Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/04/24 (10) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item -.l!l Meeting Date 4/24/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-96-19; Request to remodel an eXlstmg service station, including replacement of an automotive repair facility with a mini- market and carry-out food services, and request for extended hours of operation for same, at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the C-N Neighborhood Commercial zone - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. The request is to remodel an existing service station in order to replace automotive repair services with a mini-mart and carry-out food services for the Texaco station located at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the C-N Neighborhood Commercial zone. Additionally, the applicant is requesting three hours of extended operation (5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight) for the mini-market and fast food sales. The C-N zone limits business hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. unless extended hours are specifically approved by the Planning Commission. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, lS-96-17, of possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects, and therefore recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on lS-96-17. OTHER BOARDS/COMMISSIONS: On April 11, 1996, the Design Review Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the proposed project design subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution PCC-96- 19, approving the remodel but denying the extended hours of operation for the service station located at 1498 Melrose Avenue, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Page 2, Item 10 Meeting Date 4/24/96 DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of a gasoline service station on 0.92 acres located at the northwest corner of Melrose and Orange Avenues. Two gasoline islands are located on the southerly portion of the property adjacent to Orange Avenue, and a single gasoline island is located on the easterly portion of the site adjacent to Melrose Avenue. The existing 1,736 sq.ft. building includes three automotive service bays and a cashier office area which includes the sale of sundry snack items. Zoninl! and Land Use North - South - East - West - C-N R-1 C-N C-N Commercial center Single family dwellings Commercial Commercial center The site is bounded directly to the north and west by a commercial center, and commercial uses are also located to the east across Melrose Avenue. There are no homes directly abutting the site, but single family dwellings are located approximately 100 ft. to the south and southeast across Orange Avenue. Single family homes also overlook the site from above and behind the Melrose commercial frontage to the east, a distance of approximately 175 ft. from the site. Backl!round In February 1996, the Planning Commission granted approval to Texaco for extended hours of operation (from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight) for gasoline sales only. This approval was granted after a previous application for 24-hour operations was denied by both the Planning Commission and, upon appeal, the City Council due to concerns about potential noise and traffic impacts upon the surrounding residential neighborhood. As conditions of approval for the extended hours of operation, Texaco was required to modify site lighting to address glare impacts on surrounding residents and to conduct security surveys of the site and security training for its employees through the Police Department. Both of these conditions have been met. A further condition of approval for the extended hours included a provision that the hours would apply only to gasoline and existing snack shop sales, and that the extended hours approval would be for one year, with extensions to be considered by the Zoning Administrator after notice to the surrounding neighbors (see Resolution PCM-96-15, attached). At the time of the hearing, Page 3, Item 10 Meeting Date 4/24/96 staff noted that plans had recently been submitted for the remodel of this service station; it was therefore emphasized that the approval of extended hours for existing operations would confer no authority to extend hours for future mini-market or other food sales operations. In June of 1993 an earlier plan to redevelop this service station was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council; that application included plans for a mini-market and car wash in conjunction with self-service gasoline sales. Intended alcohol sales became a significant issue in the processing of that project and resulted in a zoning ordinance amendment requiring a use permit for alcohol sales in the C-N zone (with said use permit for this site ultimately being denied by Council). The mini-market/car wash project was never implemented and the approval expired in June of 1994. The current proposal does not include a request for alcoholic beverage sales, and there has been no indication that any such request is forthcoming. Proposal The proposal is for the remodel of the existing building to replace the automotive service bays with a mini-mart and carry-out fast food operation; also, existing gasoline canopies will be replaced with new, taller structures (see related case, ZA V-96-09). Further, the applicant is requesting approval to operate the mini-market and fast food sales from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and from 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight (existing gasoline and snack shop sales are currently approved for operation during these hours). The C-N zone limits business hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. unless extended hours are specifically approved by the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that customers for the food sales (both fast food and snack) would be predominantly gasoline customers. Customers would park at the gas islands, enter the building to place orders and pay, pump gasoline and, when finished, pick up their orders. The mini- market would total 1,537 sq.ft.; the fast food operation within the mini-market utilizes approximately 300 sq. ft. and would involve the preparation and sales of a brand name food line such as Taco Bell or Subway sandwiches. ANALYSIS: The issues of greatest concern on this site center around potential traffic and noise impacts. Traffic According to the Traffic Engineering division, the average daily trip (ADT) generation for the proposed uses would increase automobile trips by 200 ADT (from 1300 to 1500 trips). The applicant would be required to provide a 6 ft. wide dedication along Melrose Avenue, and a 2 ft. wide dedication of street right-of-way along Orange Avenue in order to accommodate Page 4, Item 10 Meeting Date 4/24/96 circulation needs. The increased traffic anticipated would not, however, change the Level of Service (LOS) currently experienced on adjoining streets and thus the