HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/05/11 (5)
EXHIBITS
\//
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
-
--
--
.....
.....
.....
I
- -- I
- \
---.1
~ ,
EXHIBIT "A" ,
SCALE:
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
BY THE CITY COUNCil ON
CASE NUMBER:
ACREAGE:
OATE:
CITY CLERK
DATE
DRAWN BY:
C9 ZONING MAP -
NORTH
~!~
~
""Of
QiUIA VISrA
CHECKED BY:
.~.
. ... J[l
. LJ
[j>.
...
o.
~
>
~
~. .
~ '\ '-..\ '-..'-.. '-..'-.. '-..'-.. n
D@~J~[j'lJ@
LAND USE
RESIDENTIAL
du/sc
0-3
c::J
CJ
L:::I
1Z22],.....'.....
';..;.::..;."
.........
..... .","
_nil
Low
low-
Medium
3-6
Medium
6-1'
Medium- 11-18
High
High 18-27
COMMERCIAL
c= Retail
~;:0l Throughfare
~~>"1 Visitor
F"'7l.../ .
~
Professional &
Administrative
INDUSTRIAL
~
~
iiii
Research & Limited
Manufacturing
General
PUBLIC & oPEN SPACE
L-_-_-_-j Public & Quasi Public
C3 Parks & Recreation
~ VVater
CJ Open Space
SPECIAL PLAN AREA
~ eastern Urban
~ Center
,
EXHIBIT
"B"
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C) APPLICANT: Charles Tibbit PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GP A - Amend from otfIce & reoldentlal to
ADDRESS: SW COrDer of Bonita Rd. commercial
and Lynwood Dr. PCZ-Prezone to CVP. Commercial ViJitor
SCALE: FILE NUMBERS: PCC - Conditional U Ie Permit to onerate a
GPA-94-02. PCZ,94-B fuU lervlce carwub.
NORTH PCC-94-23
.\ .....
........
....
....
....
....
...
<9Nr%TWAThJ2..
~e.
\
- \
-
-
~ ........
....
....
--
-
I
I
--i
..,
~
\
"C"
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~ APPLICANT: Charles Tibbit PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GP A - Amend from om... & residential to
ADDRESS: SW corner of Bonita Rd. commercial
and L)'nwood Dr. PCZ-Prezone to CVP. Commercial Vllitor
SCALE: FILE NUMBERS: PCC - Conditional U Ie Permit to ODerate a
NORTH 1" - 200' GP A-94-0Z, PCZ-94-B fuD lervlce carwuh.
PCC-94-Z3
4!
!i1
w
~ ::E ~
Z ~ ~
w
a: z ~ ::E ~ ~
w :::> ~ ~ !.l ~
w
t-~:;Z 3= ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~
Q .... N ~u ~ E!i
Cl)LU:;~ z . ~~ .... !i ~ ~~
z w- ~~ i~ i ~ I
LUa:O w ~~ w ..
w'"
~~()a. fB ~~ wo f3~ <..> ~~ .......
~N ~~ ;r: u .
~!:1 ~ w ~ ~ if~
.,j z " w _ z~
..; ,.;
on oi
- ~
- !:! ~ ~
-l~""t.'4 r-- ~
....
UJ
J:-'
......
a:<..>
~V)
~
Z
0
- ~
l-
e(
(,)
0
..J ~
I- """"I
(,) =
w
""') """"I
0 ~
a:
~
!:::
50
e:(
w
a:
e:(
z
e:(
~
c...
>-
t::
z
:::>
::2
::2
o
()
a:
w
l-
e:(
~
w
w
~
Cf)
II) UJ
0 :I:--'
""" 1-<
<II a:~
-.J ~~
~
E-4
1-1
~
1-1
~
~
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTIONS
RESQLUTION NO. GPA-94-02 / PCZ-94-B
RESQLUTIQN OF THE CITY QF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSIQN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
CQUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONE
0.67 ACRES LQCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CQRNER OF
BONITA ROAD AND LYNWQQD DRIVE WITHIN THE
UNINCORPQRATED AREA FROM QFFlCE PROFESSIONAL
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TQ
CQMMERCIAL VISITQR AND PREZQNE C-V-P,
CQMMERCIAL VISITQR 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
located at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive in accordance with the
attached City Council resolution and Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESQLVE THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
applicant and the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING CQMMISSION QF 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)
RESQLUTION NO. PCC-94.23
RESOLUTIQN QF THE CITY QF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
CQMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November I, 1994 by Charles Tibbett, and
WHEREAS, said application requested permission to operate a full 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 RESQLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
finds as follows:
I. The nearest full 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 following conditions:
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
!0:00pm Monday through Friday and 8:00am to 10:0Opm 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 or deprive
Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
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 requirements of the City Engineering Department Including
but not limited to the following items:
Construct one half of raised concrete median within QNE 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
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.
Qbtain a grading permit if the exemptions in the Chula Vista Grading
Qrdinance 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,
CALIFQRNIA, this 11th day of May 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NQES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIQNS:
Thomas A. Martin, Chairman
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(f: \home\planning\luis \pcc-9423 . per)
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE
DRAFT RESQLUTIQN NO.
RESQLUTIQN OF THE CITY QF CHULA VISTA CITY CQUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZQNE 0.67 ACRES
LOCA TED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER QF BONITA RQAD AND
L YNWOOD DRIVE WITHIN THE UNINCQRPQRATED AREA FROM
OFFICE CQMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TQ
CQMMERCIAL VISITQR AND PREZONE C-V.P, CQMMERCIAL
VISITQR 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 Qffice 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, THEREFQRE, BE IT RESQLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City
Council, the Council finds that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and
adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS.94-04.
BE IT FURTHER RESQLVED 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\GPA94-02.ccr)
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
AN QRDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
THE ZQNING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION
19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CQDE PREZQNING
THE 0.67 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SQUTHWEST
CQRNER QF BONITA RQAD AND L YNWQQD DRIVE WITHIN THE
UNINCORPQRATED AREA C-V.P, COMMERCIAL VISITQR
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 I, 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 find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
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.
SECTIQN 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
development/zoning. In this case, the 40 ft elevation difference between the subject site
and the souther! y 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.
I. 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 a1cohol, 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 1/2 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.
9. Business identification signs shall be limited to low profile monument type signs,
wall 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 shall be submitted as part of the building permit submittal
package.
11. Land uses in this site shall 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 Qrdinance shall take effect and be in full 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: \homc\planning\luis\gpa-9402 . ceo)
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
I
~~
rP"\\P- \<Op.D
0-pJi'
~~---------
> !~2:
LJJ !"O'
> ~~;a
a:: ;:~~:!-
::;) ~:;..,~
U> f~~
o ...(;,.~
:i: \:;~
c.. i!' e,,~w
<( ~,~i;
a: ~i9S
CJ ~E~~
o };!~
~ !;~.~~
I- ,....
:;:.~~.
r!!l~i!::
:::---.;:
c
o
.
\
, .
. -
,
i
t
.
I
~
g J
.! j:
!:-:
~ i
~~ ~~~
O!>
%
.
~m
~FI
~m
-"
%-
~,
.~
~ ~
l .
[ E~ ~ ~
f.~ ~;~,
_ ~~ ~E 11
~ :1; w'Jii S
..... -" ~!( $
..,,,,~: ~~~ 6 kI !:.;
'(/1:' _~~ ....~ it>
~.;~ ~~'i ~;:: (;;' .
i~~igg ~~.~
!
r ~
~ ~ ~':
i ;;1~
~u ,~t.~
<""m S II
1;;:t=<c " \
...",.;;",j;~:i!' ~fl1
o
%
~
o
~
~
0111 'I'''^'
iirl tlfJ "h
/
l'
~ /
- ~
"
2
~
. ~
:... -- ~
, -
>
I
-I
I
!
1
\
\
'-----_/
.!
'~ ,
0
, lZ'; ,"
\ , !
. .
u
^
0
,
.~
i i:
I <t,
l
~
~
-----
~
~
c
4
~
~
o
q
I;
I
/;
,
/;
,
OIOU~~~ f~=
OC-=.05. l;IOw'l'lJlVJe..~
!:~8i~."" llNoa
HSVM HV~~ .
o
,
I
.
.
~;.
',~
~';~;J
avo..'.;!,.
~:lI!1...
"'.
~:i.~;ji
U"'.
~
. '~ I
;" &i i W
~i A: i
m~ c:! ~ I
I{) C...I,
_ a.
z_
gft
;<1 ~
"
GOi\:!
~~~~
~2~~ .
:;'zh....$
~:5!i~~_
b ~"~j
r- og~~i
Q,. :r."'~2o
is !~~.. .
~ ~b~~~
.~~~~
..J z~8it""
<( ~j:~8F
tB ~:.:~~~
-1 ..."'-
"v".
""'.
'C'v
'b. /
/' /
,/~
/ 'l
/'
>-
~~I
>
~
T
-'~."
12
,,>
,~
/
;~.- .- \ >- -I' - ',' ,- .-----<':
/:"/ y_~ ) __ :1 y~ '1-''':
/. " ~ //~~'---:;,:,
I \ , ./" '.< ,0 ,- ,II,.
/ ," ___<r'o .."~" ' ,/ / "i
. (.( \.. - ....~l" " I I I'
l' "-':::f~I"'~'- "/",, . .' ,;.,'j' ,I
~.... ..;_ .J.,..... ~"p,---' I'
,,?\'lj c:!." lr-.':' ".,. :,r1/ I.: I'.i
i ~'" '~''-i.U .". j,i' )',
" ! '. L.' '. .'; ... II"! :/.-
I .~.
1"",,_ ~,/, i
:;;;ryl f',', ',J.
,; I I
, "
I, / '''<11)1,.
L i ... ,r-
"i~~n
~\;i'
"'{- " \.:.\,,:-
,:\ \ ,i.,~\.i ~-
'~ " \:i~
'*-~\':;": \~',
~~ ...... '" ~
." , I': I
""'::\" \ \ ..."':":.., I
'V, -9~rI.\Y >;~~ ','
......'~r~ t-
, "f "'.
-, ........ "
---:
,
., '
!
r
-....c
.-[-
"
VI
I
\
~,
"--
-
;.1::.
.'
,n
<<
"
, .
~- ~ -:', "
"
"
.
'...J'
'<
f
.
.
~
:I:
ell
~i!i
,'0
a::F
eel
0(.) I
~ l'l5
ee II,
i ~i
0 r.
III
~ f)
0 .. \.
,
,~/ / 0
.r:
I :1
:!
;
':
!
I i
I
o CP
! 3 0 ,
,~
.3.1.;~ J.'
,\
Ii';
'<,~':';<,
....- .
~t.---_.-
V(,;-:-_,-~:
I'i\::::
,".. \~,/
~"', I..;,:
<~? 4!
*~:~
~"c-
:1.-';
\'J
o (8
0;<('
. \,'
~
C.
-,\(;-<.
,
(,
.: .'
--~~~-~
<:
''''
o <8 '7)
(\
f')'5/ /;~'
~t ,.,/_-~,;
>:",/I.j,>
.:ji...,.... ..
;/!,j;:'->..,, ,
I'"~
i..~--':
(
.>)
9 ~/!.
() 7;;' I
.->--i
ltJ
c'
:k'
--c:-
~I'i",,'..~""'_J>(
)!L"!W7;'~'-"-'
\ 1.(
I i
II
I
I
\ \
!
i
-I
01
001
I
1
~ i ' ! J
I i I
, '
/,/.... '
t .j=.F"';;;=~-/~
I!~'JL I' "c;-'-=;-=j'"", \~H .,.
I(~<;:: ,,""c.,' !' ',' ,
': 0 <;;;'" : ,., .:J ,
. ,I""
I -'.':!,\ t \
~ -~'''''~9}'':''i;.'.,'''""-,y,,,- I'
"~..."""..."""'-
'" ,.,.r,' '\
. a.\ .~'-~'- .'
I .f;}' ;~~' ','j',~ - \
_u~_._." ,1l' .' -,~ '
i ~ t; "," \
, : .yJ}
,. . ::::1::--. ..C\ \) \
, -L..ii.(;!... :,-
" --\& ii1
i--
- : \j;f'
HI .~
~I
; t--. ~
,liD'
,,~._,. I ,,oj ~. "..,i..
: j--<. .'
.-'u.j /
q- ^ \
n L / '
~'::-.) .
___nu_--'
I
_.J
I
...J
>-
<(
co
:r::
en
<l
:;
cr:
<(
U
<(
w
'"
<(
-'
~
w
D
,,9+.91
lQ [!,
-'
<(
u
z
<(
I
U
w
::>
.;;-;':::,;~~,i,~\"
_ ":,_,,,,;,~~~:.t-'~-i~,~~
-.:"~'-',~~:',~..
cD
cr:
o
9
LL
oZ
_<l
L...J
::Jo..
~II
~
:c
III
~m
.... RD"
=r
c:c
lif(,J &~
~c( il;
!: I!i
z_
0""
III Ii
~
, oO'~
f) .
z
c
o
o
[J
w
~[f
z
<(
cr
0
L<- \
a
a
cr L<-
a
a
cr
w
.J
f-
CC)
z
<(
---.J
0..
CL
o
o
---.J
LL
o
Z
C\J
..-.-
i "
I
Ic~
il ;:;,:
:~
~. ..
",;~
n;n::' F ' , ~
iLJ,.W ,
\:~'; \,
',.' i
.~;
'X't:;
[]g,"
"
D1
'i,
,\
'--::-:.;...
\~;~--
c
c
~~~v" ,
Pi~E?~-
" ~;
'f;
j;
-
,J
',;'"' "
~\:'
~. .\
'//'
'I'.'
~,i;;
:~Jl
~-,:!\~
r;~~:I'
j;~_!J'
lii,cHi
:;t~~~r
, '~r
:"J)~: -
~'1;1,kt
"'1.\'
,..;;1,
~'~ ..;;-.,
r,~i~i (\i
~,;i);;'
)"}"
i'ld\~ .
'ii Wf '
[EJ
[]
~'- '- , .
[fj
[]
, ,
./1)
i .~
-\ .~
.'-. '.
~,
',I
:!II
J...,!
'11
~. ,I
'~(.Q,
-1')\
,
")\\,,r~
;~r:~:---
/"/'-1' "-
"'II,
cO
'-.,- .~,
..-,.- ~,
(~.; "
=:~~,~
.',J
....
'\&
z
o
~
>
w
-'
W
I
f-
::J
~
'"
~\v
~.~p;,l". f-,;:=-
-, ,,~i ........
,''\'
~;,
~lu:
, .'\"
..- .-h'
,
,
~
"-/!"~--'
~......,:.
-"'.:::r.::~'::'~
'I"
f-
ref
.l'~j'o
--",';';+i
'.. (; i:J
""(3
)...C'
. 'I',
-- '?t;,
~-:cs
,
-..... ~,L.
CI
CfSQ
---~~
~
:~v~
i...::,,"
~
'\
~,~~\ ~f~
=~:o ?ii
~:'~~-. '\JJ
-,.. --:~: '-;f ~
.:l: Q
~:..:r-/ ':.
r-',.,
..--;;- \~\1J
-,.)
""(
t ''-:.._
. --:Y\'
2>,.
: ILl
I, ~,Q
1,1 ("
\. \J
Iii cr,
!,-"
;~~ i~ ) I
lijl '}. ( ,
,
~
,~\ '
~~'(~
I ,f
, ~r~;'
:'~\~~1(1 !
<;::~",:'~'
.};;. .,~
II "
~
cO
-~
(~-
,
~
,
,}-",,"':-,:~'-rr":"i ,
z
Q
\;(
::>
w
-'
W
I
I-
lY
o
Z
----~.,,'.. ,.
" ., ,'.
~;->.~~~~~::=
.,
-.,-,
6
i
-J,
[ill]
BB~:-~
Q)
,
j (if
EJ.1
"
1'1
::"'<'~A
./---"t~
4 --' ----,_
Y'~~
.(' .J/-r~<'.>
~---- -::--_._,;,,-;'~
----.,. ..-./,\
J
,
':,-, c:
, .
,
"
'1:
-,.~. .
.' I
q)
----' ~
z
g
~
LU
d
f-
<11
LU
;::
c
.~
. ,:,:
.."~111
Ii
~
I ~,
~
~
~
:x:
U)
~ :;~'I
== gg~
~~~
...
D::~
< 8
~ (,) ~.
~ ~i~
~ IICC 'of
~ .~~
- SI...i5
Z
o ~g
IX1 ~~
G$)-
I
.
0;-0<2'0& OIOl6'y:J ''o'JSII\'t'TK;I
IJO-OLI'OlS "tjQ a:owm COlt f ~~
I HS;M';'d~ ''';.iINoa ~
msQdC:tl:J
i!~ f .
hi~~i!
.", ~
,
,.
<<
..A'l'>
~
<D
~
~,' If
:niu"
I !I
:1,
.,
\
J
4
<D
~
--!
a.
~
"-
o
z
OJ
'"
~
.
"
,
~~ 't,~ -
-"$,..-.'"
-~ftF:~
. '-;;::t'
--(pi
0,
8-,",,_ %" .~
-".~-
~. ,,11
0"'-
(J ~'V I;
.~~.
~S?~,
O'CI"'f...~'
:/rJi''':-
~~
~~;.~.
O<~ .0
.~;XE~
" ,
.._'~
- -'T~.....i~';,:
:-..:;.,'I;p.
f)'<-v-
,...
O-o'_'!LC..
"t:;
,
~
-
,'"
?f!?-
'!:,'/"
~'*"
~''':~_1.."
.,
I
~
,--~-~--,
IY
'<
aJ
~
,
~
I
U)
~
a:
'"
(J
i
o
.9;91
~
"
'"
~m
... I
..'
" ,I
"m
!:: 9i
z_
~ft '
@
cD
~I~I
~Ic[
INITIAL STUDY
AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
negative
declaration
)
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Car Wash
PROJECT LOCATION: 3048 Bonita Road
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 570-220.30
PROJECT APPUCANT: 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 comer 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 I Imports is located to the north across Bonita Road and ~dministrative, 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 DescriDtion
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 first-floor will
contain the car detailing area, cashic,r, restrooms, 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 ChuIa 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?-
-.-
~..........a:
~
city of chull vlltl pllnnlng depertment em Of
environmental review aecllon CHULA 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 ChuIa 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
floodproofed.
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 righHurn-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. ComDatibilitv with Plans ~nd Zoninl!
The project involves a proposed change of the current City of ChuIa Vista General Plan
designation of "Office Professional Commercial" (Sweetwater Community Plan) to
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.9]:Ref. 1021.93,lan.93)
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 PIan. In July
1989, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Chula Vista General PIan 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 "CommericaI 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 Avenue 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
Page 3
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.93:Rd. 1021.93.1022.93)
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.
m
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. Mandatorv Findinl!s of Sil!nificance
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially 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,IHOME\PLANNING\STOREDII020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 4
~
Noise levels are above current standards for tile area at 66 db and tile increase
created by tile proposed project, .2db, is negligible. As 2.Odb would be considered
a significant impact, tile 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, tile project d oes not have
tile potential to achieve short .term environmental goals to the disadvantage oflong.
term environmental goals.
3. The project bas 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 tile 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, tile proposed
project will not significantly impact air quality, noise levels and traffic in tile project
area. The project will not cause adverse effects to humans, eitller directly or
indirectly.
F. Consultation
I. Individuals and OTl!ani7>1tions
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\l020.91Rcf. I02J .93,1022.93)
Page S
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: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Charles Tibbett
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19. Chula Vista Municioal Code
Uodate of Geotechnical Reoort Bonita Car Wa~h (Reference: Report of Geotechnical
Investigation, Jaric Office Building, Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, Bonita,
California, April 19, 1990)
Addendum to 1990 Environmental Site Assessment Reoort, 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 Reoort For Bonita Car Wash, Darnell & Associates, Inc., Transportation
Planning and Traffic Engineering, January 20, 1994.
Revised Traffic Reoort For Prooosed 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~~~h~~~~~RDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/93)
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 6
APPUCATION CANNOT B. .'\CCEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FQlDED TQ FIT INTO AN 8.1/2 X 11 FQlDER
City of Chula Vista
Applicarlon Form
..
fOfOffice Use 00Iy
if;;.~~~.:~
r~ptNo.72b?'~
.....p.uc. ~'d.;;P- ZI-J?'j'
r~b~ry .
..........~.... ~. )l().:..A-.
pPst.No. .
..ClPNo...i.
T1I~c.c No.
;.,--...,-..,-...:..:...-......,.;-,..-,:-..;...---...:".-
......-.-.. ,""'-"'''' .-....
" .. ___..."d"" '._.
INITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGRO~
1. Project Title BON' TA CA~ kJAsH
2. Project Location (Street address or description)
r~ \-l DLA \ >t~ fA (' A.
.
3D48 E:.oN.ITA 12 C"l.4.D
3.
Assessors Book, Page &. Parcel No.
Brief Project Description FuLL 't:.ER.\J1cE c.4-R.WAS,1-I
wI 'DE. TAIL APc.,;
.
4. Name of Applicant CtJARL..E:c::. TI fb'e::.ETT
Address ~_3t7A,c,;,sACJ4(};"r=: T1S AU6. Fax' Phone (P97-74(_!
City~ MEM State~Zip~
S. Name of Preparer/Agent.5() ~f=
Address690i MAS<;AL!-\USETT<:" Av. Fax' Phone G97-7'<"
City L A Me>;; A State (1,4- Zip 9/%/
Relation to Applicant ~p\r.yP'"
6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental
Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required.
..L General Plan Amendn>ent
..L- RezooelPrezone
_ Grading Permit
_ TeDWive Parcel Map
..L. Site Plan &: Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
~ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Sub<!. Map
_ Redevelopment Aaeucy OPA
_ Redeve"'P'-' Aaerw;y DDA
_ PIIblic Project
..L. ADDexalioo
.L.. Specific Plan
~ Cooditiooal Use Permit
V'
_ anaDCe
_ COISIaI Deve\opm"n~
_ OIlIer Permit
If project is a General Plan Amendment aMJor rezone, please intIi..- die cbanF in designation from
to
b.
Gradin Plan
- g
Parcel Map
- Precise Plan
= SpecifIC Plan
Traffic Impact Report
:z Hazardous Waste Assessment
Enclosures or documents (u required by die Environmental Review Coordinator).
_ AR:b. ElevaliOllS ~ HydroIopcal Study
_ ,........,.. Plans _ Biological Study
_ Telltative Sub<!. Map _ ArcbaeoIogical Study
_ Improvemeut Plans _ Noise A__t
Soils Report _ OIlIer Ap1l:y Permit
I Geotechnical Repro OIlIer
...
PI&e 1
WPC~02I.AJ3 (101.1_93) (lot 11IIU3)
B. "ROPOSED PROJECT
1.
2.
M
3.
L
Land Area: square footage ~ or acreage o. ~o5 k.
If land area to be dedicated, stile acreage IIId pmpose.
b. Does the project involve the consttuction of new buildings, or wiD aisting structure be
ntiIi7...t? NE.\....\ rf")~c.."Ict.J
Complete Ibis seaion if project is residential or mixed use.
L Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
_ Townhouse _ CondominilDl1
b. Total nlDl1ber of structures
c. MaximIDl1 height of suuctures
d. NlDI1ber of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
',,- 4 bedroom
"'-,"-. Total Units
e. Gross density (Du4otal acres)
f. Net density (DU/total' acres minus any dedication)
'.
g. Estimated project population.
h. Estimated sale or rental price rill18/:
i. Square footage of structUre '
"-
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or striIc$ures
,
k. NlDI1ber of on-site parking spaces to be provided.
"
l. Percent of site in road and paved surface "
'.
,
Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
L Type(s) of land use ('~M~ r.lA L rA~
b. Floor area II B 5 Height of suuctures(s) ~O
c. Type of COIIS1rUCtion used in the IUUCIU1'e
...J2fi=, c....~ .
'1Z"
d.
Describe major ICCeSS points to die suuctures IIId die OI:.....Minot to Idjoinin& ~s
~~~~::< ~,;~~~~tt~.~ U~~:Jd~~Jt.
~ofn:: ==:'0=:= ~ ~ 'bt~:i~,\~4:~:a'~~ ;~:~e
NlDI1ber of shifts I Total A
Estimated nlDl1ber _of customers ~ day) IIId buis of estim8te \ '2. ~
_~~:\D~ I">n +r",~tc ~Inl,,} ~rvl.priU' '"'~ ~n()'llL
e.
f.
g.
.... :2
MC,':lIIJMlliI'IANNII<<NTORElJ,U12I..u! (lot 11120.") (lot IcmJI3)
h.
i.
j.
t.
l
;? /MotUI-\
,
6- t'W\:\~
Estimated number of deliveries per day .0 C;
Estimated range of service area IIId basis of eaimaIc
'b~<-o,l r'Jt'\. ~o'tl'lc:...(A.W'tI2f C~,t.?Y"~~
.
Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings ~c..l.~U11\N(~
_"t:>R-YI N~ C~ l'A-l2c:.....
Hours of operation _8 : 00 A~4-c> (0: ?11
Type of exterior lighting ~"\ ~LD E b ~ J'\
r~J.~ uc.....~
t")~ (IAI?c:.....
,
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this leCtion.
)-\~6. L Type of project
1 oJ, :.
b.
Type of facilities provided
c.
d.
Square feet of enclosed structures
Height of strUcnue(s) - maximum ~
Ultimate occupancy load of project
Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
Square feet of road and paved surfaces
Additional project characteristics
e.
f.
g.
h.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. Will the project be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)?
