Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 2005/03/01 ~ ~f?. ~~~ -:.,.- - cm OF CHUlA VISTA COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING TUESDAY, MARCH 1,2005 4:00 P.M. (immediately following the City Council meeting) ,JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Agency/Council Members Castaneda, Davis, McCann, Rindone; Chair/Mayor Padilla CONSENT CALENDAR The staff recommendations regarding the following item(s) listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency/Council by one motion without discussion unless an Agency/Council member, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Public Hearing items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 3, 2004, February 8, 2005, February 15, 2005 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 included 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 HEARING The fOllowing item(s) 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. CONSIDERATION OF 1) ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED DECLARATION; 2) APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR ALLEN GAS AND DIESEL TRUCK STOP FOR THE EXPANSION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE GAS AND SERVICE STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE, AND 3) ALLOWING REDUCTIONS IN THE REQUIRED EXTERIOR SETBACKS AND 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3205 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Design approval for architectural and site design and variance request to allow reductions in the required setbacks and 15-foot landscape buffer for the removal and expansion of the Allen Gas and Diesel Truck Strop located at 3205 Main Street in the ILP zone. [Director of Planning and Building] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: 1) ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-50; 2) APPROVING DESIGN APPROVAL DRC-04-47 FOR THE EXPANSION AND OPERATION OF A SERVICE STATION; AND 3) GRANTING VARIANCE ZAV-04-12 TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND THE 15- FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR ALLEN GAS AND DIESEL TRUCK STOP LOCATED AT 3205 MAIN STREET IN THE ILP ZONE OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. CHAIR REPORT 5. AGENCY COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to a Regular Meeting on March 15, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Redevelopment Agency, March 1, 2005 Page 2 MlNUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 3, 2004 6:30 p.m. Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista were called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, McCann (arrived at 7:46 p.m.), Rindone, Salas and ChairlMayor Padilla ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow Consultants: Kathleen Rosenow, Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc.; Murray Kane, Kane, Balmer, Berkman Chula Vista Urban Development Committee Members: Gerald Trimble, Chris Lewis (president), Dr. Cheryl Cox, Dan Biggs, Ben Richardson, Jim Pieri, Gary Nordstrom, Jerrold Siegel, and Charles Moore ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. BUSINESS I. WORKSHOP ON REDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES In October 2003, the City Council authorized a contract with the fIrms ofRSG and Kane, Ballmer, Berkman to conduct an analysis of redevelopment organizational structures. This first of two workshops with the consultants was organized to accomplish two primary goals related to the study of organizational structure options for redevelopment within the City: 1. To clarify the goals that the CounciV Agency believe should be used as the focus for analysis of alternative redevelopment organizational structures; and 2. To determine which of fIve alternative redevelopment organizational structures warrant in-depth study and should be analyzed by the consultant team prior to a second Council workshop on this issue. (Community Development Director) 1-1 REDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES (Continued) Chair/Mayor Padilla addressed inaccurate and false statements contained in the Crossroads II winter newsletter pertaining to the City's Urban Development Committee (ODC) and its members, stating that the UDC is comprised of citizen electors, many of whom are stakeholders in the City, who have a position and point of view on matters of policy that they would like to advocate. He believed that it was unfair to ascribe motives to the UDC that might be characterized as less than savory or for personal gain. Kathleen Rosenow, consultant to the City, explained that the UDC was formed by a group of citizens interested in having the Redevelopment Agency function more efficiently to achieve greater goals in the community. A study was undertaken by Keiser Marsden and Associates to identifY a series of organizational structures. The Council formed an ad hoc committee of two members of the Council, staff, and UDC representatives to study five potential redevelopment organizational structures: the existing structure; an independent, appointed redevelopment agency; a community development commission; a non-profit development corporation; and a redevelopment commission. Chris Lewis, President of the UDC, provided a brief history on the formation of the committee, the members of which came together as private citizens who have served the community in various capacities. He explained that the group was concerned about the possible lack of attention on the west side of the City and the need for increased redevelopment and investment in the area. He expressed the need to focus efforts on redevelopment, noting an urgency to reinvest, since the City will be upside down with regard to redevelopment funds in approximately two years. He believed that the collaboration between the public and private sectors would streamline the work. He added that the City Council would be in charge of the entire process and structure. Peter Watry stated that the goal for the City should not be the same as that for business, and redevelopment is more important in certain areas than returns on investments. There needs to be increased focus placed on the citizens. Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II, stated that she would correct the group's newsletter if it is factually incorrect. She also stated that the major concem of Crossroads II is the missing goal to provide maximwn public input during the redevelopment process. The report does not address citizen input and participation. Jerold Siegel stated that the more return the City receives on its investments, the more the public will benefit. Dr. Cheryl Cox explained that project area committees are part of redevelopment law and, therefore, citizens of affected areas would be involved in the process. She stated that she would like to see a goal of accountability added to the process and also commented that a non-profit corporation would be accountable to the City Council. Page 2 CouncillRDA Minutes 1-2 02/03/04 REDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES (Continued) Murray Kane, consultant with Kane, Ballmer, Berkman, presented five alternative redevelopment organizational structures: I) elected members of the City Council would act as the board of the Redevelopment Agency; 2) the Council would appoint an independent group to be the Redevelopment Agency; 3) the Council would set up a Community Development Commission that could also act as the Housing Authority; 4) the Council could act as a Redevelopment Agency but be assisted in redevelopment by a non-profit corporation; or 5) a Redevelopment Commission, which differs from a Community Development Commission, could be established. Mr. Kane believed that the alternatives of a non-profit and redevelopment commission should be further examined. Patricia Aguilar questioned the minimum amount of public input required under redevelopment law. Mr. Kane responded that the law requires a project area committee, regardless of the type of organizational structure, and that all organizational structures would be subject to the Brown Act and open meeting requirements. He added that public hearings are necessary prior to adoption of redevelopment plans and the expenditure of funds on public improvements. Mr. Trimble further clarified that the issue of public input was not included in the analysis and report because public input is a requirement by law, regardless of the Structure that is implemented. Ian Gill asked about the potential to add additional acreage to the plan. Mr. Kane replied that it is being studied but was not included in the current study. Following Council comments, ChairlMayor Padilla moved to focus further analysis on organizational structure Options 4 and 5. Agency/Councilmernber McCann seconded the motion. Agency/Councilmember Rindone favored directing further study of Option 4 only. ChairlMayor Padilla responded that he would be comfortable with placing the sole focus on the non-profit corporation and using it for comparison purposes to the existing Structure. ChairlMayor Padilla then withdrew his previous motion, and Agency/Councilmember McCann agreed to withdraw his second. ACTION: Agency/Councilmember Rindone offered a substitute motion to direct further analysis of Option 4, a non-profit development corporation, for comparative analysis to the existing structure at the direction of the sub-committee and the working group. ChairlMayor Padilla seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. ChairlMayor Padilla adjourned the meeting at 9: 17 p.m., to an adjourned regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on February 10, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting in the Council Chambers. -~ <=-=-iu Susan Bigelow, CMC, Page 3 CouncillRDA Minutes 1-3 02/03/04 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 8, 2005 6:00 p.m. An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and a Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista were called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/CounciIrnembers: Castaneda, Rindone, and Mayor Padilla Davis, McCann, ABSENT: Agency/CounciIrnembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow BUSINESS 1. PRESENTATION UPDATE ON THE CHULA VISTA BA YFRONT MASTER PLAN On May 25,2004, at ajoint meeting of the Board of Port Commissioners and Chula Vista City Council, the Port Board and City Council gave preliminary approval of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan land use plans and authorized staff to proceed with Phase II of the Master Plan. (Director of Community Development). Staff recommendation: Agency/Council accept the report. Community