The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1997/03/18 ". declare "n~pr ~pn""" of ~","'r'f th~t ,1,- ~m em 'Ie 'e'¡ i) " ...~' !,"ôt' posted Com"",!n t, .. ( , tne thee f',';ow:" , , ," '1', ~~~~~:March 18, 1997 ~~~:';¡;~I:O: s~'~.¡:()7n"" ~ 0 Lâ~Ubn~C;:~~~~:~~~~ (immediately following the City Council me g U Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agencv of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -' Salas -' and Chair Horton - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not incladed on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. FOR THE REMODELING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY--Texaco is proposing to remodel and expand the existing service station located on the southwest corner of Broadway and L Street. The construction of a new facility would include gasoline pumps, a convenience store, and fast food services with a drive-thru. The project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and fmal approval of a Special Use Permit and Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement is required by the Redevelopment Agency. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) a) RESOLUTION 1531 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-07 AND APPROVING SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY b) RESOLUTION 1532 APPROVING AN OWNERfTENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. AND MRS. ROY E. NICKERSON AND TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY Agenda -2- March 18, 1997 3, PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SUPS-96-02, TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE BODY AND DETAILING SHOP AT 2952 MAIN STREET IN THE IL-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) ZONE-- The applicant is proposing to construct an automobile body repair and detailing shop in two phases. The project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and final approval of a Special Use Pemit and Owner Participation Agreement is required by the Redevelopment Agency. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions, (Community Development Director and Planning Director) a) RESOLUTION 1533 ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED FOR IS-96-13 AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR AND DETAILING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2952 MAIN STREET b) RESOLUTION 1534 APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. & MRS. MANUEL BRAMBILA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR AND DETAILING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2952 MAIN STREET OTHER BUSINESS 4, DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 5. CHAIR'S REPORT<S) 6, AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a Special Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting on March 25, 1997 at 6:00 p,m" immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chan1bers. [M: \HOME\COMMDEV\AGENDAS\O3-18-97 ,AGD] ---',-T" < ;:.()£,'. t;~,\.G :.,J{c;.C:, f) ~ ift-- ~., ð'_"" " ~~,-, - U'- ',..'.íE: ï - - .. .. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item d. ð- f 6 Meeting Date 03/18/97 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: To consider granting a Special Land Use Permit to Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. for the remodelling and expansion of a Service Station at 902 Broadway a) RESOLUTION 1~3 ( Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 and approving Special Land Use Permit for the remodelling and expansion of a service station at 902 Broadway b) RESOLUTION 153 J..Approving an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketin9 Inc. for the remodelling and expansion of a Service Station at 902 Broadway SUBMITTED BY: Comm""", D",'oom,", D;",~:~'-, REVIEWED BY: Executive Director J~ \yJ, ~ \ (4/5ths Vote: Yes- No_X..! BACKGROUND: Ul~ Texaco is proposing to remodel and expand the existing service station located on the southwest corner of Broadway and L Street at 902 Broadway (see attached Locator Map). Texaco leases the property from the owners Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson. The proposed Texaco project consists of the demolition of the existing structures, includin9 a sin91e family residence, and the construction of a new facility that will include five gasoline pumps, a convenience store, and fast food services with a drive-thru restaurant (see drawings attached to the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (OTPA) as Exhibit A). The Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and issued Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 of possible environmental impacts. The project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and final approval is required by the Redevelopment Agency, Service Stations are conditional uses in all zones in the City. RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency hold the Public Hearing and approve the resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07: approving the Special Land Use Permit; and approving the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (OTPA). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed project at its meeting of February 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of the OTPA (minutes of Desi9n Review Committee are not available at this time). The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at its meeting of February 26, 1997 and recommended approval subject to conditions listed in the Agency Resolution (see Attachment 2, Planning Commission minutes). d. - ( Page 2, Item d... a. l h Meeting Date 03/18/97 The Resource Conservation Commission reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 at its meeting of March 10, 1997 and recommended its adoption to the Redevelopment Agency (minutes of Resource Conservation Commission are not available at this time). DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of two relatively level parcels totalling 30,927 sq.ft. (.71 acres) located at the southwest corner of Broadway and L Street. The southerly parcel currently contains a vacant single family residence and detached garage (this constitutes a nonconforming use within the C-T zone). The northerly corner parcel contains four gasoline pumps and an automotive service building with two service bays as well as a cashier area with limited snack shop sales. Zoninç¡ and Land Use ZONE LAND USE Site CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Automotive Service Station, Single Family Residence North CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Automotive Service Station South CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Multi-Family Residences, Automotive Battery Repair East CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Automotive Lube and Tune Services West I-L (Limited Industrial) Recreation (Roller Skateland) Proposal The proposed project consists of the removal of the existing single family residence and the demolition of existing gasoline pump stations and automotive service bays. According to the applicant, the existing residential structure has been vacant for at least two and a half years and it is currently boarded-up and in a state of disrepair. Because the structure has been abandoned as a residence and it is a non-conforming use pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, it is not subject to the replacement obligation by the Redevelopment Agency. The proposed plans call for construction of a new facility to include five gasoline pumps arranged in a linear manner along Broadway and a 3,308 sq.ft. commercial building aUhe southwest portion of the site. Parking will be provided in front of the building on its north and east sides (see site plan in Exhibit A of OTPA). Operations The new facilities will include gasoline sales, convenience store sales including the sale of beer and wine, and fast food sales including limited seating, as well as drive through services. All proposed activities will be open on a 24-hour basis (the C-T zone has no restrictions on hours of operation). c2-;Z ., Page 3, Item sl.. a. ~ b Meeting Date 03/18/97 Area allocated to the proposed uses within the 3,308 sq. ft. building is as follows: 1,300 square feet will be allocated for food preparation and customer seating for two separate fast food franchises (both of which will be operated by Texaco employees); 1,200 square feet for retail sales area; and 800 square feet for storage area. The combined fast food operations will require two employees (one for food preparation and one for cashiering) and a third employee will cashier for the gasoline and retail sales. ParkinQ Fifteen parking spaces have been provided as required for freestanding fast food facilities. However, some seating capacity has been deducted due to the allocation of parking to the retail and storage aspects of the proposed operations. Specifically, the 2,000 sq. ft. area dedicated to retail and storage uses require 7 parking spaces, and the remaining 8 spaces allocated to the fast food will be attributed to customer seating for 20 people. Traffic/Circulation Site ingress and egress will be provided via one driveway along L Street and two driveways on Broadway. Due to the intensity of uses on this site, circulation is the most significant issue related to the project. Staff was initially concerned about the amount of room provided for vehicles to maneuver past one another around the gasoline pumps. Additionally, vehicle stacking is particularly important because of the orientation of the pumps relative to Broadway. The applicant has provided a site plan depicting vehicles to scale which demonstrates that there is sufficient room for vehicles to maneuver past one another (see Exhibit A of OTPA). Further, the five gasoline pumps proposed provide capacity for ten vehicles to pump gasoline at anyone time. Sufficient room exists behind these stations for one waiting vehicle and one-way traffic between the waiting vehicle and the planter. As a result, staff believes that reasonable area has been provided and that circulation around the pumps should not be a problem. The Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed project. Both groups have recommended to approve the project subject to conditions listed in Exhibit Band the resolution. The applicant has agreed to these conditions and has incorporated some of them to the drawings shown as Exhibit A of the OTPA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration discusses possible queuing into the intersection of westbound vehicles attempting to enter the site via a left hand turn on L Street, which could also result in what the City Engineer determined as being a dangerous turning movement. As a result, a raised median will be provided to prohibit not only this maneuver, but also left hand turns by vehicles exiting the site on L Street. The applicant will also dedicate 7 feet of right-of-way along L Street and will provide a right-turn pocket along with the necessary street improvements. Impacts on Adiacent Residential Uses/ Environmental Review Automotive and (nonconforming) multi-family residential uses are located on the southerly-adjacent commercially zoned property. The multi-family uses consist of 13 units housed within one and two-unit single-story structures on the northerly and westerly portions of the property: the battery repair shop exists to the south of the units, fronting on Broadway. ;:¿- 3 ï - - - .. Page 4, Item ..s2.." f 6 Meeting Date 03/18/97 Both noise and lighting associated with this project have the potential to negatively impact the multi-family units. However, the applicant has agreed to certain conditions which should address them in an acceptable manner. These conditions include the construction of a masonry wall at the southerly property line to address noise, and the use of shielded site lighting and wall lighting at the southerly periphery. CONCLUSION: This proposal contains a new combination of uses (gas, retail, and drive-through food services) which results in more intensive activities than other service station facilities within the city. However, staff believes that the site plan functions adequately, and that sufficient measures are incorporated into the conditions to protect the adjacent residential uses. The uses on site are consistent with other uses found in the vicinity, and with the intent of the Commercial Thoroughfare zone. As a result, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions contained in the resolution as well as the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed expansion of the gas station and the introduction of additional commercial uses at the site will result in an increase in sales tax generated by the proposed project. The remodelling of the gas station and the construction of the new store and fast food restaurant will result in the re-assessment of the property which will generate additional tax increment. The existing property (land and existing improvements) is valuated at $ 605,467; the proposed project valuation (land and new improvements) is estimated at $ 958,453. The increment in valuation in the amount of $ 352,986 will result in approximately $ 3,530 of annual tax increment. Of this, 60% or $2,120 will accrue annually to the Redevelopment Agency. Staff costs generated by the processing of the Special Use Permit that will be incurred by the Redevelopment Agency are in the amount of approximately $1,290. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission of February 26, 1997 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study IS-97-07 4. Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with the following exhibits: Locator Map Exhibit A: Site, Landscape, Elevations, and Floor Plans Exhibit B: Design Review Committee Conditions of Approval Exhibit C: Engineering Department Conditions of Approval IMZT) H'IHOMEICOMMOEVISTAFF,REPIO3.1B.97ITEXA90ZB.RPT [M",h 1Z, 1997 [Z,3Bpm}] c2 -1 ., - . RESOLUTION NO. ~3 ( RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-07 AND APPROVING SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE REMODELING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 902 Broadway ("Project Site"); and, B. Project Applicant WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit SUPS-97-02 was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 7, 1 996 by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. (Applicant); and C. Project Description; Application for Conditional/Special Use Permit WHEREAS, said application requests permission to remodel an existing service station, to include the removal of existing facilities and the construction of 5 gasoline pumps and a 3,308 sq.ft. building to house retail convenience store sales and fast food services including seating and drive-through facilities, and including the construction of a raised median within the "L" Street right-of-way; and D. Resource Conservation Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission considered Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07) on February 24, 1997 and voted to accept its adequacy; and, E. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on February 26, 1997 and voted 6-0 to recommend certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-97-02; and, F. Notice of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said Special Use Permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and c2-:J .. - - Place of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. March 18, 1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on February 26, 1997 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby approves the special use permit based on the following findings and all other reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use. III. INCORPORATION OF ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES The Redevelopment Agency does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for all approvals herein granted all mitigation measures identified by the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-97-07 for the project which it has determined to be feasible in the approval of the Special Use Permit, SUPS-97-02. IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The following findings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs the issuance of special use permits. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby sets forth the evidentiary basis approval of the proposed Project: A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use provides necessary as well as desirable services in a convenient setting and location for residents of the community. It is located in a zone which is designated for activities dependent upon or catering to thoroughfare traffic, as this use does, and the upgrading of this site will be beneficial to the surrounding area as well as the city as a whole. As a result, this use at this location will contribute to the well being of the community. B. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use is located in a zone which is designed for such thoroughfare- oriented uses. The proposed project design as well as compliance with additional conditions, will ensure that potential impacts to neighboring, albeit nonconforming, residential uses are minimized. Therefore, this use will not detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. e2-Co C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use will be required to comply with all applicable code regulations as well as conditions placed upon it through this use permit. D. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The approval of this permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city. It will result in the redevelopment of a site within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area consistent with the stated goals for that project area. V. Grant of Permit The Redevelopment Agency hereby conditionally grants the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions, whereby the Applicant shall: 1. Construct the Project as described in the application, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and/or as required by the Municipal Code. 2. Comply with all conditions of approval required by the Design Review Committee (reference file DRC-97-15). 3. Construct a 7 ft. high masonry wall along the entire length of the southerly property line. Design of said wall shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 4. Shield canopy lighting to eliminate any glare onto adjacent residential uses. 5. Replace freestanding lighting at the southerly property line with wall-mounted lighting. 6. Obtain permits from the Fire Department for relocation and installation of tanks. 7. Provide one 3A 20BC Fire Extinguisher. 8. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable Building Code requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. 10. Limit fast food seating to a maximum of 20 people. Further, no more than 1,400 sq.ft. of area total may be allocated to fast food uses, inclusive of preparation and seating areas. 11. Contact the Police Department Crime Prevention Unit and arrange for a security survey and employee security training prior to opening for business. Submit proof of said survey and training prior to business license approval. cJ - 7 .. 12. Construct a raised median in the "L" Street right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13. Remove existing underground tanks and immediate contaminated soil and relocate to an appropriate repository. 14. Should queuing from the drive-through create stacking onto "L" Street, the City Engineer may require that the fast food area be decreased or that one of the fast food providers be eliminated. 15. Comply with all City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution. Any violation of City ordinances, standards, and policies, or of any condition of approval of this Special Use Permit, or of any provision of the Municipal Code, as determined by the Director of Planning, shall be grounds for revocation or modification of this Special Use Permit by the City of Chula Vista. 16. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code, Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for modification, additional conditions, or revocation. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 18th DAY OF MARCH 1997. Presented by Approved as to form by ~~, ~~~ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development !lMZTI H,\HOMEICOMMOEV\RESOS\TEXA90ZB,RES 1M"," lZ, 1997 ¡Z,ZZpmll ~-<g .. - - RESOLUTION /53.;).. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. AND MRS. ROY E. NICKERSON AND TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Roy E, Nickerson are the owners of the property located at 902 Broadway; and, WHEREAS, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. has entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Nickerson to lease said property and remodel and expand the existing service station; and, WHEREAS, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. has presented development plans for the remodelling and expansion of a service station ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and control of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed Project and issued Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 for the project in accordance with CEOA; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known as document RACO 97-02, approving the remodelling and expansion of the service station located at 902 Broadway, depicted in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits Band C of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order. determine and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEOA. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. for the remodelling and expansion of the service station at 902 Broadway, in the form presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to ,¿;2.- 9 .. - - Resolution Page 2 conditions listed in Exhibits Band C of said agreement. 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego. California. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~~,~ c:f>- Chris S omone Community Development Director ¡)-/O ., - . ATTACHMENT 1 LOCA TOR MAP .,,' ., - - - .. .-- ~ ~\=---- \ s= \, ~"\S=' \~ \~\"~\N ' 'S= \ \ REïAIL \ '.. ~ (~1I $. VI/GAS FARMERS STATION LAND PWDUCE -'€'i aLP "I:' ",WI: CANNED roOD \ SïORE \ \ IL \ CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~R1~, Texaco Refining & ø Marketing, Inc. ~?,J~, 902 Broadway SCAlE, I FILE NUMBER d -f ( NORTH .. .. - ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I -" .. ! CÕMMÏÌÑ,Ty 1J!-V¡10i'MlNi E'œ",' horn PI_" C_.,'on Mlmn" of 2/26J 1)~li¡".'!m i I~ 'c w J 1 j / SUPS-97-02; REQUEST FOR A SERVICE STÃì:tÕN-- I ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REMODEL TO INCLUDE GASOLINE SALES, CONVENIENCE STORE, AND CARRY-OUT AND DRIVE-THROUGH FAST FOOD SALES AT 902 BROADWAY, WITHIN THE C- T (THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE) - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, and noted that the applicant had concurred with the conditions. The conditions were primarily the inclusion of a wall at the southerly property line to mitigate any noise impacts, the lowering of site lighting so there would be no standards at the southerly property line glaring down at the adjacent residential. The lighting would be at or below wall level and shielded canopy lighting. Traffic impacts would be mitigated primarily through the inclusion of a median on the "L" Street right-of-way to preclude potential traffic stacking and queuing into the intersection. In response to Commissioner Thomas, Ms. Nevins noted that at the Design Review Committee meeting, a staff sketch had been provided indicating a potential change in the drive-through stacking in order to provide an area where pedestrians would not have to walk across the drive- through. Commissioner Thomas asked where the gasoline trucks would park when they were dropping their gasoline. Mr. Lee noted that the applicant could probably respond to. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was enough parking for the employees. Ms. Nevins stated there were only three employees on site at anyone time, and they had provided at least 15 parking spaces, which was the requirement for a stand-alone fast-food. In this case, the fast- food area was only a small portion of the site. This being the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alan Sipe, Tait & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230, SD 92123, answering Commissioner Thomas' previous question, showed where the tanks were located and stated that the tanker truck would exit Broadway, off-load, and then go back to Broadway. He showed the location of the fills. All off-loading would be done from the passenger side. Commissioner Thomas did not feel there would be enough room for cars to back out. Mr. Sipe stated the cars would have to pull forward and around. Regarding the number of employees, Mr. Sipe confirmed that there would be only three and described where they would be working. Commissioner Willett asked if 8' could be added to "L" Street for turning into the station. Mr. Sipe replied that the median strip itself was on the northern side of "L" Street's center line, allowing for a left-hand turn pocket going onto Broadway, two lanes going straight across ~ -( d-.. ., - - Broadway to "L" and a right-hand turn lane. Texaco was making a 7' dedication to the City for the inclusion of the right-hand turn pocket lane. Commissioner Willett suggested that the masonry wall not be a plain wall, but with a diamond- shaped projection which broke the sound travel. Also, Mr. Willett asked ifthe overhead lighting was recessed to cut the glare on the south side, Mr. Sipe stated that the canopy lighting would be shielded. Regarding the 7' high concrete block wall, the wall was planned to be planted with a vine material to help absorb the noise. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a problem with hazardous waste. Mr. Sipe replied that the tanks had been replaced 3-1/2 years ago. At that time, adequate studies had been done of the tanks that were pulled out with the original facility and replaced with new double-wall fiberglass tanks with monitoring devices. Regarding waste oil, he said it would be removed to Texaco's standards. Commissioner Ray asked if by removing the queuing for the drive-through and moving the parking stalls forward, they could add more parking on the north. Mr. Sipe felt there was not enough space for double-loaded parking at that point. Commissioner Thomas asked what type of landscaping would allow the gas trucks to be immediately next to the left-hand curb. Mr. Sipe answered that there was a planter curb which would maintain the landscaping within the planter itself and would not go into the parking lot side. Commissioner Willett suggested that the landscape concept plan reflect the changes. Mr. Sipe stated that the elimination of the low ground cover was the difference between the landscape plan and the site plan as represented in the slide. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that Attachment 6 had been prepared for Design Review which showed the representation with the parking moved clos"r to the building along the north and some of the landscaping on the west side had been pulled in front of the building to provide more effect. The Design Review Committee had asked that Texaco look at potentially providing access from Roller Skate Land through the area, either prohibiting people from coming through there or providing a safe exit from Roller Skate Land knowing children would come through that area. He commended Texaco for being extremely cooperative in responding to a lot of different concerns. Commissioner Thomas, regarding air and water facilities, asked if the location shown was the best location. Mr. Lee replied that it was not the final location, He showed the probable location, and noted that it would be discussed in detail with Texaco. Mr. Sipe noted that one extra parking space was accommodated as a result of the change, and Texaco proposed that the last three spaces--14, 15, and 16--be designated as the employee spaces, which would free them up to move the air and water to a more convenient location. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he did not see any conflict relative to the land use Issues. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ,,;)-/3 MSUC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 to approve SUPS-97-02, as presented by staff. .. - - ATTACHMENT 3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION AND INITIAL STUDY IS-97 -07 .. - . PROJECT NA.I\1E: Broadway Texaco PROJECT LOCATION: 902 Broadway ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-021-18 PROJECT APPLICANT: Texaco Refilling and Marketing, Inc. CASE NO: IS- 97-07 DATE: 12111/96 A. Project Setting The project site consists of two parcels totalling 30,927 sq.ft. and located at the southwest corner of Broadway and L Street. Existing uses include a service station with four gasoline pumps, two automotive service bays, and a cashier area with limited retail convenience sales, and an unoccupied (boarded) single family residence with detached garage. The site is zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) and is designated as Retail Commercial (CR) on the General Plan. Additionally, the site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. A service station is located across L Street to the north and an automotive oil change facility is across Broadway to the east. To the west is a recreational (rollerskating) facility; a multi-family residential comp1ex and a battery repair shop are located to the south of the site. B. Proiect DescriDtion The proposed project consists of the removal of the existing single family residence and the demolition of existing gasoline pump stations and automotive service bays, and the construction of a new facility to include five gasoline pumps arranged in a linear manner along Broadway and a 3,308 sq. ft. commercial building at the southwest portion of the site to house a cashier, convenience store sales including beer and wine, and fast food services including a drive through. Parking will be provided in front of the building facing Broadway, and across the drive-through aisle to the north of the building along L Street. All activities will take place on a 24- hour basis. Discretionary actions include approval by the Design Review Committee, Redevelopment Agency approval of a Special Use Pennit, and an Owner Participation Agreement. d- -«/ - . C. Compatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The current zoning on-site is CoT, Thoroughfare Commercial, and the site is designated for retail commercial on the General Plan. The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan as well as the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. D. Identification of Environmenta] Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chu]a Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design and/or specific mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce these effects to a level below significant. With project revisions and/or 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 ]5070 of the State CEQA Guide]ines. The following impacts are those that were determined to be potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level below significant. A discussion of each of these potentially significant but mitigatable impacts from the proposed project follows. Noise Increased noise from vehicular traffic, particularly in the drive-through area, could result in unacceptable noise impacts on the southerly-adjacent residential uses. Lighting Proposed site lighting at the southerly property line would result in glare onto adjacent residential uses/structures which have windows facing this site. Traffic Insufficient area is available for queuing from westbound traffic on "L" Street attempting to turn left into the "L" Street driveway. Aesthetics Since "L" Street is a major entry to the community, frontages along this street should be enhanced. d -( S- ï - . E. Mitigation necessarv to avoid significant effects Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial smdy for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project approval. A 7' high mo.sonry wall shall be constructed along the southerly property line. Light standards along the southerly property line will be replaced with wall-/1Wunted lighting to be located at some point below the top of the wall. A raised median will be required within the "L" Street right-at-way Enhanced landscaping will be required along the "L" Street frontage. An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist Fonn) detennined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, 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. D. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Patty Nevins, Planning Ann Pedder Pease, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdado, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Chula Vista City School District: Dee Peralta Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Allen Sipe, Tait & Associates :2.-(ç. .. - 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 3. Initial Study This environmental detennination 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation 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 pln/is9707.mnd d.-/7 .. - . Case No.IS-97-07 E1\"VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Texaco Refining & Marketing 3631 Harbor Blvd. #225 Santa Ana, CA 92704 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Allen Sipe, Tait & Associates 3665 Ruffin Road, #225 San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 278-1161 4. Name of Proposal: Broadway Texaco 5. Date of Checklist: December 11, 1996 Po.ooti,'" Po~oti"" S""6ao' Lo"th.. S'..'6an' Unl~ S'..¡6an' '0 Imp..' M'".."" Imp", Imp~,' I. LAND USE AND PL.\!'>.'NING. Would the proposal: a) CÒnflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 I81 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 0 0 I81 or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 I81 (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 I81 an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed project will be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan if a Special Use Permit is obtained. c2 - r<¡? WPC F'IHOME\PlA""lSGISTOREDU7I8.94 Page 1 ï - . P.',."oll,. P."."olly S;,.;oa., 1.<...... 5;..;0".. V."" 5;,.;0,," ,. Impo" """"" Impo" Imp", II. POPUL<l.TION Arm HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 r8I population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 ¡:;;:¡ directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 r8I housing? - Comments: One vacant single family residence will be displaced. Ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 r8I ge010gic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 r8I overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 r8I features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 r8I any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 r8I either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 r8I 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 r8I hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: Implementation of the proposed project would not create any significant geophysical impacts. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 r8I patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 r8I related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? d -(9 WPC F..\HOMElPLA""ING\STOREDU718.94 Page 2 - . P."""'" P~'.""" ""'5..., L... >h.. ",.'5..., L.,... ",.m..., ,. Imp.". """.,.d Imp..' Imp." C) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 ~ alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved m.ygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 ~ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 ~ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 ~ either through dírect additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) AJtered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 ~ groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 ~ i) AJterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 ~ waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 ~ otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Groundwater quality would not be affected through project implementation. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 181 to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) E},pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 ~ c) AJter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 ~ or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 ~ e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 ~ non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The facility will be implemented in conformance with APCD regulations to assure compliance with the Air Quality Attainment Plan. c:2 -~O WPC F,\HOME\PIAN>'ING\STOREDli718.94 Page 3 ï - . p.".li.n" P,".<i.n, 5i,.m..., c."lh.. 5i,.160..1 C.lm 51,.160'.1 ,. Imp." Mili,.". Imp,ol Imp." n TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULUION. Would the , proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ¡g¡ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ¡g¡ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ¡g¡ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 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 ¡g¡ h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: A traffic study performed by Darnell and Associates, Inc., has calculated that the project will generate 1305 average daily trips and 130 peak-hour vehicle trips. The project therefore will have not result in negative traffic impacts. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of, Ò 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g" heritage 0 0 0 181 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 ¡g¡ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ¡g¡ f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing site. No biological impacts would be created through project implementation. c;Q - ¿)., ( WPC F,IHOME'J'lANJ'o'ING'sroREDU 'IB.94 Page 4 .. - . - " Po...,;.II" Po...".lIy Si,.,O..., Lon >b.. Si,.m..., Uo'", Si,.mo.o' '0 Imp.« M"',.'od Imp.« Imp.« \1II. ENERGY AJI.'J) MINER~L RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation D D D ~ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 181 and inefficient manner? c) If the site is de~ignated for mineral resource D D D ~ protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed project will not have any impact on energy or fuel consumption. c2 - .;2. ::2... \\'Pc FoIHOMElPlA.>;!"JSG'STOREDU'18.94 Page 5 - . P.......lly P",,".II, S"...~.t Lo.. Ih.. S".,.~., U.I." S".,.~.t ,. Imp." hlm,.,.. Imp." Imp." IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental e}'plosion or release of 0 0 0 [g¡ hazardous substances (induding, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 [g¡ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181 health hazard? d) E>.posure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 [g¡ brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The project site is designated by HazMat as containing only tank and immediate soil contamination. The soil and tank must be removed and taken to an appropriate repository. The proposed project would not cause a risk of upset in the City. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 181 0 0 b) E>"Posure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 [g¡ Comments: With the e>"jJansion of existing and addition of new uses to the site, there will be some increase in noise levels. In order to address potential noise impacts upon the southerly-adjacent multiple family units, a 7' masonry wall will be constructed at the southerly property line. 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 [g¡ b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 [g¡ d) Maintenance of public facilities, induding 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project. c2-;Z3 WPc F,\HOMPJ>v,N,.'ISGISTOREDU718.94 Page 6 - Po"."oll" P"'",'oll,' s".m,,", Lon 'ho. SI,.m.o.' V"m s".m.o., ,. Impoct "I1',o'od Imp.., Impoct XII. Thresholds. WIll the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 181 City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases.- The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is one mile away and would be associated with a 7 minute or less response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The nearest fire station is one mile away and response time would be within 7 minutes; the Fire Department will therefore be able to provide an adequate level of service. The Fire Department will require permits for the removal and/or installation of tanks, and one 3A 20BC fire eXtinguisher is required. b) Police 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and 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: Due to the 24-hour nature of the proposed uses, the Police Department recommends training for all personnel regarding security and police reporting procedures, c) Traffic 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F' during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: A traffic study has been submitted and the Traffic Engineering Division has determined that a median within the "U Street right of way will be necessary to prevent queuing into the intersection. d) ParkslRecreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Parks and Recreation standards do not apply to this project. c2 - ;l.."¡ WPC F..\HOME\P!.ANJ'>1NG'SJ'OJŒDU718.94 Page 7 P,".';oll, P....<ioll, 5;,.;11".1 Lo" "0. Si,.iII".1 C."" 5;,.illoo.' ,. Imp", '!H;,o"d Imp", Impod e) Drainage 0 0 0 [81 The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Indiyjdual projects will proyjde necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Drainage capacities will not be affected by project implementation. f) Sewer 0 0 0 [81 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Indiyjdual projects will proyjde necessary improvements ccnsistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project ccmply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Sewer capacities will not be affected through project implementation. g) Water 0 0 0 [81 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are ccnstructed ccncurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project ccmply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate. in whatever water ccnservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit Issuance. Comments: Groundwater quality would not be affected through project implementation. XTI. 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 [81 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 [81 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 [81 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 [81 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 [81 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 [81 c2-=<S- WPC F,IHOME\PIANSING'STOREDm18.94 Page 8 - - P.".".II)' P",,".II, ",.m".1 u.. Ih.. ",.m"n' U.I." ",.m..., ,. Imp." MI",.t.d Imp", Imp." Comments: The proposed uses will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. CVMC Section 14,20.120 requires the incorporation of storm water pollution prevention measures into the Facility and Hazardous Materials Response Plan. XITI. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 ¡g¡ 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 ¡g¡ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 ¡g¡ effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 ¡g¡ 0 0 increase the level of s1..y glow in an area or cause this project to fail to çomply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The project could result in increased lighting spillover onto adjacent residential uses. Freestanding lighting at the southerly property line will be required to be replaced with wall- mounted lighting to eliminate glare into northerly-facing windows on adjacent residential structures. Since "L" Street is a major entry to the community, enhanced/more intensive landscaping should be utilized along this frontage. ÀìV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 ¡g¡ the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ¡g¡ aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause 0 0 0 181 a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ¡g¡ sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 181 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: There are no cultural resources within the project area. c.2 - :L (., WPC F,IHOMElPUI»'>-""G'5TOREDU718.94 Page 9 -. - .. Po....i,lI, Po...û,II,' So,.,""., Lm Oh,. S;,.'O"., ".lm 5¡",,",,", '0 Imp'rt MiOi,..., Imp", Imp'" "':V. PALEO:-'TOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 [g proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no paleontological resources within the project area. ),:VI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 [g regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 [g c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 [g plans or programs? Comments: There are no recreational facilities that will be affected by the project. ),:VII. 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 [g the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop be1ow 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: If mitigated, none of the impacts associated with the project will be considered significant and the project as a whole would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 [g short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long term environmental goals. c2-c27 WPC P,'HOMElPLA."¡""'G'STOREDm18." Page 10 - - P.".'I.II" p.".".n, 51,.1...., Lm<h,. s;,.m,.., ".1... ';g.;..... ,. Imp." M"lg...d Imp", Imp", C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 l8I 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: There are no incremental impacts associated with the project. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 l8I 0 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Drainage capacities will not be affected by project implementation. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The fallowing project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction, or operation of the project: 1) A 7' high masonry wall shall be constructed along the southerly property line. 2) Freestanding lighting at the southerly property line shall be replaced with wall-mounted lighting. 3) A raised median shall be constructed within the "L" Street right-ai-way. 4) Enhanced landscaping shall be provided along the "L" Street frontage. Project ProponentDate ,;)-;2..16 WPC F"HDMÐl'lAJo.""'INGISTOREDU7I8.94 Page tl - - E\,lRO:\~1£:'"AL FACTORS POTEl\TL\LLY 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 . Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources . Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality . Noise 0 Recreation 0 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, 0 and 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 !\'EGATIVE 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: 1) 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 Em~ronmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista ;2-29 WPC Fo\HOME\PLAAl'o'ING\STOREDU 718.94 Page t2 ATTACHMENT 4 OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH EXHIBITS A, BAND C if - - - .. - Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista,CA 91910 Attn: Alice Kemp (Space Above This Line For Recorder) APN: 618-021-18 618-021-26 OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 1902 Broadway] Mr. and Mrs. Rov E. Nickerson, Owners Texaco Refinino & Marketino. Inc.. Tenant THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as "DEVELOPER") effective as of March 18, 1997. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Design Review Committee for the remodelling of a service station and construction of a building to contain a convenient store and carry-out/drive-through fast food shop (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER presented plans for development of the Project as well as an application of a Special Land Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the plans and the Special Land Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission recommendations and has approved the Project subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said Project be implemented and completed as soon as it is practicable in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. 1 c:2 -,30 .. -. .. .. 2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 618-021- 18 and 618-021-26 located at 902 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA., shown on locator map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 3. The DEVELOPER covenants and agrees by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following: A. DEVELOPER shall develop property in accordance with the AGENCY approved development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. RACO-97-02 (SW/OTPA 97- 02). B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federal/state and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals. DEVElOPER further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees including, without limitation, City of Chula Vista sewer capacity and traffic signal fees. C. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits within one year from the date of this Agreement and to actually develop the property within one year from the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to meet these deadlines, approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect. D. In all deeds granting or conveying an interest in the property, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant fessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." E. In all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: 2 ~-3f That there shalf be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, c%r, creed, nationa! origin or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shalf the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased." 4. The property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by (a) the Design Review Committee and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and (b) the City Planning Department and Engineering Department and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. DEVELOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions. 5. DEVELOPER shall maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION, A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall, at DEVELOPER's sole cost and expense, maintain the Property which includes all improvements thereon in first class condition and repair, and in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses and other governmental authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies, bodies and courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. If the DEVELOPER fails to maintain the Property in a "first class condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on the Property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall become a lien against the Property. The Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Property and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant contributions. The Restoration shall satisfy the requirements of any sublease then in effect for the Property or improvements with respect thereto or, if no sublease is then in effect, shall be repaired or restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or destruction. C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community Development Director is empowered to make reasonable 3 ,;¿- 3d.