The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/10/26 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-47: request to add a self- service car wash to the existing service station located at 501 TelegraDh Canvon Road- Shell Oil ComDanv A. BACKGROUND The proposal is to add a 630 sq. ft. self-service car wash tunnel 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 is proposed in conjunction with an exterior remodel and landscape program for the existing building and site. On September 14, 1994 meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony on the project and expressed concerns related to both on-and off-site circulation. The project was continued to allow the applicant time to consider solutions to these concerns, as well as to provide an opportunity for the Safety Commission to review and comment on the proposal. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-92-40, 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 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 PCC-94-47 approving the project based on the fmdings and subject to the conditions contained therein. c. DISCUSSION Adiacent zoning and land use Site North South East West CCD CCP R3GP CCP CCD Service Station Retail Center Multi-Family Residential Retail Center Service Station City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994 Page 2 Existing site characteristics The project site is an 18,698 sq. ft. (0.48 acre) parcel at the northeast comer of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive. The property contains an existing service station facility, including a 1,764 sq. ft. three-bay service structure and adjoining foodmart, and two 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). Also proposed is an exterior remodel of the existing buildings, rearrangement of the on-site parking to provide 7 parking spaces, and additional site landscaping along both street frontages as well as at the comer and adjacent to the parking areas. D. ANALYSIS Carwash Reauirements 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 nonnal 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 October 26, 1994 Page 3 Noise The site fronts on Telegraph Canyon Road, a six-lane major street, and is in close proximity to the Interstate I-80S freeway. The ambient noise levels from these sources are higher than the expected noise level of the carwash. Additionally, the tunnel is oriented toward commercial areas to the west and east, and the carwash will not operate before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Therefore, as reflected in the Negative Declaration, the operation is not expected to have any significant impacts. Traffic/Site Circulation Concerns were expressed 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 addition 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 infonnation 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 infonnation 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 same problem presented by the Bonita Road facility. (Exhibit "B"). The applicant is continuing to attempt to obtain an easement and establish an exit drive from the carwash directly east onto the driveway serving the adjoining commercial center as previously recommended by staff. As an alternative, however, the applicant has proposed several other measures to alleviate circulation conflicts. These include signs and striping indicating no blocking of the entry and exit drives, and a proposal to allow an independent review of site conditions after six months of operation to detennine if further measures are required, such as restricting hours or sales (see Exhibit "C"). The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed on-site circulation, and has concluded that the stacking areas are adequate, and that the additional mitigation measures proposed by the applicant will facilitate internal circulation and should preclude vehicles from backing up City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994 Page 4 on either Telegraph Canyon Road or Halecrest Drive. Based upon this conclusion, staff is no longer recommending that the egress point into the adjoining center be a requirement of approval, although it would be a desirable addition to the plan if it can be obtained. The Traffic Engineering Division has also collected information on traffic volumes in the area of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive (please see attached memo). The current level of service (LOS) for the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive are as follows: a.m. peak period, LOS "B"; mid-day peak period, LOS "A"; and p.m. peak period, LOS "B"/"C". The estimated 40 additional trips generated by the car wash would not change the current levels of service. Further, analysis of the Halecrest Drive/Hale Street intersection was done; for the three peak periods of the day, this intersection operates at LOS "A", and the carwash and associated traffic will not pose a significant impact. Safetv Commission Comments The Safety Commission reviewed this project at its October 13 meeting (see excerpt from draft minutes, attached). Much of the discussion related to drainage issues; it was suggested that drains and speed bumps be installed at the exit of the carwash to facilitate the drying of the car and water drainage and these have been incorporated into the plan by the applicant. Also, as a standard condition of approval for carwashes, 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. With respect to traffic issues, Safety Commission members also felt that vehicle stacking was a potential problem. To address this issue, they suggested that a "No Blocking/No Stopping" sign be posted at the Halecrest Drive driveway to alert drivers not to block this access point. It was also suggested that the asphalt area immediately inside the westerly driveway be marked and striped "Do Not Block". As noted earlier, these measures have been incorporated into the plan by the applicant. Engineering Comments 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; City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994 Page 5 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 1. Locator and project plans 2. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Planning Commission Minutes 4. Safety Commission Minutes 5. Exhibit "A" - Manufacturer's Information 6. Exhibit "B" - Site Comparisons 7. Exhibit "C" - Additional applicant-proposed mitigation measures 8. Exhibit "D" - Memo from Traffic Engineering Division 9. Initial Study 10. Disclosure Statement pcc944 7. rep ( 1~'1~ _J-'- ~M ~.. ~~ n~ f 'II' ~--~ - ~] S -r ~~ . ~ ..' 'II ),~ . _. J ./ ~ ~ - \- \"~ \ - _' ~ _ 'it- - ~ .- I... \ '" l-_. "" _ 1. 7 ~ I - 1-1- { '- . - - '- -..,.. ....j.,.",J :..- ~ \ J.,../---' ..' _ - TI'~ III"" -- ltJ .-.U- If Iii' ;: \ ~-~ -' -.,-. & : M.- \ ~- ~>;;'/ ' __ _ ' I ;1I'y t s~ ~ - -- ;;tt i, T ~ r- \ ~ l/ '. l~U ' rl . \\'~" ~ - -, , I I i'rf l \\\ - -i.....' - M~/.It-I!4~ U ..... "S' I I I I I .1 ~\'r ~~~."f -e~~~ \ \~i~ 1-; LOCATION. ...... ~.~\,--~T~j..~ r _ ~/ ~ ~j _, L r- ~ ~ ~/ _r!l.6~;j L C \../ ~ ~ !\. ..... . , . . ~., ., . '""' \,. T I ,~ , ~~ \ \""1 " .- ~ ~ '-.....< 7 ~~ ~ .~W~ /~ >' ~-l ~ /~ ,~~ ( t, . CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C) A"LlCANT:ROD BISBARAT PIIOJECT DIICIIIPTION: SHELL STATlO1'l ADD.IIIII: !O1 Telep'apll c..,...... De additioD of 630 sq. ft. to edatiDl ICALE: FILE NUMIEII: lemee statiOD for a car wash a other NORTH 1" - 400' . miDor lite ImprovemeDtI. - ...d.... ~ ". : W 'Iii if'ltl'I',!t11t' . ~ I~r "~~i!; .r~t~.n: ~ i Z t~' ru...rnI~::;:h'~~!j ~ 0 :1;\ 'Ii:' ,;"1";' 1 I F '(\'1 L,!!:!b!"I'! \. I 0.... Is lil ~~I"t..!~!~t.tilt t':! .._ J fi:: lii~;;:1 &i~;~RI~;~h::1 U his",~;..~ ~h~~~!;i'l. (f) h~1' t~~6lir~~i~~---.i~. o bl .'11. 11!1~ 1!..:;.hih~1 !.b:;t" _.;, 'lh~ii'~!!:I!1 ".1 ~ ...t"";.IIIa'.t 'I -.J<( 'l'i'j!!1!i1! _,.11',-11' . 11...1 ~..~ '.. . C> 1~1" !~;H!~!:O~b!.: ~ i ~ . , ~ .~~ I ~ <( i I r~." ~-::...... I ~ .". ~ ~ ~:: .I:~~ I~~~~ o ~? . ' ~"~. . '., "".- u~o/ 8 ,'" :"m~i) e ~I ~:''''i' W e;1~ ~ ~. ;i~o. ..:! ~t!:'i t-...a ~ .. s<=! ":...... ~::::;!a V; LI .!~ 1;5EI ti ~d .~... Q. <( ::::; >- f- Z U :> I I ! . ~ qU '" I ,II 0 ! f :;: P I' u. ~ i, !! 0 . -, ' Ii w ~ '! i I Q. .Ii II 0 p, , 0 , 1111 (I) --~ -'P'.. \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . -~ \ . It II~ ,-. \ \ \ . \ \ . ~ M"' i I I . , ! . . ! I I, I.. " . i " un1--_" I,,_~~_-~--- _~:) ,'1--unnr--', , -.. ilm., \ V "I ':!::::::::J::=' " ,......, , ... J, 8.., \._------------,/ " . i . -- --. n .... T~ .'1 . ! I ~~"'~,~ .-- --~ Ii m'i, '.1 ~~J; b... <I __,10 ~ -I · I !,~ g: : I I . I I I I I 11 I I ~. I I . I I I I I I . " I I U ! , , , , ~ i , , , , , , 3A1~a lS3~:)31'VH " ~ ; d ~ ~. ~ d~~ I. ~ I . Ii! , ~ N !~;~~ :i. ill ~ Isl ~r~ ~~~U ~ 511i~1 ::6 If w' ~;.~ ^ ~;~~~ ~.-. -0.'. ~ i ! _. ~il' ..i~ ".' . . . ," '. . .. ,,-I' \ \ \ ~JO'.Q/::~J1I'I '. - . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . i ~ . i '~ \ ~. '1\. , lID" .I..."" --- o <( o '" z o >- z <( _____ __5;_______ I Q. <( oc '-" W -.J l ~ .' , I . i I , _J' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..... r----------.- , \- ---J .. i ~I I ~ \" ,01 I III ~"'''Jf''' _ __ _ __ ~. ~~_!'"2,~...._____ .. ' . ..~ p- -. Iii! IIi l!i I'I'""! I' ill' ;.,' .1 1 0 HI 'II Iii 11-1"1" 'I "11,' 1. 'j, ,1': !"J :.J " J J . I: . '!II I'; ilt JiI'j.! ,~ 1:11 Ii !III!!' ii:i 1:1 m ~i:1!i! Ii 11'1 I; !~. l!il! 'fll . I'i ,lili,1 II,I'!j II; :il'l I I r,1 .1 11,,11 I- I'! It " 111'\ 'I'i; ~.f fil 11'"IIi' I lit II II! 1'1' I II I' ,"'. J ! I.'! I '! .t J ;II!I~ IIi II~I' I!j';tiot l'!,.{l:i'j.iij' i,"'1 11',ii . .1' "I I " · .tll ,. .\ ,- , i; 11 . i Ii ,i' I' ". '!l: I! III 1\111 I I:. I;i II!,III !lt~iJ!I;!lj~ 11:11 II:h!11111 I j!jI,!l' ! Ij!l!J;iItlili '1;\; III!II~ I fill 1111~iJiIIIUI!:!:;!!'I'!!!iiij!J!!iII! lillI' ,!!I 1'\!"l.!1 1;.1., !'!i!!I'jl'I"J ,. 1.1 I. .,.., 'l.a"'i~I"i.j ! ~ ii ,- i ,.- ....-/ '-"" t [Q] -~ o. r..--------.----~ : . , .( , . ~ . Ib "" : '. I , I , . It> . , , , , ~ ,." .:.. '"' .j ~ ". - , o . t 1 i I 5 i t , j - $ , . !: I ),C ~ :1 t - ! ~ili do illl ~ifl' .; ~:!i~ i Iii! h6 ~13i I.~ iil~ ~. ',. ii, .:., . a ! I · II 0 ." II-III h,ll! I" ~ 6t" 'U' . . !Ii I ~i . ..~ \!" ~- ..! #l~ I II .\! i L, .r: I ~ I I 0 I < I 0 II:: U z I . ~ , z < () :I: 0.. < II:: CI w ~ ~ 3f,1~O J.S3~:>31"'H , I ,I ,,~ II th - :. f ,- . .M . tii d- I~~ I.J If ,! t! ti d ~I I~ If i,1 .11 J,. ,., .2f' . -, - .. , c ,........ i I- ii ~ ;: ~ ~ ~ III : ----r l . & :1 I~i~~ Ii i;I ~ I Ifil'l iiuHqsSI ~ '3 ~:ri~ ! ! Iii f d ~I iill-i Ii I' ~ i ;11 ~ ~ . , ""'.. .... ! ! f ~; , :. =;! 00 e if.! ~ ;: I ~. ..J. III : ~ ; - . ! i I ; f! · J i' p_ I! I u ~ ~ , ;: ill ill 0( ... 'jj';i~. )0 ~ ... I-IJ i I ~ III . . 1 , ..J. ... .... . III' J,. ... 1,1 ~ f !II. ~'" il II l ~ ,~ . . II r 0( :l ~ '- . ! Iou - ' .- I. ! ~ , III ~ I. , :Er",.'; . I .......7"~ ". ..J : i!\Ct... iii : ~"'<<".;.~ ~ ~ ... I I; n--' ; ! II . ' ~. ~; . , . I III ! . ,,,.:..'. I i . . I ---- I- I; ':'r.~" i- I; ~! I'" i d I If ~ . ~ ! ~! U ~ . ~ ~l U . - . - . .....4. . .... . ......... ..... -.. ..... - -- - .. .'. j i- J .. ! ; .,.~....-.. - ... ... "" .. f' i I !I " f.il ... "- ... ' ~ I . ~ . - . . . .. "'" ..~ . "'" I -.. 'II 'i t., t- d' ~ I~! I I i ~ . I > - s- ;... ~ of 2, iiJ : ~. 11 I ; i t' fi .~ i~ !! ~ I Ii . -.. - . ... , I J' ~M:li " J'~ i 'I -;Pl i" II!. .. I" . . ~. -<.- -.:;" I _ i - - ~ .. .....,.... 4 oM' ........ ) , ~~ 1~ ~ I I . , 1Y>J ~ - -- -- - -- ~ on . f'I ~ III" ,. " .. ~ . . ~ I. '. ,.1 ~ ~ : . s. . . . h · 0 o' ,n I ,I r' .' .? 'I i~ ~ 'f .i_ r. .',. r .. In i' ~ . t.' i ~f\! .' , ft. P : i~l ~~ li t" 2, " !i~ H h ".,. III. v. ~ . i~i~!~1 ~ on f~ I !!! II ~ ~ .... . . . . .Ii Ii!; II 1',1 Is ,:t ;!! IiI .I~ f II i' '61 t" , '.:;. ; " ~~t 11~!i II I!J 'I~ tll! y., "i! I'g ti " t.' 'Y} " f;l f - ~a~ .t,!1 .t f~' 'II .~ r., , ~ ~.,., I. · If' J.' ~Il if! & , ~fi ;I~.~ tt ~I~~ ~ii! 'ii I h~. i ' r2: t.J Is · f!2' In. It, .. i,ra! r I ~t U: ~!~ in fin I' ~ . ~ii ,d i' , .. .. -'0 J.o ~, .r I I 'I'i l' IiI! ~i ~j ~i! ~!! !il !II ~i!; ~I!! !:I! I I I . " ~' , , ~ I ,'.' '. ' , . ~;t ; 1 I ~;, t !I!!. <'I I I" )lSn !'" I ~Q Iii!! ~I ;;iil ~ b'3 ,I! 11111 . .. IS .., ~5 ~II I I I,t. .. Ii;: R1 :!iJ-I '; : I ~:j~; ! i I!f i I! }.... ;.;~ ~ 1:.1 I,., .h I' . ill I ~ul! :! 0 t W ...... ~ - I [ ~ : i~ . Is ' ..w onlD XO WOo !!! = . .. i11~'1i j2ili ~i\" '. ~' I . J~d8 ,S'II :I .1 '" ~ '" l\ ~ oJ ~~ !:! .'.. "...,...., ".., ....--+ .... !' I ~ E . ~ I ~I ..... 'r', II ~I.I -1.I.g a~I!I's'f I ,! ~ I' I I' ., r. 01 e' . i I. . . : ~. ~ Gee 0 e 0, e e e ~ Ii> i I I ! I I' i I I . Ii>; !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 Envirornnental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-27) of potential envirornnental 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 envirornnental 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 the time and place as advertised, namely October 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: I. Adoption of Negative Declaration. That the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-27. II. CUP Findings. That the Commission makes the fmdings 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 fmding 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 pennits, and on a continuing basis thereafter. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of pennit or other entitlement 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 permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The approval of this pennit as conditioned is consistent with City policies and the General Plan. III. Conditional Grant of Pennit; Conditions. The Planning Commission hereby grants conditional use pennit PCC-94-47 subject to the following conditions whereby: A. Carwash hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. B. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby after a six- month period, the Zoning Administrator may require that the applicant employ a City-approved Traffic Engineer to monitor and assess traffic conditions at the site. If said monitoring reveals that the site operations are creating traffic congestion affecting either Halecrest Drive or Telegraph Canyon Road, the Zoning Administrator has the ability to require further mitigation, which may include, but need not be limited to, limiting the hours of operation of the carwash. E. The project will be subject to all requirements and conditions of approval of the Design Review Committee (DRC-94-49). F. An Industrial Waste pennit shall be obtained with the connection of any floor drains of the car wash to the sewer system. G. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, 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. H. 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 26th day of October 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\home\planning\pany\pcc9447.res) Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of 9/14/94 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47; REQUEST TO ADD A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - Shell Oil Company Principal Planner Griffm presented the staff report and stated that the Design Review Committee had considered and approved the project design on August 29, contingent upon the Planning Commission approving the conditional use pennit. The Commission would have ultimate authority unless appealed. The primary elements looked at by staff were noise and circulation. A study was done in-house and it was found that the ambient noise levels from the 1-805 freeway and Telegraph Canyon Road and separation from the residential areas to the northwest were to the degree that noise would not be a significant impact and would confonn to City standards. There was a concern regarding ingress and egress from the carwash tunnel, stacking for entry into the carwash from the gas dispensing islands or from Halecrest Drive, blocking traffic exiting and resulting in stacking occurring on Halecrest. Staff had proposed as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain an easement from the adjoining shopping center to create a direct exit drive onto the shopping center service lane. The City Attorney had stated that that sort of condition was inappropriate. Alternatives were to recommend approval without the condition, recommend denial or continue the project and work on some alternate solutions or allow the applicant further time to work with the shopping center in obtaining an easement. The applicant states they had approached the owner of the shopping center and they were not interested in granting an easement. The applicant wished, however, to receive comments from the Commission. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, offer comments, keep the public hearing open, and continue it to October 12, 1994. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary O. Wilson, 490 Hale Street, CV, stated he lived directly across from the station. He had seen nothing in the proposal about whether the water would be recycled. He commented that he had seen the intersection of Halecrest and Hale Street flooded; the drain had not handled the run-off in the past. He questioned why no traffic impact analysis had been done. He stated that there were truck trips Willig trucks, UPS trucks, the colleges, schools, the Olympic Village, foot traffic, an increase of joggers, and future traffic from the Daley Rock Quarry. He wanted to know why that was not in the report. There were problems getting across the street even with the lights. Emergency vehicles had had to ask people to clear the road in order to get through. He had seen Telegraph Canyon Road traffic backed up east and west to 1-805. He did not think the carwash was needed. Jackie McQuaid Lancaster, 339 East "J" Street, CV, speaking also for Judy Wilson, pointed out the three entrances and exits and stated that neither Halecrest Drive nor Hale Street mentioned in the traffic impact report. The credit union and shopping center created much traffic and there was rarely a place to park in the shopping center. She lived on East "J" Street and passed the proposed carwash almost every day. There were three major concerns--the PC Minutes -11- September 14, 1994 easement the station owner was not able to get from the shopping center, on-site traffic circulation, and off-site circulation accessing the carwash. Not enough attention had been paid to the other services of the station, including the car repair service. Ms. Lancaster also noted there was no mention of the impact on Halecrest, and that the bingo bus passengers park on Halecrest or Hale. Principal Planner Griffin stated that on October 12, staff could elaborate on the traffic impacts. The Safety Commission had an interest in the item and staff would try to get their recommendation. Mark Hayden, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, SD, on behalf of the applicant, said he was agreeable to the continuance and would welcome further input. He stated they did not have any control of the off-site drainage. The drainage from on-site to off-site is reduced. Traffic impact was based on SANDAG standards. Rod Bisharet, 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd., CV, the applicant, stated that the water was recycled up to 85%. Some of the water evaporated. The water coming off-site would be recycled. He had tried to get an easement from the shopping center but had not been able to. There were seven cars being stored on the facility, but they could be moved if necessary . Principal Planner Griffin noted that detailed questions and answers could take place on October 10. The applicant, however, would like a general reaction from the Commission. Commissioner Salas stated she was familiar with the gas station. She agreed with the residents that she found it difficult at times to get in and out of the station even without a carwash. Commissioner Moot asked if paying $200 per month for gas precluded him from voting. Attorney Basil assured him it did not. Commissioner Moot asked why the owner of the shopping center opposed the easement. He asked that the Planning Department write to ask him to give his reasons for disallowing the easement. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the traffic and internal traffic patterns, the right hand turn coming out of the carwash and the exit area to the right. He would like to see how that worked. He stated that in tenns of the number of parking spaces, it is detennined by the type of business and square footage. Commissioner Ray asked how many employees parked at the facility . Mr. Bisharet answered that there were three spaces. They park onsite or next door. Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see that addressed. PC Minutes -12- September 14, 1994 Commissioner Martin was disappointed in staff's drawings. He requested that larger drawings be included in future staff reports, because they were too small to read. He also requested better traffic reports. Chair Tuchscher asked if staff had used a turning template on the internal circulation. Principal Planner Griffin assured him that they had, and that it did work. Chair Tuchscher stated he did not have a problem with traffic offsite. He would not go out of his way to go to a limited carwash. He would be interested in hearing what the Traffic Engineer would say. Regarding drainage, Chair Tuchscher asked if the water coming off the cars would go into the storm drain system. Mr. Bisharet stated that water outside the carwash when exiting would go into drainage catches and would go underground into recycled water. Chair Tuchscher encouraged the applicant to try to work something out with the adjacent property owner. Internal circulation was his biggest concern on the project. MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) to continue the open public hearing to October 12, 1994, when it could be addressed with more specificity. Commissioner Moot stated that the applicant may use the argument that people would use the shopping center when stopping at the gas station. The shopping center might get some benefit from the easement. Mr. Bisharet stated that he would like the Commissioners to visit the facility. He would clear off the vehicles that were not supposed to be there. Safety Commission Minutes July 14, 1994 Page 11 9. REPORT on Shell Gas Station Improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road & Halecrest Drive (This item heard before Item 8) Chair Thomas announced that he had been advised by the City Attorney to abstain from the item. He appointed Commissioner Smith to chair the item and left the dais. Steve Griffin, Principal Planner, presented staff's report. Commissioner Smith stated the entry way was a concern due to stacking of cars and felt the entire west driveway should be designated/painted with "No Parking." Another concern was water drainage on the surrounding streets creating breakdown of the streets. He suggested a secondary drainage system at the exit of the car wash as well as botts dots that would assist to shake off any additional water. Steve Griffin responded that additional drainage was possible. He understood the City's concern regarding water drainage especially since the situation with the Bonita Glen Car Wash. There were drains at the exit of the car wash. There was a condition that the City required the applicant to enter into which required the applicant to sign an agreement agreeing to repair any damages caused by water to the streets at their cost. He understood that the drying process for the car wash was more effective than the one on Bonita Glen Drive. Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Bonita, CA 91902, represented the owners of the Telegraph Canyon Shell Gas Station. He introduced the station owner, a consultant, and a sales representative of the car wash manufacturer. There would be an additional 40 trips per day generated by the car wash. Most of the people using the car wash would be those motorists already stopping at the station for gas. The level of service for the surrounding streets would not be negatively impacted. He outlined the differences of the proposed car wash and the one on Bonita Glen Drive including the drying mechanism and speed of the car wash. The system would be operated by token or receipt. If a motorist received a token or receipt and chose not to have their car washed at that time, there would be a specified period of time when the motorist could return and receive their car wash. There were community benefits that would occur with the project. The applicant was being required to dedicate an additional seven feet of frontage to the City for future road widening of Telegraph Canyon Road. When the original drainage culvert was installed, there was not an easement secured from the property owner, but another condition of the development was that the City would receive the easement. The applicant tried to secure a no-cost easement from the Vons Shopping Center owner to have traffic exit the car wash through the shopping center, but had not been successful. Rod Bisharat, 501 Telegraph Canyon Road, Chu/a Vista, CA 91910, was the owner of the Telegraph Canyon Shell station. He commented that if the Commission was concerned with possible stacking, the speed of the car wash could easily be increased in order to accommodate more cars. He doubted there would be a stacking problem because he only anticipated approximately 80 cars per day over a 12 hour period, dusk to dawn. Studies showed that most car washes were done in the middle of the day, not on the way to or from work. The busiest time for the gas station was during the morning and late afternoon as people were making their commute to and from work. The slowest time for people to get gas was the time that most car washes occurred. Greg Cox reiterated that the applicant was entering into an agreement agreeing to fix any damages that might be caused by water. He did not feel that there would be any problems, but the City was protected. Commissioner Miller asked why the entrance to the car wash was not where the exit was. It would create less of a stacking problem. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Safety Commission Minutes July 14, 1994 Page 1 2 Mark Hayden, Tait & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123, stated the reason the car wash traffic flowed west to east was because a majority of the traffic for the gas station entered from Telegraph Canyon Road. If the traffic flow had been reversed, a majority of the cars would have to make a U-turn in the station to enter the car wash. He commented that a car would take out approximately three gallons of water from a car wash. However, the blower in the car wash would remove most of the water. A car tended to drop any access water in approximately 15 to 20 feet and the exit of the car wash was 30 feet. Water would drain prior to passing the stop sign. Commissioner Smith asked for comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Liken said it seemed that a primary concern was the stacking of cars. He had viewed the car wash on Bonita Glen Drive and indicated it was self-monitoring. He asked if a reader would be used for motorists with receipts or if an attendant would be there to start the car wash. Chuck Druhat, 1930 San Marcos Boulevard, San Marcos, CA, was the sales representative for the car wash equipment. A token box would be located at the entrance to the car wash. The conveyor had various speeds. The car wash time frame was 1 1/2 to 2 minutes at the maximum. With regard to water on the cars, the water would be blown off by a 40 horsepower blower. There were seven nozzles used to blow off all water. A motorist using a credit card at the pump would take their receipt to the cashier to receive either a token or a code to be used at a later date if desired. If there was a backup of cars, chances were that a motorist would return at a later time. Commissioner Smith indicated the Commission's concerns were drainage and stacking. The architects had addressed the problems. The driveway fronting Halecrest needed to be painted and signed with "NO BLOCKING/PARKING." He felt the fact that the applicant had entered into an agreement regarding possible water damage meant that the applicant recognized that some water would be carried out. He wanted to make sure the drainage issue was addressed by the Council. Commissioner Miller agreed with the marking of the driveway on Halecrest. Commissioner Smith said that if an independent outside traffic consultant performed a study on the project, the Commission would like a copy of such a report. 10. Oral Communications - None STAFF REPORTS 11. Ensdneerint! CIP Proiect Schedule - Distributed for Commissioner information. 12. Chula Vista Police Deoartment Traffic SummarY for lulv 1994 - Distributed for Commissioner Information. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ProDosed Citywide Products UNOFFICIAL MINUTES IN/e.1 f .. h S C:.Q:ralv :35 w..t rlot'e"'CI A~1'\ue tf'O""IOCd. Cau'!)''''' 9030' Tel 1310,"2.707. C80~' 782. '~82 FAX 13101673.0276 - - - ----- -- EXHI~IT A i 1N:11.' - ....... .- "-"'n_" June 28, 1994 Mr. Rod Bisharat TELEGRAPH CANYON SHELL 501 Telegr8ph Canyon Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Rod: There are (31 kinds of washing machines designed for the oil companies: They are listed as follows: ,. Drive- Thrus Handles: 2. Tunnels Handles: 3. Rollovers Handles: (Uses guide rail. customer driving the vehicle, each wash takes 45 seconds, (11 minute with dryingl. (60-751 cars/hour. (Uses conveyor system, customer or employee driving the vehicle, each wash takes 111 minute, 1-112 minute with drying). (40-60) cars/hour. (Uses treadle, customer drives the car to a stop, machine handles the wash, takes 131 minutes without upgrade, up to (51 minutes with upgrades. (12-20) cars/hour. A conveyor system car wash can stack up to (41 cars in the building and 121 outside as each one is in 8 certain stage, (pre-soak, wash or rinse 8& dryl. A rollover system can wash one car at a time. If you heve any Questions. do not hesitate to call me. , ~~-' Chuck Peraekian NIS Corporation CP/kw Enclosure G Manufacturers and Erectors of 'Jehicle Cleaning EQUipment Corweyance Syatema . LiQuid BIOW-off Syst8m& . LiQuid Rec_y systems . SITE CARWASH STACKING (. EXHIBIT B SITE COMPARISON BONITA vs 'fELBGRAPH Bonita sq. ft. . Corner Lot Access Both street . 2 Island/4 Dispensers .' Volume - 240k gal/mth 8000 gal/day 727 cars/day Entry - 7 Tunnel - 1 Exit - 0 'l'OTAL STACK 8 .. .-- <._, ,,----.- . .. Telegraph 18,698 sq.ft. . Corner Lot Access Both street . 2 Is1and/4 DispenserS 130k gal/lIIth 3883 gal/day 353 cars/day Entry - 5 TUnnel - 2 !:Xi t - 3 'l'OTAL S'l'ACK 10 ~ '- SITE VOLUME - GASOLDfE 'l'OTALS SUPPORT DATA FRIDAY 6/24/94 7:00a... - 9:00p... TIME OUTSIDE INSIDE 'l'OTAL AVG./HR * 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 , ~----~- ~'- - - ,... ------.--.- 10/03/84 13:52 , tt818 %78 UZS TAIT . ASSOC. 1iEI001 , . 7P4~ fAIT &. .SSO("'t....Ti$.1NC EXHIBIT C Co/tsulling Etrf1ltl"" CMf . "tanrring . Surveying. EtMrOrttneIIUI nx~ OCTOBER 3. . 1994 A'l'TN: CITY Of CEroLA VUTA pv.m;ING DEPQTl'tENT STEVE GRTfi''P''TN FAX NO. 691-5171 '1'0 : FROM: MARKA.BA'!DEN nrr , ASSOCIATES, INC. RE: TELEGRAPH CANYON SHELL FAX NO. (~19' ~78 - 1~25 '1'ransJlii ttinq 3 paqes, includinq cover memo. COMMENTS: STEVE .- AS REQUESTED. LIST OF SUPPORTING PAC'l'S AND EXHIBIT FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. PLAESE CALL WITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. '. . '. ~03/e4 13:53 !t619 278 1525 TAIT . ASSOC. ~002 . , ~ Pest site conditions allowed the rwtdom and excessive pl8c8ment of vehicles on site. Proposed site plan cIe&r1y desIgnates parking areas from vehicular use areas. Proposed carwash use will have limited hourS of operation - 78.m. to 7p.m. . Staggered Peak Hours: Cerwash VI. Gasoline Low Station Volume: Current 353 cars per day during a 12 hour period = average 29 carslhour. Projected with cerwash (+12%) 395 cars per day = average 33 per hour. Projected Increase of 4 C8I'S per hour Mitiastive M....... '''- (Refer tg Exhibit) Stripe "No Parking- in front of Service buIlding. Place "Stop. sign at exit point. Add concrete curbing at end bay. Post employee policy of maintaining site Traffic Control. Recommendation Approve USE permit with stated Mitigative measures with the following added condition: Applicant agrees, at his expenIe, to have a City approved Traffic engineer aSNI site traffic conditions after a S month operation period. If it is de8med that addItional mitigative measures are nec~e ury the applIcant will _"" ee to one or more of the following: Restrict the hourS of \IjAI..uon of the CBrW88h. Umit ~e of C8!W88h DedIcate Employee to worK gas ielsnda st puk hourS to expedite eervlce. Close end ServIce Bay. '. f:SP31 02fc . ,.03/84 13:54 cue 278 n,Z5 /. A'l h' ffftijl 1'111 fl i.-. J - . /~ ~~'Q~~L11~ .lli, ~ ~ ~i~i ~ !m ~i lli 11!m iffJ tlf ~ bi;m ,itlH!ffl !fj lli!iJ it:" II J iflJ.~ I~!i!!lil fa · in !i~~ !:. U!' 'I ,hI ~!jl!n p. H,till.liHi " ,. IU~ · m ;; --+ ~ I J i - I I . . . , '-. '- . t _ "1 :.. .Ii :.- "'" '. -.,' f .... . . ~ & . . ! -=:~ . . I . . '. - ..... .... . ,-J. ., . . ~. . ~. '\ :--:.. . .,........... I: ~~.. ~ / , . 'iIJ ' . J : .~ I I f J; .Iim ~ ill ~" I I f J.~ B I kua 6 if ~rili! f Uil~. I"i. . jll ~ _ I -I'r tfi . I I , .U' j I TAIT . ASSOC. c < o II: ,. . .. ... .' \.. , .... .-----. {... -j . . ~ z ~ i (3 ~ w ... I I -. I r JMIa 1~11YH 1ZI003 I f I EXHIBIT D October 3, 1994 File: YS-599 TO: Stephen Griffen, Principal Planner VIA: Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Enginee~ FROM: Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Proposed Car Wash at Shell Gas Station located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road After reviewing the traffic volumes collected recently in the area of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive, I have determined that the adjoining streets will not be significantly impacted by the addition of the proposed car wash. Halecrest Dri ve in the vicini ty of Telegraph Canyon Road is a Class I collector with a curb to curb width of 64 feet. Telegraph Canyon Road is a six lane Class III collector. The current vehicular count for Telegraph Canyon Road is approximately 41080 vehicles per day. It has been estimated that an additional 40 trips will be generated by the car wash. The current levels of service for the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halel::rest Drive are as follows and will not change as a result of this project: A.M. Peak Period B Mid-day Peak Period A P.M. Peak Period B/c A level of service analysis was also completed for the intersection of Halecrest Drive and Hale Street and for the three peak periods of the day the level of service is at A. The proposed project will also not have a significant impact on the operation of this intersection. Furthermore, recent Growth Management Traffic studies for westbound Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive show a level of service of C during the A.M., mid-day and P.M. peak periods which is performing within the City's traffic threshold standard. I have also investigated the on-site traffic circulation and the proposed car wash entry access of approximately 110' will allow about seven vehicles to stack up without blocking the Halecrest Drive entrance to the site. This stacking distance should be adequate for most of the day and shcluld not pose a congestion problem for Telegraph Canyon Road or Halecrest Drive. The car wash as proposed along the northerly side of the existing building is at the preferred location available from a traffic engineering point of view. The long entry access combined with another long exit point provides car wash users the opportunity to be separate from other non-car wash customer's vehicles. The gas dispensing islands should not be adversely affected by this proposed project. The three driveways also help in reducing congestion and in helping on-site traffic circulation. . negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Telegraph Canyon Road Service Station-Carwash Addition PROJECT LOCATION: 501 Te~egraph Canyon Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 639-080-21 PROJECT APPLICANT: Rod Bisharat CASE NO: ~S-94-27 DATE: July 22, 1994 A. proiect 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 deliveries 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 Halet:rest 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. Pro;ect Descrintion 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 carwad-~f.t:- . -~- . -- ~ _r ~~~ . fiL."" , . 