The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/09/14 (3) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 14, 1994 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-47; reauest to add a self-service car wash to the existinq service station located at 501 Telearaph Canvon Road- Shell Oil Companv A. BACKGROUND The proposal is to add a 630 sq. ft. tunnel designed to accomodate a self-service car wash operation along the northerly property line of the existing service station located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road, within the CCD (Central Commercial/Design Review) zone. The car wash addition is proposed in conjunction with an exterior remodel and landscape program for the existing building and site. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS- 92 -4,0, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-27. The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on August 29, 1994 (Reference DRC-94-49). The Committee approved the project subject to conditions relating to finish materials and signage. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt attached Resolution approving PCC-94-47 approving the project based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. C. DISCUSSION Ad-iacent zonina and land use Site North South East West CCD CCP R3GP CCP CCD Service Station Retail Center Multi-Family Residential Retail Center Service Station Existina site characteristics The project site is a 18,698 sq. ft. (.48 acres) parcel at the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 14, 1994 Page 2 The site contains an existing service station facility, including a 1,764 sq. ft. 3-bay service structure and adjoining foodmart and 2 gas islands with an overhead canopy. Proposed use The proposed project consists of the addition of a 630 sq. ft. self-serve carwash tunnel with stacking for up to five vehicles along the northerly property line (at the rear of the site) . Additionally, an exterior remodel of the existing buildings, rearrangement of the existing on-site parking to provide 7 parking spaces, and additional site landscaping are proposed. The remodel of the existing building and the new carwash structure are designed in traditional gray and yellow corporate colors and finish materials. New landscaping will be added to the site along both street frontages as well as at the corner and adjacent to the parking areas. D. ANALYSIS Section 19.58.060 of the Municipal Code sets forth the following requirements for automobile carwash facilities: . all equipment used for the facility shall be soundproofed so that any noise emanating therefrom, as measured from any point on adjacent property, shall be no more audible than the noise emanating from the normal street traffic at a comparable distance; . hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission; . vacuuming facilities shall be located to discourage the stacking of vehicles entering the car wash area and causing traffic congestion adjacent to any areas used for ingress or egress; . the carwash location, technology, and related drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent damage to pavement or other infrastructure from water from the car wash operation being carried off-site, to provide a means to collect and retain potentially toxic material, and to use recycled water to the extent possible. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 14, 1994 Page 3 The site fronts on Telegraph Canyon Road, a six-lane major street, and is within close proximity to Interstate I-80S; noise levels from these sources already impact the project site and the surrounding area. Additionally, the carwash tunnel has been oriented from west to east, both directions of which contain commercial uses, and the project location is not immediately adjacent to any residential uses. Therefore, as reflected in the Negative Declaration, noise associated with the carwash is not expected to be an issue. The existing service station is open on a 24-hour basis, but the applicant intends to limit the carwash hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Also, as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to repair any water damage to public improvements resulting from the operation of the car wash. Staff has concerns with the stacking and exiting areas provided and the potential for traffic congestion both within the site and impacting the adjacent public streets. The existing site includes automotive repair, a small food mart, and gas pumps; the carwash retrofit will intensify vehicular circulation on the site, and will create cross-patterns of circulation wherein vehicles both entering and exiting the carwash will be crossing the paths of cars entering and exiting the gas service lanes. The applicant has provided information from the manufacturer of the carwash detailing the operation of the equipment and the time required to complete each wash cycle (see Exhibit "A" attached). This information shows that the equipment proposed in this case can process up to three times as many cars per hour as the equipment used at the Bonita Road/I-80S Shell, where stacking and interference with the gas services lanes have often been observed. A comparison of the current volumes of business between the project site and the Bonita Road Shell indicates the latter facility handles about twice the volume of activity as the project site. The difference in equipment, even considering a substantial increase in volumes, tends to support the applicant's contention that stacking and circulation should not be the problem presented by the Bonita Road facility. (Exhibit "B"). Staff nevertheless continues to be concerned with vehicles exiting the carwash and recirculating back into the gas service lanes. Consequently, a condition has been recommended which would require Shell to obtain an easement and establish an exit drive from the carwash directly east onto the driveway City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 14, 1994 Page 4 serving the adjoining commercial center. Providing a direct exit will avoid the potential of onsite conflicts impacting traffic on Telegraph Canyon Road. The Engineering Department has provided the following list of items which will be required in conjunction with the building permit: 1. Procurement of a Construction Permit for any work performed in the public right-of-way; 2. Payment of Sewer and Transportation Development Impact fees may be required, and will be assessed upon submittal for the building permit; 3. A seven foot wide dedication of street right-of-way along Telegraph Canyon Road; 4. Dedication of drainage easement enveloping the existing box culvert located in the southerly portion of the property; 5. Owner must obtain an Encroachment Permit to allow private facilities to remain in the City's right-of-way. The permit provides an agreement between the owner and the City, placing on the owner the responsibility of maintenance and relocation (when widening occurs) of the facilities. Attachments Locator and Project Plans Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit "A" - Manufacturer's Information Exhibit "B" - Site Comparisons Initial Study Disclosure Statement f ( ~-~-- ..... ~Ef!:~-~~+ .\;: -, \ "A~J~.. -. r ~ ~",5 ~ Wi o..e ~ .,<: 1. ~ _ 1---:1' \.- . " I' j- ~ 1--- -P f--'::'- - ~ : "'} 't--(\~./., '~ '\" Ij"'" - _. ~ _ -r-- 'jr--I- I-N .... f- " .. '--- o( I ~I I I ~ , 1-1--'- ~"'LL''''''-. !: - L - "'t i ~ '\ ~r!iot- _ ~. w' - ~c--.....-.. - I ANY WA - >-\'~ ~ '~o~n - ~cf:- Tr -r-1 I ",- = , ~ 0 I J7 . ~ - J-. L I .', \ 't--t- , :.<./""\ >-J... J "",I-. -- /Pr.!7P-: I '__ \( ~ , r- SF ?F:Z: - -_ _,.:.5t.o E - \\' Y"" ,. I If-.-,--, ~ Ii, ' ~ , \ " . - - I I~ I I :> .----'" \.:- _ -... 1...L. ',0 \ ;t;; \ ...,' -oj ~ U LA ~ I I I I I 1 :T ~ ~ I~E '{ e r / ~ \ ~!ff. SROJECf . ,\ ~ ~\\e:i'!!1 ~'\"T.. LOCATION ~ ~ ~\ .' .~'\,,'l L ~ V ~ \/ -..r~{;.~H ~ ( ~ ~ -~ " .!o. ~ " ~I . . (\\11.. .,. o' ~ /~..., . ~ ~ \ \ \ >~ -....x , ""1 ~ ~~ \' \ L " = ~..ry-\~ h-.'"' '" - ~ ~~~ K.l ~ ~ ~~ ?t )a ~ ~~0.'~~ ~ \"C I c CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C!) APPLlCANT:ROD BISHARAT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SHELL STATION ADDRESS: SOl Telegraph Canyon Road The addition of 630 sq. f1. to eDsting SCALE: FILE NUMBER: service station for a car wash & other NORTH 1" = 400' minor site improvements. .nft...,.,...."., ,., -.. - . ---. . .. " _L~_"_ .-_.. "01."_. ..'-- ---~.-!'~- --- .' " 'I; , I , , , , , , , , '. '. :> ~ " . ~, , , , , -,- , HALECREST DRIVE i I : 'j ; i . ! .. :: ! ~-" .#'.... ."'.- ! _.L-~:__. --... -=-_. .--.--.--. ...on r., i \ .....-,- I, ,I' ,j, >> IJ ,. f ~ /~\, --.----------u-~~ " I ! : ____..____4_ / " t!l 'r ... : ',' . .=::1::::::::;, " at!) f~ II.. ~ " '-_.'-:L.___u_ t~' ,.---1--00-----'. ''.1:8' .") ---~..-----..-l~r-~-. -< J'T1 r J'T1 C) ;U :.- 'lJ I ------.()-------- :.- z -< o z ;U o :.- o ;1:1 _.~~ \ 1', . i I , . , ! i! p, I ,; , , I I i : i ! i ! ,. , , , , , , , , ! ~ e ! I I' D . ~ ~ ',. - -" - - ,___u 00 00 _ -1- ___ U, I I I , , I ~ I ! ~ . , : i I i , I I . . j . , ,. ~ , , ...._------;---~ i~ . _a__ ::...::.L , ~ , , , , , 'If , , , ~ , , , " , , . , . , '. ....no 'I , mw tt ~ . - ..:;--- i i , , \ I ( - .. ..,,,.,,.......- il~,I" o "' .- " ! ~ Ei~~ - 2 ! i ~ .m ~.~ :;::1 .~ i= ~II~ ~ H'~ e.i ~ J ~I ~i ~:~~~ I ~ '19 e ~~ ~~ !!~.~ . i I: ~ ~ ".: f ~ ~ ~ I , C; ...n" F* o;i;; , .....~~ ."'..." .;;;.:;.