-.. " - . determinations as to whether the Property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the DEVELOPER in writing and (2) extend a reasonable time to cure. If a cure or substantial progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized to effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the DEVELOPER. In the event that there is a dispute over whether the Property is in a first class condition or over the amount of work and expense authorized by the Director to cure, the parties agree that the City Manager or his designee, shall resolve that dispute; provided however, DEVELOPER shall have the right to appeal this decision to the AGENCY BOARD by making a written request therefor within ten (10) days of being informed of such decision. All City action to cure shall be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. In the event that the Director decides without dispute, or the City Manager decides in dispute, that the City has to cure and the amount of cure, then DEVELOPER has to reimburse the City within thirty (30) days of demand. If not reimbursed, it constitutes a lien and City is authorized to record said lien with the County Recorder, upon the Property. D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means Restoration which is necessary to keep the Property an efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists when the Project has been completed in accordance with all applicable laws and conditions. 6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval of AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement. 7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions of this Agreement may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of real property within the boundaries of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. 8. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. 9. DEVELOPER shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY and the City of Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the AGENCY arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) AGENCY's approval of this Agreement, (b) AGENCY's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Project contemplated herein, and (c) DEVELOPER's construction and operation of the Project permitted hereby. 4 ~-33 " - - - - 10, In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the obligations under this AGREEMENT that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs from the non- prevailing party. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12. To the extent DEVELOPER is comprised of more than one person or entity, each such person or entity shall be jointly and generally liable hereunder. 13. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS 5 d.-3'/ " - - - - SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS HEREOF TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "DEVELOPER" DATED: By: Roy E. Nickerson, Owner DATED: By: Mrs. Lelia I. Nickerson, Owner DATED: By: Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., Tenant NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, Agency Attorney 6 ;:¿-3S': " -. - " '.-- --- .I FARMERS LAND PRODUCE ILP CANNED FOOD \ SïORi: \ \ IL \ CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATOR À'/.%~. Texaco Refining & C) 'Marketing, Inc. ~'6lie~, 902 Broadway SCALE, I FilE NUMBER, ~-3(P NORTH .. -. -- i!~~ . . CÐ " 0 .-- ~ ;.¡ g 0 )~ ~~~! ~;.~. . I ~ ,~~î .¡¡i¡¡~ 0 0 ." ! I!¡! ~h~~ ~I 8 J ~ ¡.!! ~~ ci ~ ¡: !~I 0' ~ ~ - ~~!I ~!!!i ~;¡ i è h~ , i~¡~~ I 'I' ~! ~ ¡ ~nl §~ § ~ .. ..' CD . ~. § ~ " <! "!ì~ ~~ . ~ ... i ~Hi ; ~ - §~~~ ~~!~ '" :"'"....~ .""" ii i"'" "n" ..., ~~ 0 -" ~',~ .",' ~"""'."~,, -~ .;1 Q EDJJ I ~'""'" r ~ I ~u ' ~ I ~ ' . I IB- u -~ ~I ~d " .' ~~! ~: Ë!! , I , , , , I , Iii' &1' ...1 d), ;'" i I : I 'g . Q I I ---'"""""",."'~ I , .",~ I ~ I ~ ~III I I I HOD ~-37 i ---- ------ -------~'I1-Á"'~---------------- I , 4 .. - - )~ ." <iii: '3 .. ~~ 0 . .; .~. ê" ~h. ~~:; lí ~ ~ W ~ Z . ~ . ~~ . j j ., .' ~ .. .,' .. ~¡ '! ~~ ß . ~ ~W,",. ¡¡. ^ ~ !~ Ii C!'I~ I &1 ~§~ L .Z @ iEt E ~. d~ ¡" ~ .. ~ ~H fi< '" .~ z ~¡. '-'~I ~i ~~ ~i ~~~ ~~: d~ G= ~ §~ Ii . .s ~ I . ~"' ~" ~ ',. .8" ~ ~ .... . > > . ~~ii ; ~ ; . . ~ ; ~ (;1 ~n >~ ~ ~. J.. -3 9 W~? ::I ~. ~ ¡~ N ~ ~ d e ,; d;¡ M, .ê;¡ ~;I!i !~ 8 i ~ I! ~ '0 .. ; ~~ ;, s:' ¡ I ~~ 0 o.~ h~ '--~B Ii ~i ~ =ï e~ . . 1:5 ¡S;ì~ d.. C= i & H§. ~ II .. . CÐ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h;~ .r, .r~ ~ . .,., ; m ' , , " , @ @ @ @ . i cJ-<lO EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner IT en ant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson/Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) This approval is contingent upon the approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-97-20. b) Two 3 ft. square planted tree wells, in accordance with city standards, shall be placed in the l Street sidewalk. c) All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view. d) Both price signs shall be reduced in area to conform to Municipal Code 19.60.360. e) The freestanding price sign along l Street shall not encroach into the required 10ft. interior side yard setback for signs (19.36.040.2.f). f) The pay phone shall continue to be located in the planting area adjacent to the public right- of-way. g) A water management plan consistent with the City landscape Manual shall be submitted for approval at the building permit review stage. h) The height of Washinatonia robusta at installation shall be a minimum of 8 ft. to 10ft. brown trunk height (BTH). i) The applicant shall assist staff in developing conditions to be included in the Owner Participation Agreement which will ensure wearability and ease of maintenance of the wall panels. j) A pedestrian link with the neighboring parcel to the west shall be provided for and a concept developed for staff review and approval. Any fencing used to separate the parcels shall be of decorative wrought iron. The property Owners/Tenants/Applicants shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property Owners/Tenants/Applicants have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded, as part of the Owner Participation Agreement to which it is attached and a part thereof, with the Clerk of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency with a copy to the Community Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property owners' /Tenants' /Applicants' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. SIGNATURE PAGE FOllOWS cJ-cf/ EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval OwnerlTenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. NickersonlTexaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE Owner Mr. Roy E. Nickerson Date Owner Mrs. Lelia I. Nickerson Date Tenant/Applicant Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. Date c2-cf-~ Exhibit C Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson/Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The following fees may be required under the authority of the Municipal Code in conjunction with a building permit: a. Sewer Capacity Fees b. Traffic Signal Fee due to the change of use. c. Dedication of seven feet of right-of-way along "L" Street frontage. 2. Public improvement requirements may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Monolithic curb, gutter and 8-foot-wide sidewalk. b. Commercial driveways in accordance with City standards. c. Street widening with asphaltic concrete and base. d. Raised median along "L" Street frontage. 3. The Traffic Engineering Section may request a Traffic Signal Modification plan. 4. Mitigating street improvements may be required by the Traffic Impact Analysis, which will be required for the project, The applicant is to be advised that the requirements and fees included herein may be amended at the time his/her development takes place and/or a building permit is applied for, based upon final plans submitted for building permits. This response is based solely on the plans that were submitted for our review. The property Owners/Tenants/Applicants shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property Owners/Tenants/Applicants have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded, as part of the Owner Participation Agreement to which it is attached and a part thereof, with the Clerk of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency with a copy to the Community Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property owners' /Tenants' /Applicants' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. :2-4-3 Exhibit C Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson/Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE Owner Mr. Roy E. Nickerson Date Owner Mrs. Lelia I. Nickerson Date Tenant/Applicant Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. Date r"Œ'M"","X>"','=A~"O'" c1 -4c./ - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ...3 0-. ~{ b , Meeting Date 03/18/97 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: To consider granting a Special Use Permit, SUPS-96-02, to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street In the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone a) RESOLUTION 1&'33 Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-96-13 and granting a Special Use Permit for the construction and operation of an Automobile Body Repair and Detailing Facility to be Located at 2952 Main Street b) RESOLUTION IS ð-ý Approving an Owner Participation Agreement with Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Brambila for the construction and operation of an Automobile Body Repair and Detailing Facility to be Located at 2952 Main Street SUBMITTED BY: . . [~, Community Developmen~or - Director of Planning I ~ REVIEWED BY: ,..,,'", D;""'.:.ÞI ~ð~l (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No..X..! BACKGROUND: The Applicant is proposing to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street (see Locator Map, Attachment 1). The proposal is for a phased project consisting of the construction of 2.492 sq.ft. in the first phase and 1,331 sq.ft. in the second phase. A 696 sq.ft. structure already exists on the parcel. The proposed auto body shop is a conditional use in the IL Zone. Since the project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area, final approval of the project is required by the Redevelopment Agency. An Initial Study, IS..96-13, was completed on this project which resulted in the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-13, and approve the Special Land Use Permit and the Owner Participation Agreement (Attachment 3). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Resource Conservation Commission considered this project on February 26, 1996 and voted 5-0 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-96-13. Minutes are included as Attachment 4. 2. The Design Review Committee considered and approved the design application, DRC-96- 25, for this Project on December 9, 1996 by a vote of 3-0-2 (two absent). On February 3, 1997 the Design Review Committee approved the phasing plan for the Project by a vote 3 - ( 'I . - - - Page 2, Item .:2.. Gl f b Meeting Date 03/18/97 of 5-0. The minutes of the 12/9/96 meeting are included in Attachment 4. The minutes of 2/3/97 are not available. 3. The Planning Commission considered this project on February 12, 1997 and voted 5-0 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the application to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street subject to conditions listed in the Agency's resolution of approval. Draft minutes are attached as Attachment 4, 4. A Public Forum was held by city staff and the applicant on Thursday, March 6, 1997 to address concerns expressed by some residents. Their concerns are addressed beginning in page 3 of this report. DISCUSSION: At the Planning Commission public hearing, a number of area residents spoke in opposition to the project. Because of the concerns raised by those opposed to the project, the Applicant and staff organized a public forum, held on March 6, 1997 at Montgomery Elementary School. Approximately ten area residents attended. After a brief project description, there was a lengthy discussion of the issues, These issues are discussed and results are listed under item #4 below. 1. Site Characteristics: The 19,250 sq.ft. site is occupied by a 696 sq.ft. modular structure and paving for parking. A truck rental business currently operates from this site. 2. ZoninQ and Land Use: GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT LAND USE Site R&LI IL-P Vacant/Truck Rental North LIM Res. R2-P Multi-Family Residential South R&LI IL-P Agriculture/Strawberry Fields East R&LI IL-P Multi-Family Residential West R&LI IL-P Multi-Family Residential/Used Car Sales The Zoning Ordinance lists the proposed land use as a conditional use in the IL (Limited Industrial) Zone. The Montgomery Specific Plan follows the lead of the Zoning Ordinance for this land use, but encourages new development where possible. In this case, the Applicant is proposing the construction of a 3,800 sq.ft. building which will enhance the area. 3. Proposal: The Applicant is requesting permission to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop in the IL-P Zone at 2952 Main Street. Although there will be a retail component to the proposed use, most vehicles will come from wholesalers of used automobiles which need minor body repair work and detailing. These 3- ;;L Page 3, Item ..3 a. ~ b Meeting Date 03/18/97 autos are then returned to the wholesaler for auctioning. (See development plans shown as Exhibit A of the OPA.) Day-to-day operations of this facility, as described by the Applicant, does not include painting of vehicles other than very minor touch-up with small aerosol spray paint. No large amounts of solvents, paints or other chemicals normally associated with auto paint shops will be found on-site. In addition, the day-to-day operations does not include any type of engine repair, oil change or other major or minor auto work. The proposed use is for the replacement of body parts and detailing of the almost ready-to-sell auto. As approved by the Design Review Committee, the building is proposed to be constructed over a period of time in two phases. The first phase will add 2,492 sq.ft. to the already existing 696 sq.ft. of a smaller modular structure. The new building will consist of five work bays along the northern property line, except for the northeast corner which is phase two, while the existing modular structure will be used as office space. In the second phase, an additional 1,331 sq.ft. will be constructed and will be used as another work bay and some retail. 4. Plannino Commission Public HearinolPublic Forum: Several issues were voiced by project opponents at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. These issues were considered and further discussed at a public forum held for area residents on March 6, 1997 at Montgomery Elementary School. Each of these issues is listed below with the response: a. Property values will decrease. Response: The Planning Department has no specific information related to this issue as this is not a land use or environmental issue. It should be noted, however, that this project is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area, and had to go through the design review process. Additionally, the site is currently under- developed, and therefore, the project will provide for build-out of the site. As a result it is the Community Development Department's and Planning Departments's opinion that this project will enhance a physically deteriorated part of the City. b. The project will cause noise pollution. Response: The Applicant's proposed hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday coincide with normal working hours. Therefore, there will not be additional noise at night. The Applicant's proposed hours for Saturdays are 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The facility will be closed on Sundays. This facility must conform to the regulations in the performance standards and noise control sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation will subject the use permit to revocation. In addition, through the design review process, the building will be placed at the rear property line. The northerly-most eighteen foot high wall will act as a noise buffer. There will be no access off of the alley to this business. 3 -3 "I - - - " Page 4, Item d.. <L i j, Meeting Date 03/18/97 c. The project will cause traffic congestion which would hinder access to residential streets and the alley. Response: Access to the facility will be limited to Main Street. There will be no access to the site from the alley as the wall along the northern property line will run the length of the property line. In addition, the Engineering Department stated that after Phase II is completed, the street will operate at Level of Service (LOS) B, which means that traffic will flow at a smoother rate than the General Plan standard of LOS C. Upon completion ofthe Main Street reconstruction project, the street will operate at LOS A, even with this project in full operation. Finally, the Applicant is required to dedicate a thirteen foot right-of-way along Main Street, install a raised concrete median and install one street light at the westerly property line. Implementation of these improvements will provide satisfactory traffic service by complying with four lane major standards at ultimate build out. d. Increase in trash being left in the alley. Response: This facility will not have access to the alley and therefore will not dispose of trash there. A trash enclosure is included in the project's design. All trash collection will be from Main Street. e. Chemical fumes and paint residue will affect residents. Response: According to the Applicant, there will be no paint booth on-site, nor is a paint booth allowed under the special use permit applied for by the Applicant. In addition, there will not be any chemicals be used for painting by the Applicant as is commonly found at auto body paint shops. The Applicant has stated that any painting that takes place at this location will be for touch-up and detailing purposes. All city, state and federal code requirements and regulations regarding chemicals must be met by the Applicant, even for the small amounts anticipated to be at this facility. This is enforced by the Fire Department and is not optional for the Applicant. The Special Use Permit resolution approving the project includes a condition that painting will be prohibited on the site. f, Increase in vandalism and crime. Response: As a result of review of the project by the Police Department, the following condition is included in the resolution of approval: "H. Schedule a security survey with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department and implement any suggestions resulting therefrom to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police." The Police Department, in the environmental review, also recommended that lighting be sufficient to allow visibility of the property by patrol officers. The Applicant is proposing adequate lighting. 3-~ .. - - Page 5, Item .3,. ¥ b Meeting Date 03/18/97 The Police Department will be able to provide an adequate level of service for this site. It is staff's opinion that the foregoing will preclude any increase in crime and will enhance the security of the proposed facility. g. The alley will be closed. Response: The alley will not be closed as a result of this project. What is stressed is that this facility will not have access to the alley, therefore, no vehicles or persons will be entering or exiting the property from the alley. This facility will be completely cut off from the alley, thus giving the residents more privacy from Main Street than now exists. h. The building will block air flow and sunlight. Response: The building has been approved at 18 feet in height, which is within Zoning Ordinance requirements for the IL Zone. Air circulation will not be cut off because there will be spaces between the new building and the buildings to the east and west of it, thus allowing air to circulate around it. i. The 18 foot high wall will be a target for tagging and graffiti. Response: The northern-most wall will be treated with a special compound that is resistant to paint and easy to clean. This method has been used for several years and is an effective means to combat graffiti. The treating of the rear wall with this special compound was placed as a condition of approval by the Design Review Committee. 5. Analvsis: The proposed project is consistent in character with other land uses along the Main Street corridor. Several other auto-related facilities exist both to the east and west of the subject site and were in existence at the time of annexation of the Montgomery Community in 1985. In addition, the applicant is proposing to substantially upgrade the property by constructing new facilities where none currently exist. This investment is seen as a positive contribution to the redevelopment efforts going on in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Being a part of the Otay sub-community, this project is subject to the provisions of the Montgomery Specific Plan. It is supported by the following goal listed in that Plan, specifically: "10. Revitalization of the obsolescent, redundant, or declining areas of the community through a private-sector/public sector partnership, and a balanced program of conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment." By working with the Applicant, a business enterprise will be established which redevelops a declining area." By its nature as new construction which will upgrade the site and the general area, this project is revitalizing a declining area of the community and is introducing a light industrial development along the Main Street corridor. 3-5" ., - . Page 6, Item ..3 a.. f b Meeting Date 03/18/97 This area is also governed by the provision of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. The Project is further supported by the following goals from that Plan: "Creation of physical buffers which ameliorate the adverse effects of changing land uses along interfaces." Given the required buffers vis-a-vis walls and landscaping, this goal is met. "Elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and to conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and future Annual Work Programs." At present, the site contains a modular building and is underutilized as a piece of land zoned for limited industrial land uses. The construction of a facility which has received design review approval will work against the spread of blight and deterioration. "Provision for the enhancement and renovation of businesses within the Project Area to promote their economic viability." With the approval of this project, the Project site will be enhanced and a new business introduced into the area which is superior to that now existing on-site. 6. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, staff has concluded that the Project, as proposed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee, the Resource Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission, should be approved, and is therefore recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed incremental project valuation is estimated at $250,000 which will generate tax increment revenues in the amount of approximately $2,500. Of this, 60% or $1,500 will accrue to the Redevelopment Agency. Sales tax revenues will be generated by the establishment of the commercial use at this site. There are no costs to the City or Agency other than staff costs which have been absorbed by the Southwest Redevelopment area. Staff costs generated by the processing of the Special Use Permit that will be incurred by the Redevelopment Agency are in the amount of approximately $3.400. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map 2. IS-96-13/Negative Declaration 3. Owner Participation Agreement and Exhibits A, 8, C to OrA 4. RCC Minutes of 2/26/96, DRC Minutes of 12/9/96 and PC Minutes of 2/12/97 IM2TI H,\HOMElCOMMDEV\STAFF.REPlO3.18.97\9602A.113 1M"," 12, 199712,l1pm)] 3-C'o ., - . RESOLUTION NO. / .j~3 3 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUES FOR IS-96-13 AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR AND DETAILING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2952 MAIN STREET I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 2952 Main Street (APN's 623-172-13 & 23H"Project Site"); and, B. Project Applicant WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Plannin9 Department on December 6, 1995 by Mrs. Mercedes Brambila (Applicant); and C. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop in the IL-P Zone at 2952 Main Street; and D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on February 12, 1997 and, after taking testimony from those present, closed the public hearing, after which they voted 5-0 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-96-02; and E. Notice of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said special use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing; and .3-7 F. Place of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely March 18, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. 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 does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on February 12, 1997 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby approves Special Use Permit SUPS-96-02 based on the following findings and all other reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Redevelopment Agency approves the Negative Declaration issued on IS-96-13 and the Addendum related thereto. IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The following findings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs the issuance of special use permits, The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista is able to make findings in support of the Project as required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth the evidentiary basis for approval of the proposed Project: 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 automobile body repair and detailing shop provides for the repair and upkeep of the automobiles or the residents of the City of Chula Vista and represents a land use consistent with the community. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The automobile body repair and detailing shop presents a neat, well ordered appearance and will be separated from nearby residents by appropriately designed walls and landscaping and will not result in impacts which would adversely affect humans or surrounding properties, 3 -?! .. -. - - 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed automobile body repair and detailing shop will comply with the applicable conditions, codes and regulations for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The Project Site is located in the Otay subcommunity of the Montgomery Community and implements the applicable goals and policies of that plan introducing a superior development to the area. In addition, the Project implements the goals and policies of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan by allowing a business enterprise into a blighted area. V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Permit SUPS-96-02 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: A. Operate the Project as submitted to and approved by the Agency, except as modified herein and/or as required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the project description. B. Comply with all conditions of approval pursuant to DRC-96-25 or as otherwise modified herein. C. Comply with all Project requirements as incorporated into the project description of Initial Study IS-96-13. D. Not allow any inoperable vehicle, as defined by the State of California, to be stored on the Project Site. E. Not allow the sale of any new or used vehicle from the Project Site. F. Not operate an auto body paint shop at this location. G. In conjunction with the issuance of any building permit under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: 1. Procure a Construction Permit for any work performed in the public right-of- way, which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: a. Curb, gutter, sidewalk (eight feet wide); b. A.C. paving and base to widen street to forty-one (41) feet half- width; c. Street light; d. Driveway approach (alley type); e. Street light (250W, HPSV); and .3 - c¡ .. - . f, One-half of raised concrete median (installation of the portion of the median can be deferred until the entire median project is accomplished). 2. Pay sewer, traffic signal and development impact fees, 3. Procure a Grading Permit, if the exemptions in the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended, are not met. 4. Underground all utilities on-site. 5. Dedicate thirteen (13) feet of subject parcel for street right-of-way purposes along the Main Street frontage. H. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. I. Schedule a security survey with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department and implement any suggestions resulting therefrom to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. J. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council/Agency members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "Iiabilities") incurred by the City/Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicants' operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicants shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Special Use Permit where indicated below. Applicants' compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Special Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicants' successors and assigns. K. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City/Agency shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City/Agency has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City/Agency, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. L. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 1 9.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. .5-(0 'I -. - " M. Execute the attached Agreement (Attachment "A") indicating that you have read, understood and agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. N. Comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, requirements, rules and policies, and obtain and comply with all necessary permits for the Project from each respective level of government, as applicable. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 18th DAY OF MARCH 1997. Presented by Approved as to form by (DÁ-~ ' Chris Salomone Director of Community Development IIMMI H,IHOMEICOMMOEVIRESOSI9602RA.RES 1M"," 12, 1997 ",34pm)] .3-/! .. - - - " RESOLUTION 1~-3ef RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. AND MRS. MANUEL BRAMBILA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR AND DETAILING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2952 MAIN STREET WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Brambila are the owners of the property located at 2952 Main Street; and, WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Brambila have presented development plans for the construction and operation of an auto body repair and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and control of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and issued Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-13 for the project in accordance with CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner Participation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known as document RACO 97-03, approving the construction of an automobile body repair and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street, depicted in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits Band C of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-13 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEOA. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Owner Participation Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Brambila for the construction of an automobile body repair and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street, in the form presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits Band C of said agreement. ..3 -I;)., - - Resolution Page 2 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Brambila. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, California. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gk'~ ~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director $-(,3 - - ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATOR MAP , , , , , , I I I -n ~ MONTGOMERY I' ~ ELEMENTARY I SCHOOL ~ m Z C MONTGOMERY STREET m MHP MF&SFRESIDENCES ZENITH STREET MF & SF RESIDENCES I IND I ~D ~ AUTO MEX SALES PRODUCE IVIAIN STREET - VACANT AGRICULTURAL STORAGE STRAWBERRY FIELDS BUILDINGS I ILP I I i CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Brambila I Pacific Bay AulD PROJECT DESCRIrnON, Œ) APPUCAI,m , SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 2952 Main Street .. ADORESS: ' Request: Proposal lor an aulo body and detailing shop. SCALE, I FILE NUMBE", . I L NORTH No Scale SUP5-96-02 ...3 -( '-t n: \shared\planning\corl Ds\maps\sups9602 .cdr 2/20/97 ATTACHMENT 2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 18-96-13 ., - . negative declaration PROJECT NAME: PACIFIC BAY AUTO BROKERS PROJECT LOCATION: 2952 Main Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 623-172-13/23 PROJECT APPLICANT: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers CASE NO: IS-96-13 DATE: February 5, 1996 A. Project Setting The project site is an existing 19,250 square foot lot located at 2952 Main Street. The site includes an existing 696 square foot, one-story structure. There is one access point on Main Street. The average graded slope of the site is 0.8 %. The maximum graded slope of the site is 1.0%. On-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the project. Multi-family dwellings are located to the north, east and west of the site. There is agricultural land located to the south where strawberries are grown. B. Project Description Phase I of the project is the addition of a 2,355 s. f. auto garage on the northwest corner of the site to a 636 s. f. existing office building. Phase II will be located on the northeast corner of the site and "'(ill be the addition of a 1,200 s. f. auto garage. There will be 9 on-site parking spaces 'provided. The applicant will be required to incorporate a Storm Water Pollution Prevention measures (SWPPP) into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan. School impact fees and a soils report are required prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, the disabled parking space needs to be located at the closest main entry of existing structure. The discretionary actions include: the design approval by the Design Review Committee, a Variance regarding a change in setback from 50 feet to a feet and a Special Land Use Permit. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The current zoning on-site is ILP (Limited Industrial-subject to a Precise Plan) and the site is designated IL.(Limited Industrial). The project is within the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. ~{~ .3 -IS" ~~-: - - city of chula Ylsta planning department. CJn' OF enYlronmental reyle. .ectlon. OiUlA VISTA .. -. - .. D. Identification of Environment2! Effects Traffic At this time, primary roads are not adequate to serve the project site. Main Street is missing street improvements and a 13-foot right-of-way dedication along the Main Street frontage is needed.' Street widening, an 8-foot sidewalk at 41 feet from centerline and curb and gutter paving is also required. In addition, a raised concrete median and installation of one 250 wattHPSV street light at the westerly property line is needed. Implement2tion of these public improvements will provide satisfactory traffic service by complying with four-lane major st2ndards at ultimate street design st2ndards. At current street widths, after Phase II is completed, the street will operate at Level of Service (LOS) "B". However, upon completion of the Main Street Reconstruction Project the street will operate at LOS" A".. Fire Department The Initial Study has noted that the following project modifications must be performed in order to adequately comply with Fire Department st2ndards: . Fire flow on-site is required at 1,500 GPM . One on-site fIre hydrant will be required . Striping will be required with the words "No Parking-Fire Lane" along the Fire Department wide access road area The nearest Fire St2tion is located 3 miles away. Average response time to the site would be 4-5 minutes. The Fire Department will be able to provide adequate protection to the site without an increase in personnel or equipment. Police Department The Police Department proposes the following security suggestions: . A security evaluation of the site prior to completion of the project is recommended . Extra steps should be taken to reinforce sliding glass door which leads from the outside to the main office . Lighting should be sufficient to allow visibility of the property by patrol officers The Police Department will be able to provide an adequate level of service for this proposed site with no expected increase in personnel or equipment. (M,'J,o"..\p]~¡"Ik.~"",d~pb.) "102 ,.3-fc' -. - .. Additional Requirements Per Section 14.20.120 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, applicant must incorporate Stonn Water Pollution Prevention measures into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan, which is required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. E. Mitigation necessarY to avoid si!!nificant effects The proposed project will not result any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is be required. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Keith Barr, Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Ann Pedder Pease, Planning 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 Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson SweetWater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Creative Design Group 2. Documents Chula Visla General Plan (1989) and E1R (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code (M..\hom,\pl~¡'g"""""",d~.pb.) ,.." ...3-/Î 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 infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~@/ ENVIR ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR (M..Ihom,\pI~¡'g\k"m..".d,,-pb.) P'II" ..3-lff Case No.IS-96-13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2952 Main Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 4. Name of Proposal: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers 5. Date of Checklist: February 3, 1996 Potmtlally Potmtlally Significant """ than Significant Unl", SIgnIficant No Impact MItigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANr\'1NG. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 ~ plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 ~ (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0 ~ of an established co=unity (including a low-income or minority co=unity)? J-/'1 Pot,ntl.lI,. POl<ntl.lI,. SlgnlC"nt 1-= th.n SlgnIC,=t Un]= SlgnlC"nt 1<0 Impac' Mitigated lmpac' Imp." Comments: The project will be consistent with existing General Plan designations of IL (Limited Industrial) and wiling of ILP (Limited Industrial with a Precise Plan modifier) with the granting of a Variance, Special Use Permit and Design Review. The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or D D D 181 local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either D D D 181 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially D D D 181 affordable housing? Comments: The project is the construction of two auto garages and would not exceed growth forecasts, nor induce growth either locally or City-wide, as the project site does not contain any existing housing. ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in D D D 181 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or D D D 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface D D D 181 relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification D D D 181 of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of D D D 181 soils, either on or off the site? t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach D D D 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? ....3 - c2. 0 POlenllall) Pot,nllall) Signifioant L= than Signifi,ant Unl= Signlfi,ant "0 Imp'" Mltlg""'¡ Imp"t Imp"t g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 [81 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Co=ents: The project would require some on-site grading but would not create any landform hazards or modifications. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 [81 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 [81 related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 [81 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 [81 any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 [81 direction of water movements, in either marine or fiesh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 [81 either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered dirèction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 [81 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 [81 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 [81 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 [81 water otherwise available for public water supplies? ..3-óLl Potonllall) Pot,nllall)' Signifioant L= than Signifioan! Unl= Sicnifioan! 1<0 Impact MitiC"od Impact Imp"! Comments: Prior to the issuance of a building pennit, applicant must incorporate Stonn Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) measures into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan, which is required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 181 contribute to' an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 181 temperature, 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 0 0 0 181 or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: Air quality would not be affected by this project. VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 0 0 181 congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features 0 0 0 181 (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby use~? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 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 ~ J-c2 ~ (M,\bo=\planni"lkd<h"""""" "".. ï -. - " P"tonli,lI)' P"tontl,lIy Slgnl""n, Us. ,h,n Signi""n' Vnl", Signl"""" "" Impac' Milig",d Imp", Imp", h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 t1i1 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: This project is expected to generate 80 trips per day. At current street widths, after Phase II is completed, the street will operate at Level of Service (LOS) "B". However, upon completion of the Main Street Reconstruction Project, the street will operate at LOS "A". This total would not exceed current "LOS" levels and therefore would not effect traffic service. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacls to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 t1i1 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 t1i1 trees)? c) Locally designated natural co=unities 0 0 0 t1i1 (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) -Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 t1i1 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 t1i1 f) Affect regional habitat preservation 0 0 0 t1i1 planning efforts? Comments: The project site is previously developed and in an urbanized area of the city. There are no endangered biological species on this project site. No biological concerns are present at this time. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 t1i1 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 t1i1 and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral 0 0 0 t1i1 resource protection, will this project impact this protection? J-cJ...3 (M'\hom'\pWmin,""i~\okJ......) "'"' ., -. - - POl<n",II,. Pot,n".II,. Significant Le~th= Signifi,=t Unl", Signifi,=t "0 Imp.« Mltlgatod Imp.« Imp'" Comments: Site is not designated for mineral resource protection and there will be no energy conservation conflicts. IX. HAZARDS. Would lhe proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ~ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 ~ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 ~ potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased flIe hazard in areas with 0 0 ,0 ~ flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed plan would not cause a risk of upset in the City. The project would not release toxic or hazardous material into the environment during upset conditions. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: Noise levels are not expected to increase with implementation of this project. 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 ~ b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ~ c) Schools? 0 0 0 ~ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 ~ roads? .3 -.,2 '-/ (M,\hom,\p-...Ikt¡~\åJOt.pba) "'" Pot,ntially Pot,ntlally 5I"",",=t 1.=lh= Signifi'=t Unl"" Slgnifi,=' 1<0 Imp", MI"~a',d Imp'" Imp'ct e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 tE:I Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely 0 0 0 tE:I imparl the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 ~. The Threshold Standards requires that fITe 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 fITe station is 3.0 miles away and would be associated with a 4-5 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department will require the following improvements to the project site: . Fire flow on-site is required at 1,500 GPM . One on-site fITe hydrant will be required . Stripping will be required with the words "No Parking-Fire Lane" along the Fire Department wide access road area The Fire Department can adequately deliver service to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. b) Police 0 0 0 ~ The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10 % of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls. -3 -~ S- (M,\hom,IpI~ln,\"d~\álw.p") "',' Potcntiall,. P",nti.lI,. 5I"nifi,=' Lc.. Ih.n SignlOcan, Vnl"" Significant ';0 Imp"" ~m;g.ted Imp",t Impact Comments: . A security evaluation of the site prior to completion of the project is recommended . Extra steps should be taken to enforce sliding glass door which leads from the outside to the main office . Lighting should be sufficient to allow visibility of the property by patrol officers The Police Department will be able to provide an adequate level of service for this proposed site with no expected increase in personnel or equipment. c) Traffic 0 0 t81 0 The Threshold Standards require that all intersectÌons must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: At this time, primary roads are not adequate to serve the project site. Main Street is missing street improvements and a 13-foot right-of-way dedication along the Main Street frontage is needed. Street widening, an 8-foot sidewalk at 41 feet from centerline and curb and gutter paving is also required. In addition, a raised concrete median and installation of one 250 watt HPSV street light at the westerly property line is needed. Implementation of these public improvements will provide satisfactory traffic service by complying with four-lane major standards at ultimate street design standards. d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 t81 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation does not apply to this project. e) Drainage 0 0 0 t81 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 Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. f) Sewer 0 0 0 ~ ...3-.;¿4> (M,lhomclplumi...\kclili\cldIn.",,) ,..." - . PU""""')' P""""",, 5'."'°'=1 L=th." 51."'°'=1 Unl", SI",,'O""I K. Imp,,' Miligatod Impact Impact The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 0 0 0 ~ 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 permit issuance. 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 ~ b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ~ distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~ e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 ~ f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: The proposed street improvements will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: ...3-.,¿f (M,\ho~\plu"I".\k""""'J"'p"') pog" P,",!i,II,. Po',,!i,Il,. Slgn;fi",,' L= ,h,n Signm"", Unl", S;gnifi"", "0 Imp'" Mltlc,ted Imp'" lmp'" a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 t8] the 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 t8] scenic route? . c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 t8] effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 t8] 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) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 t8] Co=ents: There are no scenic vistas or views in the vicinity of the site that will be affected by project implementation. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 t8] or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 t8] or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 t8] cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 t8] or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 t8] Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Co=ents: The site is not in an area of high potential for archeological resources. This site has been disturbed as a result of previous building. The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on archeological resources. .3 - ,;2.J? (M,lhorn","""I"""""""",-,b» "..,10 I -. - - PolonO,lIy POlonO,II)' SI,nIO,=t Us, th,n SlgniO,=t Unl"" Sign,",.nt "0 Imp", MiOg,t,d Imp"t Imp", X'VI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will 0 0 0 ~ the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: Due to the fact that the ,site has been previously 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. XVII. RECREATION; Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~ c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ~ plans or programs? Comments: This project will not create any new demands on recreation facilities. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an ErR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ 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? Comments: None of the impacts associated with the project are considered significant and the project as a whole would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources. b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 3-c2'1 "',\hom,Ip""""'."',"h""""-,..) """1 ., - - - - Po',,'I,II,. Po'oott.lI,. 51001""",' '^'" th.o Slgnl""o' Uoles< Slgnl""o' ';0 Imp." MItIO.',d Imp", Imp'" Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any short term or long term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are D D D ~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: All impácts, 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. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 r8I . which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of sufficient scope 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 Urness Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and PlaIU1Ìng t:I Transportation/Circulation 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 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...3-3.0 (M,lhomo.."""I"""I.""'w.p,,,> ""012 ., -. - - DETERMINATIOX: 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 D 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 filld 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 IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. rfJA-, l øv 2hh, Signamre d Date'" I Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista .3 -.3. ( (M,\homolp"""¡o,\ko;m\cldln.pb~ "'013 .. - . APPLICATION Ciu"-<'NOT BE :CEPTED UJ\'LESS SITE For Office Usq Ç>nJy PLA.N'IS FOLDED TO ill ll><TO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER Case No. IS;; lr.'i5 'DpsLAmnL 1(J(~;[)l) Re&ipt.Nò: 147 t3~h INITIAL STUDY Date Rec'd.I:J",(;,~ð -¡:. q/v - D7;;l Accepted. bY/',;a I'fá£ City of Chula Vista Ptöjec:(.!j();.FA"."OO/Ji Application Fonn ..êIk~~~i~~~5Ü ' A. BACKGROUND R-êlã'" ProjectTitle,"'-,.. r,o/Ior. 8c,-<., t<,/,f..r. £. ,J/<-Pr <: 1J')æ;¡, L 2. I-' I' ¡;¡.9S¿;;¡ /l/,j:J/¡¡) ~ Proj~t Locanon (Street address or description) r/7/};;'~ ¿l1:s. \"" «Ä.- ¿¡17ft Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. C;;;';;;>3-/"?:;J..-1'=>'.;..,j <::.~ 3, Brief Project Description Drqp--.õc> cÁ 'Z.~O S. f. A;,~ ldwiACL Ph-,\{" 1:.. . iGq ~ -\-¡' 4 -\-0 Á.i Cß 5'. p-, ~~>í(o Gff\ú1..- f:uy" 4 AYJI)\ mAL. i(2.c)O 5;:'. r- AI! (òv~ f'J.1rtx.- u.. ~\Lt ~/"/) ~ '1'./' :1.4.{: ¡ - 4. Name of Applicant flf\c.\~\(.. pl\Y.' ,ÅJtc 5~~_.. Address 2c-1t;;:>- fJ1f'rt¡4 sf -, Fax# "Phone t.. -. ~ ~ City 0,\\ il/f\ -IJ\ <;;1i~ C;.,. tr¡t '1/ ,. - State CA- - Zip -' 5. Name of Preparer/Agent C(e.rTttUù Q.SIÚ'?~ CDrciJf' (:),c...,) . Address~?:> ~ M S~¿ 1) Fax# Phone --f2 '2..-(c.,'~r)--. City C.\}. State CA. Zip c:¡ ~C1 (I Relation to Applicant Ad~'\ 6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. \'1 )..":.0 a. Pennits or approvals required. - General Plan Amendment :f::..- Design Review Application - Specific Plan Rezone/Prezone - Tentative SuM Map Conditional Use Pemùt - Grading Pemùt _Redevelopment Agency OPA ...}6, Variance - Tentative Parcel Map - Redevelopment Agency DDA - Coastal Development Site Plan & Arch. Review - Public Project -X. Other Pennit . v-d. - Special Use Pemùt - Annexation "::,.~Q(¡..Q".. lJ! \:\~ ~ W\\ +- . If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b- Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). - Grading Plan Arch. Elevations - Hydrological Study - Parcel Map '>- Landscape Plans ----'- Biological Study Precise Plan - Tentative SuM Map - Archaeological Study = Specific Plan -===- Improvement Plans Noise Assessment - Traffic Impact Report - Soils Report = Other Agency Pennit - Hazardous Waste Assessment - Geotechrúcal Report .;;/- Other <;~ ~ ...3 -3J- Wl'Cr,\!JOMJN'!.ANNING\STOIŒ[tJO21.,&.93 (Rd. lO!W.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 1 7. Indicate other applications for permits or approvals that are lXoillg submitted at this time. a. Permits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment "'A. Design Review Application - Specific Plan - Rezone!Prezone - Tentative Sub<!. Map - Conditional Use Permit > 1 - Grading Permit - Redevelopment Agency OPA Variance - Tentative Parcel Map - Redevelopment Agency DDA - Coastal Development Site Plan & Arch. Review - Public Project ),..., Other Permit J.. - Special Use Permit - Annexation --.,- ~ ~.QU~ V-II. .~ B. PROPOSED PROJECT f~\<\lt. 1. a. Land Area: square footage \~ :tV¡O or acreage Þ If land area to be dedicated, state' acreage and purpose. b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be utilized? r¿ '(\.Q", 'O.\\\~\¥,,' i')\"Y.I.~~ f- 1.,?;oDS..t, '\JM~\,~S;'r' ' 2. Complete this section if projei-¡ is residential or mixed use. a. Type of development:- Single Family - Two Family - Multi Family - Townhouse - Condomini~ b. Total number of structures -- c. Maximum height of structures ---..:....-. . d. Number of Units: I bedroom - 2 bedroom - 3 bedroom - 4 bedroom - Total Units - e. Gross density CDU/total acres) f. Net density CDU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j- Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. a. b- c. 3-33 WPC:F'.\IIOMlN'LANNIN~Oll-A.93 (Ro!. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 2 d. Describe major access points to the structures and the li.¡entation to adjoining properues /}.. VL-\ J¿. w 1-,-/\ <. o\(cdL..., 1 and streets ~ \\111..-\ llÎ ~Î ntAwl "','\-'..d- .J -....) ill 1\<;: €.b.'>1 fj ¡'¡""'T e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided n <;;'ït? ,.J\ ¡,-,,;. i- f) , \ - f. Estimated number of employees per shift Numberofshifts' Total c) ~ g, Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate =- . ' v.- t,..y,(l..f:- V\k,(Z-¥- \~ .Q; \'12-.r<;oì'1 M..,.. (,')~ (')./1 \j \ h. Estimated number of deliveries per day ø i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings .~ k. Hours of operation 8 C\.,'\ -\p f?, r¡rf1 1. Type of exterior lighting 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 structures d, Height of structure(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 pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)? ..3 - 34- WPCP:\IIOMElPl.ANN!NG\ST0RErN02l.A.93 (Ref. 10211.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 3 - 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipateJ? If yes, comp1ete the following: a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many 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 Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 5- If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of a=ss or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities- 3~3.5' wpc,¡o,\HOMElP!.ANNlNGISTOREIN021-A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 4 -, -. - " D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geo]ol!Y Has a geology study been conducted on the property? Ý'lo (If yes, please attach) Has a soils report on the project site been made? \\D (If yes, please attach) 2. Hvdrolol!Y Me any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? nO (If yes, explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? \\0 b. Me there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? \'\D c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? \~O d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? no , e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. r:\\"r.., ,,~ -\0 h.... )'!\lv'\ Î~'IIP.J AwAj.{Y<XY) (¡liy.<.se..{\.(.- p1'or-v+~.U).. '1 O.y.¿~ GY\-I¡-v *'~, 3. Noise a. Me there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? 'Via . b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single- family residences)? \'\0 4. Biolol!Y a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? V'O b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? '(\0 c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No \1 (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- Y\I'V¡ 0 /' ..3-3(;, . WPC,,",IHOMIN'LANNlNG\>f0RElN021-A.93 (Ref: 10!W.93) (R,f. 1022.93) Page 5 ï -. - " 5. Past Use of the Lan" a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? -~O b. Are there any known paleontological resources? \\0 c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? ~~O _. ~ d. What was the land previously used for? ~-"2.. 6~ ~ ç:\~2.f} .'f (J'I"<-- Glo I \\-DVV\BS, I 6. Cucrent Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. ~'/.l<':>-'~Ø 'Î{b S, f~' C(-Vl(Q/ Qx.,lldf I.Jb SJrro...J\\f,kJ , I \~'^ ~.('.",^^ 'ÇÇù-u.- \)~ kÇ (11<::'O~ ' ..J I . I b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent propeny. Nonh 4l.Lv-\ Çe"ií'.efa.--{-¡,.5<:::- \:4-/ 'S-\t~-hp/L. South \~~(,-\.K SI--.~ <:Ÿ--OM~e.SV~~ {)(I,f~ East \ì.~/t lho/Y\.. ~~w::; "('Q...(,\~~~ 1\,\ I \l- '7.o.'\...!l.- West ,^."A c...o~r>'\l...J'- \'{.IÅ~'\-'AL '^ tL- "7pfl ~ 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? 'AD If so, how many? b. Are there any cucrent employment opponunities on site? YtD If so, how many and what type? 8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. <;\~ f-"L.a-~~ '~'. \')fínI1Mú..rL ~cW'- 0- MU'<SlM "'">~. ~~ I,~,.LL ~ ().,r.u.._:(- f'-w1,I)("'r.)lXo...1-r é'fa~~-, 1C/I1v, JY'óðQ.ld- l" Å)",ý'(),N2.d, 3-.37 WPCò':\IIOMJN'!J.NNINGISTORED\lO21-A.93 (Rd 102D.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 6 ï -. - .. E. CERTIFICA TIO~ !, as owner/owner in escrow* /tlp,- U' r!fJ-S , ÆLJ/?Jb/lr- Print name or I, consultant or agent* Print name HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. /ffá¿~.Æ¿¿.¿) ¿£a¿h L , Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature or Consultant or Agent Signature /dk /c;r - Date *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. ..3 -..3 f) WPC...'<IOMBPLANNING>STORED\lO21-A..93 (Ref. IO2D.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 7 INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT Nan1e of Applicant: S:AC\..tc þ~ A-u-6 Qí2-0 buS' Address: '7 "\<7?- h"\é.l \V\ ~-r Phone City: f',,\j . CA - Slale CA - Zip c:¡ ~ Name of Authorized Represenlative (if signatory): r:C~'!'-'ÚD \~\f".J ::r "P ,-\.c..) Address: -?:,>o?? <"')~.z..o ~. "':;.u', \:) Phone \.-\"L'7 ~-Y-1'ì'l..... City C. U . State ('.A. Zip t;¡ Ie, '\ Agreement Dale: Deposit Amount TIùs Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Visla, a chartered municipal colJ'Oradon ("City") and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts: Whereas, the Applicant has applied to the City for an Initial Study of the type aforereferenced ("Initial Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting the Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said Initial Study through the various departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas, the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; , Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: 1. Applicant's Duty to Pay. The Applicant shall pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Service related to applicant's Inidal Study, including all of the City's direct and overllead costs related thereto. This duty of the Applicant shall be referred to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay." A. Applicant's Deposit Duty As partial performance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay, the Applicant shall deposit the an1ount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1. The City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against the Applicant's Deposit If, afler the conclusion of processing the Applicant's Iriidal Study, any portion of the Deposit remains, the City shall return said balance to the Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial Study, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the City, upon notice of same by the City, the Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as the City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue to provide Processing Services. The duty of the Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as the "Applicant's Deposit Duty". ll. City's Duty . The City shall, upon the condidon that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Payor the Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to the Applicant's Initial Study applicadon. J -,J(] WPCP,\HQMElPLANNING\STORED\1021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page g A. The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study application, or for failure to process the Applicant's Initia] Study within the time frame requested by the Applicant or estimated by the City. B. By execution of this agreement, the Applicant shall have no right to direct or otherwise influence the conduct of the Iniúal Study for which the applicant has applied. The City shall use its discretion in evaluating the Applicant's Iniúal Study application without regard to the Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agrttment. ill. Remedies A. Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Initial Study which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. B. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity, the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees had costs. IV. Miscellaneous A. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. B. Governing LawfVenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. C. Multiple Signatories If there are multipJe signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the perfoffi1ance of Applicant's duties herein set forth. D. Signatory Authority Thë signatory to this agreement hereby warrnnts and represents that it is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant, Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by the Applicant .3- 4- 0 WPC-.F:\IIOME'PLANNIN=oREINO2.A.93 (Rd. IO2D.93) (RoC. 1022.93) Page 9 ., - - - - E. Hold Harmless Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for dan1ages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitJItion attomeys' fees) arising out of processing Applicant's Initial Study, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the San1e proceed to judgement or not Further, the Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Appticant's indemnifcation of the City shall be limited.by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Applicant F. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has flfSt been presented in writing and fùed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set fonh in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as San1e may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by the reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of Same. Upon request by the City, the Applicant shall meet and confer in good faith with the City for the pwpose of resolving any dispute over the tenns of this Agreement Now, therefore, the parties hereto, having read and undersIOod the tenDS and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the tems hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. City City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 BY:-¥ tæ-JI Dated: I:z,/(,/ q,ott;' Applicant (or authorized representative) By:~;ff~ . ¿~ By: Dated: /.P/ç:/'j'f- -:2-41 WPCP,'HOMEIPLM'N!NG\STORED,]021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 10 CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 E.AST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN' INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH """~'~;:"=',':: .V::::-" BOARO OF EDUCATION JANj. ..' JOSEPH D.CUMMlNGS,PItD, January 5, 1996 SHARON GIlES J 7fJf)~ PATROIA..wJ þ, ~O PAMElA B. SMrrn . f....A,!ViV' "I MIKE A SPEYFER Ms. Barbara Reid 1/1(' SUPERINTENDENT Environmental Section UBIA5.Gll.PItD. City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: 15-96-13/ FA-690 / DQ-256 Applicant: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers Location: 2952 Main Street Dear Ms. Reid: This is to advise you that the project located at 2952 Main Street, is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. Otay/Montgomery Schools are the home schools for this project. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of approximately 1-1/2 - 2 percent over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.28 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.13/square foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $.15/square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~ Sf\.Q~",-- Kate Shurson Director of Planning & Facilities msw:c:smallcom 3-4d- ï -. - - Case No.: IS-96-l3 CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zoning on site: ILP (Limited-Industrial, subject to a Precise Plan) Does the project confonn to the current zoning? Yes II. General Plan land use designation on site: IL (Limited-Industrial) North: High-residential, Medium residential, Low-Medium residential South: Research and Limited Manufacturing East: Low-Medium residential, Research and Limited Manufacturing West: Medium residential, Research and Limited Manufacturing 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? N/A Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? N/A (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). ITI. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: N/ A Students Units Generating Generated School Capacity Enrollment Proposed Factors From Project Elementary .30 Junior High .29 Senior High .10 IV. Remarks: N/A ~ 3~43 , ROUTING FORM RECEIVED l)J¡TE: . Decemberll, 1995 DEe 13 1995 T/ -.. '0...'." , -.. .. "-, CITY OF CfiUlA VI~fA xéñ Larson, Building &'Housing BUilDING & HOUSING OEPY. / ýJ1ß f1\ John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Anne Moore, 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 Conservation Coordinator Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Garry Williams, 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) L&~CO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Doug Reid (Community Development Projects) / other Barbara Reid Environmental section /fo SL'BJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-13/FA-~/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-----/FB-----/DQ~) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-----IFB-----/DP-----) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ----ERR-----) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS-_/FA-_/DQ--J The Project consists of: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by January 4, 1996. ' ;3~ ~ 3 -4~ Comments: ~ ¡P~ ~ ~ Ä ffi ß c;tz-cf @ ~ ~ ,-yn ~ M ~ ¡.;.....¡ - ~ ' ,~¡;dtrfr~/ ~~. <7~_. .L,: AOL/u~d. no<'-./O ~ ,,/??/cr- . ROUTING FORM -- December 11, 1995 pt2.ð).,\ /14: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR on y) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR nly) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (E only) Roger Daoust, Engineering /3, EIR/2) Anne Moo~e,.Asst city A rney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) 'Carol Gove, FireD tment:. , ., ark's & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Conservation Coordinator Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Garry Williams, 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) L)YC af~~exation is involved) ,artin Miller, Project ing Log (route form only) Doug Reid ; (Community Deve opment Proj~cts) Other Barbara Reid Environmental Section SL:~-:: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-13/FA-~/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-----/FB-----/DQ-----) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-----/FB-----/DP-----) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ----ERR- ----) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS--/FA--/DQ--) The Project consists of: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by January 4, 1996" Comments: ÝØØ/'7c; !,7-1£'-ir:;- C:;6y íâWlot/ S CD M ýJ'} C:W7X 5# l ..3 -45:" /2ø UTc.5') 7D /þ7,IIt2r,¡J M¡(uYt. - Case No. /5. q~-/5 FIRE DEPARTMH>;T A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? And what is the Fire Dcpanment's estimated reaction time? ~ 1'\I\\=:"-., ,'\) JE:,,\(ì~1 f=IQ.\,- c,'îí'\1'1 (~,J 'f. S rJlloJ,r'L Vt:.7C)"""S,<¿ í'"",Ý} ~~~ . B. Will the> FIre Dcpanment be able 10 provide an adequate level of fire proWCtion for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? '11:3 C. Remarks 900 C?6Z~I\D')S es.:~I\æ;Cs SH t;,,-r¡-. "577 /;2- f) -'7) Date -3 -4fo WPC~G\STOREI)O,¡o:u.93 (Rc(, 102193) (Rd. 1020.93) Pa¡c6 , ROUTING FORM DATE: . December 11, 1995 ';0: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) r-f.)M. Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal. Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) °Rogei;-¿.DaôústpEngineering, (IS/3; EIR/2) AiméMoore, 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' Conservation Coordinator Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Garry Williams, 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) LpYCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Doug Reid (Community Development Projects) other F~: Barbara Reid Environmental Section -r" SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-13/FA-~/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-----/FB-----/DQ-----) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-----/FB-----/DP-----) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ----ERR- ----) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS-_/FA-_/DQ--J The Project consists of: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 sof. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by January 4, 199q, Comments: ,3-£/-7 v~- - , ~ - - I Case No.]:5 -'1b-/} If'.'TERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGl\ŒERlNG DIVISION I. Drainage A. Is the project site within a flood plain? AiD If so, state which FEMA FIoodway Frequency Boundary. .N/A B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? S (., !'. r 11 c<--- dt:¡\;",A}-<.--- (lows -10 A A! ~ X;S7'.Nr S~;:M J",.,i,.l 5;TsCih l,v /'7/1:"¡ STü.Lr C. AIc they adequate to serve the project? y~s. If not, please explain briefly. D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? 5,-<!! ('I1C<..,. dRA"'/\ 'f<--- t/;;>J5 ()w HJ);"'¡ SIÆ:-<'<Î /ÞV IJ,~- !...)< s7<", i". d'¡;'~r-¡-;o"/ -+ 0 wl1 d5 A dJR.A.NA'j-<- 5".S'/"", U'- ß/,..,:)/1/¡,..//Jý E. AIe they adequate to serve the project? -/~5' If not, please explain briefly. -- ll. TransPo!1ation O~(v- (A. What roads provide primary access to the project? rDuf2...Ttf AVEõ¡l./Vc ~ f?:<- \'1 Þ1AirJ 5TR.E.t=.T i""'\ IC( B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? :?O Jj5eN!cest"lIs >(,';¿Oir,'I'5/sf-c,,(/ =- 80fr,'l's Po/d."7' - ¡.!Oíé ~ Does 11/07 INCWC>E p¡.tÆ5;E' IT' P.eo,'Oseþ oiVcsTœy ST'/'-ur.::n.lß-e t.. C. What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the primary access roads before and ~i4Jo. . vAl< after project completion? - Fo"rAý Street Name Before After FoV/ZTH A VeAJvr:: '¿3,;J.S (/ g300 MAIN 5íf2¿~ ;20,;;L 90 GJ. 0.3 70 Do any of these volumes ex=d the City's Level-of-Service (LO.S.) "cn design ADT volume? If yes, please specify. IJ 0 . WPC:F:'<ICJMElPLANNlNG'SI'OREINO22.93 (Ro!. 1021.93) (ReI, 1020.93) 3-4f Page 2 Cas~ No. IS -,/6-)-:> If th~ A.D.T. or La.S. "C" d~sign volum~ is unknown or not applicabl~, ~xplain briefly. tJIA .D. he the primary access roads adequate to s~rve the project? No If not, please ~xplain briefly. MA/N 5 TJ2£ ET is HI SSIN6. STI'Z.C. ET IMpi20IIe:M~NíS AND A1>DfTfONAL. 'í2../6>rfT- OF-WI>. 't J;>el)( c.ATfON /5 Nee. Þe'D. E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site? /1./0 If so, identify: Location N/A Cumulative LO.S. ¡vIA F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TIA will have to demonstrate that the project will_not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance. Y~s ><-- No 80 ¿ ;;).t.foO 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? -L Yes No If yes, please describe. }1/ssflUb .5í/2.E.ET /I'-(¡?¡Z.oVE.I1ENT5. H. Is the project co?~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transponation Phasing Plan, General Plan Traffic Element, and all other peninent traffic studies? Please reference any other traffic impact studies for roadway s~gments that may be impacted by the proposed project YES, p¡2.0~ GCT 15 C o,-JSIS, Té¡ÚT, ¡J /;4.. 1 Is a traffic study required? Yes X No J. Is th~re any dedication required? Yes, a.1~ ..Mo..'"11 5+1'~+ +1'£~?1fc..q,L. If so, please specify. /;31- 0/' t7 3-Ljq WPC:F,'HOI,IN1.ANI¡tNG\STORE!NO22.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020,93) Page 3 Case No. :ïS -'1(" -/3 K. Is there any Street widening required? ~e..s If so, please specify. f'Glve. C<Jt"b'.J ,ffa- a.r¡d oS ¡deN<-.lk (8) CZ+ I.j / I .fro/f'f.- C ~ +er /¡'". e-- L. AIe there any other street improvements required? Y e..5 If so, ple~e specify the general nature of the n~ssary improvements. ,p. J?a.(~ red COI1 crt!.--fcz. mJuu/1 0--0--1 cd.. ¡,,> t., 114.+""'" 0 OAfl- ;:;..s-o/ kJa.-f-f III'SV S freer- ¿':i~r- A+ WE'sf..l'\y o/'of""/'<J.ý 1 ,'",.fZ- '. M. wfn the proJect and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future build out General Plan conditions? (Please provide a brief explanation). Yes, ""o>c.T a-.-,d.. rJ2.f"'+ed pvbJ.'c.. ;"M1"rOJE';oúJ.