Development Director Madigan recognized Port Commissioner Hall; Randa Coniglio of the Port District planning team; Ralph Hicks, Port District Director of Land Use Planning; Wileen Manaois and Lesley Nishihira, also from the Port District, City Attorney Moore, and Principal Community Development Specialist Lisa Lukes. She then briefly discussed the three planning elements for the Bayfront, namely planning design, public outreach, and market/financial work. Lewis Michaelson, representing Katz and Associates, discussed the public participation element, including the Citizens Advisory Committee. Randy Morton, representing Cooper & Robertson, discussed the plan elements for the site, including the Sweetwater District, Harbor District, Otay District, development and open space, a land exchange, land use, and circulation. Director Madigan then presented an update on the next steps for the plan, including a financial analysis and report to the Council in the spring; certification of the environmental impact report; and the Coastal Commission process concurrent with the state land swap process. CounciIrnember McCann requested that staff provide a schedule of the next steps for the plan. 1-4 BUSINESS (Continued) Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, supported the proposed plan, emphasizing the importance of the land trade from a public, environmental, and economic perspective. She also spoke of the significance of the H Street connection to tie in with the proposed plan. Richard Campbell, representing Pacifica Companies, supported the proposed plan and thanked the Council for its support in the process. Lupita Jiminez, representing South Bay Greens, expressed the need to stay on course with the proposed plan and to continue to obtain input from the citizens. Deputy Mayor Davis questioned the time line for the City to commence the necessary procedures with the State Lands Commission. Mr. Hicks responded that the City would be required to have a certified environmental impact report before commencement of the land exchange process. Councilmember McCann was pleased with the public involvement in the process and expressed the need to continue the east/west street extensions. He spoke in support of the proposed active and passive parks on the bayfront and expressed the importance of continuing to look at establishing a resort hotel and an events center within the proposed project. Councilmember Castaneda spoke of the need to be cognizant of structural development details for the proposed bayfront project. He also stated that he would be looking to the Port for equity in terms of the amount of investments made in San Diego on Port property. Councilmember Rindone reinforced his appreciation to citizens for their participation in the plan. He spoke about the importance of the water taxi as an element of the plan and also emphasized the land swap as a key factor in the planning process. Mayor Padilla thanked citizens for their input and participation and thanked City and Port staff for their work on the proj ect. He conveyed the importance of continuing the planning process in a public and collaborative manner. It was the consensus of the City Council/Agency to accept the report. No formal action was taken on this item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, spoke about proposed H.R. 418 before Congress that would exempt environmental review for the construction of the triple border fence. She stated that such an exemption would be a travesty, set precedence for disaster in the region, and undermine environmental laws. She invited all to attend a news conference on Wednesday, February 9, 2005, to speak out against the proposed bill. Page 2 CouncilJRDA Minutes 1-5 02/08/05 OTHER BUSINESS 2. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. 3. CHAIRIMA YOR'S REPORTS There were none. 4. AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS There were none. ADJOURNMENT At 7:29 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to a Regular Meeting on February 15, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting in the Council Chambers. ~ ~~ ~ ~ Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk Page 3 CouncillRDA Minutes 1-6 02/08/05 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 15, 2005 6:00 p.m. An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and a Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of ChuIa Vista were called to order at 6:22 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Agency/CounciImembers: Castaneda, Davis, McCann, and Mayor Padilla Agency/CounciImembers: Rindone ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow CONSENT CALENDAR Agency/CounciImember Castaneda stated that he would abstain from voting on the minutes of November, 23, 2004, since he was not a member of the Council at that time. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 23,2004, and January 11,2005 Staff recommendation: CounciVAgency approve the minutes. 2. AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1903, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH SUNROAD CHULA VISTA AUTO INCORPORATED, FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENENACE OF A CHULA VISTA TOYOTA DEALERSHIP Chula Vista Toyota will be the first of several new dealerships built and operated pursuant to the City's Auto Park East and Auto Park North Specific Plans. The Sunroad OPA, together with the Master OPA for Auto Park East (adopted by City Council on August 24, 2004), will establish a foundation and set the stage for the comprehensive operations and maintenance of "first quality, first class" auto dealerships within the Chula Vista Auto Park. (Community Development Director) Staff recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution. ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla moved to approve staffs recommendations and offered the Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0 except with regard to the minutes of November 23, 2004, which were approved 3-0-1 with Agency/CounciImember Castaneda abstaining since he was not a member of the Council at that time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. 1-7 OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. 4. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORTS There were none. 5. AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS There were none. ADJOURNMENT At 6:25 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to a Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on March 1,2005, at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting in the Council Chambers. ~~_~J~ ) Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk Page 2 CounciVRDA Minutes 02/15/05 1-8 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: ;2... 3/01/05 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING: 1) TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-OO-SO; 2) A RESOLUTION APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN FOR DESIGN APPROVAL DRC-04-47 KNOWN AS ALLEN GAS AND DIESEL TRUCK STOP FOR THE EXPANSION AND OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE GAS AND SERVICE STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE; AND; 3) A VARIANCE ALLOWING REDUCTIONS IN THE REQUIRED EXTERIOR SETBACKS AND 1 S-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCSATED AT 3205 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: 1) ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-50; 2) APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC-04-47 FOR THE EXPANSION AND OPERATION OF A SERVICE STATION; AND 3) GRANTING VARIANCE ZAV- 04-12 TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND THE 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR ALLEN GAS AND DIESEL TRUCK STOP LOCATED AT 3205 MAIN STREET IN THE ILP ZONE. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTME CITY MANAGE 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO GJ The applicant originally submitted applications for a Design Review (DRC-01-11), a Special Use Permit (SUP-00-11) and a Variance (ZAV-01-09) in the summer of 2000 requesting an expansion of the existing service station, which included a remodel and addition to the convenience store (DRC); a carwash, adding diesel fuel pumps for trucks and a shower facility for truck drivers (SUP); and reductions in the required exterior setbacks and 15-foot landscape buffer requirement of the Montgomery Specific Plan (ZAV). However, the applicant withdrew these applications and reapplied in February of 2004 for essentially the same requests, but without the carwash and shower facility proposal. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the redesigned project to the RDA on October 18, 2004. 2-1 PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: ~ 3/01/05 The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-00-50 in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-00-50, which is available upon request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency: 1. Hold the required public hearing on the Design Approval and Variance and take public testimony, if any; and 2. Approve the Resolution: a) adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-50; b) approving Design Approval DRC-04-47 and granting Variance ZAV-04-12 for the project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION On August 2, 2004, The Resource Conservation Commission reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-50 and recommended its adoption to the Redevelopment Agency. On October 18, 2004, the DRC reviewed the design elements associated with the expansion and operation of the convenience store and improvements to the site, and recommended approval by a vote of 3-0, contingent upon approval of a Special Use Permit and Variance. On October 27,2004, the Planning Commission approved Special Use Permit (SUPS- 04-03) and recommended approval of Variance application (ZAV-04-12) for the project by a 5-0 vote. DISCUSSION Project Setting The project site is located at 3205 Main Street at the intersection of Main Street and Beyer Way (see Locator Map). The project site is relatively flat consisting of three contiguous parcels situated within the Southwest Redevelopment Area and the Montgomery Specific Plan area, and is zoned Limited Industrial, Precise Plan (ILP). The site is surrounded primarily by industrial and commercial uses. The existing use on the site includes a one-story, 1,944 square-foot combined auto service garage and 2-2 PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: Ot.. 3/01/05 convenience store; a 1,248 square-foot canopy covering two fuel pumps; and a 465 square-foot canopy covering a