The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/06/14 (4) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the following applications for the "Broadway Business Homes" proposal, filed by Josef and Lenore Citron for 2.53 acres located at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. a) PCZ-95-A; Rezone from CoT Thoroughfare Commercial to C- C-P Central Commercial with Precise Plan. b) PCC-95-23; Conditional Use Pennit to establish a 36 unit mixed-use commercial/residential project with shared parking. The proposal consists of rezoning 2.53 acres from C- T, Thoroughfare Commercial to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan in order to build a 36 unit mixed-use commeTcial/residential project at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Mixed-use projects are permitted only in the C-C-P zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit and to the development criteria established in CYMC Section 19.58.205. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-03, with Addendum of possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study, Addendum and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-03. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution PCZ-95- NPCC-95-23 recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning and conditional use permit in accordance with the attached draft City Council Ordinance and Resolution and the findings and conditions contained therein. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 22, 1995, the Design Review Committee reyiewed the project design in preliminary fonn and expressed some concern about the lack of common usable open space traditionally found in multi-family projects. Based on the project's unique and urban qualities, however, the Committee endorsed the design as presented, but recommended additional outdoor amenities to compensate for the lack of common open space. A revised design which includes several areas with trellises and seating will be considered by the Design Review Committee on June 26, 1996. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The 2.53 acre site is located on the west side of Broadway, between "J" and "K" Streets. It was previously occupied by the Fuller Ford automobile dealership and contains several vacant structures and asphalt paving. A masonry wall separates the site from the westerly adjacent residences. The property is bounded to the north by a tire store, to the south by a one-story motel, to the east by Broadway, and to the west by single family dwellings located approximately 4-10 ft. lower than the project site. Adjoining General Plan designations and zoning districts are as follows: General Plan Zoning Site North South East West Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Low Density Residential C- T Thoroughfare Commercial C- T Thoroughfare Commercial C- T Thoroughfare Commercial C- T Thoroughfare Commercial Single Family Dwellings Proposal The proposal calls for 36 individually-owned three-story business home units featuring a 500-600 sq. ft. commercial space at the lower level, with a 1,500 sq. ft. two-story living space directly above. A loop road located along the perimeter of the property, as well as a single dead-end drive off Broadway, aTe for the exclusive use of the residences, each of which is served by a single-car garage and either a tandem or open parking space. The commercial shops are situated around two sepaTate parking areas oriented toward Broadway. The two parking lots provide a total of 80 parking spaces to serve the 18,000 sq. ft. of total commercial floor space proposed. Three landscaped passageways provide pedestrian access between the commercial and residential "sides" of the project, whereas vehicular access and parking is exclusive to each component. Page 3, Item -L Meeting Date 6/14/95 Open space consists of an 80-100 sq. ft. private patio for each dwelling unit, plus lawn areas along the residential loop road, and visual focal points featuring trellis structures and seating at several locations. Landscaping is provided along the frontage of the shops, within the parking lots and pedestrian passageways, as well as at three locations along the rear property line. A 4-6 ft. high masonry wall is proposed to be retained and supplemented where necessary to separate the project from the residences to the west. The Business Homes proposal includes several requested precise plan deviations from typical development standards. These include a reduction in usable open space by approximately 25%, a reduction in the setback along Broadway from 25 ft. to 4 ft., a reduction in total parking by IO spaces under a shared parking arrangement, the use of 28 compact-commercial and 28 tandem-residential parking spaces, and a modest reduction in vehicle back-up and maneuvering areas from 24 ft. to 21 ft. along the residential loop road. Some of these requested deviations are at least partially based on the constraints of the site in relation to the unique qualities of the project, but many are also based on the proposition that the Business Homes will be owned, occupied and operated by the same individual or family. The commercial and residential spaces of each unit are internally connected and are intended to function as a combined living and working space for the owner. Development Criteria Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.205 provides the following development criteria for mixed-use projects: I. The conditional use permit shall be subject to review and approval of the City Council following the recommendation of the Planning Commission; 2. The commercial and residential components shall be planned and implemented togetheT; 3. The maximum allowable residential density will be governed by the provisions of the R-3 zone based on the total project area, less any area devoted exclusively to commercial use, including commercial parking and circulation areas. The approved density may be significantly less than the maximum allowable density depending on site specific factors, including the density and relationship of surrounding residential areas, if any; 4. Parking, access and circulation shall be largely independent for the commercial and residential components of the projects. Each use component shall provide off-street parking in accordance with City standards; Page 4, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 5. The residential component shall meet the private and common open space requirements of the R-3 zone; 6. The conditional use permit may include a restriction on commercial uses and/or business hours in order to avoid conflicts with residential units. Public Input On June 1, 1995, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum to familiarize surrounding residents and property owners with the request and the planning process. Those in attendance generally appeared receptive to the proposal and welcomed the improvements to the site, but concerns were expressed with the following: 1. Loss of privacy for the residents to the west and the desire for a higher wall along the westerly property line; 2. Increased traffic if the commercial and residential components of each unit were rented separately; 3. Adequate provisions for trash since both the residential and commercial components will be served by trash cans rather than trash dumpsters; and 4. The approval of tandem parking could set a precedent for other multiple family projects. In addition to the input received at the public forum, correspondence was Teceived from an area resident expressing concerns about the additional traffic, noise, and pollution, and also questioning the need for additional Tetail commercial shops along Broadway. In other correspondence, the residents of the three most southerly adjacent lots have requested that the existing 20 ft. high building wall located on the southwest property line be retained to reduce the noise and impacts associated with commercial operations. ANALYSIS: The existing Retail Commercial General Plan designation for the site allows for typical retail and service commercial uses found in neighborhood and community shopping centers and on traditional downtown shopping streets. It also allows for limited thoroughfare commercial retail and automobile-oriented uses provided they constitute only a small portion of a planned commercial development. The C-C Central Commercial zone is the city's basic retail and shopping center zone, and thus the rezoning is consideTed consistent with the General Plan. Page 5, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 A mixed-use project can only be implemented in the C-C-P Central Commercial zone. This is due to the fact that the uses allowed in the C-C zone are considered more compatible in conjunction with residential use than the "heavier" automobile-oriented uses allowed in the C-T Thoroughfare Commercial zone. The establishment of this C-C zoned mixed-use development on what is otherwise a thoroughfare commercial frontage is also not inconsistent with the historical use of the C-C zone as a site specific shopping center or planned development district at other isolated locations on Broadway as well as 'E' Street and Third Avenue. In other words, the use of the C-C zone under these circumstances is not considered "spot zoning". With Tegard to the mixed-use development cTiteria listed above, the Business Homes proposal meets all of the criteria with the exception of total parking, and open space. In relation to parking, the proposed deficiency of 10 required spaces is more than compensated for by the reduction in parking demand by 36 spaces under the shared parking concept, whereby the residential occupant is also the commercial proprietor and thus does not require an additional parking space. A deed restriction is recommended to ensure continued single operator/occupancy. The open space provided is approximately 25% less than what is typically required for a multiple family project (400 sq. ft./ unit). However, the project includes enhanced pedestrian walks and attractive trellis structures with seating and decorative planting. Although the common open space is not up to parity with more traditional multifamily developments, the open space and amenities provided are in the opinion of the Design Review Committee suitable for the intended urban character of the project. The development criteria also provide the ability to restrict commercial uses and/or business hours in order to avoid conflict with the residential component. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. These hours have been incorporated into the conditions of approval as deed restrictions, as has a list of prohibited uses which are allowed under the C-C zone but which are believed to represent a potential conflict with directly adjoining residential. In additional to total parking and open space, as noted above the proposal includes requested precise plan deviations for the Broadway setback, the use of compact and tandem parking spaces, and a reduction in vehicle back-up and maneuvering area. With the exception of the Broadway setback reduction, which involves approximately 30% of the project frontage and which is not inconsistent with established setbacks along the entire length of Broadway, these deviations are somewhat exceptional, but in the Design Review Committee's opinion considered supportable in terms of pToviding the opportunity for a unique development concept which would otherwise likely not occur. Page 6, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/14/95 Also, the single occupant/operator concept, coupled with the proposal for an exclusive single-loaded loop road will tend to ameliorate the potential for conflicts. For example, the tandem parking and reduced back-up/maneuvering issues only affect the residential units situated along the loop road. Since this road is intended for the owner-residents only, any inconvenience presented by utilizing tandem parking or by less generous maneuvering areas can be anticipated and adjusted to by these owners and will not conflict with public parking or general circulation. With respect to the issues raised by the public and not already discussed: 1. Traffic: The proposed project will generate approximately 1,800 (ADT), or about 1,056 ADT over the previous land use. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the additional traffic is expected to be lessened by having the shop operators living and working within the site. Broadway is anticipated to continue to operate at level of service (LOS) 'C' which is consistent with the City's threshold standard. 2. Noise: An acoustical study analyzed two on-site concerns: the noise generated by the commercial activities impacting the westerly adjacent neighborhood, and the exposure of the proposed residential units to the noise generated by traffic along Broadway. The study recommends the following items to reduce the noise impact and these have been incorporated into the Negative Declaration as required mitigation measures: . Maintain a minimum 5 ft. high masonry wall along the west property line. . All windows facing east on the four frontage units shall incorporate dual pane windows rated a minimum of STC-25. . A mechanical ventilation system capable of 2 air exchanges per hour shall be incorporated into all of the living units. By incorporating this recommendation into the conditions of approval, the noise levels will be well within the City's standard. 3. Privacy: The Chula Vista Municipal Code requires a 6 ft. high masonry zoning wall along the property line abutting residential districts. The intent of the wall is to screen and buffer residential uses from the noise and activities associated with commercial zones. Several of the residents at the public forum expressed a desire for a higher 9-10 ft. wall to further ensure their protection and privacy, even to the extent that three of the residents desired to retain the 20 ft. high wall of a vacant building at the southwesterly corner of the site. Page 7, Item-1... Meeting Date 6/14/95 Although the 20 ft. high building wall cannot be retained, a higher wall up to 8-10 ft. could provide more protection and a greater sense of privacy. A wall of that height, however, can be imposing, and may not be acceptable to all of adjoining residents. As a result, we have included a condition which requires a meeting to be held with the westerly adjacent residents to obtain their input regarding the wall height prior to final consideration of the project by the Design Review Committee. 4. Trash: The proposal is to use trash cans rather than trash dumpsters to serve the entire project. Normally trash cans are only acceptable in the case of smaller residential projects of four units or less. This issue will be addressed by the Design Review Committee in an attempt to incorporate one or more dumpster enclosures into the project. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, staff is recommending approval of the proposal based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Ordinance and Resolution. Attachments 1. Locator and Project Exhibits 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCZ-95-AlPCC-95-23 3. Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance 4. Pnblic Input 5. Noise Analysis 6. Initial Study and Negative Declaration 7. Disclosure Statement ( m:\homelplanning\luislpcc-9552.tpt) ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATOR AND PROJECT EXHIBITS -- ~ - ~ :sD - _z z - c ., -- - _-s s--- - -- - -....~- ~~I PROJECT _I~ ~= ~~ LOCATION ~ ~ -:::::: r -.;; _-- I I I I t I I I I , , 1\ =tJ IAL.SEY , , ~ : ..., , L. -- ~.- - l'-If' - - ~ .> - f- 1- zf-- .........(>(...... . ~ 1--;"':4& E Y 5-b-';U -,- a: - ..)( -- -~->,( - a:_i z z ~ I~ <( ,..-' ..J ..J 1-- -- c 0 X <J I 0 ~ '"l-r- ~ -- ! I : , ---'-- > z . UD-t1j-ttjUi! li;-- ~ :z: r '" I I , I -r-, I I ' ~--- . I I . I _~ : r-,,--6y--,---r" , . I I , : ~ . . . : : . : I It., , " J" I , i I , I , , --." I I , I I .-- , I I , I I , , -.. l .,.,-- 4'""'i - -j" I -. I I t I I f- --. I , I , I I . I t ~.. I -.- I , , , __..J , A T . . . , , - -- t- - I => , ::> - - - -..-- 1&-.1 Z , W W > - - <( <( - ,...- - - -- - ~- f-- - :r I---- U :r W uJ III " a K , I .. . _._ _:.. .. .. _ .. _ . 1 . _ _ ~ ..., ~ C- oo( ;Z ~ r", , IE RA WA~ :> ...J > CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Broadway Business CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & ZONE CHANGE C) APPLICANT, Homes Village Request: Rezone 2.53 acres at 760 Broadway PROJECT 760 Broadway ADDRESS, to allow the construction of a 36 unit commercial residential mixed - use project. SCALE, FILE NUMBER< PCC - 95 - 23 NORTH 400' PCZ-95-A J \. J l I I IIJII STREET , I I I I I I I L __J I ----- I I L__ I I ~. I L -I' --t I ~ L I I I :J> I 0 I I I I 8 I Z ___J I :!! 1-- < I I ", - - - - +--~ ::u :J> aJ r I (f) ", ~ :J: ", 1--- 0 Z ----.... :J: ST. I b , ~ \!) ~ ~ ", ", --- r- :-r-- I I ,I I I I I OJ ~ ~ ~ :J> < ", ~ ", r "K" STREET I ffil r r EXHIBIT - A- CHUIA VISTA PlANNING DEPARTMENT , CASE NUMBER: PCZ - 95 - A ACREAGE: SCALE: 1" = 400' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 2.53 DATE, JUNE 5,1995 C. J. FERNANDEZ CITY CLERK DATE DRAWN BY: C9 ZONING MAP ~!f? -.J,.- =00' OiUIA VISTA CHECKED BY, NORTH -e..- o tk ~ -~---e- ~ -~ .- -()-- ~. :1' Ii II '1-- --<>~ ~ , --0----:;- " ~1 I, , ~~- ~e=- ~.~._.' ~"" I ~ . '. , -~. ~ --e---:r Ii il ,I __ ~r ~li- , I ~1'- , I, -0......<1.-.-. Ii 1 J --e. .' -~ -~ I I I' I_~ ;1 . ..;;,.--,_.- ~ ~ ~ .~ I .II :! ~ 1 z <( . ..J ~ - a. 0 11J m . a. , <( , u ~ , en ! c - ! z m j - ~. ..J ~ <( < ::> , I- >< ! a. , 11J W 0 u z 0 u ~ < o " " - :,. I U I z I . C) C'I Z I I ! m . < ...J . I . Q. II ... w I CJ ~ !:: - I (j) i ' i m q . i - ! - 1 ::J: . ~ - i . I D 111 >< . . , I , W ! i i i . I 0 : ! ~ . I , I ~I I i . ! ! r-- , ___0--- I , , , , z ~ C) cu-- I , i . ! ~- i '0- t . i , ~ . . i i . i i i . i . r. . I I i , , , , l_O iD . I . I . i: \~, --~ ='-~1--'"1-;: iii "\ l I I .... I- .