- -to, , ,.n '~'i ~~ I~~~~ <; il';fi!!1 ~ w ~~ ~,.. S . 1.' -< :i: ~ iel>~::! .. ; "IO~ rT'1 ,.. " Ono" .I ' n.- ,0 Z "-. . 8 .v" '..-. ~\Ri . . .,t 0 :.::~ ~ e.., i ~ z! ~ )> ::::... i 't;:: "~"----4 -:: $. ~: :' )> - . ...... .. ;;I co 1!'..~ ::; ~ ..... < - , i r J'T1 !fi:i~rfiHi,li!!.1 Cl'j! ~ 'I!:,!,_!!! !1:, '1 I r II II ~"~I"'Fl'f::~,~ riE"lf 111~r-::::'[III...1 ~.'I' 0 - .It_.l'IP P ,'" _ _ '1I'~II."'lr- ~1'.U I'I'~P (/) ...-... 'If'~f;f~il; A~!:; .! II~ () 1"!:!i:'I;:!lrlll",tl ;4 l.;::C r,..... ," . i ~-= I "" ~III " - ~~!'.~::~i!":! ',I i' \J f ~ ;'I,,::;lI:!6'li(:I' !g ;.:::1 , I I~ I.(~,;;. . IIj" uf' 0 I .... E.:.1:;~~!.H~"lnf ;t". z t ~ '"I''''. .- J. "III ~ ;;I ,.1. r::61!t'~.\lI: I ~ ;::'f.!l,A.....lh,..';'~ .~b .. !~ -, : ' t~ I'~ I ~~ o . . . , ~ Ii . . }~. I !;l~ Hi j" ..~ bl ,0 1_'11"'111'0-'''' J;~ 1~~ Hi JI~~I~: H tJ;1 ~~ ii' H 1 0_,1 __0 0" It 0 11'0 0 '-1- :~. j,;: :H:: .1.: L u=;: !' . i ._ .. ,u'. ~ ,I. :-. i. .. ,- HI! 11-1 'OfF H1!]Ji .= thJ ,'! :ill~!i .... ' ,_. ;:_, II " -..I. '10-'-1- ; 1 I', "ii~l! II' ! Ii 1, I'" !I." : 1:_ J!: li"i--,i 1.' I. :;1 :I!i i.l~ ,,! il j ,!I,! I~ II!' '1 il. :11;1 hi~ .,! ~i! -i~,!t. I HI! h ::I'~ !u:' :[I.j ;!' :'; !op;;i .. :Ii\o il U !i"1 i.'H l-!~ "I!; iH~'ij !1.i- ~ J .!! I :i~ ,'.. 1; . -i- =-1. ..,! .,1...0 I... ~!,Ii '10 11-1 !,;;111 '-I"J',J1Hi "I !ljI jll. .,iI '. , , ,lI '.-n"'- I - -" ! ,1,1,' :1,:. 'i! li;;,-!' !I"!'I~'!' iil .1001'!1 0- _,-. I" 1'- I . - _0. ,- 'i'i: :1 !.. ,.!.j, "il;'-ij!iii! 'I! Ili'H; li,i! Hi :\Ii! j!II,H: "j!; !i!'- Ii!"! !il!IIII',1."-I' I' .!.!I,.!;;1 ,.:1! jii'!!: Ii-,!I ,I !1!ii!1 'liHi:!iii fill Hill ill.'II-j !:I-I'!! 1111_!rlil.!jUlf,I!I;li:;,:!:"h~1 . .. I. 'I .1 I' _I..: dOl:" .:!=:do I" ":- .... ....u &1.. J'J=ILil- .1- !"j . 00)1,,1,' ~ ! ~ . l .~ ~L .. .-~~ > 1- ~~ '- ./ '-/ o g 1 ~ 1= ~ ~ Ii L ~ .' ~~ ~ D I I / '--' ) [Q] t ~ ~ - ;:---------- ': ~ , " I /il , , ~ , , /. rlJ . I , , ! , . , . Ib L -:-' i: " " , , , ..... , . " -.:,./ " '. . ~ 0 . o /~"-J ... . , ,-- . E ~.'.~ ~ ~ ill II. - ~~~~q~ ~i e ~! (~:II · :~ ~: i~ 11!~i3 ~~ IL ~lI ~m ~ ~ ~~ .~ -'. f'e" . ~ 4!1 .~(~. ~il! I oJ' ;i! ~:i ~11 ..- - > ii-III ~~;Ii I' _iP :: 6t" . ~i I I' . M nil z II ".1 ~i .~ [~ . ~.j! i~'- ,- ::.~ Hg e ~\. J 'i. <2 >. ~~.. i I. i~ 61 e H , -' I , ,I ! II ~ Lt I ~ i~ I ht ~ ~ . . ----- ,-------- .. II ----_:----- ---.- .. II " ---- 3MJO lS3~:J3Tv'H II ) Ii) il !I ! o <{ o a:: z o >- z <{ u :r n. <{ a:: '-" w ...J W .... I I t I i ~.:. - . , ., '\, , \ . """f'. ,'If...,.., --- " 'I, 1 HALE CREST DRIVE I j ,r... i ;Ii I t I ~ r -1 ' .r..., ! i i -_.. '-. ..u _._ -------------~-o~-_ ) , I' ! ~ e I I I I -i fT1 r fT1 C') ;0 )> -U I -------()-------- )> Z -< o z ;0 o )> o I I ~ 111\ ~ ,I ~ . I I I ,- i 11 I , : , ~ ,I I ~ , V: f'\/ I ': 'I II ,.r I' I ! r :,cr-~...-:-.~ rn ..-..,..,~.-.. ,,-- ~ ~ I' " I' I, '. r. . j I, R R" ., ~ ~.o ----.-._--- 0' ~CI 'r II.. ' ',' - t':d;r::~::.:j", '. - - ~l__ < __... t,' , , I' , ~I.. . n"~ \ 1;1' 'I ,'i . ! "I=;] , 1;4: Pi! I. :Ii I. " o. " " I , " " ", "I ,;1 I -i ~ r i i. ; i , . ~ q Ij II ~ I 1 , ! , I! ...,,- --- -, '1 ........., - , I, , ~ , , , ! , , , ~I ,~ I , , , \ ! , , ,"' . ~ ,Ii , ! . \ \ I' \ ~ , , i , .....' _.'. - '. ..,t., "'..,,_. '-'. ..i. -- .-------<. .. jj ,',.0 '"';"_' T , L .' " ,I' I :i~ " , i~:: -till ~" " " , , ! - , , , , , , " :; . ~- .. . ~ , , , , : .' , ! I I . I H - 'j I I . j , . I i ! , , I . 1'1: 1.1 \'" , i . I I o , ! c.:_________~___.;J . 0 , "'_._--"".,~ i! . .n. , -,."". f - ~ . 11 ~r ! ~ '!!~ . i'f ~~~& ~~ .-:.~ !~ ,. , rr r ! f" ~ I o -_ .~- ", ~ =i fT1 " Uo . -' ~ii~ ; 0...,....1'= ~ ~d.T'I i!fili'r~t..!..t:ljl "It! C') .1 !~ " z - .. -'I L' .,', ,,'I' )> - ~!~ €f' . -' .~~; :~ y 0 . ~.Ft.t.\!fr,:ii~ f r 'S- o ~~;. -; !~~ .i2 " -0 ; ! II i'i',/',.!-., .f.- i ~c ~~ " i ::;' . ;:..> ,!I,i':~:;f-I ",=11. ~~:' ~ "....'" :::,: i . -i . A-.,~,t~ 1.liP ....1' ~!; ~ :t SA .- ,0 .: ~ ." )> "f!'''' ti.l~l';~f Ilt~l' ..:.. ~ I F .~ ~ '? 0,- i'I!!I~i~;."II,,=, "I~ 9 ~! ~ftm ~~ t ~ !:. ,- S l::Hj~n".2'h'I" :1I~rlll i! :Ni i~ ,. ;;f~! I ~~".,fl(i~i..!l ~i ;' .f ar ^ ;il!li1!li:'!~ii !ih. " ::;::i . ~ . g 'i9JF ;, __8115 , i f"E::i;. .1.... 'I ..f' ~ ". .hl:j~:~t~~I.nf it~i ~F ., g~ ~ 0 ~ "k'j..",l!~- ~.:;': If' ~ 2 ,- ;::, f ~i;A.;IoI..Q..';'~ .~h . . ~ , . , I j ."""'... .,....~..,.- ~... I : ill '" () , ,.., 0 U Ii, -U 111\' . fT1 i. ~ I~ ~ .. ~ ~ t.c ~ 0 i" 'I ." t i I I ~ I, ~, 'II' 0 I I << ;0 '1, I ^ jp I " ! :!> Q z -i -< ;:: )> -U . . . , ;,~. * , " , ojP oli !oi Ii !:::~ f;r ". ,". " ' d~ j~~ ..... ....t ..... ...... i ~ II I ~K &~ f" ~! M' i I. ~~ "0 h ~ ;= ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ i O! - o . z ~ a ~p 0 i II' I~ i~i 1-' i~~ t~ 111 t f I 11 · . i . ~1 I". J 'd~~ !il. "1 ~I . .~ :I'" ,I II! . 1 .. ~~~ ': . ~ ... .Ut ".4, ~ ........ ~ :t ~ .~'"::-; .. ,I . l . - .', .&11 ".~ ~ ........ j . G , i ;= t I 'f .. .... > ~~ D~ W iii of :i! id .: ~.. II . ~ f ~ ~ i ~! '. h ~. {5 I! u~ ~ i I &~ 'I ~, - ~ ~ ~.:. . -....-.....:-.: ! . l . - . ..:'~"" -== . .~ .f I, 1- 11 -, ,. ,; "~ 31 '& 3, !, ~:' ~~~- 0 :- " r,S ~ ~81 -~, t ~. " "- i.J '-,'Y:'] ,I~. ~, . " "- . 1 " ..... , " "- i+ .1 ~ > . l ,. M.-.j. ~ .M.... r,i .... " 0 r~i '31 '- i ! t'. " G '~J r ~.I II" ~~~ .! ;= ~~D , . &~ ~o~ ~!O '! ~1 ~ [1:S:~' 1;. ,I~. 0' w ~ ~! '1 -~""~ -J W i J~J' I- .~ ~.~?:-:: .... ~ I, ~~~J: i i l!I .~ ,I "~ . I- I. " '& ~~ . ,. ~" i+ I j i~ ~, t~ !:' i i .1 ". 3~ . . "' II ~ !:' . MC...... M' .M.... .M' ! ,- ~t; ~:;;; -'" ,-' . l~i 5:1i 't , - " ' !- ! ~ ~~ &~ ~ 1;. .1 ). . .... W . -J ~ W. I- f ~ .; , W ~ i 1 . I ~ i~ ~~ ,1 fi , .. 'w , . w . - - '-'-'~'-' ....""" . ' ~ I _. e = i j~;;!:! c:5 i~gH ~; ~~ ~ -.";; 1: !!!!J~ I t~l... ~.~ ~ @ ~ ,. @11J ~'~H ~ ~I ~~ IbJ ~.. :i" ~H ~ Ii ; list !~f ft1M"" '.1 "'0_ r'. ....1 .. I~I r" I it~; ... "I " . . f 1 ..e 't: 0 ! i , r r ~ · i H H. 1 I , t 'f o 0 :' 0 ~, 1 ~ ~ o 1 J~ l~ .... :;1 " . ~ '" ~Q ~~ t~ 6 ~ ., .~ ~. ..so! . " a." "0 il (j ;= 'f ). w . -J. w : ~ i B ~ .... ~ ! ~ ; G ;= 'f > ~ W. -J : w. ... f ....- <I . w ~ d -. . . ~ . ( . [1/'!I.!!/llill/lillll; "I", II, ,,'I i 11I111 II 'i. "II! III ,I ~, Iii I I.II'!I y: I' ! III 3, 11:11 11'1, 'I : 1::IIIIIII,IIlllil:1'11 iil: i;~! ,!II!lij. ''''I "I" . : : ::. ;1': 'I" ,I,,, Iii I I! ' nil,' ~~ II ,M.'.. ~ r,i 's' ~\4O . IO!' · ~Ji1 >~ o! x. " .~ f<< j; !~ - . ) ;, . ( , 011 . iIi .~ ~..... r ~ ;:: <t :> . w, ...J : W' .... 1 ",' ~d i: O~ " ...;:: ~ ,", " I : I / .:)_.. - I I I ,s" ~- d~ 11 II 1., :-x~~ ~ .' d@,fili I' II I~I il1;; ~i ~~ I ~Ii II')~ ~ .. fUj @ JTI ..~ ~ m ~y:~.~.~ d ~ It ~ 11;, ~ ~m ~ ~ ~i r !I' h!" ~ OM 4j ; L ~h i " II J" !u . I . I 'i' I i'~:r c . 1 I.JI.!,,!.i.! 5 ;:: ~ W ...J . W ~ :I' .... 1 01 . ~ ~ ~ ;:: <t :> . w . ...J . w: .... 1 '" . ~ ~ ) c=-~\ L!J-J . ~ d o ~~J 1 I ~ ~:- -- -- - f: . I^aICIJ'''~'''''' . "'/".. " . I~ " '. ,.1 z " <0 0 ~...... ;- zg ~ ~Q ~ !!)O Z xoc wlL ~ " z y~ : n n ,:- ~ '4 ,.'1' · . ~ i ~ ~~ II n ~~, ! ~ ~n~ III r \'t~ 1: I ~~ ... 1,1 i.~ ' ~. , J.1 J.:t.. r"~ )J1 ." ~~~ i h AI... ~ !,~I~~j~J~1 z " <0 "u ~ Z::> I i=O ~ "'0 . XOC Z UJIL ~ .W-.. . . , '. i~~ I u. fJ~ !1! ,.T '1; ~~~ ~~:o. 'd-' I~. ~; t- ~~r "~ z ~. "9 Z i~! , t n vt .. ~ ~ r g o ~ V, r ..,:r ~. ")~ _., ! i ~, ,~ l' ~t h~ ~I"~ ~h ~ .. z.... ~. ~.... O. 9'.. ,.i~ ..n~ y )~ ~ ~ n "J!") eU:' . I" ,,'!. ., ~u~ i~ ..~ ~ .. 2 ~r ;~t.6 ~ ~ ;,! 4 ! 1 ~,. .... .... ...-..)<t ->I~ € \JUt ; ! m H~~! H !~; m I!; r . ~~I ;,2~ j:; :i ,.1 :~~ :9; f ~ "~, '9':~ iQ !~; 1"! ~y\ . , '~,.., .~,' '9'. "1 ..' ~ I ~~! ~~! f~ t~ ~iir i~'!1 ~II . , t.: .,:~. " ~ .'~ I~' U' r~ :~ ~!2 I~~ ~J~ !~2 ~,,~ :~ii i~~ -~I '." I'i '1; ~., !1; !!1i '!~I ur,! o to ~\ "''' ~.." ~<,,!J ...~. ~~ o~," a .~ ui~ ~.~ ,i~ ,.~ ~!!! ~~tt ~;I~ ... .. .. , . . . ~ >> & I u ~ ~ " ~ ~I I . ~ '" . ~ 0,< ~, d ~ ~ :J II ~;I 1 "-0 !;;;1 ~i I :;h~ /11 dlQ ~ ~~ ~@ @I at: ! i I ~Ic " '.' @i)~ '" "iI ~I' 1 '" 6 " d :.;:.U.,{;I:I ~;~!! @ II~~' ill., ~m. ~ 2J iLl /01 :~: ~ ~ & ~ !!~ I ~I~~! - ! .!:t.,,, ~ I Q w U <I -' II. !illl -w :0 ill ><0 w~ :_, I' ~ ... W !') '" I .i~. I );111...1:1 '~~~~~ ~. !~II ,~ ",€>,~ €> " ,~:I.I2:I I . I~:~,!IQ ,3'11 ,) II Jf ..",. J...)...) ...( l ....~ ....~ = '" z " <0 ~ r -' fi1~ ZlL :; :;: U I . ":. I . ~. ~~ !~I,~~ ~ ;:;: ~~I~;.~ :.. ., I'~.. ;:; ~ - i: i; f f ' ; ; : :r f f j f 0 . ~ . ,~ . . ~ I Q .. n.. I, I n I. Z ~ .. ~.. .: ~I' ., I. UJi? ~ ~&~r.~{ ~'i( :1j~ ~gi J ~,l ~ 1: I 'IJ~ ..E;~~, a :~;.~;;; !"I; -' It' - 0 -I~ 3 ,', I: ' ~ ' ~ ~ t WiD t 1[, If, '.:€.' ~ S i ~.;: ~ ~ l i~ :;:;; ;. f 1; ;.' :. , a i .. i; :" ., ". ,,:; ,\ oi! J : .. I:.' 1:11: ! ~ : J ] 1 ~' ~ ~~~ : : I: ~ ~ f. €.. \I 6 6 16 G g ,g :ZII-ZZj'flflf l ;. ~ ~ u :~ . 0 ~ . I~ I~ ... 1- ~ I"" .. .... I" ::---'~-::I-"--!rJ-';~~~" G 9 e lye' 0 Y 0.> @, 0 Y 0.> \ 0.> iY @ I~ 0 iy @ :y @ ,j 0y I -4- ---ii.F j ~ i -'1=:' --=--- 'r - 'I II I " 'I 'I II II Ii II II II 'I .'1 , ,I II II 'I I, Ii ~-=------- l ~ ~ , i I ,I i: ~ l I' ,l..-.r",,"-~_...............~ ~ '" .-:1. .