single fuel pump (see Project Plans, Attachment 5). The site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Area Plan. The Southwest Redevelopment Area Plan stated purpose is to remove blighting influences, encourage and facilitate redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels, and improve the area as a whole. The proposed development project will support and implement the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and will contribute to the development and improvement of the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Project Description Design: The proposed project includes the remodel and expansion of an existing automobile service station and convenience store and adding fuel dispensing stations as described below: · The re-facing of the existing building and adding 1,967 square feet of floor area to the existing convenience store, which includes, storage, a walk-in cooler, additional retail area and a second story (mezzanine for office). The wall on the east side of the building will be replaced with two roll-up doors for the existing service bay area. · The addition of one new gas pump island and canopy along Main Street; four new gas pump islands under a 1,248 square foot canopy along Beyer Way · The addition of three new truck diesel fuel pump islands, each under a canopy east of the service station/convenience store building. · The project will also add parking spaces and landscaping as well as construct City required street, curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Variance: The project includes expanding the existing fuel pump canopies by adding canopies with identical dimensions to accommodate the additional gas pumps. Because: (1) the applicant is required to dedicate portions of his property along Main Street and Beyer Way for public right-of-way improvements; (2) the property is located within the Montgomery Specific Plan area, which requires a 15-foot landscape buffer for properties with frontages along major streets; and (3) the property is also located in the IL (Limited Industrial) zone, which has a building setback requirement of a 20-foot front yard and 15-foot exterior side yard; a variance is needed to complete the project as planned. The variance request is specifically for a reduction of the landscape buffer from 15 feet to 11 Y, feet for a section of the property along Main Street and from 15 feet to 10 feet for a portion along Beyer Way. The request also asks for an allowance 2-3 PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: d- 3/01/05 for the proposed expansion of the existing fuel pump canopies to encroach into the required front and exterior yard setbacks. Project Data Tables Table 1 (Project Data) Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 629-060-60, 61, and 65 Current Zoninq: ILP (Limited Industrial, Precise Plan) Land Use Desiqnation: Research and Limited Industrial Lot Area: 1.74 acres REQUIRED: PROPOSED: Parking: Standard: 20 1/400 for 9arage: 1,161 sq.ft. = 3 spaces Disabled: 1 1/200 for retail: 1,835 sq. ft.= 9 Truck: 2 1/300 for office: 306 sq.ft. = 1 space Total: 23 Minimum required: 13 Lot Coveraqe: 50 percent 5 percent Setback: .Front: 20 feet (Main St.) 10 ft. (Canopy along Main St.) .Exterior Side: 15 feet (BeyerWy.) 9 ft. (Canopy along Beyer Wy.) Rear: 0 feet >100 ft. .Landscape Buffer: 15 feet 11.5 ft. alonq Main St./10 ft. alonq Bever Wav Buildinq Heiqht: 45 feet or 3.5-stories 34 ft. .Requires a Variance Table 2 (Land Use Designations) GENERAL PLAN MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING EXISTING LAND USE Site Limited Industrial Research & ILP Allen Gas station and Limited Ind. convenience store Nort Retail and Office Mercantile & Office ILP/CCP Small retail center h Comm/ Limited Commercial Industrial Sout Limited Industrial Research & ILP Muffler repair shop h Limited Ind. Sout Limited Industrial Research & ILP Animal shelter hwes Limited Ind. t East Limited Industrial Research & ILP Used auto sales lot Limited Ind. West Limited Industrial Research & ILP Liquor store Limited Ind. 2-4 PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: :L 3/01/05 Analysis. Environmental Review: The proposed expansion was evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared, which analyzed the project for potential impacts to the surrounding area. The MND did not identify significant impacts to the surrounding area regarding traffic impacts. Analysis of a traffic impact study for the proposed expansion determined that although the project will contribute to a net increase in area wide traffic, the MND concluded that the project would operate with acceptable delays and levels of service. Project Evaluation Criteria The project was evaluated in accordance with the requirements found in the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) and the City Of Chula Vista Design Guidelines and Landscape Manual. The following sections describe the project aspects and the applicable development standard and guideline criteria. Variance: The project site is located in the Montgomery Specific Plan Area and the IL (Limited Industrial) zone. The site is an irregular shaped triangular lot that has two long street frontages. The site is developed with a service station, which includes a gas pump and canopy along Main Street and another along Beyer Way. The Montgomery Specific Plan requires properties that have frontages along major streets to maintain a 15-foot landscape buffer. The IL zone has a structure setback requirement that includes a 20- foot front and a 15-foot exterior side yard. The property owner is required to provide a 10-foot right-of-way dedication of property fronting Main Street and a 17 -foot right-of- way dedication of property fronting Beyer Way, which results in a new 20-foot front setback and a 15-foot exterior yard setback respectively. These conditions impact the developable area of the site. The existing canopies along Main Street and Beyer Way are nonconforming because they encroach into the required exterior setbacks and the 15-foot landscape buffer requirements. The expanded canopies will maintain the current setbacks; therefore, it would not be practical or feasible if the property owner were required to meet the new setbacks or to relocate the canopies out of the required setbacks. The variance will allow the new canopies to encroach into the new setbacks, and reduce the 15-foot landscape buffers along Main Street and Beyer Way. Staff is of the opinion that granting the variance will allow the owner to deviate from the setback requirements and continue the use without being a detriment to the surrounding area. 2-5 PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: d-- 3/01/05 Design Issues Site Plan Issues: Buildina Arranaement Page 111-2 of the CVDM states that a variety of building and parking setbacks should be provided in order to create diversity and avoid monotonous building fagade. The combined convenience store/service garage building is situated at the north central area of the project site. The existing fuel islands are located at the north end along Main Street and at the south end along Beyer Way. The three diesel fuel islands will be placed in a linear pattern east of the main building. The small size, number and placement of the structures will avoid structure cluttering (see Attachment 4, Site Plan). This building arrangement provides an opportunity for substantial landscaping and adequate parking. Additionally, the building's slightly angled position allows for good exposure from both Main Street and Beyer Way. Vehicular Access and Circulation Page 111-3 of the CVDM states that site access and internal circulation should promote safety, efficiency and convenience. The project will have access from Main Street and Beyer Way. The fuel stations for autos are situated near the street frontages, which allows for easy entry onto the site. The proposed truck diesel fuel stations will be located behind the convenience store in a linear arrangement, which allows for safe and easy entry and circulation by trucks onto the site (see Attachment 4, Site Plan). The Traffic Impact Study that was prepared for the project concluded that the project would not significantly impact the area. Refer to the On-Site Circulation section in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Parkina Page 111-5 of the CVDM states that parking should not be the dominant visual element of the site. The project requires 13 spaces (see Project Data Table above) based on the service garage, convenience store (retail) and office floor area. The project provides 26 parking spaces including 23 standard spaces, one handicap space and two spaces for trucks. The project site will have three parking areas: a small parking row at the east portion (11 spaces); at the south end of the main building (2 spaces); and a row facing Beyer Way further south from the building (10 spaces). The two parking spaces for trucks are located at the south tip of the site (see Attachment 4, Site Plan). 2-6 PAGE 7, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: d- 3/01/05 The service station use on the site is intended primarily for vehicular traffic, which a substantial paved area with the least amount of fixed obstacles for safety. Although this will be the dominant visual element. the site's perimeter will have substantial landscaping that will help screen this element of the project site. The Landscape Section of this report further describes the proposed landscaping. Pedestrian Circulation Page 111-6 of the CVDM states that separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems should be provided whenever possible. Although the project site will be bordered by new sidewalks along Main Street and Beyer Way, substantial pedestrian traffic is not likely because the nature of the use on site is primarily for auto and truck services. However, staff does recommend that the project include pedestrian walkways from the pump island stations to the store, and incorporate enhanced paving to identify these walkways and ADA route of travel on-site to alert vehicular traffic of potential pedestrian crossings. Trash Enclosures & Recvclinq Page 111-7 of the CVDM states that trash storage must be fully enclosed and incorporated within the main structures or separate freestanding enclosures. Locations should be unobtrusive and conveniently accessible for trash collection, but not block circulation drives during loading operations. The trash enclosure will be located at the east side of the building and at the end of the new parking row. The enclosure will consist of a six-foot high concrete masonry wall and metal doors. The enclosure is approximately 200 square feet in area and 6 feet tall. The enclosure will contain trash and recycling receptacles, which will be concealed from view by the metal doors, and will have a stucco finish painted to match the main building. The size and location of the enclosure is designed based on comments from the Conservation Coordinator in the preparation of a comprehensive trash and recycling program. Staff recommends that a wood trellis protruding above the enclosure be added to add a degree of aesthetics to the project. 