-1f$ ..,;;/1 ~ I o.J I' 'P,.;J,','de ç,,'¡";S.LC"'N +"J.:.f.-c. s<,,¡/,~e. h¡ (""":'(1......"'0 ..<,,'fl, Fa"" I~ , f sf ' (/ MÆj,r <;+-a-,.-,J~d.s ",f- 1//+;""", Z "K..e.+'rlRsl~ c.T_dc...<c-Is < , 1/ ill. Soils A. AIe there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? I.o,¡k wo",J B. If yes, specify these conditions. Jv /¡! C. Is a Soils Repon necessary? /-<'5. ,o,c;M. fD j/'<..., ,551/()/ItVCR- or G/'..A.J",v /1",'//,-"'- ð"'¡//""l /'{/?,..,,7i. - IV. Land Form 'i/'-AN A. What is the average ñaturaJ slope of the site? -:...2(', - B. What is the maximum nat\lfal slope of the site? _i :/~ '¿«AN V. Noise he there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? /1./ Ù VL Waste Generation Hòw much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the pr~posed project per day? Solid u,.¡klllvI.VÑ. :r N5~ff;c.;< w-r iNf'oP'1.rr1:'i,..., P/"~f/:6Zd.' Liquid (0 GPo (;;;¡.5'i:> E'tJl/s) 0 !/ (Je: e.)(;Ç7i",ÿ vs~. What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? A /S'" lie Ps{ wet"- ¿¡Nt.... f'lv:v;f ; IV f h<,.. W<sí"dý r};,p<c7/¡J..! I.n-v"ú. I? /"7 A ; rJ 51 Ji:.u.. -!' c...D N' AI < C /<; ID fJ,<.., :r "I/' ¡;/,~s-r,.: 11 / ¡?, ()¡, / ( ,"! 1'-/ S( (,..riO<. Axe they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) ';--'5 J-SO 'M'Cá';'<iQMNt.J.,'NINGlSTOREIND22.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (ReI. IDJD.93) Pag.4 Casl: No. ::['5 - 96-/3 VII. NationaJ PoIJutant Dischargl: E1imination SVSfl:m (J'>.'PDES) Stonnwater Requirements Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for COYl:ragl: undl:r an NPDES Stormwatl:r Pl:rmit? /1/0. . H yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and I:Xplain why an NPDES pennit is required. AI/A Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? y., Yes No AdditionaJ comments p< "'- S"Ch'j)N /'7. ;;¡V. /-;).,D 0.(.' -f),<- cll!..l¡' 1/ i ç7Ã iJ'-'N; c. :p/'./ CD tl" /1P",/;Cñ..r- .I'-1l-rr Ù/COI?PoA'~ S/vI".J"> ("vff7<p p~¡ï...7í;;,v r-P"'-Ll' ",¿¡"N /"70:.-15'-""--<- <; /"",10 -¡-/,<;/'- /1/12-/1""/0'-5' /1/'17"'(':.111" R'spi),.Js<"" ,p/AN/ w/';';¡ ;s ¡?,<J'""'~ b7' C h/Jp¿<"" 6,95, of f¡'~ C/lI,('.r",:/O vm H(~1h /I",) SAf<-rr- c ;;d,<. Remar s Please identify ar,d discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, nñtig1l1ion measures, or other issues. ._- ,...., 1 /)-/fJ-!/9$ I ' Date ...3-Sf WPC:F,'Ð:JMNtJ.NNINGISTORE!NO22.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93) Page 5 I ROUTING FORM DATE: December 11, 1995 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John I.ippitt, Engineering (EIR only)' Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Anne Moore, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dee & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Conservation coordinator Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Garry Williams, 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) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Doug Reid (Community Development Projects) other FROM: Barbara Reid Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-13/FA- 69Ö/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-----/FB-----/DQ-----) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-----/FB-----/DP-----) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ----ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- _/FA- -/DQ--l The Project consists of: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by January 4, 1996. Comments: N5 ~ ~ l ~ ~fe [ð1A~~ Ð/I. 'íW-- @ 3-~-~ ~(Z~. ~ 9A~ a.~~c41G-\.. APPLICATION CANNOT BE :CEPTED UJ\'LESS SITE For Office Uq 0nJY PLAN IS FOLDED TO m INTO AN 8-1(2 X II FOLDER Case No: IS- Ie' I:;' 'DpSl Amnl IN¡Cþli ReCeipt No: 1-093<f- !NIDAL STUDY Date Rec'd/ ~ ACcepted by /J" =- C' fCh IV' í-Ýi,,-D7;;ì.Pröjcct1>i6.FA-iftIT) Ity ~ . u a lSta Dp5l'?-!();DQ-.:1?& ApplicatIon Fonn '"CIP. ,:t:i'ó;,:'i:':'i\"'::,':/..i/'ii"\:,, A. ~.ACK~~:r:it1e '~r r'()/fcr 8C'-c, /"b, ~,o¡~pr<;.~~~~~~~~; ì - I f' - 2. Project LocatIon (Street address or description) é}. 9 5,? /l) ?J II\) :;;,J- í/;/J~;.. ¿II ~~ CC^- ~/o/it Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. (;;;;;;3- ¡"?:;;... 1-"'. .¡ v .::. ~ 3. Brief Project Description DrQ¡'r-".c>rt 'Z.~O S'r-- At-b GIwr..C'ít....- rh-.\<, 1.. . G ~ . k +v 6., 1u S". r' ():.\'>'Í(.> ~ff1(.:l.. kb'" í AOO\-\-)<.Y1f1l. \:L-ðO ~I r- Av CcNNp f¡./Ax.-1i ~\lt ~/ 1,1) ~ vp/' MA...;I' - 4. Name of Ap?~~ant ~f\~\f\L þ~ ,Auto !5~~ . - - Address '2.. o-¡ ,::>~..ø A-t¡1 sf' - Fax# Phone t. -. City ("A~\ )1../}\ \.k"TI~ C;.,. '1lc¡¡1 State ( fi- - Zip 5. Name of Preparer/Agent C(e..rttllJò C:e.5/ifJ/J CDrciJf' (j,C) . Address::::':-- ~ 3.z.p hk s.te... f) Fax# Phone \-{'2 '2..-tc¡"'r)-- City C -\1 ' State Ú\. Zip '1 IÝ II Relation to Applicant Ac-j"'-'Î'\ 6. Indicate all peITTÙts or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. PeITTÙts or approvals required. General Plan Amendment .::f:... Design Review Application - Specific Plan - Rezone/Prezone - Tentative Subd. Map Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit. - Redevelopment Agency OPA ....::;6, Variance - Tentative Parcel Map _Redevelopment Agency DDA - Coastal Development Site Plan & Arch. Review - Public Project ...x... Other Permit. v"Ó. - Special Use Permit - Annexation "::,.~o.Q.Jl. ~ \j~ ~ 1"1"\ -\- . If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). - Grading Plan Arch. Elevations - Hydrological Study - Parcel Map -=- Landscape Plans - Biological Study Precise Plan - Tentative Subd. Map - Archaeological Study = Specific Plan .:::i=.. Improvement Plans Noise Assessment - Traffic Impact Report - Soils Report = Other Agency Permit - Hazardous Waste Assessment - Geotechnical Report .¡J...,.. Other <;~ ~ ..3- -5'3 \\'PC:Fo\lJOMEll'l.ANNlNG>STOI1.ElNO21.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (ltd. 1022.93) Pagel 7. Indicate other applications for permits or approvals that are being subrrlitted at this time. a. Permits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment ~ Design Review Application - Specific Plan - RezonelPrezone - Tentative Sub<!. Map - Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit _Redevelopment Agency OPA - Variance - Tentative Parcel Map - Redevelopment Agency DDA - Coastal Development Site Plan & Arch. Review - Public Project -4::- Other Permit V-NÀ - Special Use Permit - Annexation L. ~ ,-.M- ,> B. PROPOSED PROJECT . feÆ\'f\lt. L a. Land Area: square footage \~ ,LC?O or acreage Þ If land area to be dedicated, state' acreage and purpose. b. Does the project ,involve the cçmstruction of new buildings, or will existing structure be utilized? .~ ~\\' 'Q'-1L"W,:,<:::' ~\;v,~.e.,:¡:" l.;?¡OOS',y' Vi-\t\~ \,~ ~'F-' ' 2. Complete this section if proje...t is residential or mixed use. a. Type of development:- Single Family - Two Family - Multi Family - Townhouse - Condominil!ffi b. Total number of structures -- c. Maximum height of structures ~ . d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom - 2 bedroom - 3 bedroom - 4 bedroom - Total Units - e- Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental Price range i. Square footage of structure j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parlcing spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. a. b. c.' J -.s</- WPC,F,\IIOME'<'U.NNIN~021-A.93 (ltd. 1020.93) (Itd, 1022.93) Page 2 C H U LA V I S T A POL ICE DE PAR T MEN T c RIM E PRE V E N T ION UN I T PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS : /,"- J4/.:¡ . .: DATE: January 10,1996 liJ ' " 111S"~ . 11 ,~I q æJ "'!....Lj/, , -:) TO: Barbara ReId, '~' ronmental . ~'/~i¡'" VIA: CAm Brookover! captain Withers, Investigations ,~ . ø/fR FROM: Mary Jane DIosda 'CPS PROJECT: Pacific Bay Auto IS 96-13 -XX- The Police Department and the Crime Prevention unit will be able to provide an adequate level of service for this proposed site. -XX- There is no expected increase in personnel or equipment in order to maintain Police Department services. -XX- Please forward additional information regarding this project to the crime Prevention unit. Estimated response time for priority 1 calls to this project: Grid: 36 2.74% of the CFS are P-1 with an A.R.T. of 4:41 Estimated response time for Priority 2 calls to this project: Grid: 36 33.32% of the CFS are P-2 with an A.R.T. of 6:18 Comments: From 01/01/95 to 12/31/95 there were 4190 Calls For Service with this Reporting District. 1243 of these calls resulted in crime cases. Note: The above priority 1 and 2 response times are within recommended thresholds. Upon approval, prior to completion of this project, it is recommended that the business take advantage of a commercial security consultation of the project site. Thank you for the opportunity to have input into this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me any time at 691-5127. cc: CPT ED .¿J - sS;- PD/cpu 11/95 Sweetwater Union High School District Administration Center 1130 Fifth Avenue Fl:e Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 .~~, 0 B ...;¡~ (619) 691-5553 '.- : Division of Planning and Facilities February 5, 1996 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: Case No. 15-96-13 The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit. S;~p~ Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/mi ..3 -~-" 'I -. . .. SweetWater Union High School District Administration Center 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 ::~_.. .CJ (619) 691-5553 Division of Planning and Facilities December 18, 1995 Ms. Barbara Reid Environmental Section City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Reid: Re: 96-13/FA-690/DQ-256 The above project will have an impact on thè SweetWater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No, 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building pel111it. Sincerely, ~~ Thomas Silva A.. ~ Director of Planni g TS/ml i i ..3 - S-7 'I - . - ., .sWEETWATER AUTHC .ITY 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912.2328 (619) 420-1413 GOVEA""'" BOARO FAX (619) 425-7469 BUD POCKlINGTDN. CH^,RMAN GEDAGE H WATEAS, VOCE CH^'R"AN F ~JAMES F DOUD, SA tso SUEJAAAETr 8 í~(»4'>AeAAET COOK WELSH 'v';G>.MESS,WOLNIEW'CZ "". CAAYF.WA'GHT '"",'~. WANDA AVEAY February 5, 1996 . ~ TREASUAEA DIAN J~ REEVES SECAETARY Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED AUTO GARAGE 2952 MAIN STREET CASE NO: IS-96-13 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1996 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 an 8-inch and a 12-inch water main located on the north side of Main Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there is one water service to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 22-B 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. 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 81 p.s.i. to a minimum of 71 p.s.i. ..,3 - ~--g A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department Re: Water Availibility Case No. IS-96-13 February 5, 1996 page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 639. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY C\ J ,Vj;1--- ~ '~Ja:mes L. Smyth Chief Engineer JLS:RC:le enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 22-B map pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority Mr. Manuel Brambila 156 Spruce SI. Chula Vista, CA 91911 "'~aune~e"e"\\2952main.wat ..ß - s'9 :;0.:; I ",. 110<2 - :: ~ . ~ "'.7 ~ ~ " 0 . ~ ~ ~ ß ~ : ~ ' 2 " § ~ . D ~ " (9 ~ ~. 0 - ~ ~-' S' '0 ~ c:;: 8. . œ pit I . - I ~ ~ø~ ~ i ~ - I :t u = ". i ~ ~ ß ~ i " D ð I ¡Y)...: ~ ;!: ~ rj 0 v ~9":-~â ~ ~ ~p 'i' ré ::; ê' -" ffS N > ~ "d .~ é ~~ N B ~ : ~ :~ ~ t!" JJfUi¡!¡XI ¡j' ", ,- . " A.C. 4 - .ug" ' ~3 ~ ~ -~~ ~ '.to ~~"~Ò 17 , ~ ID~ .,~ P .¡ ¡:¡Š H/¡~ '" "7 II;;\I~:'1234S67B9101112 ~ '" ~~ ~ " , c a ~ ~ n . ~ ~ 15 "", 18 " ~--=-""., 3-(;0 I - - - .. ~ THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interest5, payment5, or campaign contribUtions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following info=tion must be disclosed: I. List the names of all persons have a financial interest in the contract, Le., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 'tv\u.,,~ ~ ~b\l--~ ~V)..- f!..- ( 0;') f." ¡;':~btA 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals o~g more than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustee of the trust. 4. Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees ~d Council within the past twelve months? \/ì.o 5. Please idemii» each and every 'person. including any agents, employees, consuJtants or independent contractors who you haveas~ed to represent yo efor~the City in this matter. . it' .C- 6. Have you andlor your officers or agent5, in the aggregate, COntrihuted~e than $1,000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No 'If yes, state which Council member(s): ' Person is defined as: . MY individual, firm, c<>-pannership, joint venmI'C, association, social club, fnttemal organization, coIpOration, estate. trust. receiver, syndicate. this and any other county, city and county. city. municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combm..tion acting as a unit.. (NOTE: Anach additional pages as DCCCSsary) /?JlL~ Date: 12 -&7 -o;cJ ~ ~e' of' contractoilap cant Print or type name of contractor/applicant 3-~1 WPC:F:\HOME\PLANNtNGISTOREDIlO21-A.9¡Rcf. 1020.93)(Rcf. 1022.93) Page 11 ., _. - .. MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChuJa Vista, CA 92010 Attn: Doug Reid NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista is considering a reconunendation that the project herein identified will have' no significant environmental impact in compliance with Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Negative Declaration (fIDding of no significant impact) and the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. These documents are available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Anyone wishing to conunent on the proposed Negative Declaration should provide their written conunents to the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. This proposed rIDding does not constitute approval or denial of the project itself; it ~ detennines if the project could have significant environmental impact. Projects which could have'significant impact must have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with Section 15064 of State CEQA Guidelines. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence. For further infonnation concerning this project, including public hearing dates, please contact Barbara Reid at (619) 691-5101. This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's office for period of not less than thirty (30) days. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 623-172-13/23 PROJECT LOCATION: 2952 Main Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is an existing 19,250 square foot lot located at 2952 Main Street. The site includes an existing 696 square foot, one-story structure. DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Chula Vista City Council INITIAL STUDY NO. IS-96-13 DATE: February 5, 1996 3-bd-- I -. - .. ATTACHMENT 3 OWNER P ARTICIP A TION AGREEMENT WITH EXHIBITS A, BAND C Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Alice Kemp (Space Above This Line For Recorder) APN: 3-1 2-13 623-172-23 OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT [2952 Main Street] Manuel Brambila and Mercedes Brambila THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY") and Mr. Manuel and Mrs. Mercedes Brambila (hereinafter referred to collectively as "DEVELOPER") effective as of March 18, 1997. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Design Review Committee for the construction, maintenance, and operation of an Auto Body Repair and Detailing Shop (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER presented plans for development of the project as well as an application for a Special Land Use Permit to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve said plans and Special Land Use Permit subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission recommendations and has approved the Project subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said Project be implemented and completed as soon as it is practicable in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. 2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Number 623-172-13 and 623-172-23 located at 2952 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA., shown on Locator Map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein ("Property"). 1 ...3 -~3 ., - - 3. The DEVELOPER covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following: A. DEVELOPER shall develop Property in accordance with the AGENCY approved phased development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. RACO-97-03 (SW/OPA 97-03). B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federal/state and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals. DEVElOPER further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees including, without limitation, City of Chula Vista sewer capacity and traffic signal fees. ç. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits for Phase I of the development within one year from the date of this Agreement and shall actually develop Phase I within one year from the date of issuance of the building permits. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits for Phase II of the development no later than four years from the date of this agreement and shall actually develop Phase II of the development one year from the date of issuance of the building permits for Phase II. In the event DEVELOPER fails to meet these deadlines, the approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect. D. That in all deeds granting or conveying an interest in the Property, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant lessees, or vendees in the property herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the /and." E. That in all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the Property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through 2 -3 -{ç~ ., -. him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sub/essees, subtenants, or vendees in the property herein leased." 4. The Property shall be developed subject to the .conditions imposed by (a) the Design Review Committee and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "8" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and (b) the City Engineering Department and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. DEVElOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions. 5. DEVELOPER shall maintain the Property in FIRST CLASS CONDITION. A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall, at DEVELOPER's sole cost and expense, maintain the Property and all Improvements in first class condition and repair, and in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses and other governmental authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies, bodies and courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. If the DEVELOPER fails to maintain the Property in a "first class condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on the Property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall become a lien against the Property. The Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the Property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Property and all Improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the Improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant contributions. The Restoration shall satisfy the requirements of any sub-sublease then in effect for the Property or Improvements with respect thereto or, if no sub-sublease is then in effect, shall be repaired or restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or destruction. C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community Development Director is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the DEVELOPER in writing and (2) extend a reasonable time to cure. If a cure or substantial progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized to effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the DEVELOPER. In the event that there is a dispute over whether the property is in a first class condition or over the amount of work and expense authorized by the Director to cure, the parties agree that the City Manager or his designee, shall resolve that 3 ..3-~~ .. - '. dispute; provided however, DEVELOPER shall have the right to appeal this decision to the AGENCY BOARD by making a written request therefor within ten (10) days of being informed of such decision. All City action to cure shall be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. In the event that the Director decides without dispute, or the City Manager decides in dispute, that the City has to cure and the amount of cure, then DEVELOPER has to reimburse the City within thirty (30) days of demand. If not reimbursed, it constitutes a lien and City is authorized to record said lien with the County Recorder, upon the premises. D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means Restoration which is necessary to keep the Premises and Improvements in efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists when the c°n.dition(s) in attached Exhibit B are completed." 6. ~GENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval of AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement. 7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions of this Agreement may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of real property within the boundaries of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. 8. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. 9. DEVELOPER shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY and the City of Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the AGENCY arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) AGENCY's approval of this Agreement, (b) AGENCY's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Project contemplated herein, and (c) DEVElOPER's construction and operation of the Project permitted hereby. 10. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the obligations under this AGREEMENT that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs from the non-prevailing party. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12. To the extent DEVELOPER is comprised of more than one person or entity, each such person or entity shall be jointly and generally liable hereunder. 13. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS 4 ~-c¡,,~ .. - . SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO TH~S AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. SIGNATURE PAGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "OWNER" DATED: l~//J /9;; By: ~&~ / Manuel Brambila DATED: \5'/;3/9ÿ- By;-ØLA:~-'~ ¿d<.?t:~~tL Mercedes Brambila NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. h :1~1dÞJ ~ tJp ~~ APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, Agency Attorney 5 ..;I-rot CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT r-, =, C - -.'{X'===-'X..,ç{'£<'..."""--<X'~~=..6X.-<X'~..;x.'{X'..G<'..G<'-<X'«,ç<'..G<'..G<'.c<'..G<'..G<'=,ç{'£{,~"""-====~^Y,,~ ~ ~ 2 g ~ State of CALIFORNIA ~ ~ County of SAN DIEGO ~ S, ~ Þ On MARŒ 13, .1997 before me, ELVIRA GUERRERO, NOTARY PUBLIC g g D'" N'me ood 1111, 01 Offi", I'".. 'J", D", No"~ P'blio"! g g personally appeared MANUEL BRAMBILA AND MERCIIDF.S RRAMRTT,A * * * * * * * * * * g g N,mel,!oIS"""I'! g g 0 personally known to me - OR -ID proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) g g whose name(s)¡(s/are subscribed to the within instrument Ä g ånd acknowiedged to me that W#/they executed the g g same in þfjtffl/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by g ~", " ",' " " ,- - 1 /Þ(~fflltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), ~', B ELJ;'", ~'. -. ~:) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, X ¡<; Ccmmosion, "-"',['./8 executed the instrument. ~ <:, No/my Publ!c - (;°",0,010 ~ ,~ ~, San [);ego County f WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~. <: My Corrm.Expltas Feb 1.2000 ,'> g --------- ". g g 9 Ä ¿ Ä ~ ~ ~ X x' Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and coufd prevent 11,'" (', fraudulent removal and feaffachment of this form to another document. ), g g g Description of Attached Document g p ". P Title or Type of Document: OWNF.R PARTTC'.TPATTON AC',RRRMRN'I'g P ". B Document Date: OF SIGNATURE MARŒ 13. arid 18. 1997 Number of Pages: 18 ~ Q ( Þ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: SHIRLEY HORTON. CHAIRMAN .,TOHN M.KAHF.NY. ATTORNF.V ~ ~ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) R ~ Signer's Name: MANUEL BRAMBILA Signer's Name: MERCEDES BRAMRTTA ~ g cv.. ,. I g P Lb Individual I]t Indlvldua ". g 0 Corporate Officer 0 Corporate Officer ". g Title(s): Title(s): ". g 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 Generai g g 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Attorney-in-Fact Ä g 0 Trustee 0 Trustee g g 0 Guardian or Conservator .,.. 0 Guardian or Conservator .,.. g g 0 Other' Top of thumb here 0 Other' Top of thumb here g g' , ". ~ ~ ~ Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ~ Q g <, ~ ~ '" g g .Q =-~ «= ~X:;X; «=« = ~'<X = "'" "'" ~ "<X=~ =-q,,~ = = = --=«« "'" ""'« =--='<X "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" 'çç~ -Q£ "'995 N,"oool No"~A"oci,",,' 8236 Remm" A," , p,O, eo. 71a,. C,"O,' p"" CA91309.7Ia, PlOd, No, 5907 Reo",e, C'IITolI.F", l.eOO.e76."'7 ...3 - G 7-CL _i I I I I I 1 1 I -...,,- -----_.