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 project) 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 schoo1 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 concern, 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. ComDatibilitv with Zonina 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 Findinas of Sianificance 1. Tbe project ba. the potential to .Ub.tantially degrade the quality of the envirOlllllant, .Ub.tantially reduce the babitat of a fi.b or wildlife epecie., cau.e fi.b or wildlife population to drop below .elf-.u.taininsr level., threaten level., threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce tbe number or re.trict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important example. of the ..jor period. 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" .eans that the incremental effects of en 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. ". The environmental effects of . project will ClaUse a substantial adver.e effect. OD buman beiDg., 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. ~onsultation 1. Individuals and Oraanizations 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. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~~ ~ LJ ~it~ ENVIRO AL' VIEW 00 ATOR 7~~~/j.f/ . 't' Case No. IS-94-27 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of PropoDeDt: Rod Bisharat 2. Lead AgeDcy Name aDd Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address aDd pboDe Number of PropoDeDt: SOl Telegraph Canyon Road Chula Vista, CA 92010 (619) 421-3000 4. Name of Proposal: Telegraph Canyon Shell Carwash s. Date of Cbecklist: July 22, 1994 .....mll)' Iiplr_.1 I.ple! r.w-m1ly liipir.u.t ....... Mitipted 1Au .... IipIrKallt ..,.CI ~. &.,.CI I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 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)? CommeDts: The project site is zoned for CCP (Central Commercial with a precise plan) and designated retail commercial. The approval of a Conditional Use Pennit will assure that the project will be in compliance with the General Plan. o o o 181 D D o IBI o o o 181 Pliel . "- -- . ....Ii.lty Iiiplfic...t '-' .... liIpInc.at U..... liipilk..t N. "-' M1tiplecl "-' ..-. 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 au10mated 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) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 Ii!! either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 Ii!! sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [J [J [J B hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The existing site is developed, graded and therefore no geophysical impacts ere 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 ~. , . ..hG..l ~. ....tially htntially IiplfitaDI .....U &pIRUDt V"'u .pmU.1 N. a....c:t Mitipled 1_,.cl i....ct 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? 1) 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) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts 10 groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations 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 northeas1 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 faciJities are adequate to serve the project. ilIe water proposed for use will be 85% reclaimed and is not expected to create a significant demand on water resources. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? o o c 181 o o c 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regional1y? d) Create objectionable odors? o o o 181 o o o 181 poge 3 ....tially "'..wi)' -fkp' a.- .... Iipifka.1 u..... -fkp. N. l.pHI ......... ....t. ....., e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 1m 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 detennined 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 pennit for the project. VL TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 1m b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 1m sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 1m nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or ofT-site? 0 0 0 1m e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 1m f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 1m alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 1m h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 1m 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. BIOWGlCAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impocts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 1m concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 1m c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 1m oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 1m pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 [J [J 1m , 1:11___ A f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? Comments: The proposed addition of a carwash to an existing service station .does not have the potential to impact sensitive species or habitat. I -- . .........,. iipir.ca.' I_..d .....tUlIy _lkaa' v..... -... N. 1.,.(1 '- .... 8pllic..t .....' o o o 181 vm. 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 Wlderground 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: 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? 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 eoncem regarding possible hazards on site. Three gasoline tanks do exist on site, which are pennitted by the COWlty Hazardous Materials Waste Division (HAZMAT). 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 II18terials on site and will ensure that the site in compliance with County hazardous waste requirements. x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 Page 5 .....tWIy .pUk..., -po<> "'.rially &pIflCU' v.... -... '-.... ~ftcu, _"", N. -"". 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 noise 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. Sufficicnt 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 transponation 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. )(u. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact rhe 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 D D D 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. t. PoInriall,. IipirlC..' "pllcl ....tiaJly IiplrtUat v..... MitiplM a.- llua SpiRea.' "..tt N. I.,.el 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 0 0 0 I!!I 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 I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 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 I!!I The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 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) ParkslRecreation o o o I!!I The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acrestl,ooo 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 I!!I The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. -- Page 7 .....dally 1ipi1k..1 .....tl ........., SpiGt..t v..... ....Ied '-.... 8pinc..1 "po<' No "po<' 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.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. 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 1m 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 1m The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concUTTently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effe~t at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: The water used by the carwash will be 85% reclaimed and is not expected to create a significant demand on water resources. The fire department has indicated that fU'C flow is adequate for the project. Due to this fact, the Sweetwater Authority has determined that there is no need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. Water systems are adequate to serve the project and no impacts are expected. XllI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems. or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 1m b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 1m "'estu,lI)' .....Ii.II)' liplrlc"" LeatHII _pmUB' v..... lipifiaal No ._plcl MhiplH "plcl ._plt! C) Local or regional water treaunent or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 f) 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 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? 