~O
2. Is MY type of grading or excavation of the p.opetty anticipated? ---Y,E. S
If yes. complete the following:
L Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
Coo -4-0 IDoC-V ~a~ + I.()O do( ArrFS<; L,(~
b.How many cubic yards offill will be placed? ~ ICD:;>/"") Co\(.
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? . S .;Iv-, <.
d. What will be the: Maximum cIepch of cut (0'
Average depth of cut 2.'
Maximum depth of fill 3'
Average depth of fill 2.'
.... 3
wpc~D2I..u3 (lot 1~)(Iot 1G2293)
3.
4.
Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning, electrical applilnl::e. belting equipment. etc.)
A\~ C'DNt)\"'f',O\1)K.("'! ) f') ~~~~:c.!:i\ \'v\1I~,", n..- (\Af'I.J~~
JrdV-* the 1m000t of DIIUIal open sp:e that is part of the pro~ (sq. ft. m .:res)
e>,k. ~n ~p'i\r P t~e. u~ Anrl.JdrJc.'Q~J --. 5u.'2.0 ~,1=".
5.
If... po;.a WW....... "'" r ~ -...... -.....,.. 6.:t
~p~:~) ~~n~k.: ~~~ . ~~ I""~ n\a~ J "'~p
6.
Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or IUbstances be used or stored within
the project site? -.No
7.
How many estimated automobile ttips, per day, will be gea....ated by the project? _.~I
-=I~
8.
Describe (if any) off-site improvements ~ary to implement the project, and their points of
access or COMection to the project site. Improvements inclUde but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, II1d sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. C...rb ~1I+kr- II~L- ~>I ~ik. I :Jr'14> ("'~
hi iI" . ~
~t"I', ,?,J A 1fT &I::? K.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETIING
1. Geolo~
Has a geology study been conducted on the 9'Operty? ~~
(If yes. please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made? YE~
(If yes, pIase attach)
2. Hvdrolo~
Ale any of the following features present on m adjacent to the site? ""yES
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground wa1er table? ~O
.... 4
~02I..u3(W.J_!I3)(WIOZ2.!I3)
b. Aze there any watercourses or drainage improvemmts on or adjacent to the site?
'IE'S J FLOOD C!..O}.\"TR.CL ~"A~L
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply,
lake. JeSeTVoir or bay? - ~O 1=1 fY\!:) c..'-I.Ml.NEl
d. CouJd drainage from the site cause erosion or liJwion to adjacent _?
Ml>r U~F-LT"
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided IIId their 100000on.
....2.i.-h>, "",t':::>IM'\I'\D ~ (I~A, w! E~""T\N~ A.~t1 'E,..~tlrTtl"t.
N.U. e.~~ DF ~,~.
3. Noise
L Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may "-- the PIOicct site?
.b)o .
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-
family JeSidenc:es)? .J:JO
4. Biolo2\'
d.
Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation'? NO
Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Nn - 'PAR.T 1 AL~
If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No X' (Please attach a copy.)
Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate locaIion. height, diameter, and
species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 'C'\~e h ::IJ
bLLr\ p.r"v;(').AF-.~ c.\~::Ired t-..\n ~lC"" dQD:.J-1lf-,n-.
L
b.
c.
5. Past Use of the Land *,~E.E. ~"'\lIRoNt.\e:t{TAL ~ITE: A"';.c,.E..'::.~I"tD'-IT
a. Are there any known historical or ucheological resources located on or near the project
site? NoO
b. Aze there any known paleontological resources'? ..N 0
c. Have there been any buardous materials disposed of or stored on (II' near the project site?
~O
d. What was the land previously used for'1 ~,F. R. .
wpc~02I-""'(w 102D.93)(W 11122.93)
PI&e S
6. Current Land Use
L Describe all strUCt\I1'CS II1d land Uses cumntly existing 011 the project site.
e.......\c...~Wl4 t>D~U';\"'h 11':2\' ,=,~,l h.~~~lA.rJ.:~.-t-iDy'\
. CJ
~n C_u.a,,,,-\- Uc;....C_
b. Describe all stnICtUI'eS IIId land uses cumntly existing OIIldjacent JDup<a1Y.
North ~I..\ 'P\El?J.. ~ph:\
.- il~~
East ~o ~ ~ ~^\ \
West 'FLoC~ fO\ ~hM\'\~\ . ~JJ'(. Bee:>
,
7. Social
L Axe there lilY taidcnts 011 site? ~O If 10, how 1IWIy?
b. Axe there lilY current employment ~ 011 site? ~D
If so. how IIWIY and what type?
8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
111E. C.AR WA~H WILL RE..C.LAIYI Q'5% of: I.l1LT~~ 1~<.Fi\
.lli THE.. kI~HIN~ OF- (lA-f<.<". J2n.1~ Q.~R..<... f'E1<. "OIAR. S.r...
'ExvEc:. "T"F':f') W!-\\c..H A\JER.A~e-<.. APERrYi.i Mi1A-TCl...y' '(1 A-J2
FXITINb:j E.v~y .,. fvtJ1:JUTt5
~D1I.,U3(W.ID2D.II3)(W.Itm93)
"'6
E. CERTIFICATION
I. . owner/owner in escrow.
.c.B!LLE""-. \2. \I~~TT
Print name
or
I. c:oosultant 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 information 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.
d~f fl~P
Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature
or
Coasuhant or Agent SisJIature
2 -2-7- ?J
Dale
.If ICting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
~1W...u.s(lol. 111>>.")(101. 10229J)
"'7
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
NameofAppticanc CHARLES I. p..,BF To
Address:.3QOi MA~~Ac..~O~e:..,.'T< AJ.
City: LA M SSA S- DA
Name at Authorized Repaeatalive (If IipaalDrY):
Address:
City SIIIe
~t Dale:
DepoIit Amount /NY')---
TbiI ~t (" .....DCI/lellt") bm._ the City at 0IuIa Vista,. ct-...ed mllllici&* corporation ("aty")
aDd the ftnnamed applicant for III Initia1 SIudy ("Applicant"), effective .. of the ~ DIIc - bth above,
is __ with mcnnce to the foI1owina fat1s:
PbDIIe (gl'l IDcr., - 7~ Gor
Zip q I'\~ \
PbDIIe
Zip
WIIcn:Is, the Applicant bas appUed to the City for III Initia1 SIudy at the type .c......dlftllCed ("Initial
Study") which the City has required to be obtained IS . condition to pemUaml the AppIic~t to develop · pucel
atp~; and,
Wberas, the City wiI1 incur apenacs in order to procell Aid Initia1 SIudy throush the YIrious depnncnts
aDd before the VIrious boards and commissions of the City ("Processinl Services"); and,
WIIcn:Is, the purpose of this qrecment is to nimbune the aty far an eqJeIIIeS it wiI1 incur in connecUoo
with providing the Processing Services;
Now, therefore. the parties do heRby qree. in eEhange for the mutual promises heRin contained. IS
follows:
L Appticant's Duty to Pay.
The AppUcant sha1I pay all of the aty', apenacs incurred in providinl Proc:asing Service Je1ated to
applicant's Initial Study, includinl all of the City', clinlc:t and overhead COllI reIaIed thereto. 'Ibis duty of
the Applicant shaI1 be mened to herein IS the "Appticant', Duty to Pay,"
A. App1icant's Deposit Duty
As partia1 performance of the AppIi""IIt', Duty to Pay, the Applicant shaI1 deposit the amount
aforereferenced ("Deposit"),
1. The City IlIaD cIIIqe ita lawful apenaeI D-...d ill po.idina ~., Services
apinst the AppIiI:ant', DepoIiL If. after the coac1U1ion al P' '''1 the Applicant's
Initial SIudy, lilY portion al the DepoIiI ,...w..., die City shaI1 .... Aid bIJance to the
Appticant without inIerat tbseon. If, durinl the JI"'!' -"I al the AppI;,o.qt', Initia1
SIudy, the amount al the DepoIit IIeooma ew........... or islmmineady likely 10 become
ew....-... in the opinion al the City.aponllOtil:e al_ by the City. the AppIV-It sha1I
forthwith provide such additional depoIit .. the City shaI1 -.1- .. reIIOIIIbly
Me 1 to continue to provide J'),), '''1 ScrviceI. 'I1Ie duty al die AppInnt to
iaitiaDy depoIit and to .............Aid depoIit .. IIInin .......d shaI1 be blown IS the
"Applito....., DepoIit Duty".
n. City', Duty
The City shaI1, upon the condition that the App1ican1 is not in IIrach al the Applicant', Duty to Pay or the
Appliclnt', Deposit Duty. '* aoocJ faith to provide pm [ = 1 ''11 aervites in JeIaDon to the Applicant', Initial
Study applic:atioo.
~021..u3 (W.llaD.lI!)(W.llm.ll!)
.
.... 8
A. The City sbaI1 have 110 liability hcrcundea" 10 the AppIicIIIt for the failure III JIIOCCIS the Applicant's
Initial Study appIicaIion, or for failure to JIIOCCIS the Applicant's IIIi1iaI Study within the time
frame requested by die Applicant or eIIirnaIed by the City.
B. By execu1ion ol this ..-.-t, the Applicant sbaI1 haw 110 riJht to direct or odIcrwiJe influence
die conduct or the IIIi1iaI SIudy for which the IppIicMt 11M IppIied. The Cily sbaI1 use its
diICI'eIion in eVlluaDngdle AppIicant',1IIi1iaI SIudy lPP'ir"v.. widIout reprd to die Applicant's
promise to pay for die ProceIIing SeniI:ca, or die ~ecvMn. oldie Ap'eancnL
m. ltemedies
A. Suspension ol Procasina
III addition III all other ripIts 8IId nmedieI which die City IhaII odIerwUe haw . law or equily,
die Cily has die riJht to .-pend lIrdIor wilhbold die I"~g oldie IIIi1iaI Study which is the
IUbject III8Itcr of this Apeement, . weI1 . die Initial Study which may be die IUbject III8IIU of
..y other Pamit which Applicant has beflR die Cily.
B. Civil Co1Jection
In additioo to all other rights 8IId remedies which the City sbaI1 0Iherwi8e have all law or equily,
the Cily has the right 10 collect all sums which are or may become due hemmder by civil action,
and upon instiwtinglitiplion 10 co11ect same, die prevailing party sbaI1 be entitled to reuonable
lIIOmey's fees had costs.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or penniaed III be given punuanllII this Aareement
must be in writing. All nocices, demands 8IId requests to be IIIIt to ...y party sbaI1 be deemed 10
have been poperly given or IeI'Vod if pasona1ly IeI'Vod or deposited in the United Slates mail,
IIIdressed 10 such party, postaae prepaid, repstered or ceI1ified. with rdUm receipt requested, at
the addresses identifJed IdjacentlO die IiJnatures oldie panies ~
B. Governing LawlVenue
This Agreement sha1I be govcmed by 8IId COOSIrUed in accmIance with the Laws of die State of
Califmlia. Any ICIion lrising under or nIaIing 10 this ApecmenI sbaI1 be brought only in the
federal or IIate COUI1S JocaIed in s.n Diego CoIInIy, Stale of California, 8IId if IIpPIic8ble, die Cily
ol Chula Vista, or . cIoIe thereto 15 pOlSible. Venue for this ...--t, IIId performance
hcrcundea", sbaI1 be die Cily of OIuIa Villa.
C. Multiple SignUOries
If there are multiple signatories to this tp'OeIIIoIIIt 01\ behalf of Applicant, .m of such IignItories
sbaI1 be jointly and smnI1y lYbIe for die performance of Applicant', dudes IIaein set forth.
D. SipIIIory AuIboriIy
The signatory III this ..,iDeIIIeIIt h=by WlllallllIIId ."t'"-* that it is die duly delipl8ted ..ent
for die Applicantllld has been duly IIIIhorized by die Applicant to nerule this Apeement 00
behalf of die ApplicanL Signatory sbaI1 be penona11y liable for App1icInt', Duty III Pay IIId
Applicant's Duly 10 Deposit in die event it.... nOt been IUIhorized lII.eucute this Apeemenl by
die ApplicanL
WC~02I..uJ(W InJJS)(W 11IZ/.93)
PIce 9
E. Hold HarmJess
Applicant IIIaIJ defend. indIImnify IIId IIDId '-"less die City, lis deI:Ied IIId IpIIOinIlCd oftk:en
-' anployees. from and .... .u cIIIims for dImapI, liability, COlt IIId apenIC ('meluding
without limitation 1ItOmeyS' feea) lrisinl out of jIIOC ''11 AppIiI:ut'. JniIiaI Study, accpt only
for those claims lrisinl from die IDle neaJilence or IDle wIDfuI CCJII'&1'1 of die City, incumd by
die City, lis ofticcn. ....15, or ~ in defendinl ...... IUCII c:IIimI. wIIetbcr die lIII1Ie
proceed ID judgement or not. JIarther, the Applu-u. . lis OWl! apeIIIC, 1hII1, apon written
IIIqUCSt by die City, defend lilY auc:b IUIt or ICIion 1Jmu&ht Ipinst die City. ill ofticcn. lIents,
or employees. AppJant'. iademni6::IIion ol tile City IhII1 be limited by I6I'J prior or lIIb8equent
decIIntion by die AppIiI:uL
F. Adminilhtive CIIimI......-.. IIId l'IocedInI.
No IUit or aJbiIration IbaIl be bIought Iriaing out of Ibis... ............. tile City .... . claim
.... first been ~ in wriIina IIId filed willi tile City of 0IuIa Villa and &:led upon by die
City of OIuIa Villa in ICCOIdance willi die pI..-II.ea let forth .. ~ 1.304 of die CbuIa Villa
Municipal Code. _ lIII1Ie may from time ID time be IIIICnCIed, die ...v.iaions of wbich are
Ir~ by die refamc:e _ if 6IIIy .. fonh herein, IIId aach p:IIjciea IIId pnx:eduIea IIICd by
die City in die implementation of _. Upon request by die City. die Applicant ahaII meet and
confer in lood faith with die City for die purpoIIC of raoIvinl any diapute OWl" die wms of this
. Ap'eernenL
Now, therefore. the parties hereto. havinl read and undersIood die tams and c:ondiDonI of Ibis apeement,
do hereby ~ their consent ID the wms beRof by lettinll their Iud hereto on die dale .. forth adjII:ent thereIo.
City
City of ChuIa Vista
7:76 Fourth Avenue
OIuIa l!'t:L1910
By: I
C/L~
Dilled: $. - '2 '1' - "7..3
Applicant (or authorized representative)
By;
By;
Dilled:
~02I_(I& 1_")(1& 1tm.P3) .
...... 10
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
SIIIemCIII 01 diJcJasure 01 certain _"kip inIeres1s, payments, or CllllpliJII contributions, m III matters which
wiD require dioowctiu.wy am m the p8It 01 the City Council. PIannin& CannUaion. _III other olfk:iI1 bodies.
Tbe following infonnation must be diIcl~
I. Lilt the _ 01111 JIII10III have. Ii...,..-;" inIaaI ill the ....act. i.e., .....~, .........-.100, IIIIIaiaI
IIIppliez.
C~QLE~ 12. T\~ _ f...L)1<:' M~t?r;.PA} ?At)L D. tJ'IAt'.,)"J""T~'~A
U' ~
rrIA"''''I~ A MA(-.\Jt1'TT(:)
2. If any perPI identified __I to (I) abIM is . COI.....~ or a-.......oi{I. lilt the - 01111
iDdividua1s OWDing more than 100. 01 the IhIres ill the COI.....Mion or OWDing any I*tbw".ip in\a'eSl in
the pOIenhip. ~. s-i,
CHAR.l.ES e. \1~'i!>E'T'T , . \ nl"io. MD""F.RA"} 'PAOL D M.Ar,"'i,.,rT~,
fvJA1lLl'lJ'=- A (V'Ar,)..J/),-,-/"'). 2'6~ ~'
3. If ..y person identified pursuanl to (I) Ibove is --..001 arpnization or . InIIt, lilt the names of lilY
person serving IS director of the non-profil orpnizIItion or IS InISIee or beneficiary or InISIee of the trust.
'- .
4. Have you had more \ban S2S0 worth of ~ transaeted with any membu of the City 1Iaff. BaIrds.
Commissions, Commiaces and Council within the JIISI twelve monlhs?
- N()
S. PJeasc identify each and every person, including ..y aaents. employees. consultants or independent
c:ontnIClorS who you have uoipwl In ~I you before the City in this matte!:
6. Have you and/Or )'1M' officers or agents. in the aggregate, contributed more \ban SI.000 10 . Council
membu in the CQI1'eftI or preceding eJection period? Yes [ ] No N If yes, IIaIe which Council
membel(s):
....ilder....: .,..,iDdMdaI1.finDtOD r-'-IIUp,joiII.-e. J . ;.........,'--1-- ...--..... . ~....
...., .,..in' ........y..~, ciIy...-y. ciIy. -''if 'icy,...... .....pa1iIioII-'-'.... ...............
.. .tIII....... _L-
(NOI'I: AI&Ida -..:a:aaI ..... .. ........,)
dLf t:tu
SilJllllft 01 c:ontract<</appUcanI
~: '9- Z,1-1}
c.H~LEs TI~~EJT
Prinl or type DIllIe of con\l'8ClOl'/appIicanI
~~011.A." (W.1aJ.f3)(W.IIIZ233)
....11
APPENDIX m
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I. Curnnt Zonin. on site: C-30 Commercial (County of San Die.o Zonin.)
North: CC
South: R.I
East: CO
West: ODen SDace
Does the project confonn to the current zoning? No. Once the Droiect site is annexed. it will confonn to
the current zonin. for the City of Chula Vista.
II. General Plan land use designation on site: Office. Professional Commercial
North: Retail & Service Commercial
South: Sin.le-Familv Residential
East: Administrative. Office & Professional
West: Flood Control Channel
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes. Once the nroiect is annexed
and a .eneral 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 Chuta Vista General Plan Use DialZl'am.
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? .1!
flood control channel is located west of the Drooosed 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 olan Drocess reQuires a landscaDe buffer and 2uidelines for the orientation of the buildin..
which will orotect the scenic Quality of the route.
Ill. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Not applicable
Units Pronosed
Generating
Factors
Students
Generated f!m!l
Proiect
School
Caoacitv
Emollment
Elementary
Junior High
Senior High
.30
.29
.10
IV. Remarks: The nrooosed nroiect will be in confonnance with Chula Vista zonin2 and .eneral Dlan desil!l18lion
once the site is annexed and a 2cncra1 olan amendment and rezone is 8DDI'oved.
~ ~n, ~I fie-A j) ~~ )
Director f Planning or Represen tive "
~ . OJ. Ie, '7 "I
Date
Background
Case No. IS 94.()4
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.()4
Environmental Impacts
1.
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
m MAYBE NO
a.
b.
c.
Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures?
o
o
.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
.
o
o
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
.
Comments :
The project applicant submitted a Soils Report that was written in 1990. The Engineering
Department required an updated report. The UDdate of r"",tP.c.hniCJI) Reoort-Bonita Car Wash was
completed in November 1993 and submitted to the planning and Engineering Departments 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 department 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.
2.
Air. Will the proposal result in:
ill MAYBE !ill
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
o
o
.
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
o
o
.
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).
WPC F,IHOMEIPLANNINGISTOREDII020.9Ud. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 2
3. Water. Will the Proposal result in: ~ MAYBE :ill
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 .
i. 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\l020.9XRcf. 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: ~ MAYBE Jill
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)? D D .
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? D D .
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? D D .
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? D D .
Comments:
The proposed site had been previously cleared and no sensitive vegetation exists. Since vegetation
is non~xistent, the proposed project will not significantly impact any sensitive plant species.
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
~ 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)?
D
D
.
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
D
D
.
c.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
D
D
.
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
D
D
.
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:
~ MAYBE 1ill
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
D
D
.
.
Page 4
WPC F,IHOME\PLANNINGISTORED\1020.93;IW. 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 bas 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?
~ MAYBE MQ
. 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 minimi7.e 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
bas stated that 9S % 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:
~ MAYBE MQ
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
WPC F,IHOMEIPLANNINGISTORED\l020.9XRcf. 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.
II.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population or an area?
~ MAYBE NQ
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?
llS. 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 come 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: llS. MAYBE rID
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 .
WPC F,IHOMEIPI.ANNING\STOREDIl020.9XR<f. 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 Lynwood Drive entrance should be widened from 24' to 28' for ease of use.
The requirement for a righHum~nly 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:
~ 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 in 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.
WPC F,IHOME\PLANNINGISTORED\I020.9Xlltf. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 7
IS.
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
~ 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?
~ MAYBE ~
o 0 .
Comments:
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
A. FirelEMS
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
1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and m~intsl;n 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~nIy sign on Bonita should alleviate this concern.
Page 8
WPC F,IHOMEIPLANNINGISroREDIl020._r. 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 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials 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 Avenue 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 acres/I,OOO 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 PIan(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
WPC F.\HOME\PLANNINGISTORED\1020.9J:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 9
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:
~ MAYBE 1ill
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
.
Page to
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.9IRef. 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 the project will impact health.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: ns. MAYBE NQ
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 ~ MAYBE NO
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? 0 0 .
Comments:
The project site is not residential and does not impact recreational opportunities.
20. Cultural Resources. ~ 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.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93) Pagell
Paleontological Resources. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of paleontological
resources?
21.
~ MAYBE ISQ
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed site is in a developed area and there is no evidence of any paleontological resources.
22.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
~ MAYBE lSQ
a.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animaI 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?
o
o
.
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 shorHerm
impact on the environment is one which occurs in
a relatively brief, definitive period of time,
while long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
o
o
.
Comments :
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.
Page 12
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.93:Ref. 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.
Page 13
WPC F,IHOME\PLANNINGISTOREDII020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93)
Mitigation Measures
(To be completed by the Applicant)
I, as owner/owner 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 EIR
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. I fmd 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 ~'-d~~~ ~/ }
Environmen Revie Coord tor -'
~Jd/'1'f
I .
Date
'If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
WPC F;\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 14
Case No. 15-94.14
APPENDIX II
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 potentiaIly impact wildlife, individually or
cumulatively and therefore fee in accordance with Section 7I 1.4 (d) of the Pish and
Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk.
'-7'3 j~ <</ ~ 1 /? 'i~ -</ )
Environmenta Review oordinator
a.le). /<1 '-I
.
Date
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\10lO.9~f. 102J .93.1022.93)
Page 15
ROUTING FORM
D~E: September 1, 1993
ro: . bn Le~n, 8uildin'1 6 Iiousin~
~ohn Lippitt, En~ineerin~ (EIR only)
Cliff S~anson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenber~, Engineering (EIR only)
.-ager Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIRI2)
~ichard Rudolf, Assista:Jt City Attorney (EIR only)
€rOl Gove, Fire Departll.ant
rty Schmidt, Park. ~ S.creation
.rime Prevention, Poli~ Department
rrent Plannin~
......d..m 11.......rd, Advance Flannin~ ):::c;0 i.EL
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School Di.trict, Xate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS' EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM:
Douq Reid
____Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS- 94-04IFA-~/DQ-035 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____IDP)
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 Dri/e.
Plea.. review the document and forward to me any comment. you bave
by 9/10/93
Comments:
.
~-> ~a--
ROUTING FORM
F,rr.-;.. '.,
-. -. \.- ~ ~ ~
D,:rE:
~~
c..; ,
E~~.~:.:,-. ."
Ken Larson, Building ~ Housing
John Lippitt, ZlIgineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Bngineering (BIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Bngineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Bngineering (IS/3, BIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (BIR 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, !rom Silva (IS &. EIR)
Hauree]) Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
~:RO : ..,
-fV
SUBJECT:
~~ ~o :o-~
Environmental Section
,
Application for Initial Study (IS-j1:Qt/FA-~DO~ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP )
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR--l
The Project consists of:
Location:
Pleas, riVi!/, the docume])t and ronrard to .. any cOJ/llll8nts you bave
by, I~ ~ 'If . .
COJlllllents:
~.?tJ 'i:-'
) 19.;
'()./ ~,
q.
It.
~~'\
ROUTING FORM
D~E: September 1, 1993
,
ro:
Xen Larson, Building , Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (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 ~lanning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School~tri~t-"..K4t.e .8hursCl])
l- sw~etwater UnIon H .~:-1)lstrIct 2'om Silva (IS' EIR) .
aureen , y (FIna
Other
-
"0
r-
~
"-
(EIR onlY:)"
(,; ~--;
,..... w
:f!
...-' -..
r',
F-=
-
''''>
W
FROH:
Doua Reid
____Environmental Section
SUB.7EC'I': Application for Initial Study, (IS- 94-04IFA-~/DO-035 )
Check print Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DO )
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 annexatio.
Location:
3048 Bonita Roao (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood Drive.
Pl.... r.view the document and forward to .e .ny comm.nt. you have
by 9/10/93
Comm.nts:
~"*-'" ~ ..r 1Ite ~__....""" "uTE" P;" I.- ~,;,- ~,A,c ~
~__I)r lW":~. ~'r~. .
-=- /~ ..,.~. ({..11'$~
- -
!
~ .....-.
.. -
MEMQRANDUM
. DEC29 1993
J ....,' '~ .. ~
......j.,i.:I
December 16, 1993
File' ZA-OSO
FROM:
{- Duane Rt."._I. pl.nnil1i Department -rI
Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works D'
City EDgineer
WillJom UIJri<h, ..... Civil ~d61
Harold Rosenberg, Traffic EDg'
Request for Zone Change to Construct a Car Wash at 3048 Bonita Road
(PLZ-948)
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
The Public Works Department has reviewed the .ubject proposa1. We do DOt propose the
iDclusion 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 iDclude, but DOt 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 periUmed in the atreet riaht-of-way.
JP:ab
cc: Ken Lee, pl.nn1na Department
CI'-~JP)
MEMORANDUM
November 2, 1993
File No. YS-577
TO:
Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Roger L. Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer (AJ1
I
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 vn 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.
KP Alkpa
cc: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
IF''IIOME\ENGJNEERIADVPLANIys..'77.001)
(
I
RECEIVED
NOV 1 0 1993
YS -5-17 ~W~
~~~~
PLANNiNG
ROUTING FORM
D~E: No~E/Z.. 10) ("t13
~,PO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
I' 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. DiosdadC?~
CUrrent Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning :.1
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect (~
Bob Leiter, Planning Director . ,
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shur~ ' .
SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Haureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
IV: ~:
.
/3P ~.h~ R.-<~ ,
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application ror Initial Study (Is-gg,fFA...h3SjDQ 'b~)
Checkprint Drart EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review or Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-----J
The Project consists
or.'- L..,",_
. rv(..1... ~VfGE Got..L ~H Wtnt ~tc.."".IEf,.'tOFF'at
AIJ.'P UifJ1,JU. "THE. 'PtZD:Ttu:rW(<-L- 1",G4..~ 'I'IZE"Zeo-II1-IG,
"'Nt:> ~1E"""""tcrJ .
30'"fB ~1"30. f'~t> (~WGc>1'" 6...l,.".. t?-.t:> ~/..Yl>{,," ~~~
Location:
1<6"VI~D ~(.,.-e: ?LAJ.
Please r;"vi,ew the document and forward to me any comments you have
by /ll{o .
, ,
(
Comments: ~N'(toJUr<-t~ PI\IIo<;.rDfJ F.I:~ "f'I.VIt1AU; Pr~R::te- TJ.fE-
t<'E:v~ ~-n:; ft#J WIT)( 12E:~,"r "T'!> "T'HE ~N~~""'(;. DIVI.stooJ
~FbtJ$~ PoL TIffE. ~(&-I~ >fi'l!i. ff;.NJ. AIlE 1l:>l!:NT7F(E:P> ~ A
c.'~ A~t;> T1-fe- QUE=SnOlJ/ iTEM N(.)M~.
YS-:-'577
Case No.rS-"t't-()l-f ~ISEp
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
I. Drainasze
A. Is the project site within a flood plain? Ye.;.
If so, SWe which FEMA Roadway Frequency BoundaIY.lco~.A.JI!'. IT' I.;....rlr 1(..-. tI' lV~r
/ C~EI.
B. it nfl~o~af~~ ~W~rtn~ ageCYacilities? <,~~.... p ,..,w
""t:J...TIla......,....,....R.h 'n> fZ./GE ~..........y^... '''''-IL WNIt:.H f~ luAAr....~,...L"" IAl~JI.)r:: me.
.
~....--b fIIIaoo...""nI:/_~ ~~.
C. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~.
If not, please explain briefly. '1'rE.- ~PE&oIF/C. .........,...,- IMPaDVIi......,~ W'I.L.. .,
I2i:"<;'JljQtn.
D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? 1l.1~ r.....-.....'
~~-&IL "'UI(;j,I 'J:)r~n'" -- "T& -r"UI!: ~A""'L ttiVEL CUd..tJI.JJJ:'l..
,
E.
O~ THE
Are they adequate to serve the project? fJ/).
If nOI, please explain briefly. "..,..,,.....-.,LIA.,.,...~...~ rAPAL-lT'f ,t-J liLJ.d':: ~~v..or.I l:,fr~E."
, ~l!GTt"1>J
/6 bur! 1'I2IA.Uft'LV Tb t::a!:>WAl~LU: ".....&.,,"')' L!..~/AlT'C. -Ml 'f"t.II:! tJlhAIIPJf1~ ^
.sWeE.TWAT~~ tl'''~2 AIJ.CJ A""~ Ct:Jf.lR..uGlo.lr.x 6-=T'U~ ~~I-A...-r.=D <<'UP'p AAb
1Z-(GE ~VC>N G.~6EIC.. ~e: ~IT'Y po"P' tr,..!. N!I! ~~""L ''''5<J~ ...~~
Trans!Jo~~on"'''' CF'iGNI'I1oY II4I'ACT'U) '!IY' TI+t!. PI2of:t>seo 'ftt>,ni"',.... '
n.
~!~'? A.
B.
What roads provide primary access to the project? ~...('IIt ~~
What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
Qat'.> Ar7r APPb-.tl.~~-r"I#.J V ~" "1= Wlllu.t ~1lE.. "'-"I~~':'n -'~pl!l.,! "71I2Jps.
.
"""'~---~J#. T'JII! ~'liil':) PJ&7A'T"1:='/'r I~ ~-==-,.,....:-P""Jo ~ ~_ft,/j"" ~I .ArPJrxrtq:~
.
C. What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the prinwy access roads before and?eoAl1r.
after project completion?
Street Name Before After
-',"GIr ~ &14 ~~ 44-I.7br>
, ~
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (LO.S.) "C" design ADT
volume? If yes, please specify. YE'!;. u...r....~ TAUVEt- 't1MI!. c;:;.ufl!.W:~ 11.1 (q<fz.
.
'NDI:&.A~,., T)M..or a,...,.,rF'Z. ~ 'AI TIlE. Vtr...6..1TV '-#-nfE <CII~SE:b ~TF'~
CIr.~"~~S ~r L.OS, "])"bU~ t.tb a..-~It ~ -rwr., ~..c.. hl.Jaau: T1-fE. ~I'..
PI1JClAP of,.... ~y, Wf.(//;(o( CoMp""tJs WITH 'TJ(If. C rry!s LoS 'nfPF~(I(;y,.. ~p.
~IIIOMN1ANNINGISTOREIN022.93 (Ref. I02U3) (Ref. 10:10.93) Pile 2
. .
.D.
F.
YG -577
Case No. ~"'Jf<l-Oc.{ ~vr~
H the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable. explain briefly.
tJh..
.
E.
Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? 1In .
.
H not, pJease explain brief1y.~mL.. e....'D b- E:~ U'"'" M~E""" "P'LA1(bJ.("""'~ ~:J~)
~m-.c.. IVITJt 1?....~.r'f1) &>.A.pw....y ;<~~~I'r'V_ H.o.W~L 4(T"YT'UD"'f'H4.0
.
AND ~~~I"~ ~-~ AI2'L c.o"'af:..,..,..yU~.
Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent 10/,
. h ... f h . .? ~TIi./~~OF ~""'RE>1"""''&A.
or Ul t e Vlcuuty 0 t e project Site. ~. .."" 1m. ~LY&lLlbJu-.. DI!.. IS CJbAlTl&oMJ ~~ -Y"l'1+S
H id if Lac. L ~TY(:IF ~ Pre~o."'p^"t'.ANT",.ct$f"'~"""""';-
so, ent y: atlon ~ ~-"'~_I-V IAJlrw "LY'~ .......,b..ol:.-...;.:Lr"" .E'1tJrQE_
Cumulative L.O.S. ~ M/U.t~ F#(L 'THe IHfY'~'-'f'1"'" ,
,
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 (TIA) 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 X No
The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
@
Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of
the proposed project? X Yes No
H yes, please describe. WI~/I,J'" ~ flOlollT'Jll ...~ N....1.o(; TJH;;. -.~
r:12A1.'~ . Alo ' ~~ ~s. ~TD An...I ,,....A ~h .:2J-4 ~E ~T):;.o-:r
SrTl!! ""AIt::' NO ~11'r~~ bIJTD u,A.-r"~.,.... s,fT"E ~ ~f,T:a.. t?~.
H. Is the project con~istent with the criteria established in the City's Tl'IIISpo1tation 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
~"
-"~e I . d?
0.... v Is a traffic study reqU1Ie .
.~.;>.;I (D.
--: ~ Is there any dedication required? ~ A.U>>J.1f. P'"^_/_ -~,. of4 --( """ ..~ 0 Iw.~ LY"IMicp Qf .
#r--,-,,""J~ :, .
'?Ie"' i (I' JjJ ,y''';:' H so, please specify. a.....,,,.. .~~ loG. r.. <::r",....1!!.O ~ ~ r:n.ID...u........ ~ fboJ.........,y W/'Of
6 ~ "tA"tD ~, .(_t....f(~ I;" 'I'1oA: ~TY. _..~...-- ... L.&l . SOA:'C.I"""];OI!D'l:6'M~ .e;. .......-;r )'.Fc-~
,~{,~(~tc\ M~,... ~W(t>'fH~1C>SoetFSi4IJ:>~~"I"1etJ, CoMPt.'f WIT1+~T'VO'" ~
~'4'fl'" -oll::.~ 'f2c:q,)I~J.I""on; \c:" ~AI.""J t=b4. a...vw:..,,,.,..,., hIII:l."".
~ WPC~022.'3 (Rd. lCl2l.93)(W.lb:ZO.93) P.,e 3
project. tJ~. """'E. ~""-,.;r- t;.ITE ,~ ~'''~I!:.",,"M ~m-.J 1L~"""',E, ~..........v ac..c.a.u
~/JE&D --- "'''''It:.J..K:n,ilA. U~II ""ftI U",,~ IZ..C/P~"I"'r1'~ . ....-.r.A~,~ ~.~.&..l1t;r1oJ
~ '11fE ~~ 'P~.I":.,.- c:.,,.~~ -n.. ~"-'aJ"r'L" 9.-..,...... l~
Yes
'Ie:
No
L.
Y<;'-577
K.
Case No.:rs~-o&{ IZJ;VI~
Is there any street widening required? Y~J AL.bIJ(;, -r~E 'I:ID^"T'~",,~ ~...e
If so, please specify. WI1:J8J SOIJr"l:::l. ~A&D 'TZ) AAer;-r-I~U- 141,,,,..,.., ~~~r
~~~=~~~~~ut~~~::''I"14 &.IJ&Jrv~ ~
ere any 0 er street lmp vements requ . e"".
If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements.
l"!.u.A t::;~ s(r:JtE.~~...... 't>'RJ~~ '!!;......--..... I ~UTlu~. .D......~...I...-- 'M.PAi>~_
I , , .
M~TC:. A.C;.PA~M~ I!rc..
.
@ Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffIc lervice for
existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (please provide a brief
explanation). E.J(14T"1""'=. en..tC>I,.,t>lJc;:;.~ 'lEft;. . / t:uT"U;J~ Rout. "'^ur- 49 -&!A.L
I .
PI A.A.I ~~~~ ~""l:>. fl6AIl~ ~J'.:) W,U .,~ lA.11:M,./~ 'AY ~ tT111.:1c:'
~~.:.Jr T7>'T"Uf! ~'T".-rH~E IM""""'f"'S, WILL. 'BE MI"""'~ "..1
m. Soils CI:>,.;;:r""-'cna.J fIItT1-l ~SE-l'EIIEu::>f'MEI4T3>.
A.
B.
@
IV.
Are there any anticipated advers~ geotechnical conditions on the project site? IJD .
If yes, specify these conditions. IJIA .
.
Is a Soils Repon necessary? 1<10. u-JF'JMD PIl.EI/(6()~ ~o,~ rz~__r 1=;04 TUE.
,
p~ 'rn: (tI(rm-..vPDA.~~ M~"""IJ'-""'1PE:
N/E.WL.YA'-f?vtUC> 'FFof'r!!Ii!:'t"Y, ~ItID'" 'f'D usuNotd. ..F
GLAPioJ6 "~'-r-.
What is the average "ff~..Pslope 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? ffi6 ,
VI. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day?
Solid ./ (PO PocJt.LtJt; / DA "I
,
Liquid 1"72,1;" ,,~.. -t~/f'":U>." Ct..'?i IOn. J ~)
.
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site?
J B II PIll:. 12.1G,f! 1'.A/ol'lt!>fJ TJlLNk. '-.....E-.
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) YE~.
WPC,F'~GISTOREINOn93 CJ.d. 1021.93) (101. 1020.93) Pile 4
YS-577
Case No.J:S-'N-0.4 UVliiEt:;
VD. National Pollutant Discharl!e Elimination SYStem CNPDES) 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 Permit? t-J.o.
. If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain why an NPDES pennit is required. N/A .
Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project?
Yes X. No
Additional comments ~'" .
@ Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts. mitigation measures, or other
issues. (Y~EtZ. S~I"IJ~ AJJt> AI.JJJEJt.Ant:JL1 A~~"'&MEArr- 'Df,-n;n ~NE. 1"1, I~o
(rz.O:/J'ooO,..........J Nc>. (t:;&...~Y) WIt-I... ~Tl:>8E UPDlo.~~" ~u.e:T> M~
~ ~ 't:I6.",I1(;.-r"!"Z> 'DO~ J2e;,= ~ IJnVE.MP.EL ~,''''t'''3J,
~AJJ ~,.~- ~MI!Io.J"'rir>T'J..f.E nWA.LI~ ~~A-r &.I~ ""'IIJWcscl:J
."hD'~(~tJ"T"l.fI':&,AN'C 11PM(IJ ~)T'U~ ~~ ~~M"ST" tzi:: ~1I1l:>~.
. a::;~~~:::;=:~~~~~:::~~.::~7
~r lN~r,.~~ A/S--T-" loG ~r'-"=r. toll ....---"- he Tl+E ,.,81/t..v A..'..qo ,,~
a~'&r4 ~r"') ~".JI!! GIIc'~AI ~1oJ. AL~ TH~ C'Fvt~ ~~T-=~A~
. . J
Cf E., .A."~ ty'TJJ. ~""JAJ(..Y .A,~!)r.-' g ~,~ ~r;;/' .c.,z, NIWIt!! - -~I 11.l't>/c.Nnrr. .
I! } /t1lr-'4
.
Date
WJIC,f'\llDNElPLAllNlN022.1B (JUl. 1021S3) (JUl. 10211.93)
p.,.s
.
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 vn 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:
I. 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 Alkpa
cc: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
1F,\HOME\ENGJNEERIADVPLANIYs..577.00I)
~-4.~ ~
. j~ 5."'tt.. P1..eu..-..
OLuW~
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
. - I>J
~~
5:
pr-4:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Bngineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire DepartJDent
Harty Schmidt, Parks & RecreatIon
Crime Prevention, Police Department (H ,3, 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)
Haureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
~
~:
lbtJ.A,bOJJL ~
Environmental Section
Application for Initial Study (Is'ff:.e1/FA-'3~DQ O~Sj
Checkprint Drart EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP )
Review or Environmental Review Record FC- ERR-____)
The Project consists or:
SUBJECT:
Location:
Please/re~i'" the document and forward to .. any cOJlllllents you bave
by 1/ /1"-"-.1:> .
,
Comments:
Case No.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A.
What is the distance to the ne~st fire 5tati1 And what is the Fire Department's estimated
reaction time? dl. S ",.OLf:S 4~d'" ,Kf~~""5 T
B.
Will the rue Dep;u:tment be able to provide 1/1 adequate level of fire protection for the
proposed facility without 1/1 increase in equipment or personnel? )/C'3
c.
Remarks
)
/rt>D tv. /~
fire Marshal
11/4/,}3
Date
WPC,)'~GIS1"OREIN022.93 (J<I. 1021.93) (lief. 1020.93)
P...6
ROUTING FORM
Drc"
- ,~. 19
'. '. 93
DATE:
rfrC~ kr /7/ 1'1'1..3
D~
? 1993
----
Ken Larson, Building , Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
clifr SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudol.t, Asst City Attorney (Drart Neg Dec , EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department .
Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (H,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 B.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
r.JH'CO R - If annexation is involved)
Other
is-:
~;
I
.~
.. :
SUBJECT:
..s1A~ Y1 //4 nd/Yw/ f!,q"-br4 Environmental Section
.Rete!
Application for Initial Study (IS- /FA-''2.5/DQ 035")
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ )
Review of a Dratt EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review or Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-____)
Review ot Dratt Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
~
!l'he projec~ consists ot: t:;' A.,u ~Vl/lc...eA?,':r;.~
Pae tu:: 1:Jhf of- ~. .sry#~ re. ,... . 2-D .
-rhe CAy WtfSy, ~ ", :II /;''''.B~ ~ ~
i 5> .., .fy~l!: ~ 1J.f;~'b (vl-5' ,.~ cA ~/ur S1-I'~ .
Location: ~+1' ~/~ 12. . ~V':..L' ,. -..I- ~L u11fun....
R'ee'1St!:. /er-.pe ft-Fftru)'r . Pt~=:>r ~"..
-ruv~r "",,cO IS rqU(Y~ .
~;e~!l/'2e.:z.irq$~e document and rorward to me any comments you have
Comments:
~~"T- 7U
/~-v /~,.} A
~s 70 15'i
2Ci fro
t-<./ /?> (
~//...,I,.
ROUTING FORM
D~E: September 1, 1993
fa: Ken Larson, Building , Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Clill S~anson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineer~ng (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudoll, Assista"t City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Cove, Fire Department
INarty Schmidt, Parks & ftecreation
~rime Prevention, polico 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 Reid
._Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application lor Initial Stud)' (IS- 94-04IFA-~/DQ-035 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 day~) (EIR-_IFB-_IDQ )
Review ol a Draft EIR (EIR-_IFB-_IDP)
Review ol Environmental Revit'l. Record FC-_ERR-_)
The Project consists ol:
Full service c~. wash with detail area, office and
lounge. The p,-.)ject will include prezoning and annexatio:
Location:
3048 Bonita ROad (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood DriJe.
Please review the document and rorward to me any comments you have
by 9110/93 ,
Comments:
~ <=& ~.
~:s
,..b CO~
Case No. ,/-c;- 9~-~ Y
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
A.
Is project subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements?
If not, please explain. ,..or rv-.\~
H:>.
B. How many acres of parkland are necessuy to serve the proposed project?
C. Are 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 pan of the project adequate
to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community Parks
E. To meet City requirements, will applicant be required to:
Provide land?
Pay a fee?
F. Remarks:
~.~
q.z.4~.
Parlts and Recreation Director or Representative
DIIe
WI'C~=93 (101. II12U3) (IoI.ID3D.93)
""7
ROUTING FOR~i
DATE: September 1, 1993
fa: Xen Larson, Building & Rousing
John Lippitt, Engineerirg (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineeri/lg (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Depart;r.ent
Marty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation
tPrime pr.vention, Polic.. Depart_nt
~rrent Planning .
Gordon Howard, Advance ,Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Xate Shurson
Sweetwater Union B.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 94-D4/FA-~/DQ-035 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days I (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-____ERR-____)
The Project consists of:
Full service Cdr wash with detail area, office and
1 ounge. The pnject will incl ude prezoni n9 and annexat101
Location:
3048 Bonita ROed (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood Drive.
Pl.... r.view the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 9/1D/93 ,
Comm.nts:
<<
4t
~f'
't~j
,
~.. .
_.'uJLA VISTA POLICE DEP",^ .ttNT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
DAlE: o/z..z.../Q3
TO: ~ 'ft~j f?.!d.nm"n'jl
VIA: (1a:t#.3. L-P-f'l.' uJi-tudJ .
FROM: mr W~J.Ju-: 'Sc..fJ's
PROJECT: Is - ~ Lfo 'f ~ ~ 3S- r!J.A/AJtslt - ~~/ ~~J
_ The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments relardinl this project at this time.
_ Information on the project. or within the plans. does Dot provide enouah detail to permit
aime prevention analysis.
(/'" Please forward the followinl information to the Crime Prevention Unit wilen available.
Elevations
t../'
Floor Plans
~
Landscape and Lilhting Plans
V'
Site Development Plans
Comments:
'-
.~/1ICj'-t 11 J. b~~ ,c~ Ma:::t ~
r@/4-.Ct't ~
cc: ~~ ;BU- ~CVuI~
U~ r? 1," __
C71ED...... _ J.'~ b ~
"*'"' CJeI93 r--- , .
~~ ~~'Yl :?r
~ ~a.:i::L
. ~~
ROUTING FORM
DATE: 5e.p+crnber 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 (H.J, Diosdado)
Current Planning
(JV.L Uv,. ~_.. i!i.lUl., 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
f:cl t3ct-f:.Lh elder
FROM:
Do,~ f2e~;d
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS-i4 ()'i/FA-~35/DQ -035)
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 c01}sists of: F<1 {I ~v V fCe. Cl'? r.. /ljQ.sh t-l,J!th dc-:fq I (
01'(71 / ofllce Qhd ILJL-U2tj~ The- P,&Jj-ed ~{U ll)cLu,cL0
pre 'C:Dn t<:9 CUlcl Q/JI)e.~ a.~n_
Locatio~: 3o"t-g
/}x,ryz l~ 1201
&rn:r)g f4:;od (r~ S'l-u--tf,~ c.oYl'er of'
a-nd 6;n wocc1 b" ue- -
Please7 revA..ew the document and forward to me any comments you have
by Cf, to/Q3 .
Comments:
!3rn.h-fu C~~
Fer D ItOYJC/
B. Proiect DescriDtion
(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. ComDatibilitv with Zonina 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.
t,eoC" t,'~ d
0-4
q(1c /93
h/
BOARD OF EDUCAnON
JDSEPH D.C~. ""D.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GLES
PATRICK A. JJDD
GREG R. SANDOYAl
SUPERINTENDENT
LIlIA S. GL. PILD.
CHULA viSTA ELEMENI'ARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST oJ" 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
Chula 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 ctassrooms
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.
,
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,
~ Sj<'~f;~ I
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
KS:dp
cc: Charles Tibbett
msw:c:iargecom
Case No. /.J-P-f/-t1Y'
APPENDIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period
.
~O:wQ~.lCII1-")(Iof.102O.!I3)
DE'j-l H2 ~UE
......
r
~. .'I~.
w,"oj""
NRA~" 91
cC'rF L;TE~ S:..! i
I:{C \..'
~ ."
t' n?
.. -...
SWEETW A TEn
TO:
FROM.
SUBJECT:
Community
Planning
Group
14 October 1993
Chula Vist<< Planning Department
Attn: Steve Griffin
Sweetwater CommlJnity Planning Gr,.h,,;)
Preliminary fV<Jluation of the I'rC:~'G~'~oj Clf \....:ISf'l. G:Ji :il,. i,0~;J
west of L~nwood Drive
TI'l: SW~\:1twOlll'r Community Planning GruiJp ha!:> h..rJ "1(3 U(J;X."1u",i:y :CJ :(;.~'tW t:-,c
preliminary proposal for a car wash facility on the s.Ju';': :;;;;:;6 oj CrJriL J'.~ ,.'J \\;;:::
of Lynwood Drive. The conceptual design appE'ars tG be within ~tw :';r.. t'/oJ: '" .;,f l:1C
approved SweAtwater Commun:ty Design Handbcok gu'dclir:LS ;,::bpcd ci li',f,
Planning Group and the Board of Supervi~ors.
wt1ile it is IJnfortunate that the City insists that this P'~'I.>t':'f b.: ",;n" '.uJ 1,_ 10";:'
access to sewer service (the Pianning Group continuC'S :,';' 'j;;i!.;t:~.r. ~j;'s nec,;d)..,o
rccogn'z& the proponents lack of choice of a1ternah;(;:.;,
The: Ir"ffic situation at th;;; location is of continuing IXII1(;!:!r: i ar,~ (lot: u.,;;:~. ..:;/ U:;!,
JHt:jf:ct Rhould take that into account. It should b6 nCllr,d l;o;..;t <\r,1' \' ::':;., :IQri\ t:li..
p:oje(.'! to lynwood Drive (for ac.-cess to Bcn~.a RODe! wm;t 'If P!e.:o: t.!.;ni~.J :icau
r.orth) will cause additional cycling of t~ signaJs Thi::,; wi!: Ic::uit i;', i.idcit!unal
co..,,:,':"\:' lh, .~...... _ 01'- ."ougt, "'. com,~, "","'c>""
c::)s\.-
John Hammond
Chairperson
P 0 Box 460 Bonl.t~ Coon.,,,, , ':4"t. ',. '"".,
~ . , ,. ..., ......""'.::.'" .. ......4.. .tIIIV
-
,
--
n", ',,<0 '.j:<:TG"=~"-'';'' -'O'!HTr,O
Uuo1d ..AU',.."..... ~..' "L-_
EDvUOnmc:ntal Co DIS
November 9, 1993
----- ~
city of Chula Vista
Atttn: Susan Vandrew
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
...-/~
lif'
\
_?..'o1J\
\
Re: Bon;t.a/Lynwond Car Wash Noise Impact P
t.e>J'l"; 1:11
Ib11t4 __- -
,.'~~'" .--.-----
.--
Dear M~. vandrew:
We have reviewed tho information you provided r.r.lai.ive to the ..rove
project's noi se impact potent! al on '.djacent ~('$id~nt:ia 1 us~s. We
/11 so monl tt1n~d noise level s at a .. .,:I'pdraf...l" , fa;;i.\i t)' ,r,,(;(.~tl y
oquipped with a new blower/dryer sY~1..f'r.I. \oi'., c~'~iluat.,~d i:Hcxgl'o.ml
noj se lev'-,ls due to Boni ta Road t:raff ic and ~.h"l1 superilU!-,osC'u ,1'11
po~siule on-site noise contribution upon the back9round. B~~ause
of a Jack of site-specific data, we did not include any frecw~y
cOl,tribution ever' t:1ou9h the freeway obviously also affects
1:oaseli ne condit ions.
''"1", noi:A- data the applicant provided listed a noise lev.~l of 67 u:;
at ?0 fi;,\' from the equipment, We measured 66 d~ 'It: H> f~,".t~1 .." J
thf, wo','h' tunnel axis and 60 dJ\ at 100 fe~t p.;;r :)(:ndj ~~l; 1ar to '... ,.'
;!'xis. ')ur 'IIeasurement agre'~s ey.actJy Ioiit.. tho:, ...~"i-,. -
li terlltuH' on car wash dryers.
(
I
I'Idckc;rvund noise levels due to traft ic on Bonita ROaO at Lh..
nc~re~t Lynwood Hill residence were calculated to be 66.' ~
tho car was .1 faced the hOllies it would add 0:.0 r B
(')01:1 €. 0,1) d ncrease). If the tunne 1 ~ p..... e 0
Bo" i 1:;, .UI as proposed, it would huve a 54 dB im!' 'IL." a
c-on,L.j;.._< 66.8 dB level (a 0.2 dB increase). We beli~' ......,2
dB 1 ,It l'f'ase would not be detectable given tha existL. nd
lev.el, particularly when the freeway background is al$o tctJ<.e.. :Ito
Be-count. For an east-west. orientation ot the tunnel, and with
L"::<j:;onllr,le limits on the hours of operation, we do not beHove th.Jt
t:i'.(, pr>lf'-' , ' j al for a 5i.;n; f iCillIt. impact <<>.'1>.t,$ at th": n..alC,.t hornt!E
<.>1 thl't. H.. additional study is warnlnted.
YOll expres!'.erl sotle conc!")1I about
j n<1 i cat.ed, thdt is an OS!I^ 1S5\1I"
"':""!r].:)y~'~ noi!.:c cxt>us\lr~.
'jl) f"t rE";ii 1 J l a r:~t:t-ar of.
At> I
code
i
I
L
.'7'144 SJ.y P"rA LUrJ.: .!i(U!~ 210, 1""/1':, C.Jil"mJ./ 9;'?J4 - PD_,-,' (7Ni ~'Vilil') . FAX (7J4) 11I.I6J:
"
I
I
I
.-J
1./-.' <)'3 '93 14:57 GIRWt:, ",'=O:IHTES
,
-
P.2
.
-2-
compliance. I did, however, calculate the allowable noise exposure
tor a car wash employee working in c]ose proximity to the blower
for any extended period of time with the following time limits to
.eet the OSHA allowable noise dose:
Dist.ance frODt Blower
Allowable Time
3'
5'
6'
7'
1 Hr 45 min
5 Hr 2 lIIin
7 Hr 8 ain
No Limitation
Given that car wash employees only spend brief periods in close
proximity to the blower/dryel', I do n01. wllev€: t.hilt noise
protection is an issue for this project. please call me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
/~ D-~-4
Hans D, Giroux '
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
f.v6 ,d~ '.
MEMORANDUM
January 27, 1994
File # YS-577
TO:
Susan Vandrew, Planning Departm('7p
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
#IS-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 fmd
his report to be complete.
DW:dv
cc: Kirk Ammerman
(F:lJI.omc\cnginecr\1raffc\carwash.DW)
~.5~
memorandum
April 25, 1994
File: YS-577
TO:
VIA: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Eng'
FROM: Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer
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 P:\bome\qiDeer\1872.94
,
Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORT A nON PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
April 21, 1994
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-CaI 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 Road!Plaza BonitalLynwood intersection with and
without the project.
2. Year 1998 LOS for the Bonita RoadIPlaza 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.
S. 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 2SO 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 2SO wasbes per day.
Exhibit 1 is a reduced copy of the project site plan.
1202 KmNER BOULEVARD. SUITE B. SAN DIEGD. CALIFORNIA 92101
PHONE: 619-233-9373 . FAX: 619.233-4034
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-CaI Carwash Services
April 21, 1994
Page 2
Pursuant to the City's request, ttaffic generated by the project was estimated using the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) published rates (October 1993) for a car wash. The SANDAG
me is 900 average daily vehicles (ADT) per site. As awed above, the owner anticipates a mArimum
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 ttaffic was then estimated based on published SANDAG rates. The AM peak
rate is 4 % of daily ttaffic and the PM peak rate is 9 % of daily ttaffic, equally split between inbound and
outbound movements. The resulting project trip generation is as follows:
TRIP GENERATION
AM Peek Period PM Peek Period
Daily Out
Use Intensity Traffic In In Out
Car Wash 1 900 18 18 41 41
Project traffic was then assigned to the project driveways and the Bonita RoadlLynwood Avenue
intersection. The resulting project related peak hourly volumes are shown on Exhibit 2.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITII & WITIIOUT PROJECT
Existing AMlPM 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 opeme at LOS C in the morning and LOS D in the evening at this intersection. Table llU1111I1arizes
the results.
Project traffic was then added to existing ttaffic volumes. Exhibit 4 presents the existing plus project
volumes. The LOS was then calculated using the HCM methodology. The addition of project ttaffic to
the existing ttaffic results in the Bonita RoadIPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection CC)IIrimlil1g to opeme
at LOS C during the AM peak and LOS D in the evening peak. The results are presented on Table 1.
Mr. Charlcs R. Tibbett
S<K:al Carwash Services
April 21, 1994
Page 3
YEAR 1998 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH & WITHOm PROJECT
To estimate year 1998 traffic volumcs, the existing 1993 volumes were increased 2% per year. Exhibit
4 preseDlS the results of this calculation. Project traffic was then added to the 1998 base volumes and
the results are prcsented on Exhibit 6. Level of service was then detennined 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 rcsults are also prcsented 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 operatcs generally on Sunday
mornings and weeknights (6-9:3Opm). During the weekdays, a prcschool operatcs from 8:ooam-6:00pm.
enrolling approximately 95 students (50 of which are grades K through 6). According to the Entranco-
Federbart study, the preschool generatcs 766 daily trips, 31 during the AM peak, and 60 in the evening
peak. The peak. hour distribution of traffic is presented on Exhibit 7.
The peak. hour volumcs 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 volumcs and the rcsults are presented in Table 1. The intersection of Bonita
RoadIPlaza BonitalLynwood 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 & WITHOm PROJECT
Proposed project. existing, year 1998, and cumulative volumes were ~...mil1l!!d as well as the project site
plan to identify any safety problems associated with the project implero-t.tion. Our review of the
project identified two potential safety concerns.
The first potential problem is motorists dcsiring to leave the Bonita Road access drive would cross two
tIavellanes'to enter the eastbound left turn lanes to either turn left onto Plaza BOnita or make a U-turn
to go wcst on Bonita Road. This condition could occur from any project developed on the site.
However, a careful review of project volumes dcsiring to make these movcs is very low and would not
be expected to create a problem.
Mr. Charles R. Tibben
ScX:al Carwash Services
April 21, 1994
Page 4
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF lEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THE
BONITA ROADIPLAZA BONITAIlYNWOOD INTERSECTION
AM Peak Period PM Peak Period
Condition Deley (see) LOS Deley (see) 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 1998 Cumulative 27.5 D 36.6 D
LOS = Level of Service
(sec) = 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 SYSTEM
The site plan depicted on Exhibit 1 and project volumes prevntNl on Exhibit 2 were carefully f'nminM ,
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 starlring area for approximately
seven (7) vehicles including the vacuum area. To determine the adequacy of the st,..lring from Lynwood,
the peak hour generation of 41 vehicles entering the site was ~nmin<:d. Based on our experience with
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-Ca1 Carwash Services
Apri121, 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 ChuIa Vista comments.
Sincerely,
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~E-~
Bill E. Darnell, P.E.
BEDlbh
0103CAR1.RPT/94-4
EXHIBITS 1-8
.... "
~
~
..
Darnell.. ASSOCIATES. INC.
EXHIB IT 1
SITE PLAN
UJ
-'
, <3
'"
~~~
Bon ita
o
.......
c
o
CD
o
N
o
0...
,... '"
co
...........
I"'")
.
Road
'-
4/9-
-.
, 7 /17
'I t I /'
lO
II'
OJ
...........
..q-
-0
o
o
~
c
>,
---!
lOCOCO
~ ......................
........... I"'") ..q-
co
~
...........
o:J
10/25./ ~
14/32 ~
'\
LEGEND
xxjYY '" AM/PM Traffic
Darnell .. ~m. INC.
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT RELATED ~C
.- -
u.J
, ~j
-t t1-~
z
0
--'
.-
c n
0 0
IT) LO N
0 --""""r---..q-
N :;;;:--........--""""
0 r---
- ~ ~
Bonita 0..../ .J I L Road
, '--
143/559 ~ L15/49
846/1625 - -1217 /1150
18/41 -, r- 8/9
, ,
"\ i I /
I
OLO..q-
-0 n --........--........
0 --........Or---
0 r..o
3= N
C
>,
---!
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 3
Darn e 11 ~ ASSOCIATES. INC.
EXISTIN G TRAFFIC
I.JJ
-'
, oj (3
-E!7~
:z
'. .
0
-+J
C I"'")
0 0
OJ l,{)l,{)N
0 ............. ~
N ....... ..- .............
0 ~:;;'--f'-
Bon ita 0.../ ~ tL, Road
143/559 ~ L 15/49
850/1634 - -1217/1150
18/41 -, r 15/26
'I t I /'
<"oI"'")N
-0 ~ ..- .......
0 .........................................
0 -q-I"'").......
:: I"'") ..-
c
>,
-!
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 4
Darnell. ~TBS. INC.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
-4... -_
W
, --'
~<5
-( '"
+0
z
r
0
.....-
.-
c: n
0 lD
OJ lD c.D
"-..
0 lDCO.;j-
N lD"-.."-..
0 .,.- .,.- CO
-
CL ~ . L Road
Bon ita \..
157/615 -' L 17 /54
930/1788 - -1339/1265
20/45 ~ r 9/10
~
"I i I (
I
n c.D lD
-0 n "-.. ________
0 "-.. .,.- co
0 O'J
S: N
C
:>-,
~
LEGEND
XX/YY = AM/PM Traffic
(a) Based on 1993 count expanded to 2% per year
EXHIBIT 5
Darnell.. ASSOCIATES. INC.
YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC (a)
UJ
-'
, ~
"I-- VJ
'I-Iz
Bon ita
157/615
932/1793
20/45
Darnell II ASSOCIATIS. me.
c to
o lC)
CO lC)
o 'N ~
N ~ , ,
o ..- <D ro
(L/ ~ t L "
~
o
........
.-
-
-,
"'j
"'0
o
o
~
c:
>-.
-1
ti/
roO'Jro
lC)"-.,......
,"
..-<D-.q-
-.q- .,......
- -
Road
.
L 17 /54
-1339/1265
.- 20/36
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 6
YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC
-
......
-'
'..\<5
(/)
~ 1-9
:z
.-
0
........
C
0
CD N
0 T"""
..............
N N
0
- ...-
0.... . Road
Bonita
..I \.
"
28/26 -,
'\
,5/5
~\(
lONLO
u N...-..............
o ............................ LO
o co N
3: N"'-
C
>-.
.--J
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 7
Darnell.. ~ INC.
CALVARY CHAPEL TRAFFIC
......
j.j~
, (f)
\ .I::t
_A .:;
0
.......,
C I")
0 LD
CD LDI")(!)
0 .............I")-.;:t
N LD..........................
0 LDroCO
....... .......
Bon ita 0... ~ ~ t L Road
\.
157/615 ~ L 17 /54
932/1793 - -1339/1265
48/71 -, t 25/41
'\ , I /'
-.;:t.......1")
-0 COnN
0 ......................................
0 (J)ro(J)
3: tD ....... .......
c
>.
-!
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 8
Darnell ~ ~1'IS, INC.
YEAR lj:}j:}8 TB~FIC PLUS CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC
APPENDIX A
HCM Worksheets
'Ho \'I 'I--tr 1-
1985 HCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUllllARY REPORT
1.1..1.!......111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNEUL/BPH
DATE..........1-2D-94
TINE. .. .......AII PEAK
CONNENT.......EXISTING CONDITIONS
----------------
VOLUIIES &EOMETRY
EB lIB III 58: EB lIB III
LT 143 B 26 7 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0
TH 1146 1217 0 1 : L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0
RT 18 15 7 141 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 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
58
LT 12.0
R 12.0
R 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE NY 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
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
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
YB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PO
GREEN 1B.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 GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.199 0.256 27.7 D 12.4 B
TR 0.4115 0.584 9.9 B
we L 0.060 0.088 39.7 D 33.7 D
TR 0.970 0.416 33.7 D
NB LTR 0.123 '0.200 26.5 D 26.5 D
58 LT 0.081 0.064 35.6 D 20.7 C
R 0.173 0.320 19.B C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Deley c 24.0 (aec/veh) VIC . 0.571 LOS-C
~N '( f \
1985 HCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SllMARY REPOlIT
111Ll!11111111111111111111111111J11111111111111111111111111111111111!11111
IKTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELLI8PH
DATE......... .1-20-94
TINE..........PM PEAK
C~NENT.......EXISTING CONDITIONS
---------------------
WLUNES BE~ETRY
E8 lIB NB SB: E8 lIB NB
LT 559 9 30 42: L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0
TH 1625 1150 5 7 : L 12,0 T 12.0 12.0
RT 41 49 4 503 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0
RR 4 5 0 50 : TR 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12,0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
sa
LT 12.0
R 12.0
R 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTNENT FACTORS
BRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. 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
lIB 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 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 TN X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TN X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
GREEN 18.0 13.0 51.0 0.0 BREEN 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 D 24.6 C
TR 0.935 0.584 20.8 C
lIB L 0.067 0.088 39.7 D 30.7 D
TR 0.945 0.416 30.6 D
NB LTR 0.143 0.200 '26.6 D 26.6 D
sa LT 0.498 0.064 39.0 D 25.5 D
R 0.617 0.320 24.1 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION:
Doloy = 26.6 (see/ven) V/C' 0.874
LOS z 0
~o tJ 'ie ~ 1..