2-7 PAGE 8, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: .;L 3/01/05 Architecture Issues Buildino Desion Page 111-8 of the CVDM states that the architecture should consider compatibility with the surrounding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color material and roofline. In developed areas, new projects should meet or exceed the standards of quality set by the surrounding development. The addition of 1,967 square feet to the existing building's basic rectangular shape and the design elements will enhance the building. The design elements include slate pop- outs, foam cornices, canvas awnings, a staggered roof line incorporating parapets, a tower element with an arch feature and column features that incorporate manufactured stone at the front and sides of the building. The support columns for the existing and new fuel dispensing island canopies will incorporate the same manufactured stone, which will display uniformity for the overall facility. Materials/Colors Page 111-10 of the CVDM states that colors and Materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style and compatible with the character of surrounding development. The building's exterior finish will be stucco with manufactured stone. The proposed colors include: a Chablis for the base color; Santana for accent; and Florentine Brass for the wood trim. The tile roof color is Mission Red. Liohtino Page 111-12 of the CVDM states that lighting should provide illumination for security and safety of on-site areas such as entries, parking, pathways and working areas. The project proposes two 25-foot high light poles placed near the entries from Beyer Way and one in the parking area on the east side of the building. The lighting is directed into the site and will provide adequate illumination at the aforementioned areas as well as around the building. The existing canopy lighting system includes a light box with a projecting cover and separate tube lighting. The lighting is tucked under the canopies and inward with the lighting directed downward. The proposed pump island canopies will add similar lighting. 2-8 PAGE 9, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: c;L 3/01/05 Siqns Page 11/-12 of the CVDM states that all signs should be highly compatible with the building and site design relative to size, color, material and placement. The project will incorporate a monument sign at the corner of the street intersection, which has been designed with a low profile capped with an arch element. Stucco and manufactured stone will be used to match the building. Landscaoinq The project includes landscaping along the property edges and at each end of the building. The landscaping is predominantly planned along the property edges and includes a mixture of large shade trees along Main Street and Beyer Way; evergreen trees along the east edge of the property; dense foliage trees at the south end of the building; and various shrubs. A portion of the landscaping will be enclosed in large planters that will be located along Main Street and Beyer Way. The proposed landscaping will greatly improve the site because the current landscape condition has not been maintained well. However, the propane tank does not appear to be well screened, therefore, staff recommends that the applicant provide adequate screening for the tank such as a small berm, masonry wall, or additional landscaping. CONCLUSION The project will be consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Area Plan with the approval of the design and granting of the variance. Based on the preceding information in this report, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-DO-50 and approve Variance application ZAV-04-12 subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution. The proposed project is in conformance with the Chula Vista Design Manual and the Landscape Manual, and is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Area Plan. Based on the preceding information, staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend adoption the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-DO-50 to the Planning Commission, and approve the project as shown on the plans subject to the conditions listed in the attached Notice of Decision. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund. 2-9 ATTACHMENTS PAGE 10, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: ~ 3/01/05 1. Redevelopment Agency Resolution 2. Ree, DRC, PC Minutes 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Disclosure Statement J:\Planning\Case Files\FY04-Q5\RDA\Alien Gas 3205 Main Street.doc 2-10 _U~___~ II j i I! I' i,:I' L,'n'_'-'~_~_'___'___"__'~n' ____ _.,----,-, -'I I ! _..L r--'i! 1--1--- " , : i!! i i, ill i I ' , I i--.--I '- , ' ~Ll i i!! , ! 1: j i Iii! j i -'--.__.-'--~_c i i ~ 1- ! I I I , i ! , I ""1 i I ! , I I i i I I L I i i i ! _L...1----.J -- I j i i ! I Ii: I, : , ,- Zenith St -- I ' i i I i I I i I 1 ' , , i! 'Ii I , i i j >! I: , _-L..~.! <( i /; ! '! Oi!~.- li,iJ ~:,i I I II !:I ......1' n_n___ 'I u- '\! ,! ~ , ! > i <l:, I '0 r I I I Ii Ji Eli i l,iJ,; , ! .-- ~ n__'---'-I Main St APN: 629-060-61 '~-'----j~\~ I L I i i\~ ! i! \(\) I ----' '--:, \'>_, , ' \"Z- I ~ Iii i . III I: I > 1<l:1 ,J!?! lei I~r 1- ,'---,- ,: I OJ, , " ,OL--L-I....! ! III! Ii I II i i I ! , I i-L , , , --...,,""'-.. : -..-_____ i I ) ( , j TI' ' ! I' I ! I I' : l---1~! i -----I r r-i i APN: 629-060-60", PROJECT I I "_n' >/-~ lO~ATliON1" t \ ~~~o:= , ' "-l I \ ! i 'I iOI~n FourthAv Ii ~.J ,'\-J Lj I ! I ~I- I-n r--~~ \ I J L JI-L I r---" ~'---- I Alvoca Wav I I " ! I I II I ' ",'\ I I I II I \ \ I ,,' , r I \ \ i I, ' \, " i 1\ \j II i \ \ \ APN: 629-060-65 ....,,~ .,"--.." ____no=___. -I I I I , I i I I I , r 1 'i , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I II C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: Latif Zoura DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT 3205 Main Street ADDRESS: Request Proposai for renovation of an existing gas station/convenience store, and will add 5 new fuel pumps & 3 truck diesei pumps. SCALE; FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale DRC-04-47 Related cases: 15-00-50, ZAV-04-12, SUP5-04-03 J:\ lannin \carlos\locators\drc0447.cdr 09.02.04 L- I p 9 AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: 1) ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-50; 2) APPROVING DESIGN APPROVAL DRC-04-47 FOR THE EXPANSION AND OPERATION OF A SERVICE STATION; AND 3) GRANTING VARIANCE ZAV-04-12 TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND THE 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR ALLEN GAS AND DIESEL TRUCK STOP LOCATED AT 3205 MAIN STREET IN THE ILP ZONE I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 1.75-acre located at 3205 Main Street ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on February 23, 2004, Latif Zoura ("Applicant"), filed a duly verified Design Approval application to allow for the expansion and operation of an existing service station at 3205 Main Street ("Project Site") in the ILP (Limited Industrial, Precise Plan) zone; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2004, the Applicant also filed a duly verified Variance application requesting an encroachment into the required front and exterior side yard setbacks and a reduction of the 15-foot landscape buffer requirement of the Montgomery Specific Plan for the Project Site; and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the Project on September 20, 2004, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 4-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project design, in accordance with the findings listed below; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building set the time and place for a public hearing on said Variance application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-12 Page 1 of 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held "an advertised public hearing on the Project on October 27, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and after staff presentation and public testimony, voted 5-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency grant the Variance in accordance with the findings listed below; and WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on October 27, 2004, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, D. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a public hearing on said Design Approval and Variance applications and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 1, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted _ to approve the Design Approval and grant the Variance for the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and E. Discretionary Approval and Resolution WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and, II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA A. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) and has prepared an Initial Study in accordance with CEQA. Based on the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by the Applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to a level below significance, therefore Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-DO-50 has been prepared for the project. The Resource Conservation Committee (RCC) recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 2, 2004, with a 5-0 vote; and 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-13 Page 2 of 13 B. The Redevelopment Agency has exercised of their independent review and judgment and concurs with the Environmental Review Coordinator's determination that the proposed project adequately covered in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-50, and that said document was prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby grants both Design Approval (DRC-04-47) and a Variance (ZAV-04- 12) from the City's zoning and redevelopment plan requirements, in accordance with the findings set forth below and based on all other reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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-05-50 for the project. III. DESIGN APPROVAL FINDINGS A. That the proposed development is consistent with the development regulations of the Limited Industrial (IL) zone district, the Southwest Redeve/opment Area, the Montgomery Specific Plan, the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA). The project has been reviewed for conSistency with the development standards of the Limited Industrial (IL) zoning district including land use, parking, setbacks and height; the CEQA guidelines; the General Plan; the Southwest Redevelopment Area; and the Montgomery Specific Plan, and has been found to be consistent with the aforementioned policies and regulations. B. The design features of the proposed renovations are consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manua/ and Landscape Manual. The project has been architecturally designed to enhance the immediate area by incorporating a tower element and various exterior materials including manufactured stones and stucco awnings and cornice elements for the convenience store/service garage. In addition, the project has incorporated extensive landscaping around the property boundaries with an emphasis along Main Street and Beyer Way frontages. The project's design and landscaping will enhance the area, and is consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape Manual. 