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 ~dscaping will provide a more aesthetically pleasing view of the site ftom 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 i ) .....tialIy "ndally tipmCUI '-.... IipIrIC..' v..... IipIrKUt N. -"" ......... -"" I_pic, d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR 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. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wi1I 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 D 181 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase 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) Interfere 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 D 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Section E. Negative Declaration p....... 10, -, - IipInc..t a-tnll IipIrlCUt v..... lipllic..t No I_plct Mhiptrd ....ct I_plcl C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 D 0 181 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 0 D 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Section E Negative Declaration - Page 11 .,.---.---'-" \. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a .Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - o Air Quality o Transponation/CirculatioD o Biological Resources o Energy and Mineral Resources o Hazards o Noise o Mandatory Findings of Significance o Public Services o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics o Culrural Resources o Recreation o Land Use and Planning o Population and Housing o Geophysical o Water DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and . a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on Ihe environment, 0 there will not be a significant effect in Ihis 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: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a .potentially significant impacts' or .potentially significant unless mitigated.. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain 10 be addressed. ~ ~'J (-?.J)~~) Environmen Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista ?/~~Jqv D e ' , APPEI'\DIX 11l Case No. IS-94-21 CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Cum:nt Zoninl on aite: CCP North South East West CCP R3 GP CCP CCP Does the project conform to the current zoning? Yes 11. General Plan land use designation on site: Commercial Retail North Commercial R<tail South Mt:dium-Hich ResiJl'lltl;,1 East Cnn'm~rc;al RC1Jil West Commercial Retail Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land U,c Diagram'? CUP aooroval will assure eomoatibilitv Is the project area designated for conservation or open spac< or adjacent to an area so design.ted?.l!2. Is the project located adjacent to any scenic route,! Y c' Telcoranh Canvon Road is a scenic hi.hwav within the City. (If yes. describe the design techniques being used 10 prot<ct or enhance the scenic quality of the route). An increase in nd ca in from what is existin will enhance the view tlf Ihe ~ile fr "' the rnadwa III. ~ If the proposed project is resideotial. please complete Ihe "ollowing: N/A . School Caoaci,,' Enrollment Units prooosed Generating Factors Sbldcnts Gcn-.d From Pmiect Elementary .30 .29 Junior Hi&h .10 Senior Hiah IV. Remarks: ~in& or Representative - 7~2./~" Date 08:00 'la Uti19 ZH .1:\1! . A:):.U\". ItIIiIIUU4, " . " ~ J.99~g 3QJf1 .., 1\ . ,,\ ' I . 'U CllYS Oto'~ I $. a". ,; ~- ~;J' 'I .' ~-'1!N- ~~.~ . ~ '" , ,.,. I ' I CII1 -0 . . . 'lilt --...." . , .!-~ I . '.~'-'.. . \. ". ' ' .... :'R-itZ ~')~f~" i('~.-,..~.... .'1'" . f-. ' . " ...,', ',; ~ I"" " ..... . :;; c'L ,~~ -.~ .. I .~ ~., '" . "" . · @. . ~ . \< \. ~ . ~J Ie " .," Q ,. , . , 'IS ' ~ tC\ I (~ t. . ;!!! '.. ....g. . ~ ~ . '\ I', .".. ~ ~ '. "'~ ':}~::::::. :~~ ~ ".~.. .~.>I I" l~ ~~~ '. ~ · ~.~ ::};;;l . ~ ~ 'c. .~ ' . : I ,., ~;..:. ~ ~;, .. .t.. '~''..'...,.. 'II. . '. . hi "U . . ~ ~ ~ :.. .- . ~ ..... .. ):, iI.. ^ ';~~~~, :;;:I:"~"}; ~ " '. ~. , I .: I: . ~Q~ :';'. ~ ~'=~" ~.., '.. .. . ~ ^ " r,. , :,' .,. .'. _ ~. '. :.; '.Ii :~. '. ..... .' :.,"';..' . . ., '.. !'oJ .~. '.,:'.\.':,;:~; ;':', " .,~. .'~ I.~~~, ~ ~ ~t ~ .~~: ~: I~i:'~ . . ~ '~ '> ~ ~ ~ t~ , Q }'!-,:f; it~' t?:~ ~ . .., ~ r.i ' . . '. J . 0 1\1 f'I) '" )0 '" '~'. .. <. "\If .. ~". .. .. Q ~CI :,x ;:~!'l~ ~t~. ~~~~~~. ..:'~t~! ~i~;:. ~o "~ ~~~ \ ;.... 11. '~ \ L' ~ . t Q~ \ ....l~::..u~ .'!t~~ ~ I ~', ~~'~ ,. .... , . -...- .. . '. '. ._--..,_._-----~, - - ,... :. ..~'/. ;,:. . ,:', ~ " -. r . . ". , I I . . , I I .. .... . ..... -, . I,' 'f " . . . . . . 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 Heg 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, Kate Shurson sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om silva (IS' EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Hatin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route ~orm only) other FROM: Douq Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS- 94-47 /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 Dee (1S- /FA- /DO- ) ~he 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 6/15/94 Comments: , \ -, ,,- - ;.. .. ,OUTING roM JUN - 'i 1994 - -,....... ..... '. DJCrE: June 6. 1994 ~r- Fr;, , ',. ~en Larson, ~ilding A .ousing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Clitt swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Bal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolt, Aut city Attorney (Dratt "eg Dee a EIR) carol Gove, Fire Department Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recr.ation Crime prevention, police Department (M.J. Dio.dado) Community Development, Redev. Economic DeV. only current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista El.mentary scbool District, ~ate Shurson sweetwater Union B.S. District, ~om Silva (IS' EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - It annexation is involved) Hatin Hiller, project ~racking Log (rout. ~orm only) other DOUQ Reid Environmental s.ction SUBJECT: Application ~or Initial study (IS_~FA-~/DQ:093 I Checkprint Dratt EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB- IDO , Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP J Review ot Environmental Revi.w Record (FC- ZRB-----1 Review ot Dratt Neg Dee (15- /FA- /DO- I ~b. proj.ct consists ot: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station for a car wash. ' other ~inor on-site improvements and dedications of street right-of-way. Loc.tion: 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Pl.... revi.w tb. document and ~ortlard to - any co...nt. you b.ve by 6/15/94 . COJII/D8nt.: /lfZj - . i O#71l /1'-' ~. I'.er~~ - - I1fb// ~ Y~-15ffq t, Case No. p;-t1lf-27 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION I. Draina\!e A. Is the project site within a flood plain'? No. I#/~ ~~ I(N; /J0f'" ~Fo.I ~~D B'/ FEW.. If so, state which FEMA Floodway Ftequency Boundary. &l1A. . What is the location and description of existin& on-site drainage facilities'? ~IH'RoCE ~ 'ft> ;~"':::::-"'::. :;':.":: >:.:::,;:,: r::::.-::;.'::~!~:'\~' ' Are they adequatt to seNt tht project'? Nt! . If not, please explain brid1y. t::uUAL-l!. DI~uA,cE. ,'" A .-~...n=: - T'NE ~ -""<;-'M/Y ~ :::~-: :o:,::I'"~\I("",~ ~ 1;'"{)-YE9" ~ 73"..'" t~ Viol:::'!. 'U tPe> ..,.,:n::~ Wlu.. AI,,"- IA/'''':;~~ ".,.....~::='t.I'1'Y, What is the location and description of existing off-sitt drainlit facilities'? rJJu, tM./.ETS A,r "fIfE IJ' -' ~!.ti" 4'" =r=:,-::~: -rJ+r< ,~LSf!!&.-r, . -r'1ooh 'D61"'~ I If J1Y -::! ::;:.$ 'AI ~J2'o/l.'Ji!..c..&.It"r:> <,A/he 12.'I<~fb 1l.c...tM"'~"'n..tJ Are they adequate to seNt the project'? Ye.:;. #r1lEtIM. If not, please explain briefly. ~. B. C. D. E. iAo n. &1/~r4 Tranroortation A. What roads provide primary access to the project'? -n::, I" &.i2~ I"~...N_( C?.....b, B. What is the estimated number of one.way auto lrips to be aenerated by the project (per day)'? Lfo A.pr ()V~ ,;.'J( /QnIJ{;, uSE... ' c. What are tht Average Daily TraffIC (A.D.T.) volumes 01\ dIe.primary ICCeSS IOIds before and after project completion'? Street NameBefme After 1J:/~c.l?J.R+ I"~V",J ~f:>. ~1 /I.,~"" 3~ &/70 Do any of these volumes n~.s the City's Leve1-of.Service (1..0.5.) -C" desip ADT volume'? If yes, please specify. f'/t:J . ,.,.2 wpc~~cn.9I /JII, IIUUJ) (11(.111>>.91) Ys -5q<:f . , . Case No. 'I~...qL/-.:rl If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not Ipplicable, explain briefly. tJlA. , . D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? Yt;..