~_..- '- --- 0 . ...., .- --_. C "', MONTGOMERY --- ,- ~ ELEMENTARY :r: SCHOOL - ~ m Z C MONTGOMERY STREET m MHP ZENITH STREET MF & SF RESIDENCES IND MAIN STREET - VACANT AGRICULTURAL STORAGE STRAWBERRY FIELDS BUILDINGS ILP CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Brambila I Pacific Bay Auto PROJECTOESCRIPTION: C) APPUCANT: SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 2952 MaIn Street . . . ADDRESS, Request: Proposal for an aula body and detaIling shop. SCALE, I FILE NUMBER: I NORTH No Scale SUPS-96-02 .3 - G g- n: \shared\planning\carlos\maps\sups9602 .cdr 2/20/9 7 .. - - -- - ._-- ~ 1 mill n:':":".:::,:., I < rn ~ a I~~~~~~ t~ ¡ , I ---+ ¡ .,; f - t ¡. H I - : . ~I! .., "i,Oi' ~ti I .... H .1 hi ,. § T -¡ . ~ ¡II II nil .¡ d h ~ ..., ! 'S J: ".¡i < < < < < c.. ! I iI Ii s!l !Iii ~ - !:Ii:! :--=~ : ø::-=a ¡=: cc >x acI ~ - I.&. - ""X: ~ I II'" II I '1.11 ~~U'I' hi ~ ~ ~dB ~~~mUh,~hLj¡¡~h¡'a ~ i 111.~ ~p I f ,1!ttö.:J.~iJ':"_t!,fmh""""....",-."y¡¡!n..1u... (II èr t ~~ ~~ - ~Ju\I[fi~ ~~Üü~ J~ ¿ 2 Ii ¡, H .ø¡~~ ~Jt.ü~..,J,¡':III.dtJ.!~I"ë-~ ~ .3- ~ ., - . - ¡@ EXHIBIT A Q) 1 '-'"n" ~ ~ ::. en I 'I~ --~~ (II . .... ',~"""" ..c: -,-._.--I-~ I I'" Do - ¡ i ! [, p . [ ¡-l n - (1..:' "11 -~ '" ¡ Œ. 1- . --I-" u ¡)- < --- , ,. ~ t1 ".'1 ," ,; !': î: : ! , r i - I . , ,I 1 < I' h I r ;l~ - I : tr ~D I -~ : /:------i'----'~- " /_--~:-- -, ~J-_J: 1 ~J---- n --. l[-,-:-J ~- -- - ---~~~} [~~ ~}[~ =~:;i --,tr. -'0)" f)~ ~ f I "1 í f ~ .. ~ I . J t ~~¡ ".-j.. ! ., . r EXHIBIT A :\! '""'"' - () rn m .c: c.. ~ I n ~ . Iì I , ~.': ..I'.~;I \ i .. . ! i : I ~. I 1 i I : ¡ I I L I ~ ~f ~ ~ i h it .,3-71 EXHIBIT A .... ~ - Q) en m J: Q. , I I I I ' ~ h ~ - II ~- t ' , ì , . , t I ~ .j, I 1 .1 'i iI- "'~ i , I --. I ,I I '~:-i t Lm m -J Q-þz- t ~ . \ t t I ! ¡- i - 'T i .. " .t t ~ ~. f " If .... ~ i i f , -'~J :J ~ II 'I ¡ 'I 1 II ...I ~:, I, !: : .'" """" -- !~ .J - 7 d-.... ~~L ~ ., - - - -----_u_--- ,,0-,\31 EXHIBIT A ~ -=:: - Q) J tJ) ¡ CtS J: 'c.. 1 ~ d ~ it Î I ! I ! i ~ i z. - J L " 0-"'" . ' } , I i, ' L ~. ..3-73 - EXHIBIT A J1H--t-IÏ. ~i¡¡ il!Wì - ! "I I ~ !~: I,,¡!I¡ t IJIIII ~1I3"01l80.l.n"AV8:>"I:>" I ..~ r ~~~ !!I\-I¡ ¡ t~ -I I 'oj;,!I,!. I "- -. ~-- ~~~ I.,II.!. ð t<!43<J<J<J . ! ~I .tJ I I - , . ¡ ---t - ~ i:1 f ¡ I' 1 - C1) ~ t - :! - 'i t (/) ~ t ¡~ J H ¡II ~ ~ 1-1 _l- ea Þ. ~ iHH!¡ ! i n H --II r- ~ ""¡"'!,"! - ~ It" a. " ., I . , , , ~ 1 0' . 1m f - ,! .'! i,," w - ",! "'J 1 ---r ~ II1:II:: - ~ ~ II1:II:: - CCII c::> 0 5 -=c >-- ~ - a:I ~ - ~ - ~ ,..r. °- . '{ . II ~I hll~d~ I J11a~"i1oll líUll'--..4 :: ~ ~~:~ : f ~~!;::~ ::~:~:~~ ~~:~~:,j:~ ~:~j, UI : :~~ U iI 1 I . It IIII I" ~ ~I ~~lfi ~ ~J~~~H~ J.!U~I i 2 1 f H h .øil- ~ ...:..J.uJt.:iJ ~j¡",.~.!,..&6.."".cJ.Jd !~M ~ .. .- .- ., EXHIBIT A ~ . 1 T!u_. --~í 7,.1'-;;> ::. CO' I ^ -------'" I if i, I : .. " ,- ----.- . ---r-r II ii' le.Cn_. *, ". \: I j J -\--- ~;q -- '"' e' u!; : : ~ , ¡ t i í; , r I I' h -+ : ;H t- g. ~ I ~ ijl . ,p r - - -, ,- , ..rf'" -~;- -l" l - - -: d I' ~: ;-----~rrt-=:~~-=-_-:~,-~ -.....Ii l___- j I :, ..'i' ' i ~ .. - ~- Jl ..~ ) - ,to., ' . I G- \" 7. 'J " . A I 3-7S"" EXHIBIT A :\! ~ - - Q) U) : CO J: ~ ! : t i I .. ,! ~ ¡. ~..... Î< 1 : ~ . -..: ~ I I .' ~~. 't , ~ id ..... ' I I 1, ' I I~ --'-- ~ '3"~ f' t t: ,1 t[' 1.~ ~.' , ,r ~l I~ ~t ~¡ ,,3-7~ EXHIBIT A .... 0( - I - C1) - , f/) ~ ~,¡ ca I .t: c.. 1 -::~ I ~ : : ! -i - " I I ¡ : I i i 1 .r I U ' I I I I , I h ¡ , : , t i I I ì ~ I . '1 ,I 1 I' I I I I I -~~i f f t I \ I L i L -;"",J IP-,b.?' 3-í7 " - - EXHIBIT A ~ -< ¡ t - - Q) f tn CtI ! J: c.. 1 I ~ [ { J I LJ\P-i?\~ 1 ~,' ,,0-:'"" o-~ '" J v I I .3-7Q - .. - - I EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Brambila 2952 Main Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Approval of this proposal is contingent upon approval of Special Use Permit SUPS-96-02. 2. Approval of this proposal is contingent upon the granting of a variance to encroach into the rear yard setback. 3. Approval shall be allowed for phasing of the proposal, with a timetable for the phasing being approved as part of the Special Use Permit. 4. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be presented to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 5. The area proposed for the Phase 2 expansion shall be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with the overall landscape proposal. 6. All areas of the site not landscaped and irrigated shall be paved in accordance with City of Chula Vista paving standards. 7. If security fencing along Main Street is proposed it shall be back of the front setback and shall be decorative wrought iron. 8. A detailed fencing proposal shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 9. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 10. A complete signage proposal shall be presented to the Design Review Committee for approval. 11. A graffiti-resistant or sacrificial coating shall be used on the wall adjacent to the alley. 12. There shall be no access from the first phase of the project to the alley. 13. The east elevation of the end of the building proposed for Phase 1 construction shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 14. The landscaping, and particularly the areas planned to be hydro-seeded, shall be irrigated. The property Owners shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property Owners have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded, as part of the Owner Participation Agreement to which it is attached and a part thereof, with the Clerk of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency with a copy to the Community Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property Owners' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. SIGNATURE PAGE FOllOWS ..,ß-79 ï -. - .. - EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Brambila . 2952 Main Street Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE Owner ~~ Mr. Manuel Brambila Date Owner ~a-Lu"d) ~ht¿~~ 3~-3/9-,,-- Mrs. Mercedes Brámbila 'Date .3 - ~Ò - - Exhibit C Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Brambila 2952 Main Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Procurement of a Construction Permit for any work performed in the public right-of-way, which will include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: a. Curb (located 41 feet from center line) b. Gutter c. Sidewalk (8 feet wide) d. A.C. paving and base e. Street light (250W HPSV) f. One-half raised concrete median in Main Street (apply for deferral) 2. Payment of Sewer and Traffic Signal fees (to be calculated upon submittal of building permit); 3. Thirteen-foot-wide (13') dedication of street right-of-way along Main Street to provide 53-foot half- width. The property Owners shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property Owners have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded, as part of the Owner Participation Agreement to which it is attached and a part thereof, with the Clerk of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency with a copy to the Community Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property Owners' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. Owner (Øa~Ifiæ-P ~~/ Mr. Manuel Brambila Date / Owner ~þ,./&c) ~~dr~ :3þ"3/;';; Mrs. Mercedes Brámbila Date ~-??( ATTACHMENT 4 RCC MINUTES OF 2/26/96 DRC MINUTES OF 12/9/96 PC MINUTES OF 2/12/97 :MlNUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Conference Room #1 Monday, February 26, 1996 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:32 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Clark, Fisher, Hall, and Marquez. It was MSUC (MarquezlHall) to excuse Commissioner Clark ITom the meeting of February 12 as he was on vacation, and Chair Burrascano who had not received any meeting notice in a timely manner; vote: 5-0, motion carried. It was also MSUC (MarquezlHall) to excuse Commissioner Yamada who gave prior notice of his absence due to vacation; vote: 5-0, motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Hall/Marquez) to approve the rninutes of the meeting of January 22, 1996, with one correction: on Page 2 under Commissioner Comments, the last sentence on the Wildlife Refuge hand-out should be deleted; vote: 5-0, motion carried. The meeting minutes of February 12,1996 could not be voted upon due to lack of quorum ITom that meeting. Item carried to next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Review of Negative Declaration IS-96-13, Pacific Bay Auto Brokers. Mr. Reid noted the inadequate roads and traffic access around the project site, and clarified that the sliding glass doors should be reinforced for security reasons. It was MSUC (MarquezJClark) to approve the negative declaration; vote 5-0, motion carried. 2. Review of Negative Declaration IS-96-17, Texaco Remodel. The project's remodel and expansion will require major road reconstruction and modification to bring it upto the City's General Plan standards. Comments have been received ITom neighbors opposing the project. A brief discussion ensued on the hours of operation. It was MSUC (Fisher/Clark) to accept the negative declaration; vote: 5-0, motion carried. 3. The fiscal year budget for 1996-1997 was reviewed by Mr. Reid. He stated that Council requested all commissions reduce their budgets by 10% ($284 for RCC). Mr. Reid pointed out that the Photo & Blueprinting item was indirectly an RCC expense as those monies had been allocated by the City for the historical society's museum expenses. It was MSUC (Clark/Burrascano) that $150 be transferred ITom RCC to the Chula Vistå Historical Society budget, and to reduce travel by $134, thus meeting the requested 10% reduction; it was also suggested that the purchase of historical signs (Other Commodities) be spread out over more time to leave a cusruon in the budget expenses; vote, 5-0, motion carried. 3-'i?,;z Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 4. a. Review of Planning Commission Agenda: PCM-94-04, Consideration of street name change for segment of East Orange Avenue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road; public hearing - no action by RCC commissioners. b. PCM-96-19, Amendment to the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan (LCP) modifying sign regulations in Subarea 4 of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone - Public hearing. Site area was pointed out on a map and it was explained that WaIMart wants to increase the height in its sign from 10 to 35 feet; no action by RCC commissioners. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Reid handed out a letter of resignation from Linda Allen. The next meeting on March 11, will be a review of the amendments to the Otay Ranch EIR. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Burrascano noted that the RCC needs to fill the one vacancy. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Marquez will be out of town for the March 11, 1996 meeting. Hall commented on what appears to be inadequate planning and funding by the City as they cut curbs and sidewalks in her neighborhood to accommodate wheelchairs, when a driveway was located within five feet of the corner, and one of the sidewalks dead-ends at a bush. Fisher noted that he received the Otay Ranch reports one week later than expected which reduced the time for review of the documents. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 7:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES ~~~J Barbara Taylor 3-8'3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. December 9. 1996 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rodriguez', Members Duncanson, Kelly MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Spethman and Stokes STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planner Ann pedder-pease Garry williams, Town Planner 1h INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Rodriguez made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape. ç... APPROVAL OF MINUTES None :!h PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-97-19 Cox Communications Buildin!!: 400 Third Avenue Two-story commercial/retail bui1din~ Staff Presentation Garry Williams, Town Planner, went over the existing site conditions which include an older commercial structure that covers the entire parcel with no landscaping or vehicle parking on the site. He explained that Cox Communications currently occupies the south portion of the site with operating electronic equipment and the northern building located at the "G" Street corner is vacant, but previously housed a retail hospital equipment sales use. Mr. Williams continued his presentation summarizing the current proposal which consists of demolishing the existing one-story, 4,000 sq. ft. building and constructing in its place a two-story structure to house Cox Communications cable television equipment. This new two-story building will also provide approximately 732 sq. ft. of retail space. The retail space is located at street level, along the easterly edge of the new building, with primary exposure on Third Avenue. The adjacent one-story cable equipment building .3 ~¡¡~ Design Review committee 2 December 9, 1996 will remain, and be architecturally integrated into the new building design. Mr. Williams indicated that four on-site planters are planned and two planters with a bench are proposed to be located within the "G" Street public space. Mr. Williams mentioned that the applicant is requesting that the proposed wall clock, along with exterior lighting features be considered as a portion of the project's requirement for a Fine Arts Feature. Mr. Williams stated that staff is recommending approval and is asking that a positive recommendation be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency. Pam Buchan, representing the Community Development Department, indicated to the Committee that her department sees the project as a real contribution to the Down-town Redevelopment Area. Ap.plicants Presentation Mary Rowe, representing 1M Consulting Group, stated to the Committee that the proposal would integrate the existing cable company with a new wireless communication (PCS) facility. Ms. Rowe gave the Committee an overview of the entire project and its processes which resulted in the presented proposal. Mr. Scott Rutledge, project manager representing On Design Architects, went over the architectural and landscaping features for the project. He indicated that the project is pedestrian friendly. Committee Discussion Chairman John Rodriguez asked the applicant if he would mind a recommendation stating the all roof top equipment will not be seen from street level. Applicant responded that most equipment is below the parapet, but does not mind such a recommendation. The Committee and applicant went over issues that included the lighting proposal, building materials, scoring, parapet heights, canopies, and gate design. Member Richard Duncanson asked about signage. The applicant indicated that there is one sign under the clock. A complete planned sign program will be submitted to staff for review and approval. Member Pat Kelly stated that she thought the north elevation was too plain, and would like to see more glass. Discussions on the north elevation followed. Ms. Kelly also indicated that she does not agree that the lighting should be considered as part of the Fine Arts Feature. Ms. Kelly stated that the she would 1i1œ the door along the east elevation (emergency door) to more decorative. (Rodriguez/Kelly) (3-0) to approve DRC-97-19 with conditions listed in the report la-c, d to read that sign program shall come back to the Committee for review and approval; 3-ð'S- Design Review committee 3 December 9, 1996 e, f, added condo g to include that only the clock will be considered as part of the fine arts feature requirement; added condo h to include that no roof top equipment shall be visible at street level; added condo i to include that the north elevation shall be studied for possible enhancement similar to the Third Avenue elevation, perhaps articulating with a vertical band, and shall be submitted to staff for review and approval; added condo j to include that 1" reglets be researched; added condo k to include that the doors coordinate with the canopy color. 2. DRC-97-12 Kentucky Fried Chicken 1305 Third Avenue 2,496 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with drive-thru service Staff Presentation Assistant Planner Ms. Ann Pedder Pease presented the project which consists of a 2,496 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with seating for 44 and drive-thru service. She stated to the Committee that the applicant has chosen to demolish, rather than remodel, the existing bank building, but has preserved as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Ms. Pease continued with an overview of the architectural features of the project which represents an attempt by the applicant to maintain its corporate image while still having a building that would be consistent with Chula Vista's design standards. Ms. Pease reviewed the site plan, circulation, and the landscaping. She indicated that there are presently a number of mature tress on the site. The Landscape,Planner has requested that an inventory of existing trees be taken at the building permit stage to detennine if the trees can be preserved with the landscape concept plan. Ms. Pease continued to review staff conditions. She mentioned that staff was concerned about the neon stripe at the cornice. She also pointed out that no proposal has been submitted for the pole sign indicated on the site plan, although the notes indicate a height of 25 feet, which the municipal code would permit. However, staff feels' that, because sign and building visibility at that intersection is in no way impaired, a monument sign would provide necessary identification while enhancing and harmonizing with the building. Staff is thus recommending that a monument rather than a pole sign be encouraged. .3 ~~ro' Design Review committee 4 December 9, 1996 Ap'plicant Presentation Jeff Looker, project architect, addressed the Committee with an overview of the project and indicated that the building is a much more modem Kentucky Fried Chicken prototype. He expl'!Îned that the building represents the KFC of the future and went over the architectural features of the building. Mr. Looker went on to clarify the lighted band at the top of the building. He stated that the band is recessed and illuminated. He indicated that the applicant is in agreement with staff recommendations. Committee Discussion Chairman Rodriguez asked the applicant to explain what they were planning to do to conform with condition c which addresses the pedestrian walkways. The applicant explained that they would use broom fmish concrete both around the building and for walkways across the parking lot. Discussions continued with emphasis on the building architecture, building materials, landscaping, recessed lighting and the signage. Chairman Rodriguez noticed that on the floor plan and site plan there were some panels and glazing that did not match the elevations. The applicant stated that the elevations submitted are correct. Member Pat Kelly indicated that she would like to see the pilasters dimensioned on the plans. (Rodriguez/Duncanson) (3-0) to approve DRC-97-12 with conditions listed in the staff report 1, 2a-e, f with an addition at the end of the sentence to read - with a continuous metal parapet shroud with a reveal for lighting; g, added condition h to include that the exterior elevations will supersede the floor plan, and the graphics on the window awnings shall be removed; added condo i to read - the pilasters shall project a minimum of 8" from the building walls. 3. DRC-97-20 Cordova Vi1la~e South side of East J Street Between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court Staff Presentation Assistant Planner Ms. Ann Pedder Pease reviewed the project setting and site characteristics. She went over the project which consists of 40 residential units, comprising of 16 2-bedroom flats in two buildings and 16 3-bedroom townhomes and 8 4-bedroom townhomes, together grouped in six buildings. Included in the proposal is 3 - <67 - Design Review committee 5 December 9, 1996 open parking for 86 cars, a commons building and a tot lot. Ms. Pease continued and went over the elevation elements and indicated that several features including skylights which give the appearance of chimneys, give a lower density appearance. Ms. Pease reviewed staff concerns, and stated that the applicant has already complied with condition one. She did indicate that landscaping was one of staffs major concerns. Member Richard Duncanson asked staff if two handicap parking spaces were sufficient enough for the project. Ms. Pease indicated that it does meet the 5 % requirement. Member Pat Kelly questioned the density of the surrounding properties of the project site. Mr. Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, went over the densities of the surrounding parcels. Applicants Presentation Ken Sauder, Director of So. Bay Community Services, introduced himself and .then turned the presentation over to Brad Burke, Studio E Architects. Chairman Rodriguez asked the architect to go over the site plan and immediate vicinity. Mr. Burke reviewed the layout of the project and summarized the site characteristics. He indicated that he had no problem with staff recommendations. Committee Comments/Concerns During Committee discussions the following were reviewed: specifics on the skylights; elevations and roofing materials; patio dimensions; landscaping; and tot lot equipment. Chairman Rodriguez asked about the signage. The applicant stated that he would be willing to come back with specifics. Member Kelly indicated that she would like to see a color board and expressed concern with the solid clark grey roofing material. Craig Fukuyarna, with McMillin Development Company, stated that the project has been reviewed by them on a preliminary basis. He indicated that he was very pleased with the project, and that the applicant has followed the general Rancho Del Rey color scheme. MSC (RodriguezJKelly) (3-0) to approve DRC-97-20 with staff recommendations listed in the staff report 1-6, added condition 7 to read - the CMU walls at the entry courts shall have a decorative finish; added condition 8 to read - a colors and materials board shall be presented to the Design Review Committee for review prior to building permit submittal. 3 - ~8' Design Review committee 6 December 9, 1996 4. DRC-96-25 Pacific B<ly Auto Brokers 2952 Main Street Construction of a auto body sho,}) on a site shared with an existing structure (to be remodeled) Staff Presentation Assistant Planner Ms. Ann Pedder Pease presented the project which consists of a proposal for a 3,823 sq. ft. garage building for auto body work. She stated that the applicant intends to remodel the existing 696 sq. ft. building to provide consistency with the new construction and that the proposal includes parking, landscaping, fencing and other site improvements. She went over the history of previous proposals for the site, and indicated that staff feels the current site plan is done very well. Ms. Pease continued and reviewed staff recommendations. She pointed out concerns expressed by neighboring residenis of possible noise impacts and the potential of environmental hazards. She indicated that due to the adjacent single family residential wne, a 50 ft. rear setback is required. Since the intent of the setback is the protection of the residential neighborhood, the applicant has worked with staff to provide a design solution which would effect that protection while maximizing use of the parcel. The solution requires a variance for a 30 ft. encroachment into the rear setback. Ms. Pease indicated that staff does have concerns With the proposed phasing of the building, which would leave a portion of the rear property line exposed. She pointed out that this would contradict the rationale established for encroaching into the rear yard. Staff recommends that no phasing occur if the variance for encroachment into the 50 ft. rear yard setback is to be considered. Ms. Pease went over briefly the remaining conditions. Questions of Staff Chairman Rodriguez questioned staff on the conditions that referred the applicant to come back for DRC review and approval. Ms. Pease indicated that those conditions were of concern to her, and she is leaving it up to the DRC members whether or not it is necessary for the applicant to return on said conditions. Member Duncanson asked staff if there were any other businesses that back up onto the alley. Ms. Pease stated that there are. Chairman Rodriguez asked staff to review CUP and Variance processes. Ap'plicants Presentation Mr. Juan Quemado, project designer, reviewed the history of the project. He continued his presentation by reviewing the site characteristics and explained the direction the applicant is proposing to take with the project. 