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-14 Page 3 of 13 IV. VARIANCE FINDINGS A. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The project site is located in the Montgomery Specific Plan Area and the IL (Limited Industrial) zone. The site is an irregular, semi-triangular shaped lot that has two long street frontages. The Montgomery Specific Plan requires properties that have frontages along major streets to maintain a 15-foot landscape buffer. The IL zone has a structure setback requirement that includes a 20-foot front and a 15-foot exterior side yard. The property owner is also required to provide a 10-foot right-of-way dedication of property fronting Main Street and a 17-foot right-of-way dedication of property fronting Beyer Way, thereby resulting in a new 20-foot front setback and a 15-foot exterior yard setback respectively. As a result, the combination of these requirements significantly impacts the developable area of the site. B. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The site's irregular shape, location and existing development are subject to. public right-of-way improvement requirements, and building and landscape buffer setback development regulations. This reduces the amount of developable area on the site. According to the Municipal Code, the existing and future use of the site is an allowed conditional use, but the size and scope of such an operation would be significantly impaired, if not curtailed, because of the required setbacks and dedications. Accordingly, a variance will allow the property owner to develop and use his/her land in a way which is consistent with what other property owners with other similarly-sized and zoned properties in the vicinity could do. Furthermore, granting a variance will allow a better use of the site and will not constitute a special privilege because few other properties in the area are corner lots with adjacent streets that don't intersect at a ninety-degree angle. C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or public interest. The variance applies to portions of the property which are adjacent to City streets - i.e., not immediately adjacent to neighboring properties. The project will still be required to maintain significant landscape buffers and setbacks and is the type of use which is compatible with the character of the 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-15 Page 4 of 13 neighborhood. Finally, the encroachment of the canopy in the setback dimension (allowed by this variance) will be an overhanging encroachment and not affect the use of the street or sidewalk. D. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The use is consistent with the General Plan, Montgomery Specific Plan and all other adopted plans of the City Of Chula Vista. The property is zoned limited industrial, which allows service stations with convenience stores, if a conditional use permit is obtained. V. TERMS OF THE GRANT OF THE DESIGN APPROVAL AND VARIANCE The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants the Design Approval (DRC-04-47) and Variance (ZAV-04-12) for the Project subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall: Planninq and Buildinq 1. This Design Review Permit is contingent upon the Redevelopment Agency approval of the Special Use Permit (SUPS-04-03), approved by the Planning Commission, and Variance (ZAV-04-12) files associated with the project site. The applicant shall not commence any work on the project until said approval has been obtained. 2. The existing auto sales uses shall be permanently removed from the premises. 3. The following items shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning and Building and/or the City Landscape Planner: a. Provide a "modified landscape plan with expanded landscaping in the site's interior along the east property line, around the building, and in the customer parking area. The landscape plan shall include detailed landscape planting and an irrigation plan and any other changes in landscaping (do not mix native and non-native vegetation), and show proposed screening for the propane tank. Additionally, the length of the planter area at the east side of the building should be cut back away from the door. The landscape plan shall be review and approved by the City Of Chula Vista Landscape Planner. b. A Water Management Plan and a Fencing Plan shall be provided in conjunction with the Planting & Irrigation Plan. 3205 Main Street Design ReYiew I Variance 2-16 Page 5 of 13 c. Show that all ground-mounted utility appurtenances, such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., will be located out of public view and adequately screened from view with a combination of concrete or masonry walls, earth-berming and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. d. Submit a revised elevation plan showing the following modifications: i. Provide greater depth in relief between the building face and the front entry tower structure. Ii. Wrap the second story parapet around the tower at the north elevation. Hi. Provide canopy design details consistent with the building design. iv. Removal of the rock column elements at the south and north elevations. e. Submit construction plans with a site plan showing the textured paving at the store entrance, and describe how the various paving material will be joined and constructed. f. Submit a Lighting Plan for the faCility in conformance with Section 17.28.020 of the Municipal Code. The light poles identified on the approve Design Review Plans shall be no taller than 25 feet. The Lighting plan shall include details showing that the proposed lighting, which must be shielded to minimize or prevent any glare onto adjacent streets and properties. 4. Applicant shall submit plans for permits that comply with the following 2001 codes: Handicapped Accessibility Requirements; Energy Requirements; California Building Code; California Plumbing Code; California Electrical Code; California Mechanical Code; Seismic Zone 4; and wind speed 70 mph exposure C; and submit a soils report for review and approval by the Chief Plans Examiner. Also provide approval from San Diego County for construction of the existing use to include Health Department information regarding hazard materials. 5. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including permit processing, development impact fees and Sewer Connection and Capacities fees; Development Impact fees; Traffic Signal fees, School fees and all other outstanding fees due to the City of Chula Vista. 6. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all lighting, wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted on the building plans. Additionally, the project 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-17 Page 6 of 13 shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 & 9.20.035 of CVMC regarding graffiti control. Environ mental Conservation 7. Each applicant for a land use or building permit shall develop and submit a "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan" to the Conservation Coordinator for review and approval as a part of the permit process. The plan shall demonstrate those steps the applicant will take to comply with Municipal Code, including but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and meet the State mandate to reduce or divert at least 50 percent of the waste generated by all residential, commercial and industrial developments. The applicant shall contract with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the project. 8. Implement the approved colors, which include Vista brand or an equivalent: a Chablis for the base color; Santana for accent; and Florentine Brass for the wood trim. The tile roof color is Mission Red. Enaineerina 9. Dedicate ten feet (10') for right of way along Main Street for a 51-foot half street width, and seventeen feet (17') for right of way along Beyer Way for a 47-foot half street width. 10. Install a street light at the easterly side of Main Street. 11. Consolidate all property lines to form the new property boundaries. 12. Obtain a construction permit to perform work in the City's right of way, which may include, but not limited to: a. Construct curb, gutter and an eight-foot (8') sidewalk along Main Street frontage at 41 feet from center/ine for a 51-foot half street width. b. Construct curb, gutter and an eight-foot (8') sidewalk along Beyer Way frontage at 37 feet from centerline for a 47-foot half street width. c. Replace the existing AC median along main street with a raised concrete median. d. Install a raised concrete median along Beyer Way. e. Install a sidewalk ramp per ADA standards and as approved by the Chief Plans Examiner on the Building Department at the southwest corner of the property. f. Construct a driveway per ADA standards and Chula Vista Standards CVCS-1 . 3205 Main Street Design ReYiew I Variance 2-18 Page 7 of 13 13. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet from the point of cu rb retu rn. 14. Provide a water quality study that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction and Municipal Permits, including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria requirements, with the first submittal of grading improvement plans in accordance with the City's Manual. 