- I I 8/. In =j1 W . [f! i=i E:I ~ I I I - DO ~~ C1 -- I -~-.; - lieg .. ! .L ~ -- rn "~-"-'ll... ~'I: - S--~ >-,.-- L-=___ c::::::J , ! ":J) ~ I I ~.; '2'.' II. I,I.C~(~ . ~.:"~ -//1'1_, ~~II -, , ~ I .________ .! n 1 , I I I , ' I !i ~ ~ ~ / '1 J~nD.!II; , ! I ,; =r=~JII '\ 0. Ii I' Ii Ii -1 Ii , ij , Ij-=--:J c::---=_: ~ '~ TI' \,/1 \[1 ~. I, II ~ J'~ ~; -"--L rl ;I ~ :1 :ji "I ~ i ('I); mo <( f- Z ::J ...; , _ 0 : m ! "- u ~'... ! ~-- ~ ~ ~ ~>< ; '-~W ; <: L: c" " - = I I ___ i [I EE! II' . . '. ~ .'.....~" .' o . . % I 1\1 v ~ CD Ie j ~ ::> 1-, - , m~ [c _ ~ .,:E: i - i ~,>< i .< W ! ~, ~- ~ ~:Jli~. 18c9l ~.... 1.t J. I "1, ~_I _ . ~ " L-. --------=-._- II \J T: ""B~'::';: tl--::- _ ,"\ 0: '. '\, ''-..~ -- h 1 Ii ~ " ~ ...:..~ , '\. ~ C-J oc' ~ .d[1 !------'~ . \,,-J 1- ; CT"j r 1 l < . r\-~ ~ 7< - , L.::...::..= C L----=-=- l= B C![J c= II cJJ " ~ Ii J i~L/ I __ I " i - fi , I , , L___________ II) 10 I- - -10 - " :E: c: c 0,>< :;;w L) f- Z :::> I ) / < , 0 CO CfJ Z 0 l- f:: <( - , > Ie LU , ...J , LU - ! ~ ! >< ~' ~ W < , ! , c ~ r~~ , !~ Ii r 0 :;;) f ~Inr , , c "'. s: I" c "" r~ !.- , , , " c 1 ~ , = w u i t -- r 8 z o " ~ ~ w z o " < ~ w ~ ~ 1_ ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PCZ-95-NPCC-95-23 RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-95-A / PCC-95-23 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REZONE 2.53 ACRES AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM C-T, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL TO C-C-P, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN AND GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH SHARED PARKING WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a zone change and conditional use permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 16, 1994 by Josef A. and Lenore s. Citron, and WHEREAS, said applications request approval to change the zoning from C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial, to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan, and for a conditional use permit to be granted to establish a mixed-use project with shared parking involving 2.53 acres at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, 15-95-03 and Addendum of potential environmental impacts associated with the project and has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on 15-95-03, and WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said zone change and conditional use permit applications 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty one days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., June 14, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum issued on 15-95-03. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Counci 1/ Redevelopment Agency approve the zone change and conditional use permit with shared parking in accordance with the findings, and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council/Redevelopment Agency Ordinance and Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. Resolution No. PCZ-95-NPCZ-95-23 Page 2 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 14th day of June, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C Tushscher II, Chairman ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary M:\IIOME\PlANNINc;\lui~\PZA-95a.pcr ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 36 UNIT COMMERCIAL! RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE PROJECT WITH SHARED PARKING AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE C-C-P ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 16, 1994 by Josef A. and Lenore S. Citron; and WHEREAS, said application requests permission to establish a 36 unit commercial/residential mixed-use project with shared parking at 760 Broadway within the C-C- P zone; and WHEREAS, a public forum was noticed and held on June 1, 1995 to inform surrounding residents and property owners of the proposal and to receive their input prior to the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-03 and Addendum of potential environmental impacts associated with the project and has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-03, and WHEREAS, on June 12 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission voted _ to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum issued on IS-95-03; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 1995, the Planning Commission voted _ to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the conditional use permit in accordance with Resolution PCZ-95-A/PCC-95-23 , and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. July 11, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: I. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum. That the project will have no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum issued on IS-95-03. II. CUP Findings. That the Redevelopment Agency makes the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of the conditional use permit, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the conununity. The establishment of a 36 unit commercial/residential mixed-use project will provide an innovative and unique development concept whereby residents may live and work at the same location, and the project and improvements will enhance what is an otherwise vacant and unused property, and will encourage the redevelopment as well as improvement of surrounding properties. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal as conditioned includes measures to avoid potential on and off site conflicts to ensure the highest level of compatibility between the commercial and residential components of the project. The site plan and building design will contribute significantly to the improvement of the site and surrounding areas. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Municipal Code for such use. Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations shall be required prior to issuance of development permits and on a continuing basis thereafter. 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 project as conditioned is consistent with City policies and the Chula Vista General Plan. III. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-23 subject to the following conditions, whereby: 1. The commercial hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, and these shall be reflected as deed restrictions for each of the lots/units. 2. The land uses listed in attached Exhibit A shall not be permitted, and these shall be reflected in the deed restrictions for each of the lots/units. 3. The project shall comply with all the requirements of the Chula Vista Uniform Fire and Building Codes to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Director of Building and Housing respectively. 4. Commercial activities and operations, including storage of merchandise and pick- up and delivery of goods, shall be limited to the area designated for commercial use and shall not occur in the residential units. 5. Garages shall remain open and available for parking and shall not be not be utilized for commercial storage. 6. A minimum 6 ft. high masonry wall shall be established along the west property line. However, the wall height may be increased to a maximum of 10 ft. providing the Design Review Committee, after receiving input from the westerly adjacent residents, determines that the additional height is necessary to preserve their privacy and buffer the residences from the activities associated with the proposed project. 7. All windows facing east on the four frontage units shall incorporate dual pane windows rated a minimum of STC-25. 8 A mechanical ventilation system capable of 2 air exchanges per hour shall be incorporated into all of the living units. 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 deprived the Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. B. This conditional use permit shall be void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval and property deed restriction shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. V. Findings re Relation of Exaction to Impact of Project The Redevelopment Agency has individually and independently reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the applicant contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate an impact caused by the project and are our reasonably related to the project and the extent and degree of exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by said project. VI. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney (m:\...\luis\pcc-9523.ccr) Broadway Home/Business Commercial/Residential Mixed Use Project 760 Broadway PCC-95-23 LAND USES NOT PERMITTED Automobile repairs (major and Minor) Automobile stereo installation Animal hospitals Appliance repair (Major) Automobile rental Tire dealers Towing service Beer bars Drive-in restaurants Seating or take-out restaurants Night clubs Restaurant/bars T rai ler rentals EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING THE 2.53 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO C-C-P, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezoning was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 16, 1994 by Josef A and Lenore S. Citron; and WHEREAS said application requested to change the zoning from C- T, Thoroughfare Commercial zone to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan for 1.26 acres located at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and diagrammatically represented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-03 and addendum of potential environmental impacts associated with the project and has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-03, and WHEREAS, on June 12, 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission voted _ to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum issued on IS-95-03; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 1995 the City Planning Commission voted_ to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning in accordance with Resolution PCZ-95-A/PCC-95-23; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said rezoning 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. July 11, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION I: Based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum issued on IS-95-03. SECTION II: the City Council hereby finds that the rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan. SECTION III: that the parcel located at 760 Broadway, as shown on attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan. SECTION IV: this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney (f:\home\planning\luis\PCZ-95A.cco) J \. J l I r "J" STREET , I I I I I 1 I L __.J I ----- I I L__ I I ..l I L -I' --1 I ~ L I I I )> I !2 I I I I ~ I Z _ __.J I :!! 1-- < 1 , IT! - - - - +---= ;z) )> CD r I en IT! ~ :I: IT! 1--- (') Z ----'1 :I: ST. I b , ~ ~ ~ IT! IT! --- OJ ::>c )> ~ ~ < IT! r- -r-- ~ , 1 .1 I "'< I I I r "K" STREET I ffil r I EXHIBIT - A- CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT , CASE NUMBER: PCZ - 95 - A ACREAGE: SCALE: 1" = 400' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 2.53 DATE: JUNE 5, 1995 C. J. FERNANDEZ CITY CLERK DATE DRAWN BY: C9 ZONING MAP ~\f(c.. -11f~ en"" CHlAA VJSrA CHECKED BY: NORTH ATTACHMENT 4 PUBLIC INPUT ^ I ~ J)7.-" :J;,.,-J1( - oj ') ~..;) /_ c/ : ~ . ...., -.--^ --'- S _ 1/. 1/ _____ > //.1 '.1 I - 0U.f..'o, y.>:i- ~ fl;1/ A .,; ~7J I ;j ",f'-,v-j,,-J 0 ...{;..r11 / o-~ (}:J I ~~--'-' /1 ; . -:;;Ii , /:::L-y r-' ///<./J...J -I <.-.!> -1, -J.- ,,""(" ~'---,'U 'r./...r _,-,- ,1./,__ ) I.".' ^ I "- ,~~ ! ~1 '-L^ :(/ Jf //_? - ,k / J'AI/ / . !/. ! :-i(? " ~--j . _/ ~~ j, ( .1 :: ,_ -'" ___ /"I.-'L--t)'J/ __ ..:/ / :/ " r) ~I .)J 2 --- I ~ J .' >" (- /" , I I ,f' fl-1'~: 1/ ~-i _~vy__'!_/ /) ~-1 _ ~_f~.-A--""-~7">" /~ i.I l , ,; 1r04 .<:.1--.::// _ _~-t'L' ( J /:./-. !. /,.-j/ - y./-. _ I d .!'. . ---rV .A-'_. '-/' ,- - ~/ ,,- -''') - - ..'-- - - I j , ~Aik ,J vv /1 ,JJ,/ I fI j J-.dd V- [A(--:b. J- ----OCA-I.-ft~ 1-/ 4---d~ ~ /n__Y- C~ /YY/J1.-v /c~~~.!';~:: !~':A--'>-' rd~ - /.' ) . J ( ., -' J ./ / 1~4j J/.A~/;t /--V--'f-"- ..'< L- _~'-,~1:'Lh!"/ j-f/R/ _.JI'? /I.. (/ 1,1 -&---rY'z-r..-vu-bd I ~ c--' /- //-h;?,..:0 ~-----H.--U , I'ZPud ,2 &4~r~~~ 71 t:J 1}.51 /! v-<- ~"-/ V~AfL// &J ;//..~-OO3'1 ~l/d JaRuary 1), 199~ Dou"'l"'-!!! Reld ERvlro~ment...l Revlew Coordl.",tor CaeeN IS - 95 - 0) JAN; 3 , .~, j!, We, the followla~ re!!!lde.t!!! of the ?OO blook of Riverla",. Ave, request that the ourreat approximately 20 foot high wall ru..lag alo.g ?6) aad ?6? Riverla.. ATe be ret.i~d, aad, if possible.aloa", the eatire property liae to proteot the onrreat R-1 resideats from the adTerse aoise aad traffio oansed by the ) 1/2 story Qommeroial deTelopmeat purpostd by Citroa Reality & Iavest.eat Corporatioa (file # IS-95-0)). (i:zx;) /0, (J~,,-<~ Ottti a;a' Mary Cooper---- ?6? RITerla.. ATe ihula ~~a 8a '~1910 <>1!11l aa~/ Ja~ggs ; / ?45 Rl Terla",a Ave / Chu" Vista CA 91910 d~.L 67?+~ Gary t:ooper 724 RiTerla.. ATe Chu&' Vista, CA 91910 ATTACHMENT 5 NOISE ANALYSIS Giroux & Associates Environmental eon tants f:k" 1 ? 19QC v.~ :~ ~.L~. '~',"'<'..\,:;. March 14, 1995 citron Realty & Development Corp. C/o Coronado Bay Hotel Venture Attn: Ms. Lenore S. Citron; GP/Owner 4000 Coronado Bay Road Coronado, California 92118 Re: Businesshome Village Acoustical study Dear Ms. citron: We have conducted an acoustical study for the former Fuller Ford si te at 760 Broadway in the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Susan Vandrew from the Planning Department staff had identified two noise concerns relative to development of the site as proposed. These concerns were: 1. Exposure of the rear yards of existing residents on Riverlawn to excessive site activity noise, or, 2. Excessive on-site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. Given the previous use of the site for automotive and truck repair and a body shop in close proximity to the Ri verI awn homes, the question of site suitability for residential use is perhaps more pertinent than limited "new" site access/egress noise. Tasks that were performed to evaluate changes in the noise environment due to project implementation included: 1. Site familiarization and obtaining plans and other input data 2. On-site noise measurements 3. Measurement of parking lot activity noise at a similar mixed use development in Orange County /7744 Sky PMk Q'n:k, Suite 2/0. JrviDt:. Qlifomu 92714 . PiJoDe (714) 851-8609 . Fu (714) 85/-86/2 -2- 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of any recommended mitigation The following discussion summarizes the results of the efforts in each task. Project Description The preliminary site plan for 36 units envisioned two "pads" of 18 live/work businesses and residences separated by a common parking area. In the revised site plan, the two clusters have been drawn together with only a small separation and two separate parking areas have been created. In the current site plan, the intervening 3-story structures between Riverlawn residences and the parking areas will preclude any audibility of site visitor vehicular activity. Use of the perimeter roadway by site residents and by small delivery vehicles such as package delivery services will be the potential source of impact. Through the more contiguous building mass screening out Broadway traffic noise, any small impact from site-related vehicles may be offset by equal or greater attenuation of existing noise. Proposed uses for the site are a mixed use concept with owner- occupied businesses on part of the ground floor of each townhouse with parking in the rear of the ground floor and two floors of living space above. Business uses are expected to be small specialty retail, professional or service-oriented offices and special ty restaurants such as gourmet coffee, deli sandwiches, yogurt, etc. No audible noise generation from business use is expected at the rear of any unit in proximity to adjacent residences. on-site Noise Measurements Noise measurements were made at three locations on the project site. Two sites were along the rear separation wall between the former dealership and the adjacent residences (one near the former body shop on the southern one-half of the site, one near the taller truck repair building on the northern one-half). One monitor was located 90 feet from the Broadway centerline in a former auto display area with an unobstructed view of Broadway. Results of these measurements made on February 23, 1995 near 1 p.m. are summarized as follows: -3- Noise Level (dB[A] ) Lm- Lux Lmin Front Display Area 65.3 75 55 Body Shop Area 59.7 66 55 Truck Repair Area 58.9 65 52 These readings were l5-minute energy equivalent averages (LEQ) and i-second maxima and minima (Lmax, Lmin). City of Chula Vista standards are expressed in terms of a weighted 24-hour standard called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Our monitoring experience in a number of Chula Vista noise monitoring programs has been that mid-day LEQs and 24-hour CNELs are often very similar. For example, a comparison of CNEL and the mid-day noise level at three sites around Chula Vista are as follows: LEQ CNEL (Noon-2 pm) site 1 64.3 dB 63.6 dB site 2 62.7 dB 64.9 dB site 3 52.2 dB 51.9 dB The difference between CNEL and mid-day LEQ is often near zero, and generally fairly small. The baseline readings above are therefore a reasonable representation of existing noise levels relative to the City's exterior standard of 65 dB(A) CNEL. The above comparison suggests that mid-day LEQ noise levels are from 0-2 dB lower than daily CNELs. At the locations measured, the former front display area with a CNEL of 65-67 dB(A) thus currently