<_ If not, please explain briefly. /oJ 4 . E. Would the project crute unacceptable Levels of $ervU:e (LOS) at inteneetionl adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site? "r". If so, identify: Location "{~ Cumulative L.O.S. ~~ F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (AJi equivaJent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips), If yes, a Traffic Impact AnaJysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TlA will have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigauble advme impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non.significance. Yes >< No The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts !hat will muh from implementation of the proposed project? Yes)( No If yes, please describe. N fA . Is the project CO!'~istent with the criteria established in the City's TrInspanItion Pblsinl Plan, General Plan Traffic Element. and all ocher pettinent traffic .IlI;...? Please referenCe any other traffic: impact IlUdies for roadway aqments that may be impacted by die proposed project. v~~. .H. L J. Is a traffic stUdy required? Yes )(. No Is!hm any dedication required? y~.;; A'.JW.'&' _....~ ~ .....,";o1>&1'Il CAI./",."J .--''1>. , Jfso,pleasespecify.~"'~''''/ I"'~' ~ I!;--""'r.~'~ l/ol~~w:.,~~ ~ ~ A S'J(- LAAE AAIJDL f?,:>~v Wm! g,l!&: ,....,-. "1Jcr::t1':.:~ y;,Eo,,~-n.A/ IS n__...A_ ..... ~_-n.re ~U::-Wl1:n71 ~bItIlr;t;. DF 5A/~1?P$(~ 4Z. Mr . Ys -9f9 Case No. rs.JJI/-:l7 K. Is there any street widening required? ,",0..2E A~flD7 ~ DlrT7!!:l:> IAAPc././ 1f so, please specify. 2 r. /qq" ~AhAA C/..I ~ 0 !:W~/<NJ "f7:> MA/lJL. #A y....~f ~~. L. Are there any other street improvements required? YEG. 1f so, please specify the lenen1 natUre of the necessmy improvements. ~: ~r:,/'..aA"1I rJUrv,,~' 1!Jo>A-r::> J~ W/DI9fEr:>{J:=/lT'?JIl.E. DJ.e-. ~)I __ _ . I w~r PJl!Jv€wA ~ /J#J .,..-e, ~.... "~nMI't'~ I?~Ah <:::;f{A/1 . II€. C' ~.,~n. , . M. Will the project IIId related public improvements provid~ utisfaaoI)' UIffic ICrvice for existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions'? (please provide a b,rief explana:ion). EJ( /I!;.,-/NI:. {jyJr:> rrloAlc.... YE<:; . FtJ~~. 12.UtL.~_r."'.ArF-AAl.- 9t~/ ~f'D~/AAf~ $>~, W~ WI*'<I,$. 6r=-_=e~~ CAA!voAf ~1:> A~ A- ~u.rvl9~ '];I.r.F. ~. m. ~oi1s A. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? UN /CAIrHA/A! B. 1f yes, specify these conditions. N.IA . C. Is a Soils Repon necessary? ~. 'Pffr::L '77> rSGtJANc.l!r t:>F= gUIt..DnoIt: ~"'<.1rT'S. IV. Land Fonn A. What is the averag~ slope of th~ site? Z ~ B. What is the maximum~slope of the site?50~ (>fr>E <;;L.~-- A-r.l"l.fr:: 1o.k:.e.-n.t~"'1 'I P1?I::PU:TY /..{NE-) V. 1'loise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site tha: are significant enough to justify tha: a noise analysis be required of the applicant? No. VL .y.'aste Generation How much solid IIId liquid (sewer) waste will be pnented by the proposed project per day'? Solid 2:2..r::btAJr::6 PI5D Dt.Y' ~~D !E1(I"im-Il(; l~. lJquid )7Z~ -;;;;~-'lt;;, ____eo T2*Y{~.~ ~r=>/Jc) hJe4 ~>I!fe:-nAl'(:' U(E. What is the location and liB or existinllCwer Iina 011 or downs1relm from Ibe 1ite'1 Lf3" V.c..P. ~WF.G lANE IN ~'.#'4J'A"'f:f I".A^I.."'^^' D.">4~.. AI' I/./!'.P. ~&,~ LJ,J~ ILl l$A,r:;.-LJ~T:JIUVFE.- Pflv:A~ ~~,.~~ ~"f7E:.f2A.L r:,J-5~.. Are they adequate 10 serve the proposed project'? (If DO. p1ease explain) ;tp;. .... -- .---.-.---, ( . Ys-91'} Case No. :r.S-'N-J.. 7 vn. ~ationaJ Pollutant Discharl!e Elimination Svstem CNPDES) Stormwater Reouirements Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the SWe Waru Resoun:es Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Permit? No. .If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain wily an NPDES permit is required.lJlA. , Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for die plUpOSed project? Yes X No AdditionaJ comments NlJ1J1!!.. vn. . Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. (i)A 'DU.'I1A.(;.E ~-AC:':.ME5Jr ,...W:# TIlE -rl!!LS.~I2A~ OI..JY&J ~~J UI~ tIJe. ~I:'.:IV..A~ ~ T"f.f~ L::rrY lfJF Cl.4LJ~ \I,~ A~ c..'A=:, fFi5Z%> fA.! -t"JI~ ~-n1G"'f::~ I;-r-t"F'P FIhWI c....,n-:...... L. ~MJ!:AJI ~ MA."'; *~rt""'rfAf~."'I"1E~, hA.~ ~tza.I z, 1~4-. , . ('J; PA Y'I-'fEAlr' t::& ~ -,.,::, e"'~~ r~-I~IJ S~IJ.::"~ ~1.J1w4iR.."'" IMIf/ML..,- ~IEE kin I ~ 1?J!::9Jr.~- (i)-n..tE -rbd1~-nDAl DE~'-"'PUEA/'r IMPAtt!:f .c:E;E. ~F,f!!P"!t lIJ TJlE. A~I-IEl> '1tf:r U'-. ""~ .U~,.. L. ~ ~ "'RY tfVbE>l",A< _.,..,.,., 'M-. ....... ~~~ ?k,hl Date m .,' ROUTING J'ORM DJCrE: June 6. 1994 Xen Larson, Building , Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Clift SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2) Ricbard Rudolt, Aut city Attorney (Draft Ifeg Dec , EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty schmidt, Parks , Recreation Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdado) community Development, Redev. Economic DaV. only current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob sennett, city Landscape Arcbitect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary scbool District, Xate Sburson sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS , EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Hatin Miller, project Tracking Log (route torm only) other ~1(;; .,. A/IJr1f} . "_ ~ _.......~-,r" Douq Reid Environmental Section .:z7 SUB:JEC'1': Application tor Initial study (15- 94-tr/FA-654 /DCr.093 I Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_IDQ I Review ot a Draft EIR (EIR-_IFB-_IDP) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR- ) Review ot Dratt Neg Dec (15- IFA- IDQ- ) ~be Project consists ot: 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. z,oc.tion: Pl.... review th. document .nd torward to .. any cou.nt. you b.ve by 6/15/94 . ( Ju~ cou.nt.: " I . '. Case No. /-j- P<?- 0<' 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? ~ 1ft'hat is the FU'e Department"s estimated 1UC\i0n time? d./'Yfldu, - t.J M1 ~~, B. Will the FU'e DepaJtment be able 10 provide an lIdequate level of fire ...oteaion for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or pezsonnel? ~;p . C. Remarks ..JA./I/ M~.JuJJ.") /Jfl~.I.uAg~_ - o:zA II'> &(1 ~ ~~J.~) Fire Marsha! In;,., /t;tj D ( I ate , - , WI'C#.~mPl~. Imln) (Jof,I02D.PI) ....6 .-- c <"1iULA VISTA POUCE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS DATE: :r~' 2.0 I ,qq~. ./ ~~icl. I ~\....~~~ ~C.;A{ ; ;[ e...6 t>~~ \ :I:-r\v ./d-iJ .~ ~M "l-4'., , \... Sn Df::. I 'f../ fv\ :r '\:;n.1H. c:L.,...cu I I.:...-' ~ --<, .. " Q..f>..H ~ ~ l.. . I ~. 10 ~'. . ,.' TO; VIA: FROM: PROJECT: .:t:.. 'b. - q '-l - 1.- 7 / The Crime Prevention Unit does not have lilY comments regarding this project It this time. _ Infonnation on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to pennit crime prevention analysis. _ Please forward the following infonnation to the Crime Prevention Unit when available. Elevations Floor Plans Landscape IIId Lighting Plans Site Development Plans 11u e~ 0 ~cMAA"11 ~/\ \.tfu1- -1.0 IN\(tMn1$..w\JI~, UA\ rl, ~ ~p ~ Comments: --- - 11t"'oIA.J'NlJU -trlCML ~ '~iLhnA'~~ . ~ ~. ~ "-- 'z( 'r" A:t, ~ ,., . ~~ . &,p i;..... ~ """ ~J-- '^"-~ J'. c:c: BrookC!"er. SCA \" . 'OUTING FORM DJCrE: June 6. 1994 !'O: Xen z,arson, BuHding , Housing John Lippitt, Engin.ering (EIR only) Cli~~ SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engin.ering (15/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudol~, Aut city Attorney (Dr.n ..g Dec , EIR) carol Gove, Fire Department Marty schmidt, parks , R.cr.ation Crime prevention, police Department (M.J. Dio.dado) Community Develop~n~, Redev. Economic Dev. only current Planning (,.,<II ") Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, city Landscape Archit.ct Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista El.mentary scnool Di.trict, xat. Shur.on sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS' EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - I~ annexation i. involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route ~orm only) other FROM: Douq Reid Environmental s.ction .,77 SrJB.JEC'I': Application ~or Initial study (IS- 94Jrr'7FA-654 /DQ:093 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FS- IDQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FS-_,DP) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR-----1 Review o~ Draft Neg Dec (15- IFA- IDQ- ) !'b._Proj.ct consi.ts ot: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an existing service station for a car wash. ' other .inor on-site i.provements and dedications of street right-of-way. 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Loc.t1on: Pl.... r.vi.w tb. docum.nt .nd ~orward to .. any colUNnt. you h.V. by 6/15/94 COlUNnt.: JV6 U;1?11l1!J1~;? d- . 