15. Development of the project shall comply with all applicable regulations, established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as set forth in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and requirements. Further, the Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for the maintenance of post-construction control measures. 16. The Applicant shall identify storm water pollutants that are potentially generated at the facility, and propose Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to prevent such pollutants from entering the storm drainage systems. 17. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Chula Vista Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. 18. Provide a water quality study that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System . (NPDES) Construction and Municipal Permits, including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria requirements, with the first submittal of grading improvement plans in accordance with the City's Manual. 19. Submit grading plans and obtairi a grading permit from the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Permanent storm water runoff treatment devices shall be installed to comply with current NPDES rules and regulation. 20. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit to perform any work in the City's right of way, which may include, but not limited to: 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-19 Page 8 of 13 21. The Applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the pollution of storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. Transit 22. Install a new bus stop passenger landing area (10' deep and 15' wide) and standard shelter at this location on Main Street along with the project. Contact the Transit Division for the exact location. The shelter shall meet the City standards, which can be obtained from the City's Transit Division. B. Prior to Final Inspection/Occupancy: 1. The Applicant shall install the landscaping materials identified from the approved landscape plans. 2. All grounq-mounted utility appurtenances, such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened from view with a combination of concrete or masonry walls, earth-berming and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 3. Prior to the submittal of an application for any proposed business identification signage, the Applicant shall apply for a sign permit for review and approval by the Planning Department. 4. The Applicant shall apply the approved colors and materials, which include: a Chablis for the base color; Santana for accent; and Florentine Brass for the wood trim. The tile roof color is Mission Red. 5. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the plans stamp dated September 15, 2004, which includes revised site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and color board, and landscape plans on file in the Planning Division of the Planning and Building Department. 6. All roof top equipment shall be screened. 7. Comply with all requirements of the Crime Prevention Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department. This includes scheduling a security evaluation by the Police Department. Security hardware should be indicated on building plans and security measures shall be in place prior to occupancy. 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-20 Page 9 of 13 C. Continuous Conditions: Planninq and Buildinq 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approvals for Special Use Permit file SUPS-04-03 and Variance file ZAV-04-12. 2. The applicant shall keep the entire site free from litter and other debris, and shall maintain all landscaped areas on site in healthy and weed-free condition. 3. No outside storage of any object and no outside work of any nature shall be permitted on the premises at any time. Fire 4. Ensure that the storage, use and handling of flammable and combustible liquids are in accordance with Article 79, 2901.3 and 2902.2 of the Fire Code. 5. The auto repair garage shall continually comply with the provisions of Article 29 of the Fire Code. Enqineerinq 6. The Applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the pollution of storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. 7. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all projects falling under the Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. 8. Implement Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during the post-construction of the project. Such BPMs include, but are not limited to: a. Frequent sweeping of outdoor areas. b. Providing spill response materials near all fueling stations. c. Employee training on storm water regulations and procedures. d. Prohibiting power washing or hosing of equipment or outdoor areas into storm drain systems. e. Providing cover and secondary containment for hazardous materials. 3205 Main Street . Design Review I Variance 2-21 Page 10 of 13 9. Periodically clean and replace the filter inserts and oil-absorbing media. 10. Trash bins shall have watertight lids and the lids sho"uld be closed when not in use. 11. The restroom in the store shall be accessible to the public during hours of operation. 12. The conditions of approval for this Design Approval and Variance shall be applied to the subject property until such time approval is modified or revoked, and the existence of this approval with conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed unit, the Applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document. 13. The Design Approval and Variance shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. In particular, all signs on-site shall comply with Chapter 19.60 of the CVMC. 14. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified Design Approval by the Director of Planning and Building. 15. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, the Redevelopment Agency, their members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City/Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Design Approval and Variance, (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) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Design Approval and Variance where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Design Approval and Variance and this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 16. This Redevelopment Agency approval shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any 3205 Main Street Design Review / Variance 2-22 Page 11 of 13 conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 17. This Design Approval and Variance 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 Agency shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the Agency has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the Agency, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive the Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. VI. VARIANCE SPECIFICATIONS The Redevelopment Agency hereby allows a variance from the City and Agency's zoning and redevelopment plan requirements, in accordance with the variance findings set forth above, by allowing: 1. A 10-foot front yard setback instead of a 20-foot setback - only for that portion of the property along Main Street where the fuel pump canopies will encroach. 2. A 9-foot exterior side yard setback instead of a 15-foot setback for that portion of the property along Beyer Way where the fuel pump canopies will encroach. 3. An 11.5-foot landscape buffer instead of a 15-foot buffer for that portion of the property along Main Street. 4. A 10-foot landscape buffer instead of a 15-foot buffer for that portion of the property along Beyer Way. VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. 3205 Main Street Design Review / Variance 2-23 Page 12 of 13 Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant Date VIII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. IX. 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 any one 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. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Jim D. Sandoval Planning and Building Director ~? H- Ann Moore Agency Attorney .,....... 3205 Main Street Design Review I Variance 2-24 Page 13 of 13 RCC Minutes - 2- Auoust 2. 2004 NEW BUSINESS 2. IS-OO-SO - Allen Gas & Truck Stop, 3205 Main Street Mr. Benjamin Guerrero (Environmental Projects Manager) reported that the project consists of the expansion and refurbishment of an existing automobile service station and convenience store. The proposal consists of the construction of 1,967 square feet of additional convenience store area, five new vehicle-fueling dispensers, three diesel fueling dispensers and canopies to cover the new dispensers. The exterior of the existing structure will be refurbished to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Two additional roll-up doors will be placed on the existing service garage bays. The project will pro\(ide adequate automobile parking spaces along with truck spaces. The applicant proposes to proyide four additional driveway approaches and refurbish the rest of the driveway approaches. New raised medians will be proYided with landscape features along Beyer Way and Main Street. Mr. Guerrero reported that in 1994 there were a total of four underground storage tanks. Three of the underground tanks were used to store fuel and one was a recipient for waste oil. There was no release of fuel into the soil from the three underground fuel tanks; however, based on soil sampling, leakages from the waste tank were detected. After soil remediation efforts and reviewing several soil and water data for the last nine years, the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health determined that any residual contamination at the site does not pose a risk or an impact to sensitive receptors in the vicinity. On May 7, 2004, the County issued a "No Further Action" letter. The only mitigations required are related to the construction phase of the development. . Commission Comments Vice-Chair Reid had one concern because this is an entry road in proximity to the Olay Valley Regional Park. The reduction of landscaping and aesthetics along that road is detrimental. Mr. Guerrero indicated that the applicant would be providing new landscaping along Beyer Way and Main Street and all around the property. Chair Thomas commented that on a number of occasions that 18-wheeler trucks were stopped in the middle of the roads while workers coming from nearby businesses conducted business while the trucks are stopped on the road. If that kind of activity is not covered by an ordinance, it should be part of the mitigation that they cannot just idle in the middle of the roadway. Mr. Guerrero stated that the traffic report analyzed on-site circulation. Two 18- wheeler parking spaces have been provided on-site. City Engineering reviewed the traffic report with all its provisions and determined it to be adequate. Mr. Guerrero indicated that parking in the middle of the street is a traffic enforcement issue. Vice-Chair Reid concurred with this comment. Vice-Chair Reid asked about the amount of grading. Mr. Guerrero responded that it would be relatively minor. Chair Thomas was concerned about water contamination. Mr. Guerrero indicated that staff received comments from the Sweetwater Authority, and that their concerns were adequately responded to in the MND. After the testing was done and reviewed by the County Department of Environmental Health and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, there were no detectables in the soils or water resources. 