slightly exceeds the City standard, while the former rear repair areas with CNELs of 59-62 dB(A) are well within the city's guidelines. Residences on Riverlawn backing up to the site protected by the existing wall clearly have a large margin of safety between the standard and their current noise exposure. -4- Parking Lot Activity Noise Noise levels at the edge of a parking lot serving a mixed use development in Huntington Beach were monitored as a prototype for the off-site levels that could be expected for the former site plan that had a direct line of sight from the parking area to the rear yards of Riverlawn homes. The Huntington Beach facility has ground floor shops and offices with upstairs residences in an "Old World" atmosphere. Businesses include restaurants, a deli, retail shops (especially ethnic wares), travel agencies, CPAs, a tanning salon, etc. Tenant and/or owner parking is in a separate garage area, but otherwise the design concept is similar to the proposed facility in Chula Vista. One-hour measurements at the edge of the parking lot from 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. when there is an active lunch traffic were as follows: LEQ = 59.7 dB LMAX = 81.0 dB Lmin = 51.5 dB Because the traffic peaks during the day with little nocturnal activity, CNEL is likely several dB lower than mid-day LEQ. If the property line CNEL were 57 dB (A), and this noise level were superimposed upon the 59-62 dB(A) CNEL currently experienced at the fenceline of the Riverlawn homes, the combined level would be 61-63 dB(A) CNEL. The former plot plan with the parking area exposed to view by the residences, even without any noise reduction credit for a rear property wall, would not cause City of Chula Vista standards to be exceeded. with the revised plot plan, the parking lot activity noise exposure to off-site residents is a moot point. Its only issue would be as to how much on-site vehicular activity will be audible to project site upper story residents. Access Road Noise As a worst-case assumption, each unit was assumed to generate 10 daily trips (five outbound and five inbound) along the perimeter access. At 25 mph, with 10% of traffic at night, the traffic noise in the absence of any barrier is 50 dB(A) CNEL in the rear yards of the adjacent residences assuming that the proposed homes are perfect reflectors. A level of 50 dB is not perceptible within an -5- existing background of around 60 dB. By creating a more contiguous 3-story barrier to screen out existing traffic noise from Broadway, the noise reduction achieved by the project will far more than compensate any small noise increment created by resident and minor delivery vehicle traffic on the townhome perimeter road. The above calculations are for no separation wall between the project and existing Riverlawn residences. No wall is needed to meet noise standards. A wall may be desirable for privacy, security, aesthetics or other reasons, but it is not a necessary project component to meet noise standards. Because inclusion of a wall is not noise-driven, the height is somewhat immaterial. Any height above 5 feet will reduce the perception at adjacent homes of individual vehicles passing through the rear "alley", but only creates an additional margin of safety relative to meeting City of Chula vista standards. On-Site Noise Exposure siting of residential uses on a commercial corridor does have possible noise implications. Existing measured noise levels (estimated from short-term, daytime readings) at 90 feet from the Broadway centerline are 65-67 dB(A) CNEL. Projected increases in traffic volumes on Broadway are small such that noise "growth" is forecast to be only an additional 0.5 dB(A) CNEL. With the facade of the closest project buildings somewhat closer than the 90-foot measurement distance, a maximum future exterior noise level of 69 dB(A) CNEL is forecast for the units closest to Broadway. The sides of the closest buildings to Broadway will exceed the City standard by 4 dB. The front and back of the closest unit will only be exposed to one-half of the traffic. Limits in the field of view to 50% of the traffic flow will create a 66 dB(A) CNEL exposure at the corner of the nearest unit. Within the width of one unit, noise levels decrease by 1+ dB to create a sub-65 dB(A) CNEL at the exterior of all units except the four closest to Broadway. The 65 dB(A) CNEL contour approximately bisects the closest unit. city standards for noise at any usable exterior recreational space is 65 dB(A) CNEL. state standards for interiors of multiple family units is 45 dB(A) CNEL. Exterior to interior noise attenuation with standard construction practice is 20 dB as long as windows are closed. All units except the four closest to Broadway will have exteriors of less than 65 dB(A) CNEL. Their decks and porches will meet City exterior standards without any supplementary noise protection. Their interior levels will be below 45 dB(A) CNEL as long as residents can close their windows to shut out the noise. -6- The ability to close the window requires an auxiliary source of ventilation. Although this requirement is met in the UBC with only a whole-house fan (normally in the furnace in central heating), refrigerated air conditioning is the preferred option. While the need for air conditioning in Chula Vista is very limited, its inclusion provides an expanded range of options to the business and residential component of each unit to control comfort and noise. At the four end units abutting on Broadway, a somewhat enhanced level of noise control is required. Exterior exposure for the front balconies of these units is 65 dB(A) CNEL. The rear deck is shielded by the protrusion of the second floor family room such that the deck outside the kitchen door will also have a noise level within City of Chula vista standards. No exterior noise mitigation is required. The front balcony at 65 dB(A) CNEL may not be conducive to relaxing conversation at these units, but does not require any supplementary noise control. The interior of the four units closest to Broadway is thus the only possible location where standard design practice may not be able to achieve a reduction from 69 dB(A) CNEL on the facade to a 45 dB(A) CNEL in the interior. with planned windows facing Broadway, the noise leakage for a standard window may be slightly inadequate. Based on preliminary room geometries, we have run the Interior Noise Analysis (INA) model. Use of slightly upgraded windows (dual-paned sliders or a thicker glass) with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or higher will allow the interior standard of 45 dB(A) CNEL to be readily met. su.mary/Reco_endations Our findings are as follows: 1. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. It is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall, with some cosmetic improvement, will be retained. Maintaining a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommended. 2. Air conditioning is recommended as a standard feature on all units. 3. East facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway are recommended to be rated at STC = 25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use of a thicker glass or by a dual- paned sliding window. ATTACHMENT 6 INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS 95-03 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT APPLICANT: PROJECT AGENT: Broadway Business Homes Village 760 Broadway Josef & Lenore Citron C.W. Clark CASE NUMBER: IS-95-03A DATE: May 30, 1995 I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , if one of the following conditions is present: 1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Additional or refined information available since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration. IS- 95 - 03 analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal of a rezone from the CT to Central Commercial modified by a Precise Plan (CCP) zone, in order to allow for the construction of 36 mixed use units. Subsequent to the completion of the Declaration, minor changes have been project description. Mitigated Negative incorporated in the Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed rezone to This addendum supersedes the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-95-03. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but instead becomes an attachment to the previously issued Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-95-03. II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proj ect site, located at 760 Broadway, is a 2.52 acre site, which was previously used as a Fuller Ford auto dealership and is located in the 80uthwest Redevelopment Project area. The site is zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) and designated as Commercial Retail in the General Plan. There are several existing structures and carports previously used in the auto dealership for customer service, parts storage and auto repairs. The City of Chula Vista currently owns the property and will issue a contract for the demolition of all structures and carports and the clean up of the site prior to the transfer of the property to the project applicant for construction of an approved project proposal. The properties to the north and south, as well as across Broadway to the east, are zoned Commercial Thoroughfare. To the west is zoned R1 and there are existing single-family residences. A tire sales and repair land use is located to the north and a hotel is located to the south. The average graded slope of the site is 2~. III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On May 2, 1995 the proposed project was reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency to provide direction as to how project issues are to be addressed by staff. The issues which are of major concern to staff include setting precedents which have City staffing and budgetary implications, public access and liability, and open space and parking proposals. Issues which were discussed and were not evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration were the following: the creation of an assessment district to establish ownership and maintenance for the common areas, the establishment of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and a Parcel Map proposal. IV. PROPOSED PROJECT The project entails a residential subdivision comprising 36 units. There will be common areas including access alleys, open space and public parking areas. The City with form a "one of a kind" Assessment District to establish ownership and maintenance for the common areas. Project area residents have indicated concern about the potential of having two separate areas that could be rented separately. The applicant has indicated that owners of the units are to occupy both the residential and commercial areas of the units. Prior to issuance of any building permits for said development, the applicant/owner (or their successors in interest) shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the ownership of the "business homes." Any costs incurred by the administration of the CC&R's will be born by the applicant. The project entails a subdivision of 36 units, as described above and the map process may take from 12 to 18 months. The process is governed by State Law (the Subdivision Map Act) . State law does provide for exemptions from the process for public agencies, under certain circumstances. The City currently owns the property and may be able to process a Parcel Map, as opposed to a Subdivision Map, for the project. The applicant has requested that this be done and staff believes that a Parcel Map would be a cleaner process, and would provide monumented lot corners for a more precise legal lot definition. V. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Assessment District The formation of an Assessment District does not in any way change or alter the conclusions regarding the environmental impacts described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. CC&R's The City establishing of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the ownership of the "business homes" will address residential concerns as to the ownership of the home/business units and will support conclusions as to project impacts as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which assume that the owner and occupant of the business homes will be one in the same. Parcel Map The processing of a parcel map will not exempt the development from CEQA or other land use approval processes and will not change the proj ect impacts as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. VI. CONCLUSION The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project revision, as reflected in this Addendum (IS-95-03A), does not raise important new issues about the proj ect' s significant effects on the environment. No significant impacts would result from these modifications to the project as previously proposed. This addendum supplements the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and concludes that the project proposal is subject to mitigation measures. Mitigated NegaLie Declaratio PROJECT NAME: Broadway Business Homes Village PROJECT LOCATION: 760 Broadway, Chula Vista CA 91910 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-200-13 through 17 PROJECT APPLICANT: Citron Realty & Investment Corp., Josef & Lenore Citron CASE NO: IS-95-03 DATE: May 12, 1995 A. Proiect Setting The project site, located at 760 Broadway, is a 2.52 acre site, which was previously used as a Fuller Ford auto dealership and is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project area. The site is zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) and designated as Commercial Retail in the General Plan. There are several existing structures and carports located on the project site which were previously used in the auto dealership for customer service, parts storage and auto repairs. The City of Chula Vista currently owns the property and will issue a contract for the demolition of all structures and carports and the clean up of the site prior to the transfer of the property to the project applicant for construction of the an approved project proposal. The properties to the north and south, as well as across Broadway to the east, are zoned CT. To the west is zoned RI and there are existing single-family residences. A tire sales and repair land use is located to the north and a hotel is located to the south. The average graded slope of the site is 2 %. B. Proiect Description The project proposes a rezone from the CT to Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan modifier (CCP), in order to allow for the construction of 36 mixed use units; commercial use on the first floor level and residential use on the second and third floors and it is expected that the owner of the business and home are one in the same household. Nine two bedroom units, nineteen three bedroom and eight four bedroom units are proposed. The proposed lot coverage is 39,188 sq. ft. of the total 109,771 sq. ft. project site, or 36%. There are 82 commercial and 72 residential parking spaces provided. There will be 36 single car garages, 8 open stalls and 28 lO'x 12' tandem spaces. There will be 7.072 sq. ft. of open space provided for project residents. The estimated project population is 123. The project is expected to generate 26 light commercial and office jobs. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section ~{~ -.- ..--.-.......,-,;: .......- - - CllY OF CHULA VISTA The applicant will be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees and comply with State California Title 24 Disabled Regulations. Discretionary actions include Precise Plan approval and a Conditional Use Permit. The project will also require approval by the Redevelopment Agency. A soils study will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. C. ComDatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The proposed mixed-use project is proposed on five parcels which are currently designated on the General Plan land use diagram as Commercial Retail and zoned CT. The project proposes a zone change to CCP, which would be compatible with Commercial Retail land use designation. Approval of a zone change will permit the proposed use, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (per Chapter 19.36, Section .030, Zoning Ordinance) and approval of a Precise Plan. Nearby resident's have raised concern about parking overflow to the their streets. There are 82 commercial parking spaces and 72 residential spaces and III commercial and 72 residential spaces are required. The justification for the parking space deficiency is founded in the urban character and uniqueness of the proposed mixed-use project and will be addressed in the project precise plan or a variance. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Specific mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce these effects to a level below significant. With mitigation, no significant environmental effects will occur, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. Noise: A acoustical study prepared by Giroux & Associates analyzed two noise concerns on of the project proposal: exposure of noise from the proposed project to single-family residences to the west and excessive on-site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. Tasks that were performed to evaluate changes in the noise environment due to project implementation included: I. Site familiarization and obtaining plans and other input data, 2. On-site noise measurements, 3. Measurement of parking lot activity noise at a similar mixed use development in Orange County, and 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of recommended mitigation. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.9:XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 2 The findings and recommendations of the study are as follows: I. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. It is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall, with some cosmetic improvement. will be retained. The maintaining of a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommended. 2. A mechanical ventilation system which will comply with UBC Sect. 1205 (c) is required as a standard feature on all units. 3. East facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway are recommended to be rated at STC = 25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use of a thicker glass or by a dual paned sliding window. School Impacts The proposed project involves a rezone from CT to CCP. This rezone will allow for the development of 36 residential units with commercial space, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Precise Plan. The present CT zone does not permit residential uses. Therefore. it has been determined that the rezone to CCP could generate significant school impacts since it allows residential units by Use Permit. As a result, the City recognizes that school impacts generated by the approval of a rezone for the project site must be fully mitigated. The proposed 36 residential units will generate an impact of up to 22 new students in the enrollment area for Chula Vista Junior High School, Chula Vista High School and Mueller Elementary School.' Due to the uniqueness of the project's "business homes" concept. the commercial component of the project is not considered to be an additional impact, as it is expected that the owner of the business and home are one in the same household. The Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District (the Districts) have indicated that state mandated fees will not be sufficient to fully mitigate impacts. Therefore, they have requested that this project be conditioned to fully mitigate impacts through possible participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism, mutually acceptable to the Districts and the project proponent, which will achieve full mitigation. In order to fully mitigate identified impacts, the applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the Districts in which measures to fully mitigate impacts are outlined and mutually agreed upon, and evidence of said agreement shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City prior to the time of building permit issuance. The factors used to calculate student generation are .30x36=lO.8 or 11 for elementary schools and .29x36=10.44 or 11 for junior high/high schools (11+11=22). The factors were provided by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\!020.9:XRef. ]02].93,1022.93) Page 3 Fire Services Based on the fire flow requirements, the Fire Department will require the following: the project to be fully sprinklered; fire extinguishers; a fire alarm system (centrally monitored), standpipes and a fire access with a minimum of 20'. Water Availability The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that if a fire sprinkler system is added to this development (note that required by the Fire Department), the required fire flow can be reduced from 7500 GPM to 3750 GPM. This flow can be met if the developer installs 600 Lineal feet of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development. This is in a section of Broadway that is currently being reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. Any required water services will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. The applicant will also be required to provide information regarding domestic, irrigation and fire sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. Land-Use The project proposes a zone change to Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan modifier (CCP). Approval of a zone change will permit the proposed use with a Conditional Use permit (per Chapter 19.36, Section .030 of the Zoning Ordinance). The proposed project allows for a mixed-use project along Broadway, which is specifically called for along sections of the Broadway Commercial strip. The proposed project lends credence to Ordinance 2295. which allows for mixed-use developments in the CCP zone. This project supports the intent of the Ordinance to facilitate the developmentlredevelopment of otherwise under utilized commercial sites and foster mutually supportive projects, such as the proposed project which allows residents to live and work at the same site. The project also supports the intention to provide an opportunity to ease the transition between commercial properties and abutting residential areas. Traffic/Parking The proposed project will generate approximately 1816 ADT, approximately 1056 ADT over the previous land use. Potential additional traffic impacts are expected to be lessened by having a high percentage of employees living and working on the project site. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact traffic on Broadway and with the implementation of a scheduled Capital Improvement Project (Fall, 1995). this segment of Broadway is expected to operate at a Level-of-Service 'C' or better. There are 82 commercial and 72 residential parking spaces proposed, however I I I commercial and 72 residential spaces are required. According to the applicant, the parking provided for the commercial shops is adequate because the shops, which are about 600 sq. ft. each and connected to the living space, are intended to be used by the resident living directly above, and because the resident/shop operator parking is provided along with the residence, the typical commercial parking demand is reduced by the number of WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\!020.93'.Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 4 residential/business units (36). The justification for the parking space deficiency is founded in the urban character and uniqueness of the proposed mixed-use project and will be addressed in the project precise plan or a variance process. Findings to justify the deviations from the Chula Vista Municipal Code will have to be made by the approving body. Conclusion The proposed project does not have any unmitigatable significant environmental effects as defined by CEQA. The project has been found to have less than a significant impact on land use, fire services. water availability and traffic. The project will generate impacts to noise, schools and parking which require mitigation to ensure that impacts are less than significant. E. Mitigation necessarv to avoid significant effects Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial study for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project. These measures must be incorporated into the project proposal prior to issuance of a building permit. I. Recommendations and findings of the noise study (please refer to Section E above). 2. Evidence of an agreement between the applicant and school districts which fully mitigate school impacts generated by the proposed project shall be provided to the City. 3. The applicant shall obtain approval of the proposed parking in the Precise Plan. F. Mandatorv Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project site is in an urban area and was previously used for a major automobile dealership and maintenance facility. There are no sensitive species or habitat in the area. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? The 2.52 acre project site was previously used for a major dealership and maintenance facility and is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. The proposed mixed-use project will implement project goals of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; provision for the enhancement and renovation of businesses within the Project Area to promote their economic viability and encourage the WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.93::Ref. 102] .93,1022.93) Page 5 establishment and maintenance of "balanced neighborhoods" and subareas, characterized by a planned diversity in building sites. density, housing and land use. The project will provide for a revitalization of the site and serve as an opportunity for Chula Vista residents to purchase housing, while also obtaining a small business opportunity. Therefore, the proposed project does not disadvantage long-term environmental goals. 3. Does the project have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? The proposed project will generate approximately 1816 ADT, approximately 1056 ADT over the previous land use. Potential additional traffic impacts are expected to be lessened by having a high percentage of employees living and working on the project site. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact traffic on Broadway and with the implementation of a scheduled Capital Improvement Project (Fall, 1995), this segment of Broadway is expected to operate at a Level-of-Service 'c' or better. The proposed rezone to allow for residential units as a component of the mixed use project will generate school impacts which are considered to be significant and require full mitigation. In addition, noise levels are expected to impact future residents of the units. These impacts are to be mitigated as outlined in said document (please refer to Section E). The applicant's compliance with the mitigation measures as outlined in this Mitigated Negative Declaration will ensure that project impacts are less than significant. Therefore, all impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than significant. 4. Will the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project is in compliance with City Growth Management threshold standards for fire, police, and other City services. Therefore, the proposed mixed- use project will not create substantial adverse impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation I. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew, Planning Barbara Reid. Planning Roger Daoust. Engineering Cliff Swanson. Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 6 Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention. MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Ed Batchelder, Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant: Josef & Lenore Citron 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Acoustical Study, Hans Giroux, 3/14/95 Southwest Redevelopment Plan. Dec. 1990 Ordinance 2295, 2/7/89 Uniform Building Code, 1991 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. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 7 Case No.IS-95-03 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Citron Realty & Investment Corp.. Josef & Lenore Citron 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number ofPropouent: 5000 Coronado Bay Rd.. Coronado 92118,424-4474 4. Name of Proposal: Broadway Business Homes Village 5. Date of Checklist: May 12, 1995 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 181 0 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181 an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed mixed-use project is proposed on five parcels which are currently designated on the General Plan land use diagram as Commercial Retail and zoned CT. The project proposes a zone change to CCP, which would be compatible with Commercial Retail land use designation. Approval of a zone change will permit the proposed use. subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (per Chapter 19.36, Section .030, Zoning Ordinance) and approval of a Precise Plan. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing. especially affordable housing? Comments: The proposed mixed-use project will provide for commercial and residential use on a site currently vacant, which was previously a Fuller Ford car dealership. The intent of the proposed project is to enhance all adjacent business properties and the project will provide an opportunity for affordable housing and a small business within the same unit. The proposed project will not induce substantial growth, but rather will redevelop a vacant area located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? o o o 181 o o 181 o o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 WPC P-\1-l0ME\PLANNING\STOREDl1718.94 Page 2 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 I8J features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 I8J any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 I8J either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 I8J sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 I8J hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The project will not require covering or modification of any unique or physical features. The applicant will be required to submit a soils study for building construction prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit to ensure that impacts are at a level below significant. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 I8J or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 I8J hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 I8J of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 I8J water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 I8J of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) 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 I8J groundwater? h) I mpacts to groundwater qual ity? 0 0 0 I8J i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 I8J waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 I8J 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? WPC FIHOME\PLANNING\STOREDlI718.94 Page 3 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Lus thlln Significant Impact No Impact Comments: If fire sprinkler systems are provided to the units. the City of Chula Vista Fire Department has indicated that fire flow can be reduced to 3750 GPM. The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that this flow can be met if the developer installs 600 L.F. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development. This is the section of Broadway that is currently being reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, any required water services will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. The Authority request that information regarding domestic. irrigation and fire sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. Project compliance with the requirements of the Authority will ensure that impacts are less than significant. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposa/.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to D D I8J D an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D I8J D c) A 1ter air movement, moisture, or temperature, D D D I8J or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D I8J e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or D D D I8J non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project does not require an APCD permit and projected increase in traffic volumes on Broadway are small such that air quality will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. VI. TRANSPORTATlONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? D D D I8J b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? D D D I8J c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby lIses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? D o o 181 D D D I8J e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? D D D I8J f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts? D D D I8J D D D I8J WPC F:\IIOME\?LANNING\STOREDl1718.94 Page 4 Potent;,dly Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unle.. Significant Impact J\.litigated Impact D D D No Impact h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The project will generate 1816 ADT, which is 1056 over the existing use. The increase in traffic volumes is small. The segment of Broadway which fronts the proposed project currently operates below Level-of-service (LOS) "C", however c.I.P. project ST-130, "Street Reconstruction- Broadway, I to L, will improve the LOS to "C" or above. Completion of ST-130 is anticipated in the Fall of 1995. 181 Nearby resident's have raised concern about parking overflow to the their streets. There are 82 commercial parking spaces and 72 residential spaces and III commercial and 72 residential spaces are required. The justification for the parking space deficiency is founded in the urban character and uniqueness of the proposed mixed-use project and will be addressed in the project precise plan or a variance. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Comments: The proposed project area is an older urbanized area of the City on a previously developed site. The proposed project will not impact sensitive species or habitat in the area. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will this project impact this protection? D D D 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 WPC F:\HOMEIPLANNINGISTORED\1718.94 Page 5 D D D D D D Potentially Significanl Impact Potentially Si!i:nilicant lInles! Mitigated No Impllet Leu than Signilicant Impact Comments: The proposed mixed-use project is not designated for mineral resources protection and City standards. Current city recycling programs for the residential and commercial sectors of the City will provide the opportunity for the mixed-use project to use resources in a reusable fashions, thus preventing the use of resources in a wasteful manner. As the project is a mixed-use project, the commercial use will have the opportunity to be involved in commercial programs, while the residential component can utilize programs such as curb side recycling pick-up. 