~ , 'illili: ili '11111: z -< It ... o o 0: I:' >- ~ z 1;-; ~~~; ~ ~ r o oC ~ C (,) E z ~ A -J :z:" <0( ; 3 o~~ :~ ...J 1: ~ .. ...J Z 0 ! ~ W 0: & 1'. ~ I ;~!;~ ; '1:11' Iii:; I! I RESOLUTION NO. PCC-94-47 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47 FOR THE ADDITION OF A SELF-SERVE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on June 2, 1994 by Mark Hayden for Shell Oil Company; and WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a conditional use permit to construct a self-service car wash for the existing service station located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road in the C-C-D zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-27) of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS- 94-27; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within an area greater than 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at advertised, namely September 14, 1994 at Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the said hearing was thereafter closed. the time and place as 7:00 p.m. in the Council Planning Commission and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: I. Adoption of Negative Declaration. no significant environmental impacts Declaration issued on IS-94-27. That the project will have and adopts the Negative II. CUP Findings. That the Commission makes the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed car wash will provide a convenient service to residents in the area as well as motorists by providing an accessible facility along a major thoroughfare. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect on- or off-site circulation and has been found to comply with City noise standards. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The project will be required to comply with all applicable codes, conditions, and regulations prior to the issuance of development permits, and on a continuing basis thereafter. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other enti tlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. D. That the granting of this conditional use per.mit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The approval of this permit as conditioned is consistent with City policies and the General Plan. III . Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The Planning Commission hereby grants conditional use permit PCC-94-47 subject to the following conditions whereby: A. An easement shall be obtained and an exit drive established from the carwash to the easterly adjacent commercial center driveway to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Director of Planning prior to the issuance of building permits. B. Carwash hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. C. The proj ect will be subj ect to all conditions of approval of the Design (DRC-94-49) . requirements and Review Committee D. An Industrial Waste permit shall be obtained with the connection of any floor drains of the car wash to the sewer system. E. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to repair any water damage to public improvements resulting from the operation of the car wash. F. A soils study shall be submitted to the Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. IV. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant. A. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution 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. B. 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. V. A copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of September 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C. Chairman Tuchscher II, Nancy Ripley, Secretary INI~I - r-. 5 (...:;':)::;ral+Cw :: 3:' West f"loreO'\Ce A'ofCnue ~n9'eWQOd. California 90301 Tel (310)412-7074 18001782. '582 FAX 13101673.0276 Chuck "-kion s..s Representative ~ -- - ~-~ ---~~ EXHIBIT A :: . . . ~,., June 28. 1994 Mr. Rod Bisharat TELEGRAPH CANYON SHELL 501 Telegraph Canyon Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Rod: There are (3) kinds of washing machines designed for the oil companies: They are listed as follows: 1. Drive-Thrus (Uses guide rail. customer driving the vehicle, each wash takes 45 seconds, (1) minute with drying). Handles: (60-75) cars/hour. 2. Tunnels (Uses conveyor system, customer or employee driving the vehicle, each wash takes (1) minute. 1 -112 minute with drying). Handles: (40-60) cars/hour. 3. Rollovers (Uses treadle, customer drives the car to a stop. machine handles the wash, takes (3) minutes without upgrade. up to (5) minutes with upgrades. Handles: (12-20) cars/hour. A conveyor system car wash can stack up to (4) cars in the building and (2) outside as each one is in a certain stage. (pre-soak, wash or rinse & dry). A rollover system can wash one car at a time. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. ~ ;~rV Chuck Persekian N/S Corporation CP/kw Enclosure (II Manufacturers and Erectors of Vehicle Cleaning Equipment Conveyance Systems . Uquid Blow-off Systems . Liquid Reco""ry Systems EXHIBIT B SITE COMPARISON BONITA vs TELEGRAPH Bonita Telegraph SITE sq.ft. 18,698 sq. ft. Corner Lot Corner Lot Access Both Street Access Both Street 2 Island/4 Dispensers 2 Island/4 Dispensers Volume - 240k gal/mth 8000 gal/day 130k gal/mth 3883 gal/day 727 cars/day 353 cars/day CARWASH STACKING Entry - 7 Entry - 5 Tunnel - 1 Tunnel - 2 Exit - 0 Exit - 3 TOTAL STACK 8 TOTAL STACK 10 SITE VOLUME - GASOLINE TOTALS SUPPORT DATA FRIDAY 6/24/94 7:00a.m. - 9:00p.m. TIME OUTSIDE INSIDE TOTAL AVG.jHR * 6:58-9:50 500.9 446.5 947.4 315.8 * 9:50 - 1:21 386.5 430.7 817.2 233.4 1:22 - 3:03 193.7 213.8 407.3 203.8 3:15 - 4:59 222.1 228.9 451. 0 225.5 * 5:00 - 7:00 271.7 517.2 788.9 394.9 * 7:00 - 8:40 188.8 282.4 471. 20 235.6 PEAK A.M. P.M. 7:00 5:00 9:00 7:00 *SUPPORT DATA DERIVED VIA DAILY COMPUTER RECEIPTS - . - JLf04-ii4-1994 13:1i!S ~f<\JM t~ CCJiPORATION / / I .' j TU 16194~1~lS P.aJ cars/Hour Graph CARS/HOUR GRAPH o !SAM o 6AM o 7AM o 'AM 413..... 9AM 25..... lOAK i 34*..... llAM [ 47.......... l2PM , 61.......*.*.. lPM ' 67.~..*.*...... 2PM 57............ JPM 45..*...... 4~ 28....* SFM 24.:*.. 6PM . g"; 7PM ' 0, I I 420 ,TOTAL i 1/25/9_ I 7:17 PH 004 %249 436833.75 Th. far left .ide of'the qraph contains time cleek re.d1n9S (5AM, 6AM, etc. ) . Bet",.en 8VCY set of clock r..dinqe is the hourly carvalh count and bar 9raph ,(each .sterisk "*" repre..nt1nq 5 cara). In this exa~pla, 23 car. ",ara washed between 'am and 'am. The tetal number ot cara washed durinq the time period is printad belcw the qrapn (4%0). The l..t line of print contains the dllta (1/25;9<1), time (7:17 PM) I stere nuaber (004), Z~rudinq ceunt (249), and a rlonresettable qrar.~ ';~tu f4J...6/iJ3. 75). negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Telegraph Canyon Road Service Station-Carwash Addition PROJECT LOCATION: 501 Telegraph Canyon Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 639-080-21 PROJECT APPLICANT: Rod Bisharat CASE NO: JS-94-27 DATE: July 22, 1994 A. Prolect Settinq The project site is an existing, 18,698 square foot, 24 hour Shell gas station, with a snack shop, located at the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive. The site includes: a 1764 sq. ft. 3 bay service building with an accessory snack shop and a 1248 sq. ft., 2 island canopy station. The applicant is proposing the sale of beer and wine during snack shop hours which would be 7: 00am-7: OOpm from April to October and 7: 00am-5: OOpm from November-March. Three driveways provide access to the site, one via Halecrest Drive and two via Telegraph Canyon Road. Ten parking spaces exist on site. There are a maximum of two del i veries per week (gasoline and/or products for the snack shop) and approximately 350 customers per day. There are three existing 10,000 gallon underground storage tanks and one 500 gallon waste oil tank. All tanks have received the required permits from the County Hazardous Materials Waste Division. The average graded slope of the site is 2%. North Island Federal Credit Union is located to the north of the site. Another service station is located across HaleCrest Drive to the west. An entrance to the Telegraph Canyon Plaza shopping center is to the east of the site and to the south across Telegraph Canyon Road is a medium-high density residential condominium project. B. Prolect Description The proposed project consists of the addition of a 630 sq. ft. carwash. The applicant projects that the carwash will generate an additional 40 patrons per day. The station will therefore service approximately 390 patrons once the carwash is built. The hours of operation will be 7:00am-7:00pm from April-October and 7:00-5:00 from November-March. The carwa~~~ --.~ . r.........................o:' ~~~~ city of chula vllta planning department em OF environmental review aection. QiUIA VISTA contains a reclamation system which will allow an 85% reuse of the water used. The carwash will service two cars at one time and allow stacking for 8 cars, five at the entry and three at the exit. The construction of the carwash will decrease parking on-site from ten to eight spaces; this is a sufficient number for compliance with City parking requirements (Sec.19.62, City Zoning Ordinance) for this type of use. The applicant will be required to provide a 7' dedication along the frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road to allow for a six-lane major arterial with bike lanes. Sufficient dedication is required to meet the half-width standards for a six-lane major with bike lanes (a bike lane in the eastbound direction and one in the westbound direction) or as specified by the City Engineer. The street-dedication will decrease the amount of possible landscaping fronting Telegraph Canyon Road and may prevent the project from meeting City landscaping standards. However the amount of landscaping proposed will be an increase over what is existing currently on the site. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the City Landscape Architect. An agreement is required for the applicant to relocate all on- site facilities impacted by the street widening, including signs, private lights and tanks. When Telegraph Canyon Road is widened (future DIF proj ect) then the west driveway on Telegraph Canyon Road may be required to be closed. When the existing box culvert was built, an easement was not dedicated to the city for repair and maintenace of the cul vert. Therefore, the City Engineering department is requesting this applicant to dedicate a drainage easement over the Telegraph Canyon Channel for this purpose. Payment of the Telegraph Canyon sewer development fee and transportation development impact fee will also be required. The aforementioned dedication of a street and drainage easement are consistent with the City requirements for other properties which front the northern side of Telegraph Canyon Road. The carwash construction will require removal of the existing pavement on site where the carwash is proposed and the geotechnical condition of this area will need to be reviewed before carwash construction, to ensure that the area is adequate for the proposed structure. A soils study is therefore required to be submitted. Said report and school impact fees must be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. The fire department will require one on-site fire extinguisher. The carwash is orientated towards retail commercial uses to the east. The project is not located immediately adjacent to any residential dwellings. However, nearby residents have raised a concern about the level of noise generated by the proposed carwash. In reponse to this conce,rn, noise level readings were taken on site and the applicant has provided data as to the expected noise levels to be generated by the carwash (attached). The ambient noise level on site is currently 72 dBA. Noise will diminish with increased distance from the site. One hundred feet from the carwash, the noise level will be 64 dBA. The nearest sensitive noise receptor is a single-family dwelling 300' from the project site. As the noise level is 64 dba, which is below a level of significance per the City Zoning Ordinace, and as noise levels diminishes with distance, the noise level at 300' will be below a level of significance at the nearest single-family dwelling. Nearby residents have also raised a concern about crime in the area generated by the carwash. The police department has reported one complaint within the last year relating to loud music. The police department commented that one complaint is negligible for the busy project site area and does not warrant a concern on the part of the department. Required discretionary approvals include Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit. C. Compatibilitv with Zoninq and plans The project site is zoned for CCP (Central Commercial with a Precise Plan) and designated commercial retail. Conditional Use Permit approval will assure that the project will be in compliance with the General Plan and City Zoning Ordinance. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. E. Mandatorv Findinqs of Siqnificance 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 addition of a carwash to an existing gas station in an urbanized area will not reduce the habitat of Fish or Wildlife species. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The addition of a carwash to an existing service station will not hinder short-term goals. It will comply with long-term City conservation goals as outlined in Chapter 3 of the General Plan, which has determined water conservation as an objective in the "Water Facility Plan." The carwash will use a water reclamation system, which will reclaim 85% of the water used for this service. This reclamation system will prevent this use from placing a significant demand on water resources in the region and will support the City's long-term environmental goal of reclaiming water in situations where it is "safe and feasible." 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. All impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to less than significant, as the result of the applicant's compliance with the City's Code requirements. City facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required. The project does not have the potential for individually limited effects being cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of a proj ect will cause a substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project will not cause any significant impacts and is in compliance with threshold standards for fire, police, school, and other public services as discussed in the threshold section of the Initial Study. Noise impacts are negligible and the project will not cause adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations 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 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: Mark Hayden, Tait & Associates 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 3. Ini tial 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. ~~(~.L7~,:'~/ ENVIRONM NTAL R VIEW OORD NATOR 7 ~ ~a !q.l/ ATt Case No. IS-94-27 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Rod Bisharat 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 501 Telegraph Canyon Road Chula Vista, CA 92010 (619) 421-3000 4. Name of Proposal: Telegraph Canyon Shell Carwash 5. Date of Checklist: July 22, 1994 Potentially Potentially Significant Leu than Significant Unlen Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181 an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The project site is zoned for CCP (Central Commercial with a precise plan) and designated retail commercial. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit will assure that the project will be in compliance with the General Plan. Page I Potentially Potential!) Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181 housing? Comments: The proposed addition of an automated carwash to an existing service station will not generate any additional population, thus placing no demand on local housing. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) A ny increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The existing site is developed, graded and therefore no geophysical impacts are expected. The carwash construction will require the removal of the existing pavement on site where the carwash is proposed. The geotechnical condition of this area will require review before construction. Therefore the engineering department has required the submittal of a soils report prior to the issuance of a building permit. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? o o o 181 Page 2 Potentially Potentially Significant Less thlln Significant Unless Significant No Impllct Mitigated Impact Impllct b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) A Itered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) A Iterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: On-site drainage facilites consist of surface flow to Telegraph Canyon Road and to Halecrest Drive and a double 8' wide by 6' reinforced concrete box culvert (Telegraph Canyon Channel). These facilities are not adequate to serve project. However, surface drainage is adequate and the adequacy of the box culvert for the conveyance of 50-year storm flows is unknown. The project will not increase runoff to the facility. The project does not propose new paving, therefore runoff is not expected to increase. Off-site drainage facilities consist of curb inlets at the northeast corner of the intersection. Two double 5'-8" by 4'-3" R.C.B.s exist downstream, in addition to a double 8'x 6' R.C.B. and single 12' x 5' -6" R.C.B. These facilities are adequate to serve the project. The water proposed for use will be 850/0 reclaimed and is not expected to create a significant demand on water resources. y, AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 Page 3 Potentially Potentially Significant wuthan Significant Unless Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project is expected to generate a traffic increase of 40 ADT (trips per day). Currently, there are 37,430 trips per day and traffic engineering has determined that the 40 ADT increase is not significant. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact air quality in the area. APCD does not require a permit for the project. VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 181 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) I nsufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: See comments under Air Quality. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 Page 4 f) A ffect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? Potentially Potentially Significant Leu than Significant Unleu Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposed addition of a carwash to an existing service station does not have the potential to impact sensitive species or habitat. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The project site currently uses electrical services for air conditioning and lighting. The project will involve the upgrade of electrical service to three phase from existing underground service from Telegraph Canyon Road for this use. This addition will be within the existing limits for electrical service in the area and will not significantly impact current service to the area. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed addition of a carwash to an existing service station does not pose a concern regarding possible hazards on site. Three gasoline tanks do exist on site, which are permitted by the County Hazardous Materials Waste Division (HAZMA T). The applicant will be required to submit a business plan to HAZMA T for their review and approval prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. This will allow a review of hazardous materials on site and will ensure that the site in compliance with County hazardous waste requirements. a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Page 5 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unlen Mitigated Len than Significant Impact N, Impact Comments: The carwash is orientated towards retail commercial uses to the east. The project is not located immediately adjacent to residential uses. However, nearby residents have raised a concern about the level of noise generated by the proposed carwash. In reponse to this concern, noise levels were taken on site and the applicant has provided data as to the expected nois~ levels to be generated by the carwash (attached). The ambient noise level on site is currently 72 dBA. Noise will dimishes with increased distance from the site. One hundred feet from the carwash, the noise level will be 64 dBA. The nearest sensitive noise receptor is a single-family dwelling 300' from the project site. As the noise level is 64 dba, which is below a level of significance per the City Zoning Ordinace, and as noise levels diminishes with distance, the noise level at 300' will be below a level of significance at the nearest single-family dwelling. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The fire and police departments will be able to provide an adequate level of service to the site, without an increase in personnel or equipment. The applicant will be required to provide dedication along the frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road to allow for a six-lane major with bike lanes. Sufficient dedication is required to meet the half-width standards of said designation or as specified by the City Engineer. The applicant will also be required to dedicate a drainage easement over the Telegraph Canyon Channel to the City. Payment of the Telegraph Canyon sewer development fee and transportation development impact fee will also be required. School impact fees are payable prior to issuance of the building permit. These measures will ensure that environmental impacts are at a level below significant. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? o o o 181 As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS o o o 181 The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 4 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Page 6 Potentially Significant Impact Potenlially Significant Unless Mitigated Lesl than Significllnt Impact No Impact Comments: The fire department will require one fire extinguisher for the carwash (I extinguisher per 3,000 sq.ft or any portion there of). 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. b) Police o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority ] calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The police department has indicated that they will be able to provide an adequate level of service to the proposed facility. Nearby residents have also raised a concern about crime in the area generated by the carwash. The police department has received one complaint within the last year relating to loud music. The police department commented that one complaint is negligible for the busy project site area and does not warrant a concern on the part of the department. c) Traffic o o o 181 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) "0" 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 "Ell or IIF" 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. Comments: The project will not create unacceptable Levels of Service(LOS) at intersections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site. The primary access roads are adequate to serve the project. d) Parks/Recreation o o o 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll ,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: As the proposed project is not residential, the threshold standards for parks and recreation do not apply. e) Drainage o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Page 7 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unleu Mitigated Less than Significant Impact N" Impact Comments: On-site drainage facilites consist of surface flow to Telegraph Canyon Road and to Halecrest Drive and a double 8' wide by 6' reinforced concrete box culvert (Telegraph Canyon Channel). These facilities are not adequate to serve project. However, surface drainage is adequate and the adequacy of the box culvert for the conveyance of 50-year storm flows is unknown. The project will not increase runoff to the facility. Since no paving is proposed, runoff is not expected to increase. Off-site drainage facilities consist of curb inlets at the northeast comer of the intersection. Two double 5'-8" by 4'-3" R.C.S.s exist downstream, in addition to a double 8'x 6' R.C.S. and single ]2' x 5'-6" R.C.S. These facilities are adequate to serve the project. When the existing box culvert was built on the project site, an easement was not dedicated to the city for repair and maintenance of the culvert. Therefore, the engineering department is requesting this applicant to dedicate a drainage easement over the Telegraph Canyon Channel for this purpose, which is standard for properties fronting the northern edge of Telegraph Canyon Road. f) Sewer o o o 181 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. Comments: The applicant is required to pay sewer impact fees which are based upon the gallons per day for which the carwash is expected to generate (listed in the engineering master fee schedule). This will ensure that impacts to existing facilities are at a level below significant. g) Water o o o 181 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. A pplicants may also b, required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City (f Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: The water used by tl,e carwash will be 85% reclaimed and is not expected to create a significant demand on water resou 'ces. The fire department has indicated that fire flow is adequate for the project. Due to this fact, :he Sweetwater Authority has determined that there is no need for new water systems or substantial ,Iteration to the existing water system. Water systems are adequate to serve the project and no impact; are expected. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a nt ed for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? o o o 181 b) Communications systems? o o o 181 Page 8 Potentially Potentially Significant Len than Significant Unlen Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: As discussed in the threshold section above, the impacts to utilities and service systems are less than significant. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section ]9.66.]00 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title ]9? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The carwash proposed to be added to an existing service station will be located behind an existing structure on site and will not impact the view of the site. The increase in lighting is negligible, as the carwash will be used by patrons 7:00am-7:00pm from April-October and 7:00am- 5:00pm from November-March. The project site is not located immediately adjacent to residential uses. The lighting which is involved will be reviewed during design review and will be required to meet City lighting standards, so as to not impact surrounding uses. The project proposes an increase to on-site landscaping, which will also be reviewed during the design review. The increase in landscaping will provide a more aesthetically pleasing view of the site from the roadway. xv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 Page 9 d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan ElR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposed project is an addition of a carwash to an existing service station in an urbanized area and will not impact cultural resources. Potentially Potentially Signiliunt Llesl than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The proposed project, an addition of a carwash to an existing service station In an urbanized area, is not expected to impact paleontological resources. o o o 181 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) I ncrease the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 c) I nterfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 plans or programs? Comments: The proposed project is not residential and will not impact recreational opportunities in the area. XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Please refer to section E of the Negative Declaration. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Section E. Negative Declaration Page 10 Potentially Potentially Significant Leu than Significant Unleu Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Does the project have impacts that are D D D ~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Section E Negative Declaration d) Does the project have environmental effect D D D ~ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Section E Negative Declaration Page II ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - 0 Land Use and Planning D Transponat ionlCi rcu lation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINA nON: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and · a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a Significant effect on the environment, 0 there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at least 0 one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant 10 applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ~ f.<A (-/C4.LJ~~/) Environment Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista ? 1~:;2.Jqy Dafe I Page 12 APPENDIX 111 Case No. IS-94-27 CITY PAT A SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zonine: on site: CCP North South East West CCP R30P CCP CCP Does the project conform to the current zoning? Yes II. General Plan land use designation on site: Commercial Retail Nonh Commercial Ih:tail South Medium-Hii.!h ResiJL'1Hl\l1 East Commercial Retail West Commercial Rt:lail Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Us\: Diagram'? CUP anNoval will assure comDatibilitv. Is the project area designated for conservation or opt:n space or adjacent to an area so designated? No. Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? Y!:s. Tckl!ranh Canyon Road is a scenic hie:hwav within the City. (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to proLect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). An increase in landscaoimz from what is existin1! will enhance the view or the site from the roadway. III. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: N/A School CaDJcitv Enrollment Units Prooosed Generating Factors Students Generated From Proiect Elementary Junior High Senior High .30 .29 .10 IV. Remarks: Dir~ing or Representative ~ 7~2..-/''f Date . _. ~";i)~ ( ~ .'111.:' f' -.,... ~ ' .'O~..- ~ . ""...9..~ ~ "I 0 Os t1 ~~~ "Co '" '~~~ --' " .~~~~~~ ~~ ~ .. ~ a 1. .~ w ~ .~~I?, ~\.. :,\i:'~. .' '~'\o; " "IIi no .'. III . · :t t:. ~,.,... . , ':!~~.;.., td..\J ,..- ,-.~... .' "'f~ . 'N~ ",. "'('. : ~ iii ~ . n,!t\.. . ~~ ~'. ~ ~ ~I:~ ,"~~ ~i~ C\O' . ~.~ .~ ..",~ no . ~. ~. .'" '~f "~' 0,' ~ ~, 0 . ,., r -,--""-_. I'" _ r I I;, I I I. I , , , I' .1 '. ,I "': I ~I I i .1' ..1. '.' '.11 \. L '... _. -.--. "'-".I_...~...._._-... . .' . . 0 ..... :l ", 4'.>~. . : . \ I. i J , ' ttt~ ltt>~f' i, ' tI ~~ t; ~~ - ~ ~ '. " . . ~~6 r~ ~~: .' .'. . .l~ ....~ ~ . ~. . t~..\ ..t/. . , ffi:(~1 -. ~"~l;I;~: ;\.'\ C) . . ~ ~, ':Ii :~._ ", '~;':.; ~ . ~ . 'IC:,,-: ". :. ., " ~ .: 0," , :. . :', .... '. . o' ';' e',' '. , _ .' <:"", ,.'~ '\:'~.I" .;.j,:, ~.:..~..,,~. 0 ' !\ ..K ",if; .. ~~' _":~""...'{",. ;'.:,' . ~ .a ~..o /.::....: '.~ ~. C)t i' ~o, "'':''., ! ~ . '" ,.: .,. ~ . ". t': :/-i' . ~ . ~: .>....01,,:.. ~.( '" Of '. . ~ 6'\ ~ I~ ~ UI i r; t -:..:; ,I;. '\ " ?t ~ ~ .. "\ -....... t ~ "'-~.- ~ . ~:::. ..... .. ...,tI,)._I! . ;,. Q.. ~. CIt,_ 'all . " /. . . - ..1 I . . ~ !.... t-. ..~ )0 ~ I I . t.~, \i '. " '.: '(?: .~;/;~: ::':;i. . '" . ) '(,'i~~ . . . . . ;~ , , .. ~', . . ._ ...-.-n_ ...n'nn ROUTING FORM DATE: June 6, 1994 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, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdado) community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only 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) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) other FROM: Doug Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS- 94-47 /FA-~/DQ-093 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-----/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-----/DP) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-----) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existin9 service station for a car wash, other minor on-site improvements and dedications of street right-of-way. Location: 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 6/15/94 Comments: "j \ __ t-- ROUTING FORM JUN - 7 1994 D~E: June 6. 1994 ~. f!'-' <<en Larson, Building ~ Bousing r'J'J' John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) r'. Cliff swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec ~ EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only 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) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) other Fr; Douq Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS_~FA-~/DQ-093 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station for a car wash, other minor on-site improvements and dedications of street right-of-way. Location: 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. please review the document and forward to me any comments you bave by 6/15/94 Comments: t?ct2j OIJ711 /p.' -- 6toJ. I'.er~!-- ar-f;: Y5, - 911 Case No. ;c-;-Q'f-Z7 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION I. Drainage . J/Jro n. 1/,',u 4 &/,<-/f A. Is the project site within a flood plain? Nt>. T""/~ AIlE.4 11M lJerr 'S€EJ JM1>I'>eD 8'f FEAA. H so, state which FEMA FIoodway Frequency Boundary. IJ ~ . . B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? 50~E ~ Tt> 71f:/.z:;r:.I7~y:;J/CAJ.!Y^^, 12Mb A1JD"m J./ALEL./lBr't:>ENE. ~ 2:hr)a.J~ A'W/~BY6' . IJ fCH eE.-1A1e:nr;/'~D Cc"'c.~e-rz;: ~r UJ(...VJ;:1!:"r (T)Et;::"'D~ l:4/tJ'/hAf CJ.IANAlr:"':.\. C. Are they adequate to serve the project? Nt> . H not, please explain briefly. ':;vUAcE 'DAAw.kcE I'; A ~F'4~. 77+E A-D"Z('/JU:V tV=" gf")K" C.UL~ F""o,(2. ~ CnNvfE~c..~ ~ ';-o-yE.A;e. ~ r1^H/5 " c.JAlD.lnl4ll'lj ~e/i?f lJ..f~ ~P/)~I!?t::> P,'h-n::,er- Wfu- Al6"- JAlc..IZ:::AL'~ I2.LwL:>FF"1Z>7"Utt;;.J::At;([,..rry. D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? I".JJIlA /lJLE7S AT"-mE .1 ~/" .,'" NtJll""H~ QoPAf1E.1J r:;F -r1fEi: /I\l"r'€I!.SEc.-n&N.,""'-> ~/l4re ~~ BY..,.-~ 1Z..c8..s DoWN~e'''''' 'DoU8LEI<'o/{,.' rz.c-6. fft"'" -:;,j.J/le Izl><G!fi,nfi?.c.B.IMI"1E1:>~YID..tJ E. Are they adequate to serve the project? Ye.;;. ~. H not, please explain briefly. 1A. TransDortation A. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~r~.ci?APH ~YOlA..! Oi'"">A'>->. B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto ttips to be generated by the project (per day)? 4D Ar::>r ()I/~ Ff.'>t: 19r/l'/(;. use.. C. What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the primary access roads before and after project completion? Street Name Before After ~/6<c.GA'PIf /,A+lY""! ~7'c>. ~'Z Lf...~n 3"'Z. </70 Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.) "Cn design ADT volume? H yes. please specify. NO . WPC,J',~CJIS1'()RErN022.93 (II". 1021.93) (lid. 10:10.93) Page 2 is -50/! Case No. T.~-4<f-.:L7 If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. tJ/A . , _ D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? Yr;;..<;. If not, please explain briefly. N tI: . E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site? I'll>. If so, identify: Location "'.~ Cumulative L.a.S. ~k,. F. 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). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TIA will have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance. Yes X. No The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementJItion of the proposed project? Yes)( No If yes, please describe. N fA- . H. Is the project con~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan. General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed project. Vr::s. I. Is a traffic study required? Yes)(" No J. Is there any dedication required? y~s. AU'w,/I!:, t:='I2~E:. NJ "T1::',.,,-/"..D...PI-l CAlJy'o/J ~t:>. If so, please specify. -n:/ ~GIZ..(?p ~'f>Ar rzn,.,'D I!; 'Df:!iI:;r/'.Ar~ IN -ruE(.;6'&DLI Pf..AI.l ~ It Slx-l.AllE MA:J~ ~y W/71/ '(;l/lt.6- / AAr~ ~Vr::l::lC.:9Jr t:>EDrrA-"""'; IS. RE~/I!a:> i7> foIfE!t:=r""""'E HA;t..F-Wlpi7f ~lJIrIlp;. OF 54./t> 'J:>P.;r~..,..,cN t:ie. AS WPCJ',I/IOMEllUNNlNGlSTOREIN022.93 (lie. 1021.931 (Ref. 1020.93) S~,F/E'b Sy ~ c.rrY cNGINfi;~ . Page 3 Ys -519 Case No. rs-tJL/-.:27 K. Is there any street widening required? ND..5eE;. AT'"f:M./fEP LE:rre./Z U4T7!!v MAPc# If so, please specify. 2 r, 1<1<11./ ,::-/lbM Cl-/ F~,p D S:W,M/qyu "'fZ> ,L1A /ZJL #,4 Ybl3iJ (~.J..FEP) . L. Are there any other street improvements required? YEG. If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements. wl-lEiN 7"FLt;f".t2APJI CAMv",,^/ ~AD J~ Wr~'El?(Fu-rtJll.E':. D.1s:'. ~~)/ f1..I~Al ~ . , W~T r1&?J~A V tMJ "'1""r::, E:"/'OAA-P<II nMlvNJ IZ~A2::> <HALL- 8/E CI_6.t;F!..'n. M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (Please provide a brief explanation). Ex lC;nfl/r, Cc.vt:? t"rroNSo =:;. YES . FlJ7tJJ/2E "g()tt..c:r.trrr.EENI!E/<A{... 'F'tAIU ~'D""-I.-.Ars: 9)1e:; Wrn-f WIP&<(fN6 , . 6F...,-pJ..F7r-J)~ ~O,,/ fZ6AD A<; A- Pu-nltJP- "P./.F. ~. m. Soils A. B. C. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? UNKNf)WN If yes, specify these conditions. AI 14 . . Is a Soils Report necessary? ~. "'Pterot. 77> '971ANC.~ C>F 6u(u;m/~ ~.o'-1rTS . IV. Land Fonn A. What is the average~ slope of the site? Z ~ B. What is the maximum~lope of the site?SO% (5rPE ~~Ac..crJc ~77-I~/21.Y PR.t::pE3/2:rY I-{NE.) 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? No. VI. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid :25 R::>ChJ DIE- R"J.Z VA Y C1o/Ea. EX t'5T7N{; u'5oE . Liquid /723 ~~ =.0 DAy{~.5 If:Dlk.) /')vr:~ ~'K/~-nAl/-:. Ur:;E. What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? IB/f V.GP. 5€W€R l-IME IN ~/~~~9ff CAf...(,'1'M.r ~l:). AI' 1/. t:.. P. ,Sff"....c:.-p Lu.IF.. W tlA-t r::/'LJr::q,-'1:1I!Jv~_ PJ!tIlfA~ C'::JA~~ LA-rEZ2A{... aJ-Sr-rc=:. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no. please explain) J1;G. WPC,,",'HOMEIfLANNINGISTOIIEINO:l2.93 (act. 1021.93) (act. 1020.93) Page 4 Y5-9'1'1 Case No. J:S-q<{-~ 7 VII. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Stormwater Reauirements Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Pennit? No . . If yes, specify which NPDES pennit(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 NfjN~. VII. Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts. mitigation measures. or other issues. (i) A "DIU II..IA(;'tE. t='-At:t:-1.A&tr m~~ 71JE -r'I!.!u;.t:,I2Ar::::+f ~Yo"j c.J...MAJIJ.EJ '-Af ~ :;~::= ; = CJ.rrl 8F C+lulA v,&,mI.. AS C:e>.e:/ TP;t;;:P TN -n4E.. A~Guet:> ___ ___ _'-1_'"' L.. C;WAJ.J~Nl on:> MA~1l' ~~/(rAI-rf~c"r-JATF~) T'>A.7"EI:> /VIA 1!01 2 I 1~4-. , ~PAYMI&J'-Ol:-r:J..IIE-n::(C"/:.SUr'P# 1"'..AIJ'InlJ S~wen ~,JAAS..""- IMIML."" t::'EE;:. WeLL- ~ t'E::qtJl~F"""'- (iJ-rJ./E -rRAJJ~-noA1 DE~~PJ..AEArT lMP~ ~';;'IL ~'Fle~ 1/oJ mE:. A..~#Er::> 1f$r L<:P"'< =--< CU<P"e.. """''''''' ~ ..."" ...."""".vA< _'=4( r~^, ..-.. ~~ ~tb hi Date WPC:F,~GIS1'OREI7\1022.93 (Ref. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93) PageS ROUTING FORM DATE: June 6, 1994 Xen Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) 'Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (H.J. Diosdado) community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only CUrrent Planning Duane Bazzel, 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) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Hatin Hiller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other ~ 1(;; .... AI?JyW) ,.,. Doug Reid Environmental Section .27 SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (15- 94-4-rIFA-~/DCI-093 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _/DCI ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR-____) Review of Draft Neg Dec (15- /FA- /DCI- ) The project consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station for a car wash, other minor on-site improvements and dedications of street right-of-way. 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Location: please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 6/15/94 Comments: k~ Case No. /..)- 99- 02 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? A!1!! ""hat is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? C2. /YfI, do}. - l../ (J1f.{.1Y1 j 1:tTJ. B. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or persoMel? ~ c. Remarks -.:1/./1j' M~j)~'/Lko...A -' !l9.jA.N(Ag"j. - .?2A If) 6(1 > CMd ~.U) Fire Marshal fn Jrt /?i I I Date WI'C:F,~C/'STOIIEDIJ022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Ref. 1021>.93) P...6 ... ...., LrlULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS :::r~ 2..D ( ,qC1. Lf TO; ~2.e.Icl. / ~\r-~~~ ~<:;A.k VIA: ~ l c...6 ~QJ-~, J..-t\ \J .ld-1J .~ f?/Y.: fV\."j ~&-'!. c:L..-c:h I s~rs PROJECT: .:t ~~ q'-l - 7..- 7 Qj;vY ~ ';, L I DATE: I VU4'. "'j I, Ie! \,.' ~ FROM: " / The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time. Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit crime prevention analysis. Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available. Elevations Floor Plans Landscape and Lighting Plans Site Development Plans Comments: 1iu ~~,o7t'CM-'1AT.lMA ~1- L0 ~D~ ," AII'1 taP '-'.-fA ..---- - -.. -\I - J -€L 11f'IJu'.N\ J AlIa \/V\JLV\ n -lAd HV\..II ~ . 0. /1\ cl s..z kb~ ~~J- \~ ~ ~JL"Y\A'~ ~ . 1 '?)" w, ""'" 1( 'r".d,,;., '" , <1~ &:P t).',. '" Qu>\ 'itJ-- ~9. /' cc: BrookC!ver, SCA C7IED ROUIinI Fcrm Dl'\J.-.. M.Q1; ROUTING FORM DATE: June 6. 1994 fa: 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, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Develop~nt, Redev. Economic Dev. only current Planning Wl ~ 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) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other FROM: Doug Reid Environmental section c77 SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-94~FA-~/DO-093 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB--/DO ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB--/DP) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-----) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DO- ) The Project consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station for a car wash. other minor on-site improvements and dedications of street right-of-way. 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Location: Please review the document and forward to me any comments you bave by 6115/94 Comments: f/o UJnJ/J?!IJ I~./ ROUTING FORM DATE: June 6. 1994 fa: 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, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob sennett, city Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other . FROM: Douq Reid Environmental Section c7?7 SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 94.,.47/FA-A5L/DO-093 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-----/DO ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- ____/FB- ____/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-----) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DO- ) The Project consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station for a car wash. other minor on-site improvements and dedications of street ri9ht-of-way. 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Location: Please review the document and forward to J/le any comments you have by 6/15/94 Comments: Th.1J~~ ~~&~~ ~ ~wttl-ckev.~JJf/..&-. ~iI~~f4.~ ~ M~~11n~'f 1kaM~~t:41~~.th';L:l.41/ -c4; ~ ffl4AYk ~4 -4 ~ ~ ~ . U---~ (,#q~ BOARO OF EDUCATION JOSE~ D. CUMMINGS, PhD. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R. SANDOVAl SUPERINTENOENT LIBIA S. GIL, Ph.D. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425.9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH June 13, 1994 'JUN 1 6 18"1 Mr. Doug D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 [ , ~ ' . . , RE: IS-94-27/FA-654/ DQ-093 Applicant: Rod Bisharat Location: 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Project: Gas Station Extension/Car Wash Dear Mr. Reid: This is to advise you that the project, located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd., is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. Greg Rogers School is the home school for this project. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 3-4 percent over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.28 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.13/square foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $.15/square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~ Kate Shurson Director of Planning & Facilities msw:c:smallcom Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue . Chula Visla. California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 Division of Planning and Facilities June 14. 1994 ~.. . Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: 15-94-27 The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit. Sincerely. I /~jJtP /~ Thomas Silva Assistant Director of Planning TS/ml RECE:V;:O r JON 1 61994 PLAI\i'J:i~G / to! - /)pL- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SWeetwater Autnority 505 Garrett Ave. O1ula Vista, CA 92010 JULY 12, 1994 SHELL STATION - 501 Telegraph Canyon Road This letter will serve to confinn that existing water supplies and fire hydrants are adequate for fire protection purposes for this developrent. ~ a-yj~ CAroL A. mVE FIRE MARSHAL CAG/l a . _WEETWATER AUTHORIT' 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 GOVERNING BOARD I JUN Z 0 1Cl{ BUD POCK LING TON. CHAIRMAN GEORGE H WATERS, VICE CHAIRMAN SUE JARRETT EDWIN J STEELE MARGARET A. WELSH JAMES S WQLNIEWICZ CARY F. WAIGHT ~.., . c June 14, 1994 P:"'/.;, ., WANDA AVERY TREASURER ClAN J. REEVES SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED ADDITION TO SERVICE STATION FOR CAR WASH 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD CASE NO: IS-94-27 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1994 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a 12-inch steel water main located on the east side of Halecrest Drive adjacent to the proposed development. Out records indicate that there is one water service to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 88 map which shows the existing water facilities. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection for this project. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow requirements. Based on this requirement, this project .ay result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building permit. An approved reduced pressure principle backflow device is required on the existing and any proposed water service for this site. If the OWner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from a maximum of 97 p.s.i. to a minimum of 72 p.s.i. A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula vista Re: Water Availability Case No. IS-94-27 June 14, 1994 page two If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 239. very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ~ L D>.~t- ~~. Smyth ief Engineer JLS:RC:ln k:\lorelei\wp51\1S9427.ltr enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 88 map pc: Mr. Rod Bisharat 501 Telegraph canyon Road Chula vista, CA 91911 Mr. Russ collins, Sweetwater Authority Is ". N- I PRO ECT SITE .' , , I ----~ ~ -' TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC G<i~h'~ A-DT.