2-24 RCC Minutes - 3 - AUQust 2. 2004 Commissioner Bensoussan arrived at 6:15 p.m. MSC (Reid/Jasek) to determine that the Initial Study is adequate and the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Vote: (5-0-0-2) with Diaz and Means absent. 2-25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Monda October 18 2004 4:30 p.m. A. PRESENT: Council Chambers Public Service Buildin 20 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista Chair Alfredo Araiza, Members Cynthia Drake and Katherine Magallon ABSENT: Jose Alberdi and Cheryl Mestler STAFF PRESENT: John Schmitz, Principal Planner Garry Williams, Landscape Planner Michael Walker, Associate Planner Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Toby Hallal Roberto Lujan Rob Anderson Chris Logson. General Growth Properties Bill Milsap. The Mesa Design Group Martin Schwartz, Redman, Schwartz, Mark Design Paul King, P & D Consultants B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Araiza C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 20,2004 MSC (Araiza/Drake) (3-0-0-2) to approve the minutes of September 20, 2004. Motion carried. D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None E. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. DRC-04-47 Staff Presentation: Latif Zoura (Allen Gas & Diesel Service Station) 3205 Main Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 Expand and remodel an existino oas and service station that includes: 1) approximately 1.960 sJ. of additional floor area for the existino convenience store and a mezzanine: 2) eioht new fuel dispensers under five canopies: and 3) landscapino. Mr. Michael Walker, Associate Pianner noted that project had come before the DRC on September 20, 2004, at which time the committee considered the remodel and expansion 2-26 Design Review Committee Minutes -2- October 18. 2004 of the service station located at 3205 Main Street on the comer of Main Street and Beyer Way. After hearing staff's presentation the committee continued the project to a future meeting to allow staff and the applicant to address the issues outlined in the staff report. Mr. John Schmitz, Principal Planner noted that this item has associated variances and use permits that are going forward on it, so the committee's action on the Environmental document is only a recommendation. The Planning Commission will be the final adopting body for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Design Review Committee recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-50 and approves of project DRC-04-47 based on the modifications provided by the applicant with the conditions presented in the draft Notice of Decision on September 20, 2004. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Member Drake noted on the site plan another triangular shape of bareness where it says customer parking. She wanted to know if that was also ground cover because it was not in9icated on the plans. Mr. Toby Hallal, with TRH (2900 4th Avenue, Ste. 206, San Diego, CA 92103) Project Designer responded that the additional triangular piece along the customer parking would be all ground cover. Chair Araiza asked if there was a drawing that showed the design of the pump island canopies? Mr. Hallal said that they did not have a drawing, however, some detail was provided on the elevation that showed the canopy would be wrapped with the same material as the building. They will probably introduce colored aluminum around the canopies that will match the stucco of the building. The columns, themselves, will be wrapped with pre- fabricated stone veneer. Chair Araiza said since there isn't any drawing he's assuming that the existing roof structure is staying and they're covering it and it will basically be a horizontal shape. Mr. Hallal affirmed that it would arid said they were going to add to the existing canopy with another canopy to match. The roof of the existing canopy will stay and will wrap the fascia around it. Chair Araiza said that one of the other concerns is with the elevations. He noted the north elevation on the right side has lower parapet walls stepping up and they seem to be in line with the stone wall (or pyramid shape entry) but according to the north elevation they are almost flush with that stone material. He suggested that it would be better if the stone material were out in front and dies into that. He also pointed out that on the south elevation, the roof form of the office area, at the left side of the elevation the fascia is actually in front of the stone material. He didn't think that it was appropriate and felt the applicant needed to revise that so that the mass is in front of those and those shapes die into it. J:IHOME\PLANNINGIROSEMARIEIDRCIMIN-10-18-04 2-27 Design Review Committee Minutes -3- Mr. Hallal said that he felt they had enough room on the site plan to extend the columns out a little bit so they are covering those parapets. October 18. 2004 Chair' Araiza noted that when you look at the north elevation on the second parapet it seems like the molding on the intermediate parapet comes around and then it stops. That is going to be quite visible. He thought that it should be Wrapped or the form should continue over to make it more of a mass, so it doesn't look like they tried to do a Hollywood front. The other question that he had was on the north and south elevations that have a stone wall that comes down on an angle and on the side elevation. He was not sure how that works or what it does. Mr. Hallal said it was for aesthetic purposes only to give the building another angular dimension instead of being just straight. That is a fake column look. Mr. Araiza commented that it was not indicated on the plan and was hard to understand. Mr. Hallal said that he was sure in the construction documents they were going to have to detail all these elements a lot better. Chair Araiza said, that in his opinion, those elements take away from the building and felt that they could let the main entry shape be the stone material and then just complement with the rest of your structure. He asked about the entrance shape. From the drawing that he has, the pyramid or the angle of the slope wall on the roof side is cut straight. Looking at the north elevation and south elevation that wall comes down straight, but in another drawing it shows it sloping. Mr. Hallal responded that the only place it is intended to slope is just toward the front, which is the west elevation. On the east elevation wall the stone veneer is perfectly straight, unless the committee's recommendation is to make it angled like the front wall. Chair Araiza thought this shape would be visible from all sides. It was the dominant feature and he felt it should read as such. Another concern that he had is with the paYing. There is a combination of paving and concrete and stamped concrete. The applicant shows in their drawings concrete sidewalks penetrating in the middle for the ADA access, but it doesn't come over to the entrance to the store. Chair Araiza recommended that the applicant bring the texture around to it so that it becomes part of their entrance. Mr. Halla I responded that they would definitely look at that recommendation and explained that those details will be in the construction documents based on the recommendations and conditions that the committee places on this project. Member Magallon remarked with respect to Chair Araiza's comments concerning the columns on the side, she suggested if they repeat the front detail where the entrance is and cap it off at the top the ones at the side may tie in better and make more sense. Chair Araiza said if you look at the way the stone is handled at the entrance those are columns that are holding up the shape. On the side it looks like an applied material that is not holding up anything, it doesn't seem to make sense. If it were meant to look like it was supporting something it would make sense to him. J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIElDRC\MIN_1 0-' 8-04 2-28 Design Review Committee Minutes -4- October 18. 2004 Mr. Hallal said if eliminating those columns would solve the problem the owner would be happy because this is just additional cost. Member Drake addressed landscape concerns and recommended that California native plants not be mixed with ones that are non-natives because of their water requirements. Regarding the tree species the California Sycamore would be acceptable because they are sturdy but would suggest using altematives to the other trees that are being proposed because they will not stand up to the physical abuse that they will receive at their location. Also the shrub material listed is not a good choice. The junipers were susceptible to disease. Member Drake expressed concern with the landscape bed that is on the eastern side of the building. She mentioned there is a door leading out to what looks like a sidewalk, and there is a possibility that the landscape bed would be trampled if the people do not walk around it. Her suggestion would be to alter the bed to bring it back away from where that door is. Another concern is with the landscape beds running along the property line on the eastern border, which appear to be 4-feet wide. She felt that there might not be enough room for the tree species that is being considered. Mr. Hallal commented that the planting beds were actually 5-feet from inside the curb. Member Drake asked if the applicant had addressed the canopy issues concerning the north facing gas pump area along Main Street? At the last meeting, a concern had been raised that there might be conflicts between the canopy of the tree and the gas canopy overhang. Mr. Hallal asked if that was the canopy that was shown as 17-feet but shortened to a-feet? Member Drake replied that it was. Mr. Hallal said that by shortening the canopy to a-feet it would not interfere with the canopy of the tree because it should be outside of the line of the gas canopy overhang. Chair Araiza commented that he believed the gas canopy that they are referring to is on Beyer Way not Main Street. Mr. Hallal answered that Chair Araiza was correct and explained that Beyer and Main Street have the identical canopy overhang. Chair Araiza asked. the committee if they felt comfortable with voting for an approval? Committee Members Drake and Magallon affirmed that they did as long as the recommendations discussed were incorporated into the conditions of approyal. Chair Araiza asked if the applicant had any questions of the Design Review Committee? Mr. Hallal' replied that he would only recommend that the committee put all of their recommendations as conditions of the permit, in case they are not hired to do the final design, so that whoever is the new architect is aware of their conditions and what they approved today. Chair Araiza asked if they would not be the final designer? J:IHOME\PLANNINGIROSEMARIEIORCIMIN_10_18-04 2-29 Design Review Committee Minutes -5- Mr. Hallal answered that he was not sure at this pOint because they were only contracted to do the design for submission to the DRC and the Planning Commission. The applicant might consider using a general contractor who would provide them with the construction documents and it might be someone other than their firm. Mr. Hallal stated that hopefully that is not the case and they will be retained to do the project. October 18. 