1l0UTING FORM D~E: June 6, 1994 !'O: K.n Larson, Built!ing , Housing John Lippitt, Engin.ering (EIIl only) Cliff SWanson, Engin..ring (EIIl only) Hal llosenberg, Engin..ring (EIR only) lloger Daoust, Engineering (IS/J, EIR/2) Ilichard IlUdolf, Asst City Attorn.y (Dran ".g Dee . EIR) Carol Gov., Fir. Department Narty SChmidt, Parks , llecr.ation Crime pr.vention, Polic. Department (N.J. Dio.dado) Community Development, ll.dev. Economic Dev. only CUrrent Planning Duane Bazzel, Advanc. PllU212ing Bob Sennett, City Landscape Archit.ct Bob Leiter, Planning Dir.ctor chula Vista El.mentary Scbool District, Kat. Shurson SWeet....ater Union H.S. District, flom Silva (IS' EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation :l.s :l.nvolv.d) Matin Miller, Project flracking Log (rout. ~or11J only) Other . FROM: DOUQ Reid Environmental Section z.oeation: 077 STJBJEC7': Application for Initial StUdy {IS- 94..M"/FA-li54 /Da=093 J Cbeckprint Draft EIR (20 days) {EIR-_/FB-_/DO J llevie.... of a Draft EIR {EIR-_/FB-_/DP J llevie.... of Environmental Revi..... ll.cord (FC- ERR- J llevi..... of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ_ J JOb. Proj.ct consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. additfon to an existfng service statfon for a car wash, ,. other minor on-site fmprovements and dedfcations of street rfght-of-way. 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Pl.... revi..... the docum.nt ant1 ~ortfart1 to .. any cO.IIJ//.nt. ]'Ou bav. b~ 6/15/94 . CO.llllll.nts: 7kA~-r',~ ~~&~c..2 ~ ~ wiIi:-riL (N.~ P..&... H..,..~ iT ~tt..~ ~. ~~~ ~~1 7h &t4 ~-~ J!/ ~ w-n/:... tlw..d~,.1 -'-<L...".,. . IOARD OF EDUCATION J06EPH D, CIMIINGS, PI\D, LARRV CUHNNGHAM a.ARON GlES PATRICK A. JUCO GREG R.SANDOVAI. IUPERltfTENDENT LBIA s, GL PI\D, , . CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DlS1mCT 84 EAST OJ" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFOltNIA 91910 . 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORnI June 13, 1994 , JUtJ 1 6 )(1(., Mr. Doug D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 ~ I _. ....,. , RE: IS-94.27IFA-6541 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 a(e 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 - $.131square foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $.151square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. If you have any questions. please contact this office. Sincerely, ~~ cs,~~ Kate Shurson Director of Planning & Facilities .-:c~. - " ( . Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Filth AVlnul Chula Vllta, Call1ornla 8181 t.2I86 CSI8) 8111-5500 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 Govemment Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to Issuance of building permit. Sincerely . / ~/~ Thomas Sliva Assistant Director of Planning -15/ml -. RECEiV::D r JUN 1 61994 PLANI\I:i'm '- ~ I .~,. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SWeetwater Aumority 505 Garrett Ave. (hula Vista, CA 92010 JULY 12, 1994 SHELL STATION - 501 Telegraph Canyon Road '!his letter will serve to confirm that existing water supplies and fire hydrants are adequate far fire protection. purposes for this developrent. ~ a.;d~ CAROL A. OOVE FIRE MARSHAL CAG/l a . . , . _ wEETWATER AUTHORIT' 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2326 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912.2326 (619) 420-1413 . FAX (619) 425-7469 June 14, 1994 P' ,.. ..rUIII.'._' _ GOVERNING BOARD BUD POCKl.INQTON. CHAIR.......'" GEORGE H. WATERS. YICE. CHAIRMAN SUE JARRETT EDWIN J. STEELE MARGAREt A. WELSH .lAMES S WOLNIEWICZ CARy F. WAIGHT WANDA AVERY TREASURER DtAN J. fltEEY[S SECRnARy.ADMtNISTRATIV( AIDE , -- . . 'JUN 2 0 1~~,l 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: 15-94-27 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 isa l2-inch steel water main located on the east aide 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. All 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 ..7 result i~ the Deed for Dew water Iflt"l or IUbltant1al alteratioD to the ezistiDi ..ter syst_. 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 iasuing a building permit. An approved reduced pressure principle backflow device is required on the existing and any proposed water service for this aite. 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.a.i. ~ A PIlblic Agency, -- ",...4.:,__,.' ",;,,,,. rJ.ul.. v:..,... ......*' 1:..._.._>11:__ A____ ( . Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Re: Water Availability Case No. 1S-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 d-~1'- L. Smyth Engineer JLS:RC:ln k:\lorelet\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 -- PRO ECT SITE , , -! . -- . February 11, 1994 520 ADT A-dcl. N&,;J A-l>T ck.e. -to Qr ~sJ....' ":20 A-1>T 7:"5. ~ _ fi5 '- 2D~f( 4-% ;;/~ iJ :II Deputy Director of publ! 1'f!A-N5- D1F:: ':3DG ""' 2D -:. &/20. ci ty of Chula Vista /;) . ~ Public Works Department Avy r...rv~'i:>,I.,'OtIS :& :-:;- 276 Fou~th Avenue ,4.e,z, tCAR, ubl;e- Chula V~sta, CA 91910 !:Xi ~h''d-- A- DT .' /~() .Jf- ~ .:: m~ TA'T & .t.SSOClATES, ONC Consuning Engineers ? ~ q::: 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;~a~e J,Jp to 14' of property On__~I!!~egr~canyon RQ~d, ~ request public improvements consistent w~ththe 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. , :.J -.! I have enClosed a marked up Survey indicating the site carwash and would be happy to meet with you to discuss and answer any questions you may have. and proposed the proposal " I will call you on Monday, February 14, to confirm receipt of this package and possibly to set a meeting with the City of Chula Vist and Shell Oil Company. Office MAH/bm Enclosure cc: Richard Zanoni, Shell Oil Al Barazi, Shell Oil Jeff Stegman, Shell oil . ~~ft.- ~ ~~ 'DEPARTMENi OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION March 21, 1994 File. &8-001 " Tait . Associates 36'5 Ruffin Road. suite 230 San Diego, California 92123 Attention: Mr. Mark Bayden ,IftlU. CAJtWASB AT TBLBGRAPB CANYON ROAD/BAI.BCRBST '!'his is in response to your letter dated Fel):ruary 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 understan~Ahle. You did, however, indicate that if installation of public i~rovements were, required the project would not be economically feasible. Although the City is allowed by ordinance to require the de"-ications and street improvements for projects that exceed $20.000 in value, this addition is not anticipated to increase traffic so significantly that your ianediate i~rovements 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 l~act Fee (Trans DIP) 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. ~s would include relocation of signs, private lights, tanks, etC. Please note that the project will be assessed a "1'ransportation Development I~act Fee of $6,120.00. '!'here 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 ~ees can not be determined. further que.tion., please c:ontact 8ill mlrich at WAU:wau . / ~.~\F-" .\______...m ,. I ~M~ ~ ....~ : ~~~~ - ~- = CfTY OF CHULA VISTA' ' . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION " June 28, 1994 File I ZB-OOl ....~~:....~ 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 TDIr was stated to be $6,120.00. That amount wall 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 balled 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 Enqineer WAUl 86-SHELLTCR 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA i'i'0/(6'91691.502, , " Case No. .::r...r- yy. o?7 APPENDIX IV Comments Received During the Public Review Period _ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period . wpcT.~CNTCIREIN022.93 ~, IlDln) (1,01, 10>>.93) THE CITY OF arou. VlSI'A DJSQ.OSURE STA'JEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on aU matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The .following information must be disclosed: I. LIst the Dames of aU persons having a financial Interest in the property which is tile subject of the application or tbe contract, e.l-, owner, applicant, contractor. subrontractor, material supplier. Shell Oil COA Rod Bisharat - Dealer 2. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the Dames of aU individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership, Shell Oil Co. 3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit orpnization or a trust, list the Dames of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. NIl>. 4, Have you had more than S2S0 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No...a., If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please Identify each and every person, inclt!ding any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Tait & Associates - Consultant Rod Bisharat - Dealer 6. Have )'Ou and/Or )'Our olficelS or apnts, in the aJIfCpte, contributed more than S 1,000 to . CDuDCilmember in the current or precedinl election period? Ycs_ No xx If yes, state whlcb Councllmemher(s): Date: t'-2-fV · · · (N01E: 11 AI&8dI atldltioaaJ..... ~ I ,&7-:fft;::;Plicant Print or type Dame or contraetorlapplicant 11 " ~..~- :-:.....-.- .......JMdub."...". _.- :.-:" _,..... -,..........., vJ:_~. . __'.._ _.. .-Jo_