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) I ncreased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? D D D I8J D D D I8J D D D I8J D D D 181 D D D 181 Comments: The proposed mixed-use project is intended to provide the opportunity to purchase a home and a business in one. The types of tenants expected in the commercial use component of the site are travel agencies, CPA's, retail shops, etc. These types of tenants are not expected to expose people to health hazards or create a risk of accidental explosion. The site is listed on the County of San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division Environmental Assessment listing as case closed. This indicates that no further action, by the County, will occur at this time. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? D D D 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D I8J D D WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I718 94 Page 6 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unles. Mitigated Len than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: A acoustical study from Giroux & Associates analyzed two noise concerns on site: exposure of noise from the proposed project to single-family residences to the west and excessive on- site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. Tasks that were performed to evaluate changes in the noise environment due to project implementation inc1uded: 1. Site familiarization and obtaining plans and other input data 2. On-site noise measurements 3. Measurement of parking lot activity noise at a similar mixed use development in Orange County 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of and recommended mitigation. The findings and recommendations of the study were the following: I. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. It is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall. with some cosmetic improvement, will be retained. Maintain a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommend. 2. A mechanical ventilation system which will comply with UBC Sect. 1205 (c) is required as a standard features on all units 3. East facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway are recommended to be rated at STC=25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use of a thicker glass or by a dual pained sliding window. 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? 0 181 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities. including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 WPC FIHOME\PLANN[NG\STOREDlI718.94 Page 7 Potentinlly Signilicant ImpaCI Potentially Signifieant lInless Mitigated Less than Signifieant Impaet N" Impact Comments: The fire department will require fire protection measures as outlined in the threshold section of this checklist. The police department has indicated that the project could not signiticantly impact police services or calls for services. School mitigation will be required of the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit (please refer to Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration). Project impacts to drainage and roads are not an issue, as the City drainage and street improvements, scheduled for Fall of 1995, from I to L on Broadway, will mitigate any possible impacts. No other governmental services will be impacted by the proposed project. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? D D D 181 As described below. the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met. since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 4 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The fire department will require the following fire prevention measures: based on fire flow requirements. the project will be required to be fully sprinklered; fire extinguishers required- 2A IOBC; a fire alarm system is required (centrally monitored). standpipes required and a 20' wide minimum tire access is required. b) Police 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 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and 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 proposed project will not significantly impact police services or calls for service. The police crime prevention unit has requested that the applicant obtain a crime prevention review from the police department. c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "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 segment of Broadway currently operates below Level-of-Service (LOS) "C." However. completion of City of Chula Vista C.I.P. project ST-130, "Street reconstruction-Broadway, to L", will improve the LOS to "C" or above. Completion of c.I.P. project ST-130 is anticipated in the Fall of 1995. WPC F:\HOMF.\PLAN~[NG\STOREDl1718_<)4 Page 8 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless 1\.litigated Le55 than Significant Impact N" Impact d) Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/] ,000 population. The proposed project will not comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees will be required to be paid as per the current park land dedication ordinance fee schedule. This will ensure that impacts to Park & Recreation are less than significant. e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project site is in a 500 flood plain, however, no special building measures with be required of the applicant. On-site drainage facilities consist of surface flow to Broadway, also a 30" RCP which conveys upstream runoff through the site to downstream drainage facilities. The 30" RCP flows from east to west. The site to downstream drainage facilities. The 30" RCP flows from east to west. The facilities arc adequate to service the project. however, City of Chula Vista, crp project ST-130, "Street Reconstruction-Broadway, "I to L" will abandon the 30" RCP and will reroute upstream flows northward in Broadway in order to relieve flooding problems to the west of the project site and the 30" RCP. Off-site drainage facilities consist of a 33" RCP in Broadway which flows to the north. Also, a 30" RCP downstream and west of the 30" RCP described above. These facilities are adequate to serve the project, however the aforementioned C.I.P. project ST-130 will re-route flows from sources upstream of the project site that currently flow through the site via a 30" RCP to downstream drainage facilities located immediately west of the project site. This rerouting of flows will relieve flooding problems further west of and downstream from the project site. f) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The existing sewer lines consist of a 8" VCP in Broadway that begins at the northern end of the proposed project and flows northward. Also, an 8" VCP which starts near the westerly property line and which flows westward. WPC F\HOME\PLANNJNGlSTORED\171R.94 Page 9 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Les~ than Significant Impact N. Impact g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building penn it issuance. Comments: An NPDES permit is not required for the proposed project and water quality will not be jeopardized. The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that if a fire sprinkler system is added to this development (note that required by the Fire Department), the required tire flow can be reduced from 7500 GPM to 3750 GPM. This flow can be met if the developer installs 600 L.F. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development. This is in a section of Broadway that is currently being reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, any required water services will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. The applicant will also be required to provide information regarding domestic, irrigation and fire sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal re,sult in a need for new ::,ystems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposed project will not require new systems for gas. communication systems, water treatment, sewer tanks, storm water drainage or solid waste disposal. However, the project will be required to install 600 L.F. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development for water to be available to the site. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? o o o 181 b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic route? o o o 181 WPC FIIIOMEIPLANNINGISTORED\1718.94 Page 10 c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact D D D 181 D D D 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 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) Produce an additional amount of spill light? D D D 181 Comments: The project will provide for a revitalization of the site and project compliance with City design and landscape standards will ensure that the site is aesthetically pleasing from the roadway. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or D D D 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or D D D 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a D D D 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or D D D 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan D D D 181 EI R as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: As the project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment area, there are no impacts to cultural resources. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: As the project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment are, there are no impact to paleontological resources. D D D 181 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) I ncrease the demand for neighborhood or D D 181 D regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D 181 c) I nterfere with recreation parks & recreation D D D 181 plans or programs? WPC F\HOMEIPLANNING\STORED\1718.<J4 Page 11 Potentially Significant Impac! Potentially SignificRnt Unless Mitigated Leu than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The project will not interfere with recreation parks and plans, however since the project proposes the addition of 36 unit with residential and commercial components. fees will be required to be paid as per the current park land dedication ordinance fee schedule. This will ensure that impacts to Park & Recreation are less than significant. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Please refer to Section E of the Negative Declaration. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term. to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Please refer to Section E of the Negative Declaration. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 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: Please refer to Section E of the Negative Declaration. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Please refer to Section E of the Negative Declaration. WPC F\HOMElPLANNINGISTORED\171R.94 Page 12 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. . Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation . Public Services D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources D Air Quality . Noise D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and D a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, . there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least D 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 to be addressed. J S;j1-/lS Date WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718,94 Page 13 APPENDIX III CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zoning on site: CT North CT South CT East CT West Rl Does the project conform to the current zoning? The approval of a rezone to CCP will allow for proiect conformance to the current zoning. II. General Plan land use designation on site: Commercial Retail North Commercial Retail South Commercial Retail East Commercial Retail West Low-Medium Residential Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes. Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? No. Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? No. (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). No. III. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Students Units Generating Generated School Capacity Enrollment Proposed Factors From Proiect Elementary Mueller 619 551' 36 .30 11 Junior High Chula Vista 1070 1430 36 .19 7 Jr. High Senior High Chula Vista 1356 1836 36 .10 4 High School *-in session, 130 students are out (year round school) IV. Remarks: Proiect impacts to schools are to be fullv mitigated as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. S //0/9_< Oate/ / MAY-15-1995 16:59 GIROUX & ASSOC. P.02 ~ Environnumta.l Consu <lU May 15, 1995 citron Realty & Development Corp. CIO Coronado Bay Hotel Venture Attn: MS. Lenore S. Citron: GP/OWner 4000 Coronado 8ay Road Coronado, California 92118 Re: Businesshome Village Acoustical study Dear Ms. citron: We have conducted an acoustical study for the former Fuller Ford site at 760 Broadway in the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Susan Vandrew from the Planning Department staff had identified two noi.e concerns relative to development of the site as proposed. These concerns were: 1. Exposure of the rear yards of existing residents on Riverlawn to excessive 8ite activity noise, or, 2. Excessive on-site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. Given the previous use of the site for automotive'and truck repair and a. body shop in close proximity to the Riverlawn homes, the question of site suitability for residential use is perhaps more pertinent than limited "ne,!," 8ite access/egoress noise. Tasks that were performed to evaluate change. in the noi.e environment due to project implementation included: 1. Site familiarization and obtaining plans and other input data 2. On-site noise measurements 3. Measurement of parkin9 lot activity noise at a similar mixed use development in Orange County 11144 Sly PNk C1nJk. $ui~ :!Jo, 1niM, OIifomil 92714 . I'boM (114) MI-I/if09 . Fu (114) ISI.fkfJ2 MAY-15-1995 17:00 ROUX & ASSOC. P.03 -2- 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of any recommended mitigation The following discussion summarizes the results of the efforts in each task. Project Description 'I'he preliminary site plan for 36 units envisioned two "pads" of 18 live/work businesses and residences separated by a common parking area. In the revised site plan, dated 05/08/95 and included in this report, only a small separation between the northern and southern building exists and two separate parking areas have been created that are shielded from Riverlawn residence view. In the current site plan, the intervening 3-story structures between Riverlawn residences and the parking areas will preclude any aUdibility of site visitor. vehicular activity. Use of the perimeter roadway by site residents and by small delivery vehicles such as package delivery services will be the potential source of impact. Through the more contiguous building mass screening out Broadway traffic noise, any small impact from site-related vehicles may be offset by equal or greater attenuation of existing noise. Proposed uses for the site are a mixed use concept with owner- occupied businesses on part of the ground floor of each townhouse with parking in the rear of the ground floor and two floors of living space above. Business uses are expected to be small specialty retail, professional or service-oriented offices and specialty restaurants such as gourmet coftee, deli sandwiches, yogurt, etc. No audible noise generation from business use is expected at the rear of any unit in proximity to adjacent residences. On-site lIoi8e Measur_nts Noise measurements were made at three locations on the project site. Two sites were along the rear separation wall between the former dealership and the adjacent residences (one near the former body shop on the southern one-half of the site, one near the taller truck repair building on the northern one-halt). One monitor was located 90 feet from the Broadway centerline in a former auto display area with an unobstructed view of Broadway. Results of these measurements made on February 23, 1995 near 1 p.m. are summarized as tallows: . MAY-15-1995 17:01 'ROUX & A5S0C. P.04 -3- !loiae LeVel (dBrA]) 10m.- Lux IoIII1n Front Display Area 65.3 75 55 Body Shop Area 59.7 66 55 Truok Repair Area 58.9 65 52 These readings were IS-minute energy equivalent averages (LEQ) and I-second maxima and minima (Lmax, Lmin). City of Chula Vista standards are expressed in terms of a weighted 24-hour standard called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Our monitoring experience in a number of Chula vista noise monitoring programs has been that mid-day LEQs and 24-hour CHELs are often very similar. For example, a comparison of CNEL and the mid-day noise level at three sites around Chula vista are as follows: LBQ CJmL (Koon-2 pa) Site 1 64.3 dB 63.6 dB Site 2 62.7 dB 64.9 dB site 3 52.2 dB 51.9 dB The difference between CNEL and mid-day LEQ is often near zero, and generally fairly small. The baseline readings above are therefore a reasonable representation of existing noise levels relative to the city's exterior standard of 65 dB(A) CNEL. The above comparison suggests that mid-day LEQ noise levels are from 0-2 dB lower than daily CNELs. At the locations .easured, the former front display area with a CNEL of 65-67 dB(A) thus currently slightly exceeds the city standard, while the former rear repair areas with CNELs of 59-62 dB(A) are well within the city's quidel1nes. Residences on Rlverlawn backing up to the alt. protected by the existinq wall clearly have a large margin of safety between the standard and their current noise exposure. MAY-15-1995 17:01 ~TROUX & ASSOC. P.05 -4- Parking Lot Activity Moise Noise levels at the edge of a parking lot serving a mixed use development in Huntington Beaoh were monitored as a prototype for the off-site levels that oould be expeoted for the tormer site plan that had a direct line of sight from the parking area to the rear yards of Riverlawn homes. The Huntinqton Beaoh facility has qround floor shops and offioes with upstairs residences in an "Old World" atmosphere. Businesses inolude restaurants, a deli, retail shops (especially ethnic wares), travel agencies, CPAs, a tanning salon, etc. Tenant and/or owner parkinq is in a separate qarage area, but otherwise the design concept is similar to the proposed faoility in Chula Vista. A sketch of the Huntinqton Beach site plan is attached. Noise measurements included a distant hum of freeway traffic plus some arterial roadway contribution. 