2004 Chair Araiza remarked that this revelation made him a little uneasy with respect to making a decision when there are some things that were brought up about the building that he feit uncertain about. Mr. Schmitz suggested that Condition IC.1 could be amended with a fifth condition that requires that revised elevations be provided that specified some of the more important conditions that were discussed tonight. He felt that the tape recording and the minutes would have all the comments that the committee made and staff can use those for reference when they are evaluating the final elevations. Chair Araiza said that one of the concerns is the design of the canopies that are over in the corner there is no information except what the applicant has told the committee. If the designer was not going to be part of the final he did not know if it was possible to make that a condition. Mr. Schmitz remarked that he felt there were three issues that were of primary concern: 1) The wrapping of the parapet walls away from the outer edge of the building to create a sense of mass; 2) Elimination of the rock columns that are spaced along the building; and 3) The addition of a new Condition No.5 that would require a detailed design of the pump island canopies that were consistent to the style of the buildings. Staff felt with those three items, and the minute comments, if staff has any problems they can bring those issues back to the committee before the building permit is issued. Chair Araiza also thought that there was a sign issue that needed to be resolved. Although the committee was not reviewing it tonight, he asked for clarification of whether it wouid go through staff or the committee for approval? Mr. Walker responded that there was a monument sign that was in the previous plans that was part of the consideration here, so the committee could make a decision on it here or have the applicant work with staff on it but they will have to apply for a sign permit. Members Drake and Magallon indicated that they had agreed on the sign at the last meeting. Mr. Hallal further noted that there was a licensed sign contractor that had already submitted plans for their review that would cover all the canopy signage and monument signage. Chair Araiza commented that since the DRC recommendations would be included in the draft Notice of Decision he would be willing to vote on the project. MSC (Araiza/Drake) (3-0-0-2) to approve DRC-04-47 project as presented in the draft Notice of Decision of September 20, 2004 with the following modifications and additions: Condition I.C.1. Provide a modified landscape plan with expanded landscaping in the site's interior along the east property line, around the building, J :\HOMElPLANNI NG\ROSEMARIElORC\MIN_1 Q-18'{)4 2-30 Design Review Committee Minutes -6- October 1 a. 2004 and in the customer parking area. The landscape plan shall include detailed landscape planting and an irrigation plan any other changes in landscaping (do not mix native and non-native vegetation), and show proposed screening for the propane tank. Additionally, the length of the planter area at the east side of the building should be cut back away from the door. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Planner. New Condition I.C.5. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Division revised elevations that will show following modifications: Provide greater depth in relief between the building face and the rock columns supporting the front entry tower; Wrap the second story parapet around the tower at the north elevation; Provide canopy design details consistent with the building design; Removal of rock column elements at the south and north elevations; and submit construction plans with a site plan showing the textured paving at the store entrance, and describe how the various paving material will be joined and constructed. Motion carried. 2-31 Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - October 27, 2004 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 05-50 and SUPS 04-03 and ZAV 04-12 to allow the expansion and operation of an existing service station located at 3205 Main Street. Background: Michael Walker, project manager reported that the proposal calls for the expansion and operation of an existing service station located at 3205 Main Street, within the Southwest Redevelopment Area and Montgomery Specific Plan area. Currently, the site operates a service station that contains three gas pumps with canopies for autos and a convenience store. The expansion will add five gas pumps with canopies for autos; three diesel pumps with canopies; and the expansion of the existing convenience store, which will include an office on the second floor. The Variance is to allow the expanded fuel pump canopies to encroach into the required front and exterior side yard setbacks and a reduction of the 15-foot landscape buffer requirement of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The surrounding uses include the Animal Shelter to the southwest, a liquor store to the west, a small retail centerto the north, a small used auto sales lot to the west, and a radiator repair shop to the south. The traffic impact study determined that the project would contribute a net increase in traffic, however, the Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would operate with acceptable levels of service. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 05-50 and Resolution SUPS 04-03/ ZAV 04-12, approving a Special Use Permit and Zone Variance based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Comments: emr. O'Neill stated that he would like to add a condition requiring that the restrooms remain opened for clientele use during operating hours. Cmr. O'Neill also inquired if any discussion was held regarding closing the two comer driveways fronting Main Street and Beyer Way. Mr. Hernandez responded that this matter was discussed, and upon the traffic engineer's analysis, concluding that the driveways pose no traffic concerns, it was determined that they should remain. Cmr. Hall commended the applicant for his proposal, which is in step with the 2-32 Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - October 27, 2004 enhancements that are envisioned for that corridor in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. emr. Cortes inquired if there was any type of fence or barrier planned for the back- alley area. Toby Halal, architect for the project, responded that there is a proposed 6-foot high masonry fence along that property line that will include shrubbery and trees that will help buffer that area. Public Hearing Opened 6:20. The applicant stated he was available to answer any questions from the Commission and thanked them for their consideration of his proposal. Public Hearing Closed 6:23. MSC (O'Neill/Felber) (5-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission: · adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 05-50; · approve Special Use Permit 04-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions found in the resolution; including a condition that the restrooms remain open for public use during hours of operation and the additional language regarding compliance with the sign ordinance; and · recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve a variance from the Montgomery Specific Plan requirements regarding encroachment into the setbacks, based on the findings contained in the draft resolution. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Hernandez reviewed the upcoming calendar for Planning Commission meetings and reminded the Commission that a Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting is being- worked on for November 17th regarding downtown redevelopment. ADJOURNMENT at 6:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 2004. Diana Vargas._ Secretary to Planning Commission 2-33 Mitigated Negative Declaration ,- ~_.::o..: :~:-_. -:; :; PROJECT NAME: Allen Gas and Truck Stop - PROJECT LOCATION: 3205 Main Street .. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 629-060-QQ, QL& 65 PROJECT APPLICANT: Latif Audis Zoura CASE NO.: IS-00-50 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: Julv 15. 2004 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: AU!ZUst 2. 2004 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: AU!ZUst 20. 2004 A. Proiect Setting The1.74-acre project site is located on the southeast comer of Main Street and Beyer Way. The project site address is 3205 Main'Street. The project site is comprised of three parcels located in the urbanized southerly portion of the City of Chula Vista (see :Exhibit A-Location Map). The project site is relatively flat, with vehicular access from both Main Street and Beyer Way. The project site currently contains a one-story 1,944 square-foot automobile service station with two existing vehicle repair service bays, a convenience store and a 1,248 square-foot canopy covering two fuel dispensers and a 465 sq. fl. canopy covering one fuel dispenser. The project site is within the ILP (Limited Industrial Precise Plan) Zone and IL (Limited Industrial) General Plan designation. The land uses surrