71 -, t 25/41 \ ~ \ ~'-1"J v CXJ1"JN 0 ....................................... 0 a>CXJa> 3: to .- .- c >- -.J LEGEND xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic EXHIBIT 8 Darnell .. jSSOCU,ns. me. YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC PLUS CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ~-, 3. -III APPENDIX A HCM Worksheets 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT lAllA!!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOO AREA TYPE,..,.OTHER ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH DATE."...." .1-20-94 TIME.. .. . . .. .. All PEAK COMMENT....,..EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 143 8 26 7 L 12,0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 846 1217 0 1 L 12,0 T 12,0 12,0 R 12.0 RT 18 15 7 141 T 12.0 TR 12,0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 2 2 0 14 TR 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT, ARR. TYPE (X) <X> Y/N Nm Nb Y/N ..in T EB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14.5 3 NB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 SB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0;90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PO X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 18,0 13,0 51,0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7,0 0,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 0,0 3,0 0,0 YELLOY 3,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP, DELAY APP, LOS EB L 0.199 0.256 27.7 D 12,4 e TR 0,485 0,584 9,9 B we L 0.060 0.088 39,7 0 33.7 D TR 0.970 0,416 33,7 D NB LTR 0,123 0.200 26.5 0 26.5 D SB LT 0.081 0,064 35.6 D 20,7 C R 0,173 0,320 19,8 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 24.0 (seelveh) V/C = 0,571 LOS = C A -//4.. 110 tJ 't.1'r 1- _j HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUl!MARY REPORT 1111l111l11l111l1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INTERSECTION,. BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOO AREA TYPE,....OTHER ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH DATE,.........1-20-94 TIME.. .. .. .. .. I'll PEAK CONMENT""...EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB L T 559 TH 1625 RT 41 RR 4 VOLUMES we NB 9 30 1150 5 49 4 5 0 GEONETRY WB NB 12,0 LTR 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 LT R R SB 12,0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 EB 12.0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 SB : 42 : L 7 : L 503 T 50 TR L T TR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT, ARR, TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T EB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14,5 3 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 18,0 13,0 51.0 0,0 GREEN 24,0 7.0 0,0 0,0 YELLOW 3.0 0,0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP, DELAY APP, LOS EB L o.m 0,256 36,1 0 24,6 C TR 0,935 0.584 20.8 c WB L 0,067 0.088 39,7 D 30.7 0 TR 0.945 0.416 30.6 0 NB LTR 0.143 0.200 .26,6 0 26,6 0 SB LT 0,498 0,064 39,0 D 25,5 D R 0,617 0.320 24,1 C -.--------------------------------------------------------------------- ERSECTION: Delay = 26.6 (sec/veh) V/C = O,B74 LOS = D ~ -11..3 \2;oN '( f \ 1985 HC": SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SU"IIARY REPORT 11........1111111111111l11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOO AREA TYPE...,.OTHER ANALYST.".,..DARNELL/BPH OATE.,.,...,..1-20-94 TI"E..........AII PEAK C~"ENT"..,..EXISTING+PROJECT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES EB WB NB LT 143 15 34 TH 850 1217 3 RT 18 15 11 RR 2 2 1 GE0f4ETRY W8 NB 12,0 LTR 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 LT R R S8 12.0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 EB 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 S8 : 7 : L 4 : L 141 : T 14 : TR L T TR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT, ARR, TYPE (X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N .in T EB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 NB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 SB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 18.0 13,0 51,0 0.0 GREEN 24,0 7,0 0,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 0.0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, VIC G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0,199 0,256 27,7 0 12.4 B TR 0,487 0,584 9,9 B WB L 0,112 0.088 39,9 D 33.7 D TR 0,970 0.416 33.7 D NB LTR 0.176 0,200 26,B 0 26,B 0 SB LT 0,111 0.064 35,6 D 21,0 C R 0,173 0,320 19,8 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 24,1 (seo/veh) VIC = 0,582 LOS = C .& ...'1,/ ~o t.Ne ~ 1... ,~~j HC": SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT 1!!!1111111111111111!111111111111!!!111!11111111!!11111111111111!11111!111 INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOO AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST,.",..DARNELL/BPH DATE.....",' ,1-20-94 TIME.. , . .. .. .. PM PEAK CONMENT.......EXISTING+PROJECT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB LT 559 TH 1634 RT 41 RR 4 VOLUMES VB NB 26 46 1150 13 49 12 5 1 GEOMETRY VB NB 12.0 LTR 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 LT R R SB 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 EB 12,0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 SB 42 L 15 L 503 T 50 : TR L T TR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT. ARR, TYPE (X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N .in T EB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 VB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14,5 3 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 Ea LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PO X VB LT X SB LT X TN X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 16,0 14,0 51,0 0,0 GREEN 24.0 8,0 0.0 0,0 YELLOV 3,0 0,0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3.0 3,0 0.0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, VIC GIC DELAY LOS APP, DELAY APP. LOS Ea L 0.802 0.248 37,6 0 2B,2 0 TR 0.967 0,568 25,0 0 WB L 0,178 0.096 39,5 0 30.8 0 TR 0.945 0.416 30,6 0 NB LTR 0.258 '0,200 .27,3 0 27.3 D SB LT 0.512 0.072 38,6 D 25.6 D R 0.617 0.320 24,1 C ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ,RSECTlON, Delay = 28.6 (sec/veh) VIC = 0.899 LOS = 0 ~ -II..S V>o toNe e 1- ~ON '\ ~ It 1.... 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INTERSECTION,.BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOO AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......DARNELL/8PH DATE,."..... .1-20-94 TIME,.........AH PEAK COMMENT,.....,8ASE 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES EB WB NB LT 157 9 29 TH 930 1339 1 RT 20 17 B RR 2 2 1 SB B L 1 L 155 T 16 TR EB 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 L T TR GEOMETRY WB NB 12,0 LTR 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 SB LT 12,0 R 12,0 R 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED, BUT, ARR, TYPE eX) ex) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T EB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 NB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 SB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PO X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 14,0 13,0 55,0 0,0 GREEN 24,0 7.0 0,0 0.0 YELLOW 3,0 0.0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 3,0 0,0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, Vie Gle DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0,249 0,224 30.3 0 13,2 B TR 0,533 0,584 10,3 B WB L 0.067 0.088 39,7 D 35,4 D TR 0.991 0.448 35,4 0 N8 LTR 0.138 0,200 26.6 0 26.6 0 SB LT 0.092 0,064 35,6 0 22,6 C R 0,210 0,288 21,8 C --------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Ooloy = 25.3 Csoelvoh) Vie = 0.628 LOS = 0 3 -IIi- IIJort 'lib e I . HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT !AIIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!llllllllllllllllllllll.llllllllllllllllllllll INTERSECTION, ,BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST....,..DARNELLlBPH DATE, . .. .. . . .. 1-20-94 TIME.. .. . .. . .. PM PEAK COMMENT",..,.BASE 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB LT 615 TH 1788 RT 45 RR 5 VOLlmES we NB 10 33 1265 6 54 5 5 0 SB : 46 : L 8 : L 553 T 55 TR EB 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 L T TR GEOMETRY WB NB 12,0 LTR 12,0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 LT R R SB 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED, BUT, ARR, TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T EB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 ". 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23,5 3 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 133,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PO X WB LT X S8 LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PO GREEN 18,0 11.0 58,0 0,0 GREEN 23,5 10,5 0,0 0,0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. vIe G/e DELAY LOS APP, DELAY APP, LOS EB L 0,970 0.226 58.0 E 36.7 0 TR 0,998 0.602 29,5 0 WB L 0,097 0.068 44,2 E 34.4 D TR 0,975 0,444 34.4 D NB LTR 0.175 '0,184 '29,6 0 29.6 0 SB LT 0.406 0.086 38,0 D 28,5 D R 0.697 0.312 27,5 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'ERSECTION: Delay = 34,9 (sec/ven) V/C = 0,959 LOS = D .,3"/17 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ...1.1.1.!.....11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD AREA TYPE"...OTHER ANALYST.,..."DARNELL/BPH DATE,....,.., .1-2Q-94 TIME......... ,AI! PEAK COHMENT"",..199B PLUS PROJECT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LT 157 20 41 8 L TH 932 1339 6 6 L RT 20 17 14 155 T RR 2 2 1 16 TR GEOMETRY WB NB 12,0 LTR 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 LT R R SB 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 EB 12,0 L 12.0 T 12,0 TR 12,0 12,0 12,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT, ARR, TYPE m (%) Y/N N. Nb Y/N min T EB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14.5 3 WB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 NB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 SB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PD GREEN 14,0 14,0 54,0 0,0 GREEN 24,0 7.0 0.0 0,0 YELLOW 3.0 0,0 3,0 0.0 YELLOW 3,0 3,0 0,0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. VIC GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0,241 0,232 29,7 D 13,4 B TR 0.542 0.576 10.7 B WB L 0,137 0,096 39,4 0 39,5 D TR 1,009 0.440 39.5 0 NB LTR 0,224 0,200 27,1 0 27.1 D SB LT 0.140 0,064 35,7 D 22,6 C R 0.205 0.296 21.3 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 27,5 (see/veh) VIC = 0,647 LOS = 0 3-11~ ~DN q~fA 1- '&:H-Jq~ f P'l 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT l!!!!!!ll!.!!!!!!l!!llllllllllllll!!llllllllllllllllllllll.A.lllllllllllll INTERSECTION, ,BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST. , ,....DARNELL/BPH OATE".....,.,1-20-94 TIME..........PH PEAK COHMENT,.,....1998 PLUS PROJECT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB LT 615 TH 1793 RT 45 RR 5 VOLUMES WB NB 36 5B 1265 19 54 18 5 2 S8 : 46 : L 21 L 553 T 55 TR EB 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 L T TR 6EOItETRY WB NB 12,0 LTR 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 LT R R SB 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT, ARR. TYPE (X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N m;n T EB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 >u 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 133,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PO X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 18.0 11,0 58,0 0.0 GREEN 23,5 10,5 0.0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 0.0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 3.0 0.0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP, DELAY APP, LOS EB L 0.970 0.226 58.0 E 37,1 0 TR UJ01 0,602 30,0 0 WB L 0.349 0.068 45,B E 34.7 0 TR 0.975 0,444 34,4 0 NB LTR 0.373 0,184 31,0 0 31,0 0 SB LT 0.500 0,086 39,3 0 28,8 0 R 0.697 0,312 27,5 0 .---------------------------------------------------------------------- <RSECTION: Deloy = 35.2 (sec/ven) V/C = 0.998 LOS = 0 3-1/1 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT 11111All1!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 INTERSECTION,. BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA lLYN WOOD AREA TYPE"...OTHER ANALYST......,OARNELL/BPH DATE,.,....,..1-20-94 TIME..........AM PEAK C~"ENT.......1998+CU"ULATIVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 157 25 69 B L 12,0 L 12,0 LTR 12,0 LT 12.0 TH 932 1339 1B 18 L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12,0 RT 48 17 19 155 T 12,0 TR 12,0 12,0 R 12,0 RR 5 2 2 16 TR 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT. ARR, TYPE (X) (X) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T EB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 WB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 NB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 SB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PO X PO X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PO X PO GREEN 14,0 14,0 54,0 0.0 GREEN 24,0 7,0 0,0 0,0 YELLOW 3.0 0,0 3,0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 3.0 0,0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.241 0.232 29,7 0 13,5 B TR 0,558 0,576 10,9 8 WB L 0.171 0,096 39.5 0 39,5 0 TR 1.009 0,440 39,5 0 NB LTR 0.384 0,200 '28.3 0 28,3 0 SB LT 0.257 0.064 36.2 D 23,6 C R 0.205 0.296 21,3 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION' Delay = 27,5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0,681 LOS = 0 ,) -I ~C) 1?ON '(~ eft. ~ oN q Ii' c.-f ; HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SuMMARY REPORT llllAl11l111111111!1!!!!11111111!!!!1111111111111111!1111111111111111!!!11 INTERSECTION, ,BONITA ROAO!PLAZA BONITA!LYNWOOO AREA TYPE..., ,OTHER AHALYST.....,.DARNELL/BPH DATE,....."..1-20-94 TIME..........PM PEAK COMMENT,.....,199B+CUMULATIVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB LT 615 TH 1793 RT 71 RR 7 VOLUMES WB NB 41 54 1265 31 54 23 5 2 SB : 46 : L 33 L 553 T 55 TR EB 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 L T TR GEOMETRY WB NB 12.0 LTR 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 LT R R SB 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GAAOE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO, BUT, ARR. TYPE (X) (%) Y!N N. Nb T!N .in T EB 0.00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 lIB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 14,5 3 NB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 50 Y 23,5 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 133,0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X PO X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD GREEN 1B.0 11,0 5B,O 0,0 GREEN 23,0 11,0 0.0 0,0 YELLOW 3,0 0,0 3,0 0.0 YELLOU 3,0 3,0 0.0 0,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, V!C G!C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0,970 0,226 58.0 E 39.6 D TR 1,016 0.602 33.5 D WB L 0.398 0.068 46,4 E 34,7 0 TR 0.975 0,444 34.4 0 NB LTR 0.554 0,180 33,6 D 33,6 D SB LT 0.562 {],O9O '40.3 E 28.8 D R 0.688 0,316 27.1 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -ERSECTION: Delay = 36.6 (sec/veh) vIe = 1.031 LOS = 0 .3- I ~ I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT A-/'a.~ TI-lE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ou arc required to file a Slatemenl of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign ~'"trihutions, on all matters which will require discrelionary action on the parl of thc City Council, Planning Commission, and all olher official bodies, Tbe following information must be disclosed, J. List the names of all pcrsons having a financial interest in Ihe properly which is thc suhject of the application or the contra<t, e,g" owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, male rial supplier. c.ha.r-I"c.... R, L:li:!:,.i"-J;=-TT LOt"':::, Mo~ ct> A- PAVL c. fvlA.c.,NOTTO _MA~f'o\lf:: A, MAC.AlrrrTD , 2, If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in Ihe corporation or owning any partnership interesl in the partnership, ~~ ~_r-I {' S R, 11 ~~TT OO.Y. J1AR.ili.f L.. MA~ (V nTT D - 2 fi% _LoIs' k..cre..(c... ::2.."S"% Pa.\A \ 'D 'tv1Af~N71TTO 3, If any person' identified pursuant to (I) ahove is non. profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non.profit organi'~tion or as trustee or beneficiary or Irustor of the Irusl. - 4, Have you had more than S250 wOrlh of husiness transacted with any memher of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months'? Ycs_ No.x 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, 'J?DJ'I L-a...np, 6, Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregale, contributed more than S 1,000 to a Councilmember in the CUi'renl or preceding ciccI ion period? Yes_ NoX If yes, stale which Councilmember(s): · . . (NOTE: Attacll additioaaJ pap IS~. ry) ., . · (~~~cP Signat ure of contractor/applicant Date: 8> - 2'1 _t-13 c.I.JAP LffS f? TI ~T3E'Tf Print or type name of contractor/applicant ~-I' ~3 . Pmc)fI is defillcd QS; "AllY iJldividual, fin", co.parrllmhip, jOlfu i'CPWfC, tWOCiQlimt, JOdol club, frmntwl nrgallizoJimt, corporaUOII., tstalC, &nul, receiw:r, zyndiCale, IIW Gild (DIY olht:r COUIUY, city 1IIId coulllry, city mUllicipalll)', district, or u,her poJiucQ} mbdb-wOlI, or all} other ~p or combUul/iOlI DCWag At' " wW. "