'rhese sources were suffioiently removed or shielded, however, suoh that parking lot turn-over for shops and professional offioes was the primary noise contributor. One-hour measurements at the edge of the parking lot from 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. when there is an active lunch traffic were as follows: LEQ - 59.7 dB LMAX "" 81.0 dB Lmin - S1. 5 dB Because the traffic peaks during the day with little nocturnal activity, CNEL is likely several dB lower than mid-day LEQ. If the property line CNEL were 57 dB (A) , and this noise level were superimposed upon the 59-62 dB(A) CNEL ourrently experienced at the fenceline of the Riverlawn homes, the oombined level would be 61-63 dB (A) CNEL. The former plot plan with the parking area exposed to view by the residences, even without any noise reduction credit for a rear property wall, would not cause City of Chula Vista standards to be exceeded. With the revised plot plan, the parking lot activity noise exposure to off-site residents 1s a moot point. Its only issue would be as to how much on-site vehicular activity will be audible to project site upper story residents. 'MAY-15-1995 17:02 GIROUX & ASSOC. P.06 -5- Access Road Noise As a worst-case assumption, each unit was assumed to generate 10 daily trips (five outbound and five inbound) along the perimeter access. At 25 mph, with 10% of traffic at night, the traffic noise in the absence of any barrier is 50 dB(A) CNEL in the rear yards of the adjacent residences assuming that the proposed homes are perfect reflectors. A level of 50 dB is not perceptible within an existing backqround of around 60 dB. By creating a more contiguous 3-story barrier to screen out existing traffic noise from Broadway, the noise reduction achieved by the project will far more than compensate any small noise increment created by resident and minor delivery vehicle traffic on the townhome perimeter rOad. The above calculations are for no separation wall between the project and existing Riverlawn residences. No wall is needed to meet noise standards. A wall may be desirable for privacy, security, aesthetics or other reasons, but it is not a necessary project component to JI1eet noise standards. Because inclusion of a wall is not noise-driven, the height is sOJl1ewhat immaterial. Any height above 5 feet will reduce the perception at adjacent homes of individual vehicles passing through the rear "alley", but only creates an additional margin of safety relative to already meeting city of Chula Vista standards. On-Site Noise Exposure siting of residential uses on a commercial corridor does have possible noise iJl1plications. Existing measured noise levels (estimated from short-term, daytiJl1e readinqs) at 90 feet from the Broadway centerline are 65-67 dB(A) CNEL. Projected increases in traffic volumes on Broadway are small such that noise "qrowth" 1s forecast to be only an additional 0.5 dB(A) CNEL. With the facade of the closest project buildings somewhat closer than the gO-foot JI1easurement distance, a maximum future exterior noise level of 69 dB(A) CNEL is forecast for the units closest to Broadway. The sides of the closest buildings to Broadway will exceed the City standard by 4 dB. The front and back of the closest unit will only be exposed to one-half of the traffic. Limits in the field of view to 50% of the traffic flow will create a 66 dB(A) CNEL exposure at the corner of the nearest unit. Within the width of one unit, noise levels decrease by 1+ dB to create a sub-65 dB(A) CNEL at the exterior of all units except the four closest to Broadway. The 65 dB(A) CNEL contour approximately bisects the closest unit. City standards for noise at any usable exterior recreational space is 65 dB(A) CNEL. state standards for interiors of multiple family MAY-15-1995 17:03 ROUX & ASSOC. P.07 -6- units is 45 dB(A) CNEL. Exterior to interior noise attenuation with standard construction practice is 20 dB as long as windows are closed. All units except the four closest to Broadway will have exteriors of less than 65 dB(A) CNEL. Their decks and porches will meet City exterior standards without any supplementary noise protection. Their interior levels will be below 45 dB(A) CNEL as long as residents can close their windows to shut out the noise. The ability to close the window requires an auxiliary Source of ventilation. This requirement is stated in the UBC in Section l205(c) which requires sufficient mechanical ventilation to create two air changes per hour (ACPH). one-fifth of this air supply has to be fresh outside make-up air. A whole-house fan in a central heating unit generally far exceeds this requirement if the system has a "Fan Only" option. At the four end units abutting on Broadway, a somewhat enhanced level Of noise control is required. Exterior exposure for the front balconies of these units is 65 dB(A) CNEL. The rear deck is shielded by the protrusion of the second floor family room such that the deck outside the kitchen door will also have a noise level within city of Chula Vista standards. No exterior noise mitigation is required. The front balcony at 65 df:l(A) CNEL may not be conducive to relaxing conversation at these units, but does not require any supplementary noise control. The interior of the four units closest to Broadway is thus the only possible location where stanaard design practice may not be able to achieve a reduction trom 69 dB(A) CNEL on the facade to a 45 dB(A) CNEL in the interior. With planned windows tacing Broadway, the noise leakage for a stanaard window may be slightly inadequate. Based on preliminary room geometries, we have run the Interior Noise Analysis (INA) model. Use of slightly upgraded windows (dual-paned sliders or a thicker glass) with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or higher will allow the interior standard of 45 dB(A) CNEL to be readily met. 8n---7/Recu.dendations our findings are as follows: 1. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. xt is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall, with some cosmetic improvement, will be retained. Maintaining a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommended. MAY-15-1995 17:03 "IRDUX & ASSOC. P.08 -7- 2. A lIIechanical ventilation system which will comply with VBC section 1205(c) is required as a .tandard feature on all units. 3. East facing windows in the four end units that faoe Broadway are reoommended to be rated at STC .. 25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use of a thicker glass or by a dual- paned sliding window. Sincerely, . ~~.~ Hans D. Giroux Senior Soientist Giroux & Associates HDG:ai ~cc: Ms. Susan Vandrew, city of Chula Vista MAY-1S-199S 17:04 -IROUX & ASSOC. P.09 APPEND:J:X A. Project Site Plan (05/08/95) B. Noise llanitoring location Hetcb for siailar liva/WOrk aixed use development MAY-15-1995 17:04 GIROUX & ASSOC. ~ I ~ ~ I .,,~ 1 .0' j '0 I I, f Ai! I .. , I j:. 0 ! " .- ; r.... ..... J r" ~ ".,J , I ~ D.._ I. ..... Q) ;, ...... .. i .+...J . .._~ In \..1 i ~ Z ~ G . ",. ':r;'1-- I j o ! 0' I I I _,'__. , . I I . ,.. j----,., ~I I I I I' I, . -It---L----------t-.-.f-----j-.----i------+------+--1-.- . . j f...... I I I I .... I . 1----' " ':-1 '.1 I I I "'/ . 0 . I . . ~ : i' I -1--- 0' I I i i .~.-J. ...-- . ~ ~--_. ~ i: . . . --.-- i: --.-- " R ~ ~ - --~_.. i: ----. II I 1 t+- H- 10 , I -+1 ~ I I j ,t;! j o I I , I , .lit .~ P.10 . o ?; o .(' :'. ~, o " .'" .- - .- \" . .': .'; '. . : ~ -::. ., .: ~~~ ~fi '':n',:;: ., " . ~ .:: :~! . ., . ~ ~ , ," MAY-15-1995 17:05 P.11 ?- <it ~ & 10. III Q ':!' ; H "\:::. ~ i~ -~ let ~~ QlUI t! c\...) IROUX & RSSOC. ~ '" D D ~ ~ ~ ~ \i!r2. 9 c! 1'0"" 11'1 :t. ~ ~ I/) ~ )- &~ iii oJ ~ If) A 2 - Q ~ s: V)e( VI 0'\ " ~. oW {~i ~ i~ ~~ ~ c.J ~ () rR < ,,0 ~ c> co C) () Q '0\\ o (;:j o 0 o '" /) 0 o 0 0-0 0 <I o,,~ 0 o J) G Q C::>OO~f;) () Q 0 0 0 j " . .. 0 0 () o Q P 0 c 0 (? .o~ Q I:> ~ Ilol 1 'A~~ TOTRL P. 11 YS--bO"3:. Case No.T~..q5 -03 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION I. Drainage A. Is the project site within a flood plain? YE? H so, state which FEMA FIoodway Frequency Boundary. s-,. JTI-fIl\/F.-=-~~o.J ~1N..r ot::"~~c:;,~ 14 Wrr:f.I,#J TJ.I-E... ~-~~ r:=/..JY)l:>k#\Y ~IJIJ'b4P..V. . f'- B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? SuI2.r;AcE J:1.r...j Ib B~t>NAY. A....SO. A :feu'RcP Wf./-IC.I+ CoNv~y's (.)pST1l.EAM 1i?LJt.J.oF"" 71ffeL..1J~ THE.. >/7'7E.. Th 7'>...WN~~.A.-AA "r\DAIJ..JA&1I=' J=.Ar.(LIT11=C::: TJ.I.E 300' f2..GP Fi..oIIVs FIl6AA Ei4!:rTbWe;;r: C. Are they adequate to serve the project?~. ffo"'E~.G,rY~ CHU~ v,.;:r.o c., ,...~ H not, please explain briefly."(IA . ~-I~q "s~/!!!.r 17&,~ ",-,"""",,-B"""'''''''''X; :I: ~ t.. " Wl'-I.- IYI&.L- ABAI4.f)C4.J TJ.I.~ ~o't fIeP 1IrND~IZE.AL:::JUT'l!!!. u~ ':uows "'O~ IN RB~D"""Y'''' C/Ob~ 1<E<..IEvE F~o~""" ''OnTlfE.WEiPr:tJFj!ft _'1" S,~""",b D. What is the location and description or eXlsting off-site Clrainage facilities? ' /flG"P IN 1 T1UI! 30' ~I\aY WH/~H {:I.-O",," T'Z'7HtE:J..IoIl:rH. A~. A :So"IZGP l)oWNS'7'J2.~ ANt> w~c~Il.GP. t>F-n+E.. 3o"JZ.GP t>eSc.Al8e~ IAJ I~Mr.8. .ABD~. . ~n. 11?'lq~ E. Axe they adequate to serve the project? )l'ES. f./owl;.v~1Z. G,7Y DF G......I.A VIS_ c..I.P. , H not, please explain briefly. ~Tl!:G"'" Sr-/:2o WIL-L ~-t2bUTE Fu:>wC. F~ ~ .~~< UPSl 'P--:-AM ~-ruE. ~A.~~ ~~.. '711A:T cv~Y' r=l..l:JW~y,;U"T'f#::' s~ V,A-,A 3D" f?c.P ~ z:;t:)w,</~ 'PM'~ p;..c.l{.ITTEs t..e.<;.!,7!!} Transportation IMMeDtArr:;c.Y we>grcp 7H~ ~S're... 711/5 M=-l2i>lJT"TlJc; e>p t='l.cwS WIU- ~/../I!:ve:: R.4OZ>IIlG ~c..EMS Fu/l:nHi!ll.. WE:9T' OF AN'P n..~~ A. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~DAAY ~"T7-IE R?,,"!X::r ~. B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? 'P,I?' At:>r(iDSb Ar:rr bV~/? e.l((<;;r/~ {IS E). C. What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the,primary access roads before and after project completion? Street Name 'BRoA t:>WA II' Before .:2~..:2StJ After :2A~~t:.. , Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.)"C" design ADT volume? H yes, please specify. YES. '71f/$; ~/. ,~"'-lJ1=' ~~ II' ~Y " " N:J:;L'~ ~I -t~1 L.o:5. G . HDweVF4 ~I"'tMPLE"T7oN LY: CITY L>1= C.#Ul.A V'!I7;i\ . c." L If flU .{/P. ~"'J;:;.o-.eo- <:r-/~6 ~E.-r 12J::/"~J/'!"rJoJJ-B'/1AbW'A'l' "T7\ L F"YIL..c.. , h 'I ' '''''f'f&>Vf1 /..~-OF- Se::/2vIc.E on> Co c:tL AIJov. . CL>MPLSr/6>l DI= C./.P. ~r ST""-/~o I~ A,.rr-/c.IP~~ ,#0.1 ~&.:... ~'"'- rJJ:- ,qqa;-. wpc,p,\IIOMElPLANNlNG\STORED'J022.93 (1101. 1021.93) (ReI. 1020.93) Page 2 .D. Y5-60'3 Case No.::Z:-S-'fS-t')~ H the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. ,,' fA, I Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? H not, please explain briefly. N IA , y~~; (J~( {bMPLf'?nrJ..1 of c.., . "P. p'/iz:,TF.r.J ST - J 3D. E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project. site? No. H so, identify: Location ~IA. Cumulative L.O.S. ^>~ . Is the proposed project a "large proJect" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips). H yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance. Yes 'I.... No F. The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of the proposed project? Yes ')( No H yes, please describe. N/A. . H. Is the project con~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan, General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed project. YF-~. I. J. Is a traffic study required? Is there any dedication required? "'0. H so, please specify. ~/,6. . x Yes No WPC:F:'HOMEII'\.ANNIN<MTOREDII022.93 (lid. 1021.93) (Rd. 10211.93) Page 3 YS-t..o3 Case No. rsJ?<=;-C>3 K. Is there any street widening required? MD. THIS SE4Me..rr-- eF' B"^<I'DI<h.V WILl... 8E If so, please specify. ,,<1.4 . WIl;>BJI<<1:> A-S PAR:r = G.r .P. P1zo.T'Er:r ST-I30/ " ~~er- F~cr-...(t:"'r'&..JC:T"7oJ- ~'N.u." T Tl) L '1 , L. Are there any other street improvements required? YE~. If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements. T1./<T11/ ~"""IDN ~r: 'hPttJC,../AVC A-S: An1I2D~b 'RY-nfF:.. C-rrY !;;u&"IAlIEIER , M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (Please provide a brief explanation). /;5t1<;;r'Alr.~ v~~. F''7"1.II2E' E/J/L"""IT"~ YE!>. m. Soils A. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? vfJ /4/1'> "'oJ B. If yes, specify these conditions. IJ/A C. Is a Soils Report necessary? YE~, PrZ./I'>/l. 7l>T1-IE l'S>6UA.,.JGE t>F ~I'<'A'T>I"" ..w~ft:,1'l- BurL.1:>ljJG. Pt;1!M1T"'S. IV. Land Form A. What is the average ~'iPslope of the site? :J.. % B. What is the maxinlUm~2.slope of the site? ..1o/,; V. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? YEC,i pti?l'::A:>C>='h RF-5r t>EA!GIS:S A,e.E. C;;r:A!~I"IVE:. ~. PrtIe-S Jy./D ~:DI'V'AY ~ Ji?E1A"t1VEq" VI. Waste Generation H I&;I-l "TJ::A.rFfC- VDI..UMe:G. How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid I ~~u~ Liquid I~ t;4 Y (.'-ib.<1'S ErxJ.). What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstteam from the site? ~"VG.'P 1M BI!DAT>WAY TkA"'r S~(N<i& At rHE ~ ~b ~~ '7HE.. P~PoS~b . ., t:t Ii /GH ST.2\1C"5 'f:P,,-"'I""rr.....,.- AtJr> &=i--wc. AI^I2'T71I,.~&Jr>. At,Sr" A-f.J ~ Vl':..,....-4A, AJEA.12.. 71-IE lA/rc::-n:::~ L'f Pl0PIE.~ L1J~ A-1Jl> klUIGU r=/~WC: W~9'"kIAlZl:::>. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) Yes.. WPC,f,IIIOMiN'lANNINCJ\STOIIEXN022.93 IJld. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93) Page 4 Ys-(,c3. Case No. rS-qS-"'~ VII. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater ReQuirements Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Permit? fJ() . . If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain why an NPDES permit is required. ~/A . Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? Yes X No Additional comments A1 14 . , VD. Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. ~ t!i-/fl r or Representative Date WPC:F:\IIOMElPLANNlNG\UOREIN022.93 (Ro!. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93) PageS Case No.-T5-95-03 FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? Alli! what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? d ".",Lo - 4-,,';" B. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or persoMel? )/ ~ S c. Remarks c?;r rYi-- Co//.;llc"T7t;"" dicr. r '. i?= Ie!}-- /C. - 7?- Date , WPC-~022.P.! ~.I02I.93)(W.I02Q.93) Poae 6 CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address 7~~ ~~~ Plan File No.~~3 Checker?~; Date /.)-/t-<j4 Type Constr. J/-.u Occupancy;.f..,1IR5 No. Stories .5 Bldg. Area 77,4n d1 The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: /- hAt ;=:-4w R~/,,u,,,,~,,,,,,, r.5 76T~ kf'D O/V t/-p c"."S'T"c,vc.rAo A//77/ 77. ~ !/; /~ Z S7() r.rl. 1.ft4. ,4 - eX: ~ ;j; I g /.;2, 7"n 41 C- - ~5.fn d1 . ,;J2 - 1::)" 7~ I/J ~ 4. ,)-Si! rl-" 4 nv ffflH 4. ~ 'PH c~ cJ 'ffn ~- 4- ~- t,. ...., !7/f..F A<; d~ 5~".., &--~h j'-'5 ~/..tl() v . h.)ll ,/kass - H/~/"':''''_ tJ"v -#z bf IZ~ ,/litO &,.,?;" w;S~IA.S ~cr 02 - ~lj) t,<J;U . ,A.l? ~,4lol3c ~7A H<>^,'~O ~II-. ?v/L)f FPB-29 - Case No. /6 -1.5-03 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT A. Is project subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements? If not, please explain. rl'L:. 'i - B. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? C. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project Idequate 10 serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood fJD Community Parks 1>"0 D. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as pan of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood 'r~ Community Parks '(.;:s E. To meet City requirements, will-applicant be required to: Provide land? Pay a fee? )IL:':;- F. Remarks: r-;~'S, To \')\1:' ,oAr-it:' A"S. ~~ c::.1,):~-'+f\ ~(L/'I'(.) ~\G&i1~ Of-A~~ \'=i~ ~~. ~.~~~ Parks and Recreation Director or Representative 6.~,~ Dare WI'C""~022.93 (Rd. I02U3) (Ref. 1020.93) Pile' ROUTING FORM . DATE: August 22, 1994 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) other FROM: Joe Monaco Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-03/FA-~/DO 111 ) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DO- ) The Project consists of: 36 attached residential units with cOl11l1ercial space on the 1st floor. Location: 760 Broadway (Fuller Ford Auto Dealership site) Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by September I, 1994 Comments: ~ ~ /J-Uha..t..t..y S/II/9S- f~ /?t.v.,PindALio ~~~ ~ ~. /'uJ1- '. ~d- ~ ~~ tTl ~ .4!-4/l/u:.V. 1'v CHULA VISTA POLICE DEi .~TMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS -"I DATE: (()-L(-qu TO: ~ ((1(/111] (!..f) I tn Vlre--n V1VHRC vIA: FROM: (h~f){--~ d ~ d..o ,Sc..PS \(;:n' 0 0 cGv"--^:J i~!1c,~lutt~.~ 1hJrU-L/ t<Hfl1t PROJECT: .1 ':'co CI S -0 2) J::) The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time. Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit crime prevention analysis. -,K2 Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available. ~ Elevations ;><-' Floor Plans L Landscape and Lighting Plans ~ Site Development Plans Comments: -;Jlu:t1ib VlITit fe", tJ-/lli (f;:r.nf}11!?.~1~d~1 f' : J 1 IJ ~N+ f)., / nNl ~'t A j ~I Q/-- l1(:'u )(_ e / 11' (l J(j (I ( ) . ,I C - {J,U d ,-IJ - il-acd,~ 9 '"d t' 'j I" " d/ f '" ( p,),zl;/>ltt.l!