1955 HeR: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUllllARY REPORT
Ill!j!!!!j!jjljjjjl1jjjjjl111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..IDNITA ROAD/PLAZA IDNITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELLlBPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TINE. .........AM PEAK
CONNENT.......EXISTING+PROJECT
-------
----
VOUJIIES GEOMETRY
EB lIB Ie 58: EB lIB NB
LT 143 15 34 7 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0
TH 850 1217 3 4 : L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0
RT 18 15 11 141 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0
RR 2 2 1 14 : TR 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 ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO. BUT. ARR. TYPE
ex> ex> Y/N NIl Nb Y/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
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
lIB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PD
GREEN 18.0 13.0 51.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
TELLO\! 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 TELLO\! 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
---------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE 6RP. Yle 6/e DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.199 0.256 27.7 0 12.4 B
TIt 0.4117 0.584 9.9 B
lIB L 0.112 0.088 39.9 0 33.7 0
TIt 0.970 0.416 33.7 0
NB LTR 0.176 0.200 26.8 0 26.8 D
SB LT 0.111 0.064 35.6 D 21.0 C
R 0.173 0.320 19.8 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 24.1 Csec/veh) V/C . 0.582 LOS III: C
1985 HCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUllllARV REPORT
Y>o tN.e e 1-
11111111l!ll!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111111l1111111J1111Jl11111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/lYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANAlVST.......DARNEllIBPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TINE..........PM PEAK
CONNENT.......EXISTING+PROJECT
---------------------
VOlUftES 6EOIIETRY
EB lIB III 58: EB lIB III SB
IT 559 26 46 42: l 12.0 l 12.0 lTR 12.0 IT 12.0
TH 1634 1150 13 15 : L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 41 49 12 503 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 4 5 1 50 : 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTNENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
eX) ex) V/N N. Nb V/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 V 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 V 23.5 3
58 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 V 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
ES 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
PD X PD
GREEN 16.0 14.0 51,0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 B.O 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 DELAV LOS APP. DELA V APP. LOS
EB L 0.1102 0.248 37.6 D 28.2 D
TR 0.967 0.568 25.0 D
WB l 0.178 0.096 39.5 D 3O.B D
TR 0.945 0.416 30.6 D
NB lTR 0.258 0.200 '27.3 D 27.3 D
SB IT 0.512 0.072 311.6 D 25.6 D
R 0.617 0.320 24.1 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Detey = 2B.6 eoec/veh) VIC . 0.899 LOS E D
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
S\JNIlARY REPOt!T
~!1!111!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/lYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANAlYST.......DARNEll/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TIME..........AII PEAK
CONNENT.......BASE 1998
------
--------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB VB NB SB : EB VB NB 58
IT 157 9 29 B: l 12.0 l 12.0 lTR 12.0 IT 12.0
TH 930 1339 1 1 : l 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 20 17 8 155 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 2 2 1 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 ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARK. 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
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
S8 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 IT X X NB IT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PO X
WB IT X SB IT 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. V/C GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.249 0.224 30.3 D 13.2 B
TR 0.533 0.584 10.3 B
WB L 0.067 0.088 39.7 0 35.4 D
TR 0.991 0.448 35.4 0
NB LTR 0.138 0.200 26.6 0 26.6 D
SB LT 0.092 0.064 35.6 0 22.6 C
R 0.210 0.288 21.8 C
--------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: De lay & 25.3 C..c/veh) V/C . 0.628 LOS = 0
~DN 'i~^,1-
'PJON 'lib e \
1985 HCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUl!l!ARY REPORT
11111111111111111111!!11111Jl1JJJJJ111JJJ1JJ11JJ111JJJJJJJ1JJJJJJJJJJJ1J1J
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYHWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTKER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TINE..........'" PEAK
COMMENT.......IASE 1998
----------
YOUJIIES GEOIIETRY
EB VB NIl SB : EB VB NB sa
LT 615 10 33 46: L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0
TN 1188 1265 6 B : L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 45 54 5 553 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 5 5 0 55 : 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 ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. 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 = 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 PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
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 YELLOII 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C 6IC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.970 0.226 5B.0 E 36.7 D
T1I 0.998 0.602 29.5 D
WB L 0.097 0.068 44.2 E 34.4 D
T1I 0.975 0.444 34.4 D
NIl LTR 0.175 .0.184 '29.6 D 29.6 D
sa LT 0.406 0.086 38.0 D 28.5 D
R 0.697 0.312 27.5 D
--------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay. 34.9 (see/veh) V/C . 0.959 LOS=D
1985 HCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUllllARV REPORT
~!!!!l!!l!!!!!!!!!!J!JJJJJJJJJJJLLLLLJLLJJJLLLJLLLJLLJLLLLLLLLLLLLILLIA..!
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/lYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANAlVST.......DARHEULlBPH
DATE........ ..1-20-94
TINE..........AM PEAK
COIINENT. .. .. . .1998 PLUS PROJECT
VOlUIIES GEOIIETRV
E8 118 lIB SB : E8 VB III 58
IT 157 20 41 B: l 12.0 l 12.0 lTR 12.0 IT 12.0
TH 932 1339 6 6 : l 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 20 17 14 155 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 2 2 1 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMEHT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEOS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
eX) ex) V/N N. Nb V/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 v 14.5 3
lIB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 v 14.5 3
NB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 v 23.5 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 v 23.5 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE lENGTH = 125.0
PH-' PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-' PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB IT X X NB IT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PO X
VB IT X SB IT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD 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 DELAV LOS APP. DELAV APP. LOS
EB l 0.241 0.232 29.7 D 13.4 B
TR 0.542 0.576 10.7 B
VB l 0.137 0.096 39.4 D 39.5 D
TR 1.009 0.440 39.5 D
lIB lTR 0.224 0.200 27.1 D 27.1 D
sa IT 0.140 0.064 35.7 0 22.6 C
R 0.205 0.296 21.3 C
-------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay z 27.5 e..c/vell) VIC . 0.647 LOS . D
~ON't~fA1.
'&N'il()fP1-
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
!!!!!!!ll!!ll!!!!.....!!.........!ll!!........!l.!!.!lllll....!!!!.......l
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROADIPLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARHELLIBPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TIME..........'" PEAK
CONMENT.......1998 PLUS PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------
_ES &EONETRY
EB lIB lIB 58: EB lIB NB 58
LT 615 36 58 46 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0
TH 1793 1265 19 21 : L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 45 54 18 553 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 5 5 2 55 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 NV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. 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
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
5B 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
PD X PD
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. VIC GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.970 0.226 58.0 E 37.1 D
TR 1.001 0.602 30.0 D
WB L 0.349 0.068 45.8 E 34.7 0
TR 0.975 0.444 34.4 0
NB LTR 0.373 0.184 31.0 0 31.0 D
S8 LT 0.500 0.0116 39.3 D 28.8 D
R 0.697 0.312 27.5 0
--------------------
INTERSECTION: Deley = 35.2 (aec/veh) VIC . 0.998 LOS . D
"o~ f{~ c.pr.
1985 HCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUllllARY REPORT
I!!!!!!.!.!!!!!.!!!!!..!!.!.!!!!!.!!!!.!!!!.!.j.!!!!!!Jjlll.I..II.!!jl!!!!
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-2D-94
TINE..........AII PEAK
COHNENT.......1998+CUHULATIVE
------------------------------------------------------
VOLUIIES GEOIIETRY
EB VB NB $8: EB VB NB sa
LT 157 25 69 8 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0
TH 932 1339 18 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
---------------------------------------------------....---------------------
ADJUSTNENT FACTORS
GRADE NY ADJ PKG 8USES PHF PEDS PED, BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) (X) Y/N Na Nb Y/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
HB 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
PD 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
Ea L 0.241 0.232 29.7 D 13.5 a
TR 0.558 0.576 10.9 B
lIB L 0.171 0.096 39.5 D 39.5 D
TR 1.009 0.440 39.5 D
NB LTR 0.384 0.200 '28.3 D 28.3 D
sa LT 0.257 0.064 36.2 D 23.6 C
R 0.205 0.296 21.3 C
----- -----------------------------
INTERSECTION: Del.y z 27.5 (seelvoh) VIC . 0.681 LOS E D
P,ON ~~ vf
1985 Heft: SI6NAlIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
1JI1JJJJJI1JJJJIJJJJJI1JJJIJJJ111111111111111111111111Jl111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TIME..........PN PEAK
CONNENT.......1995+CUNULATIVE
---------- ---------------
VOLUMES 6EOMETRY
EB VB N8 SB : EB UB NB 58
LT 615 41 84 46: L 12.0 L 12.0 LTl! 12.0 LT 12.0
TH 1793 1265 31 33 L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 71 54 23 553 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 7 5 2 55 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 ADJ PKG BUSES PHf PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N N. Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
III! 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NIl 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. 133.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT % X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
UB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PO
GREEN 1B.0 11.0 5B.0 0.0 GREEN 23.0 11.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOII 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL Of SERVICE
LANE GRP. VIC 6/e DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.970 0.226 5B.0 E 39.6 D
Tl! 1.016 0.602 33.5 0
UB L 0.398 0.068 46.4 E 34.7 0
Tl! 0.975 0._ 34.4 D
NB LTR 0.554 0.180 33.6 D 33.6 D
sa LT 0.562 0.090 40.3 E 28.B D
R 0.688 0.316 27.1 D
--------------------------------------------- -----------------
INTERSECTION: Deley = 36.6 (sec/veh) VIC . 1.031 LOS = D
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure of <:crtain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
eonlrihulions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all olher official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List Ihe names o( all pe",on. having a financial inlcrc." in the property which is the .uhj~t of the application or Ihe
mnlract, e.I., owner, applicant, contractor, subeontraclor, material supplier.
c.harlli.'c.... R. ~~,T
LOt~ Mor.! ~ A-
I-> Av L c. fVlA.c:, NOTT 0
....MA~N'~ A. MA4A107TO ,
2. If any person' identified pursuant 10 (I) ahove i. a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the eorporalion or owning any partnership inlerc.st in the partnership.
~~ ~........II c:-.. R, I' e-,~TT 00%
j...O I S,
Pa.1A ,
M.cre..(c....
~ 'S" %
'D ~A (" N 71'TT.o
3. If any person' idenlified pursuant to (I) ahove is non.profil organil,ation or a trusl, list lhe names of any person
serving as dir~tor of the non.profit organization or as truSlee or beneficiary or trustor of the lrust.
-
4. Have you had more Ihan S2S0 worth of husines. tran.acted with any memher of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Council within the past twelve months'! Yes_ No.x If yes, please indicate person(s):
S. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants. or independent rontraetors who
you have assigned 10 represent you before the City in this mailer.
'1?" L 'a-I1,. _
6. Have you and/or your om<:crs or agenls, in Ihe aggregale, contributed more than S 1,000 10 a Councilmember in the
cunenl or preceding elcction period? Ycs_ No~ If yes, stale which Councilmember(s):
. , . (NOm:
AiladlldditioDal pap .~ry)' . ·
{ ~~~c:.P
Signature or rontractor/applicant
Dale:
8 - 29-'3
c.tW~Le'S re. TI&B~Tf
Print or type name or rontractor/applicanl
. Pmotl is defi"cd AS: "A'". itulivUhta/, finn. c()-porvKrJlUp, joilU l'CnAU'f, lU.JotidUf1Il, J<<UJ/ dub, '"umUJI nrptlWuiOlI, (OfJ'O'oDDII. auue. ..... ruei~, qndictllc,
litis IIIld "'IY oIN:r cowuy. city tutd cowur;.", d/)' 'fUU,;cip4lil)', IIi.,.;,.. 01' udttr political JUbdj,ViotI, Of .1)' oIhD """p 01' ContbUull;OI' <<an, 11111 w.u. "