impact is considered less than significant. The applicant has provided revenue information from two other sites (one in Pomona, one in Azusa) which helps demonstrate the traffic impacts. According to the figures provided, the Texaco facility in Azusa, which includes two fast food providers (Subway and Del Taco), derives 79% of its revenue from fuel sales, 12% from fast food sales, and 9% from the mini- mart sales. The Pamona facility, which includes a Subway outlet, derives 76% of its revenues from fuel sales, 18% from fast food sales, and 6% from the mini-mart sales (please see Exhibit "A" attached). Each of the above-referenced facilities also had drive-throughs. Additional figures indicate that of the total fast-food sales, only 4% and 6% of fast food revenues respectively were attributable to the drive-throughs - that is, assumably from people drawn to the site only for the fast food. Therefore, one can conclude that gasoline sales are still the predominant function taking place on the site. The fast food and snack sales are not intensive draws themselves and therefore are not anticipated to create significant activity levels or traffic problems for the site. Our discussions with employees at the Texaco station on Balboa Avenue, which includes a Taco Bell but no drive-through, support this view. Employees state that most of the food customers are already purchasing gasoline. Typically, customers will go inside the building to place orders and pay, then pump gas while they wait for the order to be prepared. This picture of how the site will likely work should relieve concerns about potential traffic and stacking problems around the pump islands. With respect to on-site circulation, the proposed plan provides parking well in excess of zoning requirements. Further, circulation is adequate as evidenced by existing conditions (no building expansion will take place). Therefore, traffic and circulation, both on- and off-site, should not be negatively impacted by the proposed use. Noise As to potential noise impacts, with minimal expected increases in activity levels and all new uses (retail mini-market and fast food) taking place inside of the building there should not be a significant noise increase or impacts on the surrounding neighborhood except for the cars arriving and departing. Also, as noted above, in 1993 this service station was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for a remodel program that included a mini-market and the construction of a carwash. Staff finds the current proposal to be more desirable from the standpoint of Page 5, Item 10 Meeting Date 4/24/96 neighborhood compatibility and potential traffic and noise impacts since it does not include any expansion to the site nor the noise and activities associated with a car wash tunnel. Hours of Operation The proposal includes a request for extended hours of operation (5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight) for the mini-market and carry-out fast food services. These hours would coincide with the hours of operation recently approved by the Planning Commission for gasoline and snack sales. Approval for extended hours of operation was granted to Texaco for a one-year period only (subject to extension by the Zoning Administrator). Essentially, this approval was on a trial basis to ensure that the extended hours did not impact neighboring residents, and the approval was specifically limited to existing operations. While the Planning Department has not received any complaints regarding this site since the extended hours were granted, it has been less than two months since that time. Staff does not bel ieve that sufficient time has passed to ensure the absence of impacts from the extended hours, and therefore does not advocate extending the operating hours to additional uses at this time. Instead, staff recommends that the Planning Commission authorize the Zoning Administrator, upon the expiration of the existing extended hours authorization (which will take place in February 1997) to review and, if deemed appropriate, approve an application for extended hours to cover all uses on this site. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed mini-market and fast food service will result in the upgrading of this site and the provision of products and services which will provide a convenience to the nearby residential neighborhood. Site parking and circulation are adequate for the proposed use, and traffic and activity impacts are expected to be minimized. On the other hand, staff believes that the extended hours of operation authorized by the Planning Commission in February were granted to the applicant on a trial basis, and insufficient time has passed with which to evaluate impacts. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the extended hours at this time, subject to re-consideration by the Zoning Administrator upon expiration of the current authorization. Page 6, Item 10 Meeting Date 4/24/96 Attachments I. Resolution PCC-96-19 2. Locator, Site Plan, Floor Plan 3. Exhibit "A" 4. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1996 and Resolutioo PCM-96-15 5. Envirorunental Documents 6. Disclosure Statement (m:\home\planning\patty\pcc9619.rep) RESOLUTION PCC-96-19 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-96-l9 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE REPLACEMENT OF AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY WITH A MINI-MARKET AND CARRY-OUT FOOD SERVICES, AND DENYING EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION FOR SAME, AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE WITHIN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 8, 1996 by Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., and; WHEREAS, said application requests approval to replace an automotive repair facility with mini-market and fast food sales at the existing service station at 1498 Melrose Avenue within the C-N Neighborhood Commercial zone, and; WHEREAS, said application also requests approval for extended hours of operation (5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight) for the mini-market and fast food operation, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS- 96-17, of possible environmental impacts associated with this project, and is recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on lS-96-17, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Director 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 20 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 24, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: 1. Findings. 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed retail mini-market and fast food operations will provide an additional convenience to the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the bealth, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The mini-market and fast food operations are not expected to increase traffic or actual impacts to a significant degree and all new uses will take place entirely within the building. The proposed operations have been conditioned to restrict business hours until existing operations have been proven not to impact the surrounding areas. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The conditional approval of PCC-96-l9 requires compliance with all conditions and applicable codes and regulations prior to the issuance of any permit or occupancy and on a continuing basis thereafter. 4. That the granting of this conditional use pennit will not adversely affect tbe general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The approval of this permit is consistent with City policies and the General Plan. 11. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The Planning Commission hereby grants approval of this request subject to the following conditions whereby: A. Hours of operation for the mini-market and fast food services shall be limited to the hours permitted in the C-N zone, namely 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. In conjunction with a request for extension of the approval for extended hours of operation for gasoline sales (per PCM-96-l5), the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to review and grant approval for a request for extended hours for the mini-market and/or fast food services in addition to gasoline sales, on such conditions as he/she deems appropriate, after notice to the surrounding residents and upon proof being supplied to the Zoning Administrator that the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood is not adversely impacted by the extended hours of operation on the premises. The Zoning Administrators may choose to direct the request, or the decision may be appealed, to the Planning Commission in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.14.100. B. Alcohol sales are prohibited unless a separate conditional use permit is processed and approved. C. All conditions of approval for DRC-95-30 must be adhered to. D. A variance must be approved for any proposal to increase the canopy height over 15'. III. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant. A. Post-Approval Conditions. This approval 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 grantee and after the City has given to the grantee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Grantee of a substantial revenue source which the Grantee can not, in the normal operation of the approval granted, be expected to economically recover. B. Time to Commence Use. This approval shall become void and ineffective if not uti! ized within one year from the effective date thereof. C. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property of applicant, known as 1498 Melrose Avenue. D. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be grounds for revocation or modification of the permit. IV. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William C. Tuchscher 11, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\home\planning\patty\pl.'t119615. REP) LOCATOR. SITE PLAN. FLOOR PLAN ~""-/ . \ ~ J.. j. 1"\.... ~ '-i ~ '-,~- tj,-, X' j~.r -~" u ,.........--x! - t=1 -; ~~p~ ::~mv~:: H ~ """ ,.~". MhY R1"\ \ z -- C!J. ~~ II ('>7 -s- u- ( ......... ..... -c, 1o..J.~ ...J.... I---, z= ~ \ ~ ~ -" - ~ I~' 1l~.>1 ~ ~~. " ;rT\ n \' n ~~.tr1 ~ ~~^ ~ '\ , I 5Tt \ ..~\ ~ ~ ~,JJi'~ \/i>:::.~" ~~~ :::~... ~~ . b,',~-~~\~ V,~~';~.... ~ ~ =--'\\ ~~V\ 1::183 ~\\~,;,.,,~t"\\_' ~~ I .---...... .~.~'~~ ~:I~ ~\(\~~~."... ~'(:.N~~ -~..... f ,.... tp"\\~ ~\\_".- ~. ~ ~ .&,''6>:: "(Y.:JW" 3 . ~'~"~ ~-:-:-- .-:" . ~,-,- ", "' .-?' . ~~. -~\ . ~ ,,,OJIC1 ~ !i'~aX~ ~ /\ I.OCAt\OM"\ ~ ~ \ I~ ~~ ~ \-< ~~ : ~""L ~_ ~\::r1-h ~ . '" --\ \....., ~t ..- . - - .O~. _ c . :z\ T~::=:: ~ t:\ r . Ie '"\) III ~ -1a1- - ~ '- ..,<1' II. CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C!5 ~: TEXACO ~ 1.c98Me1ro.A,*,ue SCALI. ~ NUMIB: NORTH 0400' '~~"'~'~-~"\'~"'" I I ! il :,1 I : j'li'j II J II ,II II : Illu . . " 'I' I ! Illiilll ! !1!ii!Ii,! ! III ~ ';111 .." I'm I II I'~i I II I, . ,. II II III .' I" II T h!:' h:i !!\ ) Iii ~.I "': " c... II.. I' h~:' ~ , i ' e - .. ., ~ " ~. I I I, nil ii 1"' . .11 ~.... n ~ '. sa II ~ I, 1111 n n i! 11!!11i . 'I 1.1111 d!J G II . . . . Illi ,II !~I II'i,"Ir. ,,"1 i'!~ii!! I I!,IIII! I I. I !!II!d~ III I "'jil;" IIII II' 'I IIIII ,,!lil!!1 I' !ill' illl:!: :.liI \ ,"-I 1 I I , I o -........_'........ ..........--.......... "-'..s.' -.........-.. it --'.-5._ '-'~"""'-iJ... _ _.w-,.... ..... If-._._. -.. - -l'-S .-.-.0..-.-.-. -~ - . J... ___ -. - ~~ ~. -" :;~ I I \ I \ \ \ I , I I ~ I ~ or i ~ , : ; I , . I I , I I , J . I I ~ , , ..JJ.-J . I .0 \ I . ~ ~ ~" $3 :D - ..... ..... -. . ....... o - 7- EXHIBIT A A~R- 2-96 TilE 10:04 AM TEIro ROE ~A- NO ,\.11. _ ~/1' 13- 7!~; . .! ._,./J .....ft~-. "'"-\ EXHIBIT "A" REVENUE STREAM DETAIL. TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING !t Th" purpose of the below examples are to detail revenue stream allocation for iIlustrntive purposes , The tHO axamples listed bA.Jow detail a thirty day lI"erage for two Texaco Star Marts in Southern C,t, Texaco Star MartlSubwav1De1 TACO - A~....". CA PERCENT REVENUE DETAIL. TOTAL FACIUlY FUEL 79% STAR MART 9% QSRS ~ TOTAL 100% PERCENT DRIVE THRU OSR TO TOTAL OSR 37% PERCENT DRIVE THRU OSt( TO TOTAL FACILITY 4% T"nco Star MartlSubWllvlTaco Bell. Pomona. CA PERCENT REVENUIO DETAIL - TOTAL r:AC!LITY FUEL.. 76% STAR MART 6% QSRS 18% ,TOTAL 100% pERCENT DRIVE THRU OSR TO T6T AL asR 35% PERCENT DRIVe THRU OSR TO TOTAL FACIUTY 6% ZOOfll ':JOSS\' 11 ~I\'~ n~1 QLZ 619.2. 6t ct PC MINUTES OF 2/14/96 AND RESOLUTION PCM-96-15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:05 p,m. Wednesdav, Februarv 14, 1996 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Salas and Tarantino STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Griffm, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer, MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Ray/Willett) 5-0 to excuse Commissioner Tarantino (prior commitment) and Commissioner Salas (illness). APPROV AL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Thomas) 5-0 (Salas and Tarantino excused) to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of November 8th, 15th, and December 13, 1995. Several Commissioners complimented staff on the minutes and the staff report. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes February 14, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-15: REQUEST TO EXTEND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR GASOLINE SALES ONLY AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE IN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc, -2- lo- ITEM 1: Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report and recommended approval, noting an amendment to Condition B that the hours of the service bay would be from 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Thomas asked if circumstances would change with the construction of the mini- market to allow 24 hours, Mr, Griffin replied that there was a pending application to establish a mini market onsite, If the applicant wished to extend the mini market hours, it would have to be considered separately, At Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Griffin confinned that the hours for gas sales would be 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Service bay hours would be from 8:00 a,m. to 5:00 p,m, They were currently allowed service from 7:00 a,m. to 11:00 p,m. Commissioner Willett stated that he had visited the site, and concurred with staff that there had been a great improvement with the lighting, Regarding truck loading, there was more noise coming from across the street from the 7-Eleven than from the diesel truck, He could find no one in objection to the hours. The people he had talked with asked that something be done with . the 7-Eleven. Commissioner Willett concurred with the comments in the staff report, This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, Michael Radecki, 1460 Nolan Ct., CV 91911 discussed CEQA and how it is used, He stated that Texaco had taken measures to correct the concerns of the residents, The measures were that of a good neighbor and were appreciated, Staff had recommended approval of the request with several provisions; they were acceptable as proposed with the exception of the 5:00 a,m, start. He requested that the gas sales hours start at 6:00 a,m. Mr. Radecki asked that should Texaco request to operate a mini-mart, they should confonn to the default C-N zone hours, and that both the residents and the City would be able to evaluate the appropriateness of extended business hours on the merits of the new business. Susan Radecki, 1460 Nolan Ct., CV 91911 felt the 5:00 start was too early; 6:00 would be preferable, She asked for reasonable assurance that the City would monitor the compliance with any new stipulations imposed on the business, She asked the Commissioners to consider the cumulative impact of projects, She was concerned about Texaco staying open until midnight and the weekday traffic from the amphitheater which may have some adverse effects on that comer, Philip Schanberger, 4901 Morena Blvd. #304, San Diego, representing Texaco, showed slides of the station lube bays, lighting under the canopy, landscaping, and the cleanliness of the site, . He asked that the Commission approve the 5:00 a,m. to 12:00 p.m. hours so they could capture business travelers, Texaco had shown good faith effort to address concerns of the neighbors, In addition to offering their site for community meetings, they had meetings with the Police . . . PC Minutes -3- February 14, 1996 Department and joined in the Community Watch and Business Alert; they had offered their site to schools for charity carwashes; they would be available to answer questions, They had addressed the noise issue and lighting, and were developing rubber pads to lie next to the sump lid to further eliminate noise, He commended Steve Griffin on his helpfulness, Carol Hensley, 6407 EastLake Drive, SD, marketing consultant for Texaco, shared some sales reports with the Commissioners, which broke down the sales per hour at a similar location. She noted there was a need in the area for early morning hour sales; she was willing to work with the community and would take calls from them directly regarding any concerns they had at any time, Answering Commissioner Ray, Ms. Hensley said the table showed total sales of gasoline and inside sale products. Ms. Hensley requested approval of the three-hour extension of business hours, They felt there was a need and that it would be beneficial for the community as well as Texaco, No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was declared closed, At Commissioner Willett's request, Principal Planner Griffin indicated on the map the location of the residence of Mr, and Mrs. Radecke, Chair Tuchscher stated that he appreciated the time and the effort of the Radecke' s to be at the meeting and to care about the neighborhood, He also felt Texaco had proven to be good neighbors to the Radecke's and the community, and complimented them on the landscaping, Commissioner Ray asked for a clarification on the general rule exemption per CEQA, Chair Tuchscher stated that he assumed this project was looked at in the same manner from a . procedure standpoint that all other similar applications would be. Attorney Moore concurred. Commissioner Thomas, assuming the mini market would be built within the year of this conditional use permit, asked the hours of the mini market. Mr. Griffm stated that one of the conditions in this request was that the Zoning Administrator, with notice to the neighborhood, would determine if there had been any problems, If there were any continuing concerns that could not be resolved, it would probably be forwarded to the Planning Commission in one year's time for review of the extended hours. The mini market would be an entirely separate conditional use permit. They would be permitted the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, MSUC (Ray/Willett) 5-0 (Commissioners Salas and Tarantino excused) to approve PCM-96-15, approving extended hours of operation for gasoline sales only at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the CoN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone, with a text change on Item B under Conditional Grant of Permit Conditions changing the hours from 8:00 to 5:00 restricting the hours of the bay service. PC Minutes -4- February 14, 1996 . Commissioner Davis stated that she was very pleased with what she had seen from Texaco and the progress they had made, She had also visited the site and talked with the neighbors, and they felt it was a good compromise from what had been requested before. Commissioner Ray said that if the Radecki's felt there were some continuing problems, they should call the City with each infraction so they could build up a case file during the next year, Principal Planner Griffin concurred, and stated that the City would try to address those immediately, and Texaco would, as well. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Griffin noted there would be a dinner workshop the following Wednesday at 5:30 p,m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, The subject would be Otay Ranch, Mr. Griffin stated that four Commissioners would be attending the Conference on March 20, 1996. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS MSUC (Ray /Davis) 5-0 to cancel the Planning Commission meeting 'of March 13, 1996, . because of lack of agenda items. Commissioner Davis noted that the Council had voted to delay the residential care facility 119 days, Brian Bilbray had introduced federal legislation to deal with the issue, Commissioner Thomas asked for the status of the Broadway Homes project. Mr, Griffin stated it had been approved, but no application had been made for a building permit. ADJOURNMENT at 7:43 p,m. to the Workshop Meeting on February 21, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. in Conferences Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of February 28, 1996, at 7:00 p,m. in the Council Chambers, " ) <-:l I ,~! --'''---~ X-c ,'f' .tit Nancy ley, Seer ry Planning Commission (m: \home \planning\nancy\pc96m in \pc2 -14 . min) . " RESOLUTION NO. PCM-96-15 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 5:00 A,M, TO 12:00 A.M, FOR GASOUNE SALES ONLY FOR A SERVICE STATION LOCA TED AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE WITHIN THE C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 8, 1995 by Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc" and; WHEREAS, said application requests approval to conduct gasoline sales from 5:00 a,m. to 12:00 a.m, at 1498 Melrose Avenue within the CoN Neighborhood Commercial zone, and; WHEREAS, in accordance with CVMC Section 19,34,170, business hours in the C-N zone are limited to between 7:00 a,m. and 11:00 p.m, unless extended hours are specifically approved by the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that this project is exempt from environmental review as a "General Rule" exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and; WHEREAS, the Planning Director 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 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely February 14, 1996 at 7:00 p,m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES hereby find, detennine, resolve, and order as follows: I. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby fmds that the extended hours of operation will provide a convenience to surrounding residents and that the extended hours and activity levels are not expected to result in a disturbance to neighboring homes, particularly considering the intent to address security and lighting issues and to restricl service activities. II. Conditional Grant of Pennit; Conditions. The Planning Commission hereby grants approval of this request subject to the following conditions whereby: A, Authorization for the extended hours shall be for the hours from 5 :00 a.m. to 12:00 a,m. only. Any operations beyond these hours shall be grounds for revocation, B. The extended hours of operation shall apply to existing gasoline and snack shop sales only, It shall not apply to any automotive service activities or use of the service bays, which shall be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p,m., nor shall it apply to any future expansion or modification of operations, which shall require separate consideration of hours of operation. C, The applicant shall confer with and comply with all of the requirements of the Chula Vista Police Department as referenced in Attachment "A", incorporated herein by this reference; namely, the applicant shall have a security evaluation and Business Alert training for its employees conducted by the Police Department. The applicant shall submit evidence of such compliance prior to extending the hours of operation. D. The applicant shall submit and implemenl a plan to correct the lighting so as not to cast a glare on to surrounding areas prior to extending the hours of operation, but no less than 90 days from the approval of this resolution, or said resolution shall be deemed void and ineffective. E, This approval shall expire on February 14, 1997, and thereafter the Applicant will no longer be allowed to continue extended hours of operation unless an extension is granted. Applicant understands that the duration of this approval may not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to receive a reasonable return on any investment incurred as a result of the tenns and conditions of this decision. Applicant acknowledges understanding that any such investment will be made at the Applicant's risk. The Zoning Administrator may grant an extension of the tenn of this approval, on such conditions as he/she deem just, after notice to the surrounding residents and upon proof being supplied to the Zoning Administrator that the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood is not adversely impacted by the extended hours of operation on the premises. Applicant must apply for and receive the extension prior to the expiration date, The Zoning Administrators may choose to direct the request, or the decision may be appealed, to the Planning Commission in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.14,100, 111. Additional Tenns and Provisions of Grant. A. Post-Approval Condi'~ions, This approval 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 grantee and after the City has given to the grantee the right to be heard with regard thereto, However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Grantee of a substantial revenue source which the Grantee can not, in the nonnal operation of the approval granted, be expected to economically recover. B. Time to Commence Use, This approval shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof. C, A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property of applicant, known as 1498 Melrose Avenue, D, Any violation of the tenns or conditions of this pennit shall be grounds for revocation or modification of the pennit, IV. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Thomas, and Willett NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Salas and Tarantino (both excused) ~~ ,~~ . ~::~, / - ~ - {' ---~ William C. Tuchscher II, Chair ,/) ~' J-( ~ <~ "-, dL'l Nancy ipley,/Secr tary (m:\homelplanning\pattylpcm9615,REP) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS negative declaration PROJECT NAME: TEXACO PROJECT LOCATION: 1498 Melrose Avenue at Orange Chula Vista CA, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 624-080-0900 PROJECT APPLICANT: Texaco T.R,M,I.-Doug Elston CASE NO: IS-96-17 DATE: February 16, 1996 A. Proiect Settin~ The project site is an existing Texaco service station on a 37,803 square foot parcel. This site is located on the corner of Melrose A venue and Orange A venue and includes a canopy with three islands and a service station building with three lube bays, The existing structure is 1,736 square feet. There are four access points to the site. Two access points are located on Melrose Avenue and two on Orange Avenue. Four underground fuel storage tanks exist on the northwest portion of the site, The average graded slope of the site is 1.0% and the maximum graded slope is 1.5%. The site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and is designated as Retail Commercial (CR) on the General Plan, A strip man is located to the north and also to the west. A Unocal service station is located to the east across Melrose A venue and there is single-family residential to the south, B. Proiect Description The project involves the remodeling of an existing convenience store/service station, An 18'-11" canopy win be constructed to replace existing canopy structures. Store is to include fast food carry-out and gasoline sales. The lube bays will be removed to provide added floor space inside the convenience store, Hours of operation will range from 5:00 a,m, until 12:00 midnight. Access will be provided via two driveways on Melrose Avenue and two driveways on Orange A venue. The primary roads are not adequate to serve the site, In order to provide adequate service to the site, a 6.