(;r/ '--,'" I 1..11 A[UJ (~ (~~d 7.j,f y- n/L~r (I) ~.fJc~ f0 cc: Brookover, SCA CPTED Routing Fonn PDlcpu 06193 . Case No. /.3-95-03 LANDSCAPE PLANNING A. Does the project affect native plant communities? If so, please identify which communities. Will the project require native planting? (please describe) B. Please identify any important or highly visible hillsides on or Idjacent to the project. What landscaping conditions (if any) will be required for these hillsides? C. Of the total area to be developed. how much, and which areas are expected to be replanted and require supplemental watering? (Please describe). E. Are there_any o~er landscape requirements 0 mitigati9P for the project? /'LL <0 <-L(:. > _ ~. ~ ~~'-<_?~. -L~ '7c...~,~ ~ c-L~~e-ZZ City Landscape Architect or Representative f:4 f/?Y Date WI'C""'IIOME'l'I.ANNI~022.93 (Rof. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93) Pile 8 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D. SHARON GILES PAffilCK A. JUDO PAMELA S. SMITH MIKE A. SPEYfaI SUPERINTENDENT USIA S. GIl, Ph.D. , CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SVHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH January 6, 1995 Ms. Susan Vandrew City of Chula Vista Environmental Section 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: 36 Attached Residential Units with Commercial Space on the 1st Floor 15-95-3 I FA-657 I DQ-111 Dear Ms. Vandrew: Thank you for providing information on the above-referenced project for our review and comment. This project is located in the Mueller School attendance area. This school is a five track year-round school, operating substantially above capacity. In order to accommodate children resulting from this project, the District requests that this project annex to Community Facilities District (CFD) NO.5. Attached is a copy of a previous response to IS-95-03 on September 1, 1994. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, M-~ Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tom Silva Josef A. Citron U60bway BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON Gn.ES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R SANDOVAL SUPERINTENDENT UBIA S. Gn.. Ph.D. CHULA VY'l'A ELEMENTARY srq~""'L DIS'IRICT ') J I.' 84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH ~1 ~I , :'\1' \\,./' IV .\ C' A J ' I , \ C\ September 1, 1994 ;;'/" , ~ Mr. Joe Monaco Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: 15-95-03/ FA-657 / DQ-111 Project: 36 Attached Residential Units With Commercial Space Location: 760 Broadway Dear Mr. Monaco: " This is to advise you that'the above mentioned proposed project located at 760 Broadway, is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 2-1/2 - 3 percent over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $1.72 per square foot of assessable area to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. The fee is split between the two school districts with our district receiving $.76/sq. ft. and Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) receiving $. 96/sq. ft. This fee is assessed for new construction and additions/remodels of over 500 square feet. The State law also provides for a developer fee of $.28 for non-residential (any new commercial space proposed for the first floor) to be charged. The fee split is $.13 for our district with SUHSD receiving the balance of $.15 per sq. ft. .' .., ~ '. _ .' r Since developer fees currently allowed""' llrtder State law provide approximately twenty-five percent of the facilities costs to house new students, the District encourages developer participation in alternative ~ ' . . Septerr"':!r - 1994 Mr. JOl. .lonClco Page 2 . . financing mechanisms to help assure that facilities will be available to serve children generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one method to help fund this shortfall. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of developer fees, with school mitigation paid by the homeowner in the form of a special tax. The subject project is located in the Mueller School attendance area. This school is presently operating over capacity, and an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a CFD is recommended. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~~J. Kate Shurson T Director of Planning & Facilities KS:dp win:fmgr'm~"':c:lesc\L:om c..c::: ,,,..,.,... ~ ,,!\:.Io, " '.'f#. '-. ,. ". Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 , ~ f o. ... h:~~';) D ,u, I.. . .t..... " '" \>. . ~ Division of Planning and Facilities January 4, 1995 Ms. Susan Vandrew City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 Dear Ms. Vandrew: Re: IS-95-3/Broadway Business Homes Village Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Initial Study prepared for the above subject project. It is located in the Chula Vista Junior and Chula Vista High School attendance areas. According to the CBEDS enrollment taken on October 12, 1994, Chula Vista High is operating at 112 percent capacity and Chula Vista Junior High School is at 99 percent. Any increase in enrollment at these schools will impact the facilities. The .proposed mixed use project has the potential to add approximately twenty- one new students to the District (fourteen high school and seven junior high school students). The District's student yield rates are 0.19 students per household for high school and 0.10 students per household for middle school. The project's impact can be shown as follows: USE UNITS/AREA CHULA VISTA JR. CHULA VISTA HIGH TOTAL Residential 36 Units 3.6 6.84 10.44 Commercial 34.620 sq. ft. 3.6 6.84 10.44 Total 7.2 13.68 21 Ms. Susan Vandrew January 4, 1995 Page Two The commercial impact has been derived using a SourcePoint Study prepared in 1990 which specifically analyzes non-residential development's impact to schools. Enclosed for your reference is the worksheet used to estimate the impact the commercial portion of the project may have on the District. The District has traditionally responded to such projects by urging the City not to approve them unless they're conditioned such that they are annexed into a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. However, the District and the City has reached an understanding that the projects within the redevelopment areas would not be placed in a Mello-Roos District. Rather, mitigation will be consistent with the recommendations accepted by the District after the completion of the current SourcePoint Study of non-residential development's impact to schools. This project's impact should be fully mitigated. The District requests that its mitigation be consistent with the recommendations which arise from the new SourcePoint Study undertaken by the City of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 691-5553. Sincerely, /' .:_ /:1,>>:'" ~ ,,-{:: ;-'---....- I -' Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/ml enclosure c: Kate Shurson WORKSHEET Proposed Development Type: Classification Name: Location: Size: Mixed Use Commercial & Residential Commercial Broadway Business Homes Village 760 Broadway 34,620 sq. ft. 1. Estimate number of new jobs created by development 34620 sq. ft. x 0.001807 empl/sq.ft. = 63 new jobs 2. Estimate new workers living in District by development type 63 new jobs 0.651 ELF' 41 new resident employees x 3. Estimate new households (hh). 41 employees x 0.873 hh/empl. 36 households = 4. Estimate new student enrollment 36 0.29 10 new students enrolled stu./hh hh = . The employment location factor (ELF) for the development type Commercial Shopping was calculated using the trip length cut-off of .647 minutes defined by the District Geographic Location Factor (GLF). Page 1 SANDAG.XLS Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 Division of Planning and Facilities '- I~Ui'\.-. '" '.:1"'" 7:".; ,.', ;( August 24,1994 Mr. Joe Monaco City of Chulo Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 / , Sip ['" Dear Mr. Monaco: Re: Broadway Business Home VlRaQe/Mixed Use Project J6 Un", with Commercial Use The above subject proposed project will Impact the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees does not adequately mitigate the anticipated costs to provide classroom space, The present maximum fee rate of $1. 72 per square foot of residential area and $0.28 per square foot of commercial area .account for less than one-third the cost. Because of this. whenever possible. the District requests that the applicant fully mitigate project Impacts, This project's participation In the District's Community Facilities District No.5 would satisfactorily mitigate Its Impacts to schools. I request that the City of Chula Vista condition any approval such that all school facility issues are resolved to the District's satisfaction. .~~ Thomas Silva Assistant Director of Planning TS/ml , c: Kate Shurson, Chula Vista Elementary School District ,WEETWATER AUTHC- T 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 , f ! '.~ ,.., '- r,!'" J <..) GOVERNING BOARD BUD PQCKlINGTON. CHAIRMAN GEORGE H WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN SUE JARRETT EDWIN J STEELE MARGARET A WELSH JAMES 5 WOLNIEWICZ GARY F. WRIGHT , WANDA AVERY TREASURER DIAN J REEVES SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE January 3, 1995 ,~ Mr. Douglas Reid city of Chula vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chu1a Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT 760 BROADWAY CASE NO: IS-95-03 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a 8-inch water main located on the east side of Broadway adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there are four water services to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 164 map which shows the existing water facilities. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection for this project. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow requirements. Based on this requirement, this project may result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building permit. Also, the Authority is concerned that the timing for this project will be such that the installation of new services and the abandonment of existing services will take place after this portion of Broadway has been reconstructed. The Authority's main is located on the east side of the street which will require trenching across the entire newly':'constructed street. In addition, the installation of services will be very costly due to the thickness of the new pavement. A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula vista Planning Department Re: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT 760 BROADWAY CASE NO: IS-95-03 January 3, 1995 page two 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 85 p.s.i. to a minimum of 75 p.s.i. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 639. Very truly yours, C ~.WE~T~~TER A.UTHORITY . .o.~ J es L. s~~tJ / I ief Engineer JLS:RC:ln enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 164 map pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority citron Realty & Investment corp 5000 Coronado Bay Blvd. Coronado, CA 92118 k:\lorelei\wp51\760broad.ltr ., ...1....... ....,...... IT. ~ ) ,'7c':;:; y ~T. 1_ ---,--- '-'IO~_ ~"i~'i -~.!.~ - 1:1 Ii J"'*'''~ , If; -:.. j :....1060'1 " , 0 . ,-.1 ..-.;... ': - " ,~-- ;;; .....n J 10 - ....... IO'.c:.,.. ".,:, ~6 ~fie '"71 ..... t-!- 10 :; ~ 1- <-.. I' ~ ..' < '-'':::; .... ~ ,. I> 01: "_n '" t I.' J :r! ;, ~ ~ 109 .. ~'j ~"ta. ..... ~.. 1 ....- . 'tL.l4oJIt : p ,. . ~,~...& . . . . ! .:.--. . . LtWI.. " . . .."~ I....... . , f ' ",,. , ...""'. . 6 - . "row ~ . o. '". "-""" ~ . ....... . '~... .. ~ .~ ~ .....- 10 - ..- 'l~ "".1-~~. ....t..r..., ~':::':''.::H, ~..... S Q;,' ,\ f~iJI J..-.-.aII -~ r \ .. ~ ... I r~.L.L "" ~~. 'tJ''''''~ ....j '-"'" -.,-&1.. ... .....r.. _ I~ vl.~ ...~ _ ..... ""!!.!,., '~1- ..~T' ...~., ~ f: ;- .......1 _ 4 ,;Jz,a" ;' I I ," rllN ~"_"I_ ...' .-.. "' ~~ z.~ \01(,.16,0 .IC.....~ .. I,~.. ~II".OW ~ - 01 .3 J!Jc, ""~ ....., _~7u... "'.HoOt. .."t~j ..."""'" ~"'"iu- ."""'. I __ "',..~...,. ~_ \.~,,\.hJ 16 '-, _.16,t :i; ItOZ4 h ....t'-Z----;: L,'c..w "1Ii.~~ "'''o~t 2 N Ilu'. "; ~~.... !1L1L:5 .::tJ r ".1::0 . u.~1.\ ""zn C~""04.' "'''Z\6 "'...- " ! 2 IL~~,,", . ~ .. ~ 1 I~_., :. -.5 - c" I~o. : lL~h, " II.I(IU "''''WI. ~ ~1U1.. ~ 4 II. K 4.. ,_ ....~_ O,.i!! ~ 6 13 1 n ~ .."". "..~ .:;: F"- ,-- ,:. ..~ '1;,\ ..1- t-F1-'11 '0' ....~2... "Ct! ,,"~z.,," ~.... ~':J "'IUt, ,,-""'!6 6 t' e-. . u "T~I>I: II. " . 6 'L";". . ...-;; t:..~.~ ~K.O'~' -.....e_ " "'''0''' - LIti.&.' ~~:J- ..."'U "'KO~1 - "'~__'- ~( .go..8 ~ ......2~ ....'?. ~.,. - ...... .~ ! w'.d~r-;;~c:r;c o 0 ~'":: ,;;: ......, .d..':' ,';;' ,2~ '" . , I if.~ ~~'U lj 3'. I. . ""';"'!n) ~.,H;Hc.1 I. "'oV'112") '. r .... 'Z.S$ " =0' " Q 51 d' If. (\J ..,. 12.$.). __..LILt) "!r ~..rt') j "'.12n7 -: "r. "--*'I...Z "'_~S5"'- "0 _ '1 "7 -;. ~ _ ""'''1~ ~ ..._1.Iol1... :\':j': ! - - , ...-,"'" 14 _'.. IT I' ~'... 1~<rI'1 21 .~ ...,.., ....1-,--1 10.77 .....u."1tif ,'6 ! i, "illP' I??'l~ -- 1Y~t'\" '" ,,-~- ... VI ~,?.. .t1t.. Cr: ,_ ~:. I" 12 <I 17.,.;" ..,- ~!- "','j .-', I, ~i ~ ;~~~~:1~3 -::0 ,~! I ~~. ..."3,." ~~;:~:.;. 21 . _ ,. ~ ,.'" . ... ~. ~ ----: .......... 22~,f' ....., '. /'" 1 '. 1 ~ '. ,'" .)~. ,-_hUh ~ _I............... .... ~.t,.". i ~ ~ ~ :~ : ~ , ;, ~ 27. ~6 ~") t4 oJ~~. _ ~r.. . ....-- ""')'.~ ~... R,t=- ET. ,..." ~ .. ,~.~: ~ g , ~c: ~. . ; 5:':: .. nat .... .'+,~"o...J".l..".. I I I!;R&U '71 1_ "',. wo ,.",~., 1'-':: ~ t ,I _. ~ 0 3649 ~ S.-~H. ''72 w.o. 11:5 I. ','., , .-. I ...". ..., "- 2 ..,- I ) !If_ '1.~9. (\,j" ,......,..::.t,l..... ""....'..0 H.,.,iJ H"I'!; H.....t~' I' ..-,I.Ii... .........'.', ....,'J.... ! . -----;-:-=- .. ;. ::: ~t " . ~ i" t - I > . '1-- - ~ , .! . - - - --- ., ~ ~ , ...; ~ " "1' ..'i'.'-'. - . ---;-.1,y,u 1-= ~_Z ;; .r21 ._ ....z,~ ~ . ... . 2% ,; .' .....:.,:} I.""':'" ~ ; - . i J -,. ~ .. .. K006\ ,~ . ,,''tQool ~IC.O" " ....IC.ICI'" ",,"0." " PROJECT SITE , _'IU,!. . . '. 197IU I ""54!! 22 . 30 ':~. - . . 29 ... ; " .1".. . . 21 <5 - , ..-.,.::,. J .:/ 2. ~ .. '"t:.7~,,,.. :'!..1""C ~ "'fT. ;;. T._"-,,.. 01.......1..... C'7,,",_ ... ""'s """.,..'" .. 5 6 , ....".." ! .. 1 """"SO ~ ... .,..1' I.... 3 - . ".11\1.., 2 too.'"'''' ~; . '1107. . ....1.'0 - .!.. 10 ""49i'f 1- cJ:!.~.,,,... f . ,'J.'%~u. ~. "",e..J'" f~ .........: "-IZS60 .~'J 2 ....iL" ..."-O.t .. . "to' ....."'.R '" 1- 1t.o.loea.o "z ..- .-,~ i ",.,... ....~ ._l~<j ~ L~~ ;~.. ~ ..c..'U " 'kICO'C: ~st A'O, 36/5 f ;, . ~ STREET ---- -------- :x:: " 0;: J 3m . ...j~ ~.r.... ....... for....... 21 1.\'!t3 ;. - ....ILMoi '1: >=:8S-. :A' ....'., 20 "",' """- W" ~ ~~ --t ~. ""-,, '" I ---....7lk'~-1 ,- I'- '..-" ..."..:;., I!.> '7._--- ---....--- - , ' .f rt') "- ....,.:.. " "~ ";1' ci. " , ........ I~ ~,... _~ a:'i~"'~ ~ '" '-', ~~~" ~ ~~ ... ".." ~ I ,ag W ~C ". . .. ...'" ""....,s ________~_.,.J__4_ _ ...., - H .. ,. " ,. '.5.38.30 W.0."'21".0 ~ t .~ ! g~~~ .. ~~., CO ~n --2-- -+ ~~ ~~ ,0 " \t~ ~ - "",",- .f!~:':' ~,UJ.. j I 2 I . . -----~---~.__...._---- ---------------.-------------. 165 I SCALE IN FEET ;T - - "''F'" - : 10.,,",01 1 f II ...,,,'... ",,,t:l.. .1C.~"" ""TH l.'U't, ,.., ....IL"~ ~,'1.'" ." CO II,.LJU "-'''"'0'1 1I..,;,ot. - II(\) ......"" ......'M "-.,-.0It 11 4 "'IIUU, LIW9r\1 '" "'10 I.~I 6 L.." ...,u_,"" p ~ .c.,--,-- '.;I 7' C..~~4 ~"7~ .~ ~ . ._, Lor,...~ ~ L'l'W IL....' ~ LJ!.~ ~ ~ "'":t' "-' c: "''''11' . .'~~. ".""'. ..~ II -', ro L~ .....IIt.,..... ......c.~ '- .~cIj~ "&'7~. PE' "'- - ."". '- ....- C3 ~:: .- (, - 1;;;"0, ....... .."11' L.III:O:. ","'"1 ~ <00. ...,. r -.0" ."". 7 -. -" :. . - ....""',... ',',.7 """;0 ,,:..~ ,,_~; '''''w i ~ "'''-r'ic. - · "':"F13lL. - """'1 ~"=. , 11! '" """'.... ?-- \o..nL ..,;..~ ';~" .~~I- 11.-,1..... 1154' - ~fI.O.D JJ'S.CL. . .. ~..t~ . o. ......,,'? - .".'" , -~,. ""~SI .~ ~...~. -i ". ... ... ... " MAR 29 '95 12:21PM SWEF- lTER AUTHORITY SWEETWATER AUTHOR!) P.2/3 505 GARFlETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2326 CHU~A VISTA, CA~lmRNIA 9'912.2326 (619) 420.141. FAX 15'91 425-7469 GOIJEANING BD,t,RD evtl POc:;t<I,.ING"ON CI1,t,IRMAN GEO~QE ~ wA'T&I!\S, vice CHAIIiIMA,.. 5ueJAFlFlETT I!CWINJ.&'!'UL.E. MAAOAIiIU A WE~SIoj "AMES 8. WOI.NIIiWICZ CAliilv F. WJIIIGI'1T WANDA AVIA" 'rFlEA8(,jRiR ClAN ,}. IIIEEvE5 SEC:~&TARY-ADMINISTAATI\lE AICE , March 28, 1995 Josef an~ Lenore Citron Joelen Enterprises 5000 Corona~o Bay Blvd. Corona~o, CA 92118 Subject: CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY 760 BROADWAY SWA DEV. FILE: CITRON MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. and Mrs. Citron: The 7500 GPM fire flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a 2-hour duration, as required by the city of Chula Vista Fire Department, is not available to serve the above-referenced project. The Authority does not feel that this requirement can be met without millions of dollars of upgrades to the existing water infrastructure. The maximum available fire flow with no upgrades to the system is approximately 2800 GPM. The fire department has indicated that if a fire sprinkler system is added to this development, the required fire flow can be reduced to 3750 GPM. This flow can be met if the developer installs 600 L.F. of l2-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed ~velopment. This is in a section of Broadway that is currently bei 9 reconstructed by the city of Chula Vista. In addition, any required water services will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. Also, we have no information regarding domestic, irrigation and fire sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ( c.J~ mes L. Smyth .