3~'i?C¡ Design Review committee 7 December 9, 1996 Committee Questions/Concerns During Committee discussions it was agreed by members that the project was an improvement to the area. It was asked of the applicant what their intentions were on condition 'c' referring to the phasing of the project. The applicant indicated that they would like to phase the project due to financial reasons. Mr. Quemado went over how the phasing would occur. Condition 'e', referring to areas of the project not landscaped and irrigated, was also questioned. Ms. Pease indicated that this recommendation was a provision in case the Committee decided that phasing was an option. She stated that no proposal has been received for landscaping for the area to be phased. The applicant indicated that he was not opposed to any of the other conditions. Committee members and the applicant continued to review the redesign of the north elevation, roofing equipment and materials, handicap accessibility, colors, and the landscape plan. Member Kelly stated that she would like to see lighting on the back side of the building. Chainnan Rodriguez asked about a barrier separating the site from the alley during the phasing. The applicant proposed an 8' wood fence with a stucco finish. Member Kelly asked about signage. Mr. Quemado reviewed the sign proposal. MSC (Rodriguez/Kelly) to approve DRC-96-25 with listed conditions in the staff report; A, Bl, 2b, c with changes to read - approval shall be allowed for phasing of the proposal, with timetable for the phasing being approved as part of the Special Use Permit; d, e with changes to read - all areas of the site not landscaped and irrigated shall be paved in accordance with City of Chula vista paving standards; f-j, added condition k to read - there shall be no access form the first phase of the project to the alley; added condition 1 to read - the east elevation of the end of the building proposed for Phase 1 construction shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. :& ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. L<l-rl t2.t-u~ ~~ Maureen Casper, Re,corder 3- 90 Excemt from unapproved 2/12/97 Planning Commission Minutes ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE BODY AND DETAILING SHOP AT 2952 MAIN STREET IN THE IL-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL - PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Ms. Mercedes Brambila Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, using slides and overheads to show the land uses in the immediate area. He noted that as one of the conditions of the Design Review, the rear wall of the building would be on the property line and ultimately the whole alley would be cut off from access to this parcel. Mr. Miller stated that staff recommended approval of the project as proposed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee and Resource Conservation Commission, and recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval to the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Resolution SUPS-96-02. Commissioner Willett asked if the proposed lighting would shine on the residences on either side of the unit. Associate Planner Reid stated that staff had spoken with the applicant's representative who had responded that, because the northerly-most wall would be 18' high, the light which would be in the front would not impact the residents in the back. Commissioner Willett questioned the impact on the residences on the east and west sides. Mr. Miller asked that the applicant's designer, Mr. Quamada, address that in the open hearing. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Manuel & Mercedes Beambila, 156 Spruce Rd., CV 91911, said they owned the property and wanted to make improvements and have new jobs for people. Juan Quamada, Quamada Design Group, 303 Third Ave., CV 91910, stated that Mr. & Mrs. Beambila had been community members, residents and business owners for the past 30 years. They had worked with staff in trying to resolve all the issues that might impact the residents on the north side. The properties west and east were still residences, but were legal non- conforming and were in a transition area that would eventually grow into a commercial or industrial area. Commissioner Willett recognized that the land uses were non-conforming on either side, and applauded the applicant for putting a business in the area. During the time of build-out, how were they going to protect excess lighting on the east side. Mr. Quamada noted that the first phase was on the west side. Mr. Willett confirmed that the north side would be open to the residents on the other side of the alley. With the Police requirement for the increased lighting, it would impact the residents across the alley. Mr. ..3 - q I Quamada replied that the lighting could be controlled by shielding it and putting it on their property. It would be security lighting only. There would not be any business or operation at night. Commissioner Willett commented that there would be no paint booth or painting on site. Mr. Willett asked if the Code required them to put in a grease trap or something to collect the residue. Mr. Miller said it was State law, and there was no option on that matter. Mr. Quamada stated there would be no mechanics or engine repair on site. It was limited to changing parts, rather than body work. Lourdes Flores, 437 Montgomery St., CV 91911, lives north of the project location. The people on Zenith were concerned about closing the alley. She had circulated a petition, and most of the people were Spanish and could not read the notice. They were concerned about fumes, noise, and the wall was going to block the sun and air. She was not against the business, but against having the environment polluted. She did not think the residents would vote to close the alley. The area was zoned R-3. If the alley was closed, there would be no access for some of the people. She was concerned about the children and the elderly. There were elderly people in the mobilehome park. She was concerned about the fumes. MAACO was already in the area. Chair Tarantino asked staff to clarify the closing of the alley' and to comment on the environmental and the public noticing issues. Mr. Miller stated that the alley would not be closed as part of this project. The proposal was to build the northerlymost wall on the property line where the existing fence was located. There would be no change to the alley. Mr. Miller invited Mr. and Mrs. Flores to the Planning Department to view the plans. Ms. Flores asked if the proposed building would be as high as the MAACO building. Mr. Miller replied that this building would be approximately 10 feet lower. Ms. Flores questioned whether there would be any painting or solvents used. Right now there was no intention of having any painting done there, but she was concerned about the future. Associate Planner Reid said that to the best her knowledge, there was no intention of putting in a paint booth in the future. Mr. Quamada, the designer, said they were trying to give the alley to the residents. A lot of the residents in the alley accessed their homes through the alley. With the building on the property line, it would not affect the homes along the alley, it would be more private, and the building itself would be a buffer between the activity during the day of the body shop and the residents. They were not planning in the future for painting at this location. .3-9tÀ. Ms. Flores asked if the buffer was because of the noise. Mr. Quamada replied that it was because of the noise, visual impact because of the cars, and light. It would give the residents more privacy also. It was unfortunate that an I-L property abutted residential property, but they were trying to solve and mitigate the problems. Ms. Flores stated they were concerned about the noise, because they already had noise coming from Nelson Sloan. Regarding the noticing, Mr. Miller stated that when the noticing went out, it was an oversight on staff's part, that both lots being used by the project were not shaded. Apparently both assessor parcel numbers were not picked up for the notice. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it was a legal issue, or if it was legally noticed. The public notice was mailed to all residents within 300 feet meeting State requirement, or beyond. It was mailed property. The question was that the map itself only depicted one parcel rather than three. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the map that the City provides was not required by State law. Staff included it so that people could get an idea as to where the property was located. Staff tries to be as accurate as possible. The address was on the notice, and the City does notify well beyond the State requirement. Assistant Attorney Moore was reviewing the notice and would report later in the meeting. Elizabeth Ruiz Exum, 438 Montgomery St., CV 91911, said she did not receive a notice. She found out about the meeting from her mother, who lived across the street at 433 Montgomery St. She did not know if she would out of the radius of 300 feet. While gathering petitions, she found that a lot of their neighbors did not receive a notice. She felt an auto body and detailing business would be using hazardous chemicals. She felt the notice should have been more clear. All of the neighbors thought it was an auto body detailing business where they would be using the hazardous chemicals. They were concerned about the children and the elderly. It was largely a Hispanic community with limited English speakers. When they were collecting signatures, a lot of them could not understand because they could not read English. It was hard to understand, even for English-speaking people. She was opposed to this. She was not against businesses coming in. The area definitely needed beautifying. It was the nature of the business that they were concerned with. She felt an auto body business would attract sometimes the wrong type of customers. There was already MAACO which was an auto body shop, and there was another auto detailing body shop to the east side. She was concerned that Main Street would become a row of auto body shops. Assistant City Attorney Moore restated the question as to whether or not the fact that there was only one lot depicted on the map would cause a problem with the notice. She had reviewed the notice, and believed it should not. The address was clearly stated on the notice as 2952 Main Street, and those lots were identified at that address. Based upon that, she did not believe it would cause a problem. It was a slight irregularity, and she did not believe it would be a legal problem. -3 -q3 - Chair Tarantino asked if the reason Ms. Exum did not get a notice, and she lived across the street, was because she lived out of the 300' radius. Mr. Miller stated that all of the parcels on the south side of Montgomery, west of Fourth Avenue were noticed. They were within the 500' noticing area. It did not extend to the north side of Montgomery Street. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that it was important for the public to note that Chula Vista's 500' radius was well in excess of what every other city in the jurisdiction does and what the State requires, being 300'. He was uneasy about a map that slightly misrepresented the scope of the project area. He understood that legally is was okay. Steve Exum, 438 Montgomery St., CV 91911, said it seemed to him that the business was going to serve a lot more than just 300' within its area to the customers. In that regard, he thought it was a community issue, not necessarily a neighborhood issue. He thought the boundary of the mailing should be much larger. He lives 1-1/2 blocks from the proposed site. Currently, it was a very low key business with light traffic. He was concerned that the north side of Main Street had no sidewalk, had residents on both sides, with small children who play, and currently live with the problem that large semi trucks park in their driveways and alleys, and cruise up and down their street. Now a business was going in there that would be serving people going in and out of there all of the time. He was concerned about the safety of the children. They had gotten two notices. It was hard to tell if one was a duplicate of the other, and the second was possibly thrown out, and people did not know about the hearing, especially when they did not speak English well and were probably limited in reading it. He thought it should have been a bilingual letter, especially when there were 70 people who lived on Zenith, Montgomery, and Fourth Street who were opposed to this business moving in. Mr. Exum turned the petition over to the Commission. Regarding the alley, everyone they talked to was under the impression the alley would be cut off, because of the terminology that there would be restricted access to the alley. In listening to the discussion, there would be an 18' wall built against the alley, directly across from an apartment complex where the children all play. It would block what little skylight they had from their courtyard, as well as create a mural of 18' for people to paint, tag, destroy, and to deface their community further. Presently, there was no wall, little traffic, and no problem with the existing business. They were concerned about the nature of the business, the traffic, the clientele it would pull in, and the inability of the City to comply with an ordinance that Mac trucks should not be parked there. They had been parked there for at least the last five years, and nothing had been done about it. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that 500' had been noticed. He wanted to make sure the public understood that it by no means limited the importance of their input, regardless of where they lived within the City. He thought all the public should feel free on all issues to comment. The Planning Commissioners took it very serious, regardless of the noticing. The noticing had to be limited because of the cost factors. Chair Tarantino was also disturbed that the language barrier was factoring people out from coming to the hearings. He offered to tranSlate if anyone speaking a language other than English, particularly Spanish, would like to come in the future and address the Commission. He would translate for the Commission. 3-C¡C¡ Commissioner Tuchscher felt that if staff was not getting a response or not getting people to understand what was happening in their neighborhood because they could not interpret our letters, he was also concerned about that. Martha Garcia, 439 Zenith St., CV 91911, had previously written a letter to the Planning Commission which was included in their packet. She was concerned about the safety of the elderly and children. She was afraid the community would be like Logan Heights. They were trying to beautify the community. She was concerned about chemicals, fire hazards, increase in vandalism and tagging, and a decrease in the value of their property. Marian Costanzo, 501 Anita St, Sp. 162, CV 91911, lives next to MAACO. She lives in a mobilehome park with mostly elderly people. She said that 1/3 of her neighbors could not read English. The area to be developed was much bigger than they thought, and it had been her impression that the building would be more in the alley. They were concerned about the fumes, noise, paint, and polish. There were a lot of people in her mobilehome park who were not physically able to come to the meeting. Regarding the semis, there were trucks backing up from the area all morning with their back-up noise. She had signed a petition which had been circulated at the mobilehome park, which had not yet been submitted. With the concurrence of the Chair, the applicant, Mrs. Beambila returned to the podium to state that she thought the people signed the petitions because they thought the alley was going to be closed. The Beambilas live in the neighborhood also, and did not want something there that would cause a problem. Mr. Quamada, the designer, added that the business was not oriented for public. Mr. Beambila bought cars, fixed them, and then sold them in another location. There would be a minimum amount of public coming in to get their car fixed. That was not the nature of his business. This was oriented to compact cars. They were not bringing trucks into the property. Everything would be accessed through Main Street. There would be no access through the alley, and it would not jeopardize anyone because of traffic. Chair Tarantino asked if they were putting anti-graffiti types of material into the construction of the 18' wall. Mr. Quamada replied that one of the requirements of the Design Review Committee was anti-graffiti paint at the alley. Chair Tarantino asked if the owners were prepared to deal with it as soon as it happened, and remove it, so it would not stay for a period of time. Mr. Quamada answered affirmatively. Since others had spoken again, the Chair allowed Ms. Costanzo to approach the podium. She said that she did not speak or read Spanish, but the person who brought the petition was bilingual. They could make anyone aware in at least English and Spanish of what they were signing. She could not believe someone would sign without explanation. Ms. Exum replied that they had explained the petition. They had to translate the letter. Everyone was under a completely different impression of this. She did not feel the applicants lived in the area. The design was great, but it was the type of business they were concerned .3 - q5'" 'I -.. - .. - with. She asked if they could guarantee that there would not be any hazardous materials that were highly combustible. What if a big fire started next door to where they lived? No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Replying to Commissioner Davis, Mr. Miller stated that because of the nuances of the Montgomery Specific Plan, some projects may not require special use pennits. Commissioner Tuchscher asked why this item went to the Resource Conservation Commission, and why the special use pennit. Mr. Miller said it went to the RCC because there was a Negative Declaration involved. Mr. Lee explained that the special use pennit was required because it was a conditional use in the I-L zone. There were specific limitations in the Montgomery Specific Plan. He noted that if it was an allowed use in the I-L zone, the nonnal process would be to go through the environmental review process. If they received a Negative Declaration, they would proceed on to Design Review with the actual site plan and building elevations. This project is in a redevelopment area, so it would go on to the Redevelopment Agency. In that case, it would not go forward to the Planning Commission. The Design Review Committee would be acting as the recommending body for the item proceeding on to the Agency. In this case, a special use pennit was required because of the nature of the business, and the reason it was before the Planning Commission. All the actions by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission proceed on to the Redevelopment Agency for final action. Mr. Lee continued by giving an overview of the basic land uses allowable in an I-L zone. Mr. Lee concurred with the architect for the applicant that it was not an ideal situation to have limited industrial up against residential, separated by a narrow alley. This was in part a carryover from the County. There had been no change to that particular land use. Mr. Miller added that in addition to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and Montgomery Specific Plan, there was also the Southwest Redevelopment Plan that was a primary document for this area. In consultation with the Community Development Department, it was felt that this item should go before the Redevelopment Agency, as well, and Mr. Miller noted that it was tentatively scheduled for their March 4 meeting. Mr. Lee noted, regarding safety, that the City requirements were that the applicant would be installing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and full street improvements in front of the subject project, but not necessarily the entire area. Mr. Miller infonned the Commission that the land use matrix in the Zoning Ordinance listed auto body shops as a conditional use in the I-L zone. Since it was conditional and because there was so much involved, it was decided that it would be taken before the Planning Commission and then on to the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Willett stated that he felt paragraph two of the notice, regarding environmental review, should be written in layman language. At Commissioner Tuchscher's request, Mr. Lee c3-9(ç, commented that it was a legal requirement; staff had spent a lot of time evaluating the noticing procedure and what was in the notice. An attempt was made to make it as clear as possible, but some issues are fairly complex and certain information needs to be provided. The notices give the address of the planner and the phone number to call and the case number. The point person is identified. The date and place of the meeting is bolded, and a locator map is included. Mr. Lee stated that he had reviewed many notices throughout the County and he thought Chula Vista's was at the top of the list in terms of providing information. Staff would look at the language and discuss it with the Environmental Coordinator to see if some additional language might help in that particular area. Commissioner Tuchscher thought Planning staff was too educated and too close to it. Most people receiving the notices do not understand them. He thought the first sentence should be very simple like" A new building is proposed at ... " or "A new development is proposed in your neighborhood within 300 feet of your residence". Very simple. It should also say in the next sentence "A public hearing will be held on" and then the date. Then put in the legal language. Commissioner Willett asked why there had not been a community briefing or workshop. He noted some conditions that had been put on other businesses, such as requiring use of compression of noise, firewalls, work to be done inside with doors closed. Commissioner Thomas asked if any of this was regulated by the Fire Department to deal with the solvents and waste. Chair Tarantino noted that it was regulated by the State, as well as locally. Mr. Miller stated that the Fire Department would do an inspection, and cans of spray paint, etc. would have to be stored in an appropriate place identified to the Fire Department. There probably would be aerosol solvents there, but not massive quantities of solvents for taking paint off cars. It was cheaper and quicker to remove a dented fender and replace it with a new one. The vehicle would be taken off site for painting. Chair Tarantino commented that many of the concerns addressed by the audience, such as altering air movement, the moisture and the temperature, climate in the immediate alley, the objectionable odors, the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, were all outlined in the Negative Declaration and all of the responses to those issues raised were checked "no impact." He asked how it was determined that there would be no impact. Associate Planner Reid explained that when there was an area zoned limited industrial and had a number of similar auto uses on the site, and there was already a lot of traffic, etc., this use with a lot of the activity happening within an enclosed building and a noise buffer, would be found to not have.an impact. Answering Chair Tarantino, Ms. Reid stated staff operated under guidelines set not only by the City of Chula Vista but also by the State of California and would have to be certified and validated by both agencies. It has to be in compliance with CEQA and is reviewed by the City Attorney's office and also by the Resource Conservation Commission. .3 -91 - Commissioner Tuchscher stated that it was fair to say that staff took into account all the existing conditions, both on site and surrounding, and that no impact means no negative change from current conditions. Associate Planner Reid concurred. Commissioner Tuchscher believed that this project would add prosperity to the area and would probably spark additional new development, which he thought would eliminate some of the outdoor storage, truck traffic, etc., and hopefully would have a positive impact if it was approved. Regarding the configuration, he thought that backing it up to the alley with no access was a tremendous plus, because it would buffer traffic noise and business activity. He was concerned regarding the noticing. When the map shows a project which is 33 % the size of the actual project, he is uncomfortable. He suggested that staff accurately depict the project and that the notice be sent in Spanish. He asked staff if that was reasonable. Mr. Lee answered affinnatively. Commissioner Davis asked if the City had any policy on noticing in Spanish. Mr. Lee stated there was none. As a general rule, the notices were not sent in both English and Spanish. Commissioner Tuchscher felt is was something that needed to be considered. MS (Davis/Tuchscher) to recommend approval of SUPS-96-02 for the special use permit at 2952 Main Street. Commissioner Davis stated that she knew it was very difficult when a residential zone abutted an I-L zone or industrial zone, and it was very difficult in that transition and the types of property for the types of businesses that can go in the property. She felt that staff had done a thorough job to show that there were not any negatives that could impact the community. She felt that placing the building on the back of the lot and restricting the access of the business to the alley is to the benefit of the residents. She hoped that would make it a good neighbor situation. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Ray excused) to approve. Mr. Lee noted that staff had the names and addresses of the people who had spoken but had not received notices. They would be added to the noticing that moves forward to the Agency. .3~9?1 -