[00t widening along Melrose Avenue will be required, Also, a 6-foot dedication along the Melrose Avenue frontage and a 2-foot dedication along the Orange A venue frontage will be required, Due to street widening, the reconstruction of the pedestrian ramp and relocation/modification of the existing traffic signal standard and equipment is required, In addition to the 10 parking spaces provided at the fuel pump islands, 2] marked parking stalls will be provided on the site, including I handicapped space, There will be 2 employees per shift for three shifts and there will be 4 deliveries per day, On-site dra'nage is adequate to serve the site. Prior to the issuance ~f a Building Permit, school impact fees and a soils report are required, Also, per Section ~ \ It,... -.- p~---";;; ~~-...;.. city of chula 'oIlsta planning department cm OF environmental re'oliew section (HULA VISfA ]4.20.120 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the applicant must incorporate Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) measures into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The discretionary actions include the approval by the Design Review Committee and a Conditional Use Penn it. C. Comnatibilitv with Zonin~ and Plans The current zoning on-site is CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and the site is designated CR (Retail Commercial). The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, D, Identification of Environmental Effects An ]nitial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist Fonn) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required, This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines, The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows, Fire . Any cooking services capable of producing grease laden vapors must be protected by a fixed fire suppression system, . A 40bc fire extinguisher will be required at the kitchen area, E, Consultation I, Individuals and Or~anizations City of Chula Vista: Keith Barr, Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Gary Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Emmett Horsfall, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney (M\homelplannlnglJ<e'th',J'Iel'dec\texlcoJ PageZ Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Tait & Associates 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and E1R (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 3, Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista, Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR (~1 \hom~\planl1ll1l!\kelth\nel!dc~\lc"aC{)) Pa.ge3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Texaco T.R,M,J. City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 10 Universal City Plaza Universal City, CA 91608 4. Name of Proposal: TEXACO 5. Date of Checklist: February 16. 1996 Case No. IS-96-17 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed project is consistent with existing General Plan designations and zoning. The service station will not conflict with the environmental plans or policies adopted by the City (section I 0 of General Plan), Potentially Signifiunt Impact Potential1)' Signifiesnl Unlen Mitigated " Impact Lesslhan Significant Impact o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 II. PO PULA nON AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181 population projections" b) Induce substantial grov.1h in an area either 0 0 0 181 directly or indirectly (e,goO through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure )" c) Displace existing housing. especially affordable 0 0 0 181 housing" Comments: The project will not exceed grov.1h forecasts, nor induce growth either locally or City- wide, The project site does not contain any existing housing. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people 10 potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181 either on or offthe site? Potemially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant " Impacl Mitigated Impact Impacl f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The proposed project will not have any geophysical impacts, IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181 or the rate and amount of surface runoff'? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves" c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 of surface water quality (e,g" temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body" e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of \vater 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 0 181 groundwater" h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Prior to the issuance of the building permit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (section 14.20,] 20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) must be incorporated into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan, which is required by chapter 6,95 of the California Health and Safety Code, Pagd (Mlhome\plannln!/,\keith\cldisttex) Potentiatl~' Potential1)' Siilnificant Leu than Significant Unless Significant " Impact Mitigated Impact Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality" Comments: The project will increase traffic levels in the project area by 200 Average Daily Trips (ADT), Vehicular emissions resulting from the project are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis, VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion" 0 0 181 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g., 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)? c) I nadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses" d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site" 0 0 0 181 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 181 0 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)" g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program" (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Page<! (M lhome\plannmglleiIM\d,hSI lex) Potenlially Significant Impact Potentiall) Significant l:nle55 Mitigated N. Impact Leu than Significanl Impacl Comments: The proposed project will increase traffic generation from 1,300 ADT to 1,500 ADT. This increase in ADT is not considered significant. The primary roads are not adequate to serve the site at this time. In order to provide adequate service to the site, a 6-foot widening along Melrose Avenue will be required, Also, a 6-foot dedication along the Melrose Avenue frontage and a 2-foot dedication along the Orange A venue frontage will be required. Due to street widening, the reconstruction of the pedestrian ramp and relocation/modification of the existing traffic signal standard and equipment is required. 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" f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? o o o 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 Comments: No impacts to biological resources will occur from the project. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) lfthe site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Com men's: The project will not use excessive amounts of energy or adversely affect mineral resources. 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)? o o o 181 (M\home\planning\keilh\cklis!!ex) Page~ Potential!, Potentially Significan'1 LeS!lhan Significanl llnleu Significant !'I;o Impacl Mitigated Impact Impact b) Possible interference with an emergency D D D 181 response plan or emergency evacuation piano c) The creation of any health hazard or potential D D D 181 health hazardo d) Exposure of people to existing sources of D D D 181 potential health hazardsO e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable D D D 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The applicant is required by chapter 6,95 of the California Health and Safety Code to implement a Hazardous Materials Response Plan. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levelso D D 181 D b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D D D 181 Commen's: It is projected that the project will be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance, XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any ofthefo/lowing areas: a) Fire protectiono D D D 181 b) Police protectiono D D D 181 c) Schoolso D D D 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including D D D 181 road SO e) Other governmental serviceso D D D 181 Comments: No new governmental services would be required to serve the 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, (M\J'1ome'"pl.In!\,!\g\kl."tth\ckIISl.ll."x) Page6 POlentially Significant Impact Potential!) Significanl Unless Miligaled Lenihan Significanl Impacl ~O Impact 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 ofChula 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 proposed project will not adversely impact the Fire/EMS Threshold Standards, 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 Police Department has indicated that it will be able to provide an adequate level of service to this project. 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 ofI-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: Traffic generation will increase from 1 ,300 ADT to 1,500 ADT representing an increase of 200 ADT, The primary roads are not adequate to serve the site at this time, In order to provide adequate service to the site, a 6-foot widening along Melrose Avenue will be required, Also, a 6-foot dedication along the Melrose Avenue frontage and a 2-foot dedication along the Orange Avenue frontage will be required, Due to street widening, the reconstruction of the pedestrian ramp and relocation/modification of the existing traffic signal standard and equipment is required, Upon completion of these improvements, the proposed project will be adequate to serve the customers needs, d) Parks/Recreation This project is not subject to the Parks and Recreation standards, Comments: The project will not create any new demand for park or recreation facilities or services. {M \hom~\pjannin!.'\k~lth\cklisllex) Page7 Pottntially Si&nificant Impact Pottntially Significant Unltss Mitigattd Less than Si&nificanl Impact No Impact e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: This site contains adequate drainage facilities to serve the project. 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 line is adequate to serve the project. The City's threshold standard will not be adversely affected by this project. 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 ofChula Vista has in effect at the time of building penn it issuance, Comments: The proposed project is in compliance with the City's threshold standards, The site has adequate storage and transmission facilities and therefore will not jeopardize future growth plans, XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181 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) Stonn water drainage" 0 0 0 181 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 (M\home\plann;n!!,\keith\c~ljs1Ie'l PageS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaled Lesslhan Significanl Impact No ImpaCI Comments: Extension of facilities to serve the project will not be required, The existing services are adequate, XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181 scenic route" c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19,66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19" e) Result in an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: There will not be any added light created through project implementation, XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building. structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values" d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources" Comments: The site is not in an area of high potential for archeological resources. This site has been disturbed as a result of the existence of the current building, The proposal will not have any negative impacts on archeological resources, (M\home\pJannong\keith\d:!.Sllex) Page'! Potentially Potential!) Signifinnt Le~~ than Significant \'nle55 Significant Impact Mitigated Impacl 0 0 0 No Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: Due to the fact that the site has previously been disturbed and is not located in an area of high potential paleontological resources as identified by the City's General Plan EIR, no negative impacts will occur as a result of this project, 181 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities" b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 plans or programs" Comments: The project would not create any new demand for parks or recreation facilities, nor would it impact any existing park/recreation plans, XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor mandatory findings of significance, If an ElR is needed. this section should be completed a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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? o o o 181 Comments: The site is already developed as a gas station, The project which is proposed is an expansion of the existing service station. This project would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources, b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: No additional previously ungraded areas will be graded as a result of the project. There are no significant impacts, With the requirement that all ofthe City's standards and regulations be met, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals, o o o 181 (M\horne\pjinning\kelth\ckIISlle~) Page10 c) Does the project have impacts that are 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: All impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than significant, as a result of the applicant's compliance with the City's Code requirements, City facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required, The project does not have the potential for individually limited effects being cumulatively considerable, Potentiall)' Potentillll~ Significant Lesslhln Significant Unless Significant N, Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 181 d) Does the project have environmental effect which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o o 181 Comments: The project is not sufficient in size or nature to cause any such impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, 0 Land Use and Planning 181 T ran sportation/C ircu I ation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 181 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance (M\home\planninjlJ<eith'.ckhsttex) hlle11 DETERMINA nON: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, 181 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 0 measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least 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. Signature Date Environmental Review Coordinator City ofChula Vista (\1 \home\plannmg'-.kcllhldhst 1cx) Pagen ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-96-17 PROJECT NAME: TEXACO PROJECT LOCATION: 1498 Melrose Avenue at Orange Chula Vista CA. PROJECT APPLICANT: Texaco T,R,M.I.-Doug Elston PROJECT AGENT: Tait and Associates 3665 Ruffin Road #230 San Diego, CA CASE NO,: IS-96-17 DATE: March II, 1996 I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERe) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report, if one of the following conditions is present: I, The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion ofthe Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negati'ole 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 ha'ole one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration, This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning public service impacts as a result of the applicants decision to change the project description, As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Negative Declaration have not changed, Public service impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Negative Declaration for the 15-96-17 II. PROJECT SETTING The project site is an existing Texaco service station on a 37,803 square foot parcel. This site is located on the corner of Melrose Avenue and Orange Avenue and includes canopies with three islands and a service station building with three lube bays, The existing structure is 1,736 square feet. There are four access points to the site. Two access points are located on Melrose Avenue and two on Orange Avenue, Four underground fuel storage tanks exist on the northwest portion of the site. The average graded slope of the site is 1.0% and the maximum graded slope is 1.5%. The site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and is designated as Retail Commercial (CR) on the General Plan. A shopping mall is located to the north and also to the west A Unocal service station is located to the east across Melrose Avenue and there is single-family residential to the south. m. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves the remodeling of an existing service station. Existing canopy structures will be replaced by 18'-11" canopies. The store is to include fast food, carry-out groceries and gasoline sales. The service bays will be removed to provide added floor space inside the convenience store. Hours of operation will range from 5:00 a.m. until 12:00 midnight. Access will be provided via two driveways on Melrose Avenue and two driveways on Orange Avenue. The primary roads are not adequate to serve the site. In order to provide adequate service to the site, a 6-foot dedication along the Melrose Avenue frontage and a 2-foot dedication along the Orange Avenue frontage will be required. A deferral of the remaining widening requirements addressed in the Negative Declaration will be allowed, however, the owner will be required to apply for that deferral. If the deferral is approved, the costs of future widening (up to 50% of the estimated $68,000 on-site costs, or $34,000) must be guaranteed by the owner in the fonn of a cash bond submitted to the City's Finance Department. In addition, to the 10 parking spaces provided at the fuel pump islands, 21 marked parking stalls will be provided on the site, including I handicapped space, There will be 2 employees per shift for three shifts and there will be 4 deliveries per day. On-site drainage is adequate to serve the site. Prior to the issuance of a Building Penn it, school impact fees and a soils report are required. Also, per Section 14.20.1 20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the applicant must incorporate Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) measures into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The discretionary actions include the approval by the Design Review Committee and a Conditional Use Pennit IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA. REFERENCES General Plan, City of Chula Vi~ta Title 19. Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JOB NO: TX328a THE cr. _ OF CHlJLo\ VISTA DISCLOSURE ST, !MENT You arc rcquired to rile a Statcmcnt of Disclosure of certain owne~ltip or financial interests, paymcnts, or campaign contrihutions, on all malleN' wlticlt will rcquire discrctionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all otlter official bodics. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List tlte namcs of all pcrsons having a financial intercst in tlte propeny which is thc subject of the application or the contract, e.g" owncr, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplicr. Texaco T.R.M.l. 2. If any pe~on' Identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, listtlte names of all indMduals owning more titan 10% of tltc sharcs in tltc corporation or owning any pannersltip intcrcst in thc pannersltip. 3, If any person' idcntificd pursuant to (I) abovc is non.profit organization or a trust, list tlte names of any pe~on serving as director of thc non-profit organiuuion or as trustee or bcnenciary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you Itad morc than S250 wonlt of busincss transactcd with any mcmher of tltc City staff, Boards, Commissions, Commillees, and Council within the past twclve montlts? Ycs_ No~ If ycs, please indicatc pcrson(s): 5, Please idcntify eaclt and every person, including any agcnts, employees, consultants, or indepcndent contracto~ who you have assigncd to rcprcscnt you before tlte City in tltis mailer. Tait & Associates of San Diego 6, Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more titan SI,OOO to a Councilmember in tlte currcnt or preceding elcction pcriod? Yes_ No~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): , , , (NOTE: Datc: ~ ~ 1"'\"'15 ~:L <5"1~E ..J Print or type name of contractor/applicant . p",,,,, u dcji"cd ote "A"y jmJi."duo/, fin... co,po""",hip, )oi1ll vtnnm, =IX,aIlO" SIXW/ club. IrQ/Cnto/ nrgtJI'WUlo'~ corpa,arim. c.rla/~ uwr. m:eiv<1', syndical<, Iius ",id ""Y other CO""ty, C/ty o,id CO""")', CIty ,"wtlC/polity, dis",c~ 0' oliter poli"ca/ subdwulO" 0' IUIY miter IP'"P 0' cOlnbir"uio" acwlg OJ a waiL ..