- l?D ...\<-- C; _ A--dc:l. New A--D T eke. S~ Lf=:; S2D A-l>T -fD Q,... ~sA.' 20 It-l>T 7i\i~ Consulting Engineers February 11, 1994 TS. fi:e JZf i6 ':3Db L::. 20 % f C 4- % i., c.A?as.V ;;r- 2D =- $&120. ~~< ,-uP. -(!publ ;e.- Deputy Director of Publ! 1l2II-N:;,- 'Dl F ::: City of Chula Vista ~ Public Works Department fl-,uy f...-(ue":dLiow5 276 Fourth Avenue ~ Chula Vista, CA 91910 . ATTN: Cliford L. Swanson RE: PROPOSED CARWASH ADDITION TO EXISTING SHELL SITE AT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/HALECREST, CHULA VISTA, CA Mr. Swanson, On Wednesday 2/9/94, I met with both Frank Rivera and Joseph Asuncion of the Public Works Department to discuss the proposed carwash addition, City required C.U.P/Design Review Process, and probable conditions that may be imposed by the Public Works Department. Through our discussion it was determined that the PUblic Works Department would probably condition the project to provide an easement for the existinq underground drainaqe culvert, dpd;r.~t~ .uP 1;0 14' of prop~ty__~nTelegr~hc::anYQn gOi'ld, Silli! request public improvements Cons1stent witn the Telegraph Canyon Road dedication. A condition for both and easement and dedication is understandable, however, due to the proposed Scope of Work a requirement to provide public improvements make the project economically unfeasible. Shell oil Company would very much like to proceed with this project, although, if public improvements will be a City requirement the project will be cancelled and the available funds spent elsewhere. It was suggested by Frank Rivera that I contact you to get a preliminary determination of whether public improvements would in fact be a requirement. 3665 Ruffin Road I SUite 230 I San Diego, CA 92123 I (619) ~78. 1161 I FAX: (61 9) 278.'525 I --- I have en9losed a marked up Survey indicating the site and proposed carwash and would be happy to meet with you to discuss the proposal and answer any questions you may have. I will call you on Monday, February 14, to confirm receipt of this package and possibly to set a meeting with the City of Chu1a Vist and Shell oil Company. Ma Di Office MAR/bm Enclosure cc: Richard Zanoni, Shell oil Al Barazi, Shell oil Jeff Stegman, Shell oil . ~~~ : 'I't.~ ~~u 01Y OF CHULA VISTA March 21, 1994 File. &B-001 'DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION Tait & Associates 3665 Ruffin Road, suite 230 San Diego. California 92123 Attention: Mr. Mark Hayden SHELL CARWASH AT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/HALBCREST This is in response to your letter dated February 11, 1994 concerning requirements which might be placed upon the addition of a carwash at the subject location. You indicated that dedication of street and drainage easements were understandable. You did, however, indicate that if installation of public improvements were required the project would not be economically feasible. Although the City is allowed by Ordinance to require the dedications and street improvements for projects that exceed $20,000 in value, this addition is not anticipated to increase traffic so significantly that your immediate improvements are required. Consequently, we are willing to limit our requirements at this time to dedication of street and drainage easements and payment of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (Trans DIF) and SR-125 Interim Facilities (SR-125 DIF effective after 1-1-95) . We will, however, require that your clients execute an agreement requiring payment by them for all on site relocation work necessitated by the street widening when it occurs. This would include relocation of signs. private lights. tanks. etc. Please note that the project will be assessed a Transportation Development Impact Fee of $6,120.00. There will be no traffic signal fee in that the increase in traffic does not exceed 20' of the existing traffic and is exempted in that circumstance. Until such time as a project is submitted. other potential fees can not be determined. further questions. please contact Bill Ullrich at WAU:wau I., .....\mDIDD\_na\mmLL'fat.....) ,. 278 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 120101(111') .1-5021 / ~Jft.. :-~~ ..--,;.....,;:~.-..,;;:: """~~~ ~-~~ cm Of CHULA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION June 28, 1994 File # ZB-001 . -..... Tait , Associates 3665 Ruffin Road, suite 230 San Diego, California 92123 Attention: Mr. Mark Hayden SHELL CARWASH AT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/HALECREST As requested after your phone conversation with Bill Ullrich the week of June 13, this letter is to correct the amount of Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) which will be required for the subject project. In a letter dated March 21, 1994 the TDIF was stated to be $6,120.00. That amount was miscalculated and should have been $12,240.00. The fee was based upon 20 additional trips being generated by the car wash addition. The actual number should have been 40 based upon SANDAG generation factors of 5 trips per fueling space. The previous calculation was based upon 4 pumps rather than 8 fueling spaces. Please see the enclosed SANDAG generation rates. The traffic signal fee is still not applicable with the revised trip increase in that the increase still does not exceed a 20\. We apologize for the incorrect information in our previous correspondence. If you have any further questions please contact Zoubir Ouadah at 691-5180. '&7~~ Cli d L. Swanson Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer WAUl B6-SHELLTCR 276 FOURTH AVEICHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 9'9'01(6'9) 69'.502' Case No. I-J- Y7'- co?7 APPENDIX IV Comments Received During the Public Review Period _ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period . WPC,}',~ME\PLANNINGISTORED\1022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93) 'IHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISa.osURE STATEMENT You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests. payments, or campaign contributions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The .following information must be disclosed: 1. Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is tbe subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, materia] supplier. Shell Oil Co. Rod Bisharat - Dealer 2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the partnership. Shell Oil Co. 3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non.profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non.profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of thc City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the pastlWelve months? Yes_ No~ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, incll!ding any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this mailer. Tait & Associates - Consultant Rod Bisharat - Dealer 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in Ihe aggregale, contribuled more Ihan $1,000 10 a Councilmember in Ihe currenl or preceding election period? Yes_ No~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: tf'-:2~ '7y 11 A11adI additiooal pap as ~ ~ Si"'~ conlractortapplicanl ~t!' j~q~it- Prinl or type name of conlractor/applicant )I · · · (NOTE: y " """''' i. dditwt OJ: 'MY ~ /inn. ct>-~, joiN_ QSJOCu..;on,.xiQ/ club. fNumDl "'B"'aWltion, cOlpO'tllion, - ....... reedver, oyndic.,., " .,... "=,~~:..._. _ .......4'IItJ._ .-nunnrcanabin4lion OCrUlgtlSll waiL" M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: September 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Chairman and Members of the Planning commission Steve Griffin, Principal Planner~ Correspondence from Shell oil Company regarding Item No. 2 on tonight's Agenda TO: FROM: We failed to forward to the commission the attached letter from Shell oil Company relating to proposed condition A of the Telegraph Canyon Shell car wash proposal (Item NO.2). Please see top of Page No. 2-15 for wording of condition, and last paragraph on Page 2-3 for discussion. c:\wp51\lupe\Bhellmem.Bg Shell 011 Company @ ~ ' c ALlb ;., ~ August 18, 1994 Rod Bisharat 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Chula Vista. Ca. 92010 RE: Land Purchase of 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Rod: Per your reguest, I have enclosed a copy of the Grant deed & Title Policy indicating our purchase price of $487,500 for this property. Also attached is Shell's internal document (location Data Record) showing that the purchase was closed 6/20/94 at the above price. Also as indicated on this form, the site is approx. 18,750 sg. ft. which eguates to $26.00 per sg. ft. Your conversation with the adjoining property owner regarding the possibility of a easement to their site, confirms my past dealings with them. They are unwilling to grant such an easement, and I don't feel it's beneficial to make financial overtures to them to grant such an easement. I'm surprised that the city would even recommend and support such an easement, as it is my experience that this would be a point of conflict (traffic) that is usually discouraged by the city entities (ala east "H" street access to the shopping center which was closed to avoid cross traffic). It is beginning to look like the cost and fees for this project out weigh the benefits, posted. ~ ichard Zanoni eal Estate Rep. Shell Oil Co. lsedoc\rod-cv Richard Zanoni. 1824 Altozano Dr.. EI Cajon, CA 92020. Phone: (619) 562-4350. Fax: (619) 562-4634