- Chief Engineer JLS :RC: le k:\lsurie\letters\c1tran.rc A Public ~ncy. Serving NatioNJI City, Chula. Visla and Surrounding Areas MAR 29 '95 12'21PM 5WEF" "HER AUTHORITY P.3/3 , , . Josef and Lenore Citron Joelen Enterprises Re: CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY, 760 BROADWAY March 28, 1995 page 2 pc: Ms. Carol Gove City of Chula Vista Fire Department 447 "F" Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Mr. Roberto Saucedo City of Chula Vista Engineering Department 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 JaKuary 13, 1995 JAN] 3 19()t/ ' .J. ! DouJ:rll'l!l Reid EftviroftmeKt81 Review CoordiKl'ltor r)/ /. ~liJ"'J" '" caeeN I8 - 95 - 03 We, the followia~ re!lideftts of the 700 blook of Riverla.. Ave, request that the ourreat approximately 20 foot h1gh wall ruaa1ag aloag 763 .ad 767 R1Terlawa ATe be ret.1~d, .ad, 1f poss1ble,.loaJ:r the e.tire property liae to proteot the ourreat R-1 re!lldeats fro. the adTerse aolse .ad trafflo caused by the 3 1/2 story oommerolal deTelopaeat purpos*d by C1troa Rea11ty & Iavest.eat Corporat1oa (f1le # I8-95-03), (/z;:) ,17. (?c~ ,: o-ttts .Iia Mary Cooper-- 767 R1Terlawa ATe "hllla ~~a 6a \9,1910 ~'l aaef J~~gS 745 R1Terlawa ATe !../ Chili. Vista CA Q1910 ~r;tf;;e~ 724 RiTerlawa ATe Chui& Vista, CA 91910 APPLICATION c.-\1'IN. B .CCEPTED UNLESS SITE , PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER ~e.;\sed s'\.k. 'Plat! INITIAL STUDY For Office Use Only CJSe No. IS- <1') -03 DpSL AIIUIU11JP!i R~ceipt No. . Date Rcc' d. - Accepted by ~ Project No. FA Ic~J7 DpSL No. DQ- III CIP No. N/A . R~laled Case No. ~ City of Chub Vista Application Fonn A. BACKGROUND L Project Title BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES VILLlAGE 2. Project Location (Street address or description) 760 Broadway Assessors Book. Page & Parcel No. 571-200- 13 thru 17 3. Brief Project Description 36 - Units consi stin9 of Businesses principnlly nn the first level & residences on the upoer ? II? stories 4. Name of Applicant Citron Realty & Investment CorP.? Josef & Lenore Citron Address 5000 Coronado Bay Road Fax# 423-0884 Phone424-4474 City Coronado State CA Zip 92118 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Josef A. Ci tron, Lenore S. Ci tron Address Same as above Fax# Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Pennits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment Rezone/Prezone _ Grading Permit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch. Review _ Special Use Pennit _ Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Pennit Variance _ Coastal Development Other Pennit If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone. please indicate the change in designation from CT to CCP b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map Precise Plan = Specific Plan _ Traffic Impact Report ....fi. Hazardous Waste A>>essme!ll ~ Arch. Elevations -L- Land>cape Plan> - pe r arc h . _ Tentative Subd. Map -L- Improvement Plans J:,:L Soils Report ....fi. Geotechlucal Rcport ~ Hydrological Study pI an_ Biological Study _ Archaeological Stuay _ Noise Assessment _ Other Agency Permit Othcr "CV" = City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has. 1','....; J Wi-'(.F'Jj().\.tE\,'I."....."II...r.\Tf.l!.E!"I:'~;\ .J: ,Io(~i ,1'211 'il! 'f<~[ :'I2~ "'I PROPOSED PRO -:T I. 525' X 210' L.mJ A.rc:.!: SqUillC rOi)(:.l~e J. or Jcre.1~~ 2.52 If land :lIeJ ro be ueulcJu.'d. SL.l[r.: Jcr,e:..1;;~ ~iIl(j pUfT0:it' C Out'') rhe: prOJecT l!1vulvc: The (on')truC;Or~ ;Jr nt'''... :-uddlllgS. Or \1,;111 eXlstlng s,rucrure be utljl!e~) New constructlon ~ Comple!e tillS section If project IS reslden"JI or mIXed u;e a. Type of development:........L Single Family _ Tl>.o FJmdy Multi F:unily Townhouse Condominium 3. b. TOlJl number of structures 4 - consi stinq of 36 u."its total c. Maximum height of structures 3 1 /2 stori es d. Number of Units: I bedroom -0- 2 1/_2bedroom 20 3 bedroom _ 1 Q.. 4 bedroom b TOtal Units 36 e. Gross density (DU/total acres) 2.52 f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 2.52 "Less. streets."sidewall<<, . . . . 3 . , pedstrian promenade (sidewalks) g. EstImated project populatIon 12 h. Estimated sale or rental price range $199 , 900 - 5249,900 I. Square foOtage of structure 1,892 - 2.183 (See Exhibit "C") J. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or srructures 30% k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 154 L Percent of site in road and paved surface Road Paved Surface 4R'J:: Landscape + Ped. Paveway 20% Buildin? Footprint 28% Complete this section if project is commercial ori!1dusma. or mixed use. Priv. landscape 13% a. Type(s) of land use Pl ease see #2 b. Floor area Height of struc:ures(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientarion to adjoining propenies and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimuted number of ~mploye~s per shift Numba of shifts Total g. Estimut~d number of custumers (per duy) and basis of estimute ',:,..-r"'C .c.'HC.\.1E,PL\......-.i?;r:- ~~..rtE..tj\lr: -\.)!, I>c: ":::1 -/;1 H.c: ; ':.'2H p jJ:J~'; 2 I h. Estim~,ed nber of deliveries per day Not ,w, t thi s time 1. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate Not known at thi s time J. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings None known k. Hours of operation Not available atthis time I. Type ofexlerior lighting Decorative Mall Lights 4. If project is other than residential. commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed snuctures d. Height of snucrure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS I. Will the project be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)? . No 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the propeI1Y anticipated? Offs He & Uti 1 Hi es on1 v If yes. complete the following: a. Excluding trenches to be backfliled. how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How m:l11Y cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut A verage depth of cut Maximum depth of fill A verage depth of fill WPC.F:\H;JMr.PLA.....:-..T';r:;37,..~i<WI{1.::--\.j\ ;J{,-] ;1:=:\ <H, 111..:1 :O~::'''\I PJgc 3 3. Descri~ all ~..erl onsuming devices which are pari 'U ,roposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning. electrical appliance. heating equipment. etc.) Standard residential lighting & office & store lighting, probably principally flourescent .4. IndicJte the amount of natura] open space that is pan of th~ project (sq. ft. or acres) None' 5. If th~ project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 26 liqht commercial & office jobs 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips. per day, will be generated by the project? Per SANDAG for commerical & residential 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but nO! limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas. electric. and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. See Plot Plan the Redevelopment District's Preliminary Site Assessment Report dated October 26, 1992. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (NOTE: 1,2,5& 6 are answered in Chula Vista City Assessment document) I. Geololrv Has a geology study been conducted on the prOperty? See note (If yes: please attach) Has a soils report on the project site been made'? (If yes. please attach) 2. Hvdrololrv Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? See Note (If yes. explain in detaiL) a. Is there anv surface evidence of a shallow "round water table? No - ~ WPC.F:\HOME"PL.\."":-;JV.~ ~7r:l<r:.!)\!('I~ [. -\ oj; ,I<CI I{)~':: ,j_I' d{d to.2:<1)1 Paw: ~ b. Are Uk.e . No watercourses or drainage improvl .1 .1 or adjacent to the site' c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in 10 or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay' No d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No e. Describe all drainage facilities 10 be provided and their location. 3. Noise a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? No b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals. schools, single- family residences)? No 4. Biolo!!v a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? No b. Is the project site in a natural or panially natural state? No c. If yes. has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No (Please attach a copy.) d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location. height. diameter. and species of trees. and which (if any) will be removed by the project. No 5. Past Use of the land a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? See note b. Are there any known paleontological resources? c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near 'the project site? d. What was the land previously used for? WPC.F:\lIO.\tI'\PL-\J'\jr-;!.',I; :;~' )k!J)\,(1~ 1.-\ .n d<..': : 'I~'I 'I\! I Kd i /)~~ ,I, Pa~'.: 5 6. Current Lana se a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. See note b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South East West 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? No If so. how many? b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? If so. how many and what type? 8. PleaSe provide any other information which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. WPC':F:IJIOME'PLA:'IN!.';(;.JTUKED\!O~I.A.-J_\ IkC'f. ~O~f!~') tKd. IO:!2.4\) Pagt: fJ _/~ /-~ c:!~ _ "" ;~ I I~ , - .. ~ - - ~ ;~ ~ - ~ !~ MA.IN )O(j ~~~ H'!!L~ S~. _._~ ~ KJ U o 2980 =-::::...... S::.JR:::: 7-'.:: ~-::Vt.5 e~::: :~'!J::. . ;~: ::::-::::". :~~~:~~~~F: ~:~ --= ;~;~~;~:;:~::~~~~~-~::~~~ -~;~~S :;::;::-5. M.I.::>S ;..P=i=?::X'~'/':' -:: .:;:;'.:.=- r-:-:~' - -. - AUC-1C-94 THU 11~ II. C"R~CA nON 'f 1, as ow~/owner in escrow" Josef A. Citron Lenore S. Citron Print /lame or 1, consuUant or -ee1\1" Print name 9 '\eaa.... P.02 H!!REB Y AFFJRM. that to the best of my belief, the sratcmcntl and information hCJl:ln contained are In all rupee!S true and correct and that all known Information concemlna the project and its lCItinC bu been . . Inclu(!ed in this application for an initial Swdyof possible envlronmcllw impact and any ClldO$W"CS for attachments Ihe.rcto. -~ or Consultant or A&ent S iBJIature v dlJ,N- dS7.Jff/ r Pate / 'U K"" 1M' _. r ,- ... ~"""" ,- ~1I'~"I-""'~I._....)(a.t.It>>.I31 GO'd I. .to; GI955BS6t9 'ON XV.:! V.LSI^ VlnHO :0 A.LIO . P.7 05:01 nUl ~6-al~nv 4. 5. 6. THE cm. OF CHl..'LA VISTA DISCLOsl'RE STHE:\f.E:o.-r Statement of disc:osure of c::;tJjr. oW:1e:-shlp ime:es[s. ;JJyme:1ts, or :~1.!n~::.;;:: comnbutJons, on all m;:me:::'"S which wil1 reqUIre dis.::-e:1Ona...-:- Jcion or: :he ;>aTI of the City CJU:1::!. P!anmng CJi::_-:"':sslOn. and .ll] othe:- offjc;aJ bodies. The following :r.ior.narlOn must b:: G:sclosed' I. Llsr ~c :1JJTIes of J.iJ pe:-sJn5 have J fjnJIlCl~ :nte:-es[ in [he ':Or.:;-;1CL I.e., contractor. 5ubcomfJcror. male"aj supplier. ~ C Je>s:s~ . ,^bI-t~~ ~Orl ~~~ :~L~ ~1 ~ z~NT C'C,QPJ 2. If any pe:son ide:nified pursuant 10 (1) above is a corporallon or pannershlp, lisl the names of all individuals owning more :hJn 10% of the shares in Ibe corpor-mon or owning any panne:ship imeresl in the parUlmhip. Crr-RON RMLT'J (,'c:r.>{7,.- g :SeH'i-N A CALIF, PIMTrJ~R$j.:j/p , / Th~'Zc A. C ITt:Ul'J ~NfJfl..E S. C),/RON ~-h@ .<:;'V/l G! 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit orgarllZJllon or a trust, list the names of any person se:ving as director of the non-profit orga"ization or as trust.. or beneficiary or trustee of the trus!. Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacled with any member of the City staff. Boards. Commissions, Commiuees and Council wilhin the past rwe!ve montj,,~ )/0 Please identify each and every person, induding any agents. e:::pioyees. consultanls or indecendent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this ffiJJ.uer.A/bNZ- Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate. conmbuted more man 51.000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election penod? Yes [ ] :\0 ?'J If yes, stale which Council member(s): . Person is defmed is: . Any indlvlCUal, finn. ;o.parmcrship. jomt VenDJ~. associauon. socw ::1.10. fraternal orgaruucon, corpol'1Don. esUlt. D'USt. ~celve:. syndicatt. this UI.d i-ny othc~ .::ounry. ::ity and counry. clry. munklpaJity. dumc: ::1" :::ncr political subdiyulon. or any other group or ~mbim.uon ac:mg as a uruL. 8/I'A/)9tf , CN011:: Aaacb ~ddJuona.l pag~s as ncccss.ary I Date: ::JVSEF A.C.;71?tVrV Lz-NDt<E:.. "Sf 6'r/foN P:-mt or :ypc: :lJ.me of .:ontrJc:c:, ~;:?J!CJIH ',;,'PC.F HOME'P~A~;"':'.,= :7";R.!:: . ,_ ~ "1;'( . ;:': '<JI,Rc~ ,0:: 'i;, P:J.L:''': ! J ... =' - - ,- '5' -. - "5' - - - . . . '"'T ~ c., :".. .....~:. '. .......:"", -';'.1..--- ....~. ~ ...., ...~.. . . -... . .;,~;~-:~. ~fe r . _. :::.r~...._ ...... ~.".... ...... '11". -.... .- .._..~~ .'0__ :r-- .~ .-?;-~if; j~'r: - " .-' .~ . . ..... .... .r,~ "-.. ..~. ~;"'- .~-~; - ..--- \ . ~ Y!ST.4 tc.~ A - . -.- . .. .. ...:-.. ",,:.0.'- ...- ' - ...- .-. . :-:. ,":'.' - ... .... -' :N: ," . . . I I -J..'" II '---- , SITE PLAN INFORMATION 1. Project Location 760 Broadway 2. Legal Description * 3. Assessor's Parcel Number * 4. Property Owner's Name and Address Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 5. Name of Person or Firm who prepared the plans and date of preparation and revisions C.W. Kim, AlA Agency 6. Boundaries of subject property with dimensions 525' on Broadway - 210' Deep 7. Existing and proposed building and structures with dimensions and heights * 8. Existing adjacent structures Motel & Tire Shop 9, E;i:isting ar'id proposed land use for each building activity area Flour clusters of 9 units each: Business on 1st floor Residential on floors 2 & 3 10. Squre footage of each building activity area 1093 11. Construction type per U.B.C" i.e, Type I-FR, Type V-N, etc. 5N/3 Story 12. Type of occupancy per U.B.C. Mixed use - Residential & Business SITE PLAN INFORMATION (continued) 13. Existing topography and proposed gra,ding showing all slopes and slope ratios N/A 14. Existing and proposed walls, fences, etc., indicating height 15. Parking layout, pedestrian walks, loading and trash areas * & * * 16. Location, height, diameter, and species of all existing trees which are to remain or to be removed. N/A 17. Public facilities and infrastucture (i.e., roads, drainage, sewer, open space easement, etc.) N\A 18. Existing and proposed electrical transmission line easements with estimated voltage Adequate service is provided on Broadway 19. Number of parking spaces required 100 20. Numbe'r of parking spaces provided 105 21. Scale no less than 1" = 30' Included in description 1 in. to 30 h. 22. North arrow NOTE: * Please see Exhibit A. ** Please see Exhibit B. '-",,! U!, r-., BUSINESSHOME VILLAGE :;.. -~ Al,.':; Y<;( 'c '.11<5 .:,\C:iE :::;:~C:.'i =...:.x ;::i~) ';'~':;';:e...eA ;.{c.V!::: 'S <;,\.1 LOT CIIVIENSiON: 525'X2iO' Fr<Ci::CSEJ BUILCING HE'GriT:.3 STORY 10' T"RU 25' CCNSTi,UCTiON TYPE: fyF!:: 5N/ .3 STORY PROPOSEO WALL! Fi:NCE HEIGHT: 5'-0" HIGri TRASH: f-iAND'-=D BY INDIVIDUAL DWEWNG UNliS NUMBE" CF PARKING: AFPROX. TOTAL 105 LOT COVEi<AGE:, 35.72% % OF ROAD PAVED SURFACE: 49% BUSINESSHOME YJu.AGE LAND SCAP~+PED. PAVfiWAY (15.3%) . -:":~;#~~:~':~~, .. ~,,-,,",.~ ...,...."'-~ eUIl1::NG rcoJPRINT (35.7%) ....-. '-". EXHIBIT B old Silk. 1'lal'1 P, . " CAL., '. -, I N €j r--- r'\ ~ ~. '-...,-- '- --." ,~ "\ .....) \..... Bl dg. C ~:III jiTl. > <( ;: co <( C c: c Bldg. rLJI . ". . '-.-/ '-.-/ '-.-/ '-.-/ 36l0TS ,,'r:;..tGE: 162Ssc::r. MRlINe; 1A.'-6 CAT Ai.lEY) SITE PLAN DRAFT#5 ~-- . :..- -""'....~-;;-_. . ~ .... .. -~- ..'" .' . . . ...;: -;:""'--\ -:8USl,.ES$HOIIIE:Vltu'<;E:" '.- .". -.', .: :'-;<;c:-;:~"""" ~~.. '-_' '". -. #...t~~...".:;:..:'"'" ...,....-.-'-.... :..' .M-" . ~ .- . - >. -;: " '-;.. - _- , ...~_' _": ~~,--.....t-;6....!- ~;.......-:.~~~r: "~/:,,}.i~.c,.~:t ..;" :r ,..'Devn~!".Qo..... .JqIU~ ,.,,.r"II:I .: :., ,j '-:.: ~.1-;.-_ ' . ..' ,. -::; ,.:.~,:-:;._~~..>~t';:i'::-:::'i~tt:.r;:r"..-:;i!.::':-""~:'f'4:~_;i f"o.YIDJIJ....h~~ ..... ~.I...~ "g~HII~c;,U "........"...,... J...~. . . ..~...,~~~..........."'-~h~.,;:;.;.:!~ ~-:...:...,'t-.,t_. ,'~..... _, __.:...:..u~~~....._:._~. UNIT Building" A" Building "B" Building "C" Building "D" EXHIBIT "C" SQUARE FOOTAGES OF STRUCTURES <> - 'TOTAL BUIDLlNG: 2,15.0 S.F. 25,800 S.F. 12,900 S.F. 25,800 S.F. 12.900 S.F. 77.400 S.F. ATTACHMENT 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You arc required to file a Statemenl of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contrihutions, on all matters which will require discrctionary action on the part or the City Council, Planning Commission, and all olher official bodies. The following information muSl be disclosed: 1. liS! the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the suhject of the application or Ihe contract. e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Josef A. Citron Lenore S. Citron 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Citron Realty & Investment Corp. is 100% owned by Josef & Lenore Citron J. If any person' identificd pursuant to (I) ahove is non. profit organi7,"t;on or a trust. list the names of any person serving as director of Ihe non.profit organi7,"t.,," or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trus!. 4. Have you had more than S2S0 worth of husiness transacted with any memher of the City staff. Boards. Commissions, Committees, and Council within the pasl Iwelve months'! Yes_ No~ If yes. plcase indicate person(s): _ 5. Plcase identify each and every person. including any agents. employees. consultants. or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the Cily in Ihis matter. 6. Have you and/or your officcrs or agents. in Ihe aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the CU1'rent or preceding ciccI ion period? Ycs_ No-X.. If yes. stale which Councilmember(s): , , . (NOTE: Au"" ""h"'" ..... ~) :;? , .~ . . / /./.(p-~ ( . - -. ;;.,,", 00"""0'''''''"'' c / Josef A. Citron Print or type name of contractor/applicant Date: 10-18-94 . ~ if drfi"cd as: "AllY individual, finn, co.panm:rs1Iip. jOi1U I'erasure, a.s.wxla,;r1!l. social club, frau:nloJ o'1.'O'liliJliorl, corporation, t.stolt; awr. rtetiVC', syruiicate, this a"d a,,>, other county. city and coum,y, city mWJicipallt)', district, or other political subd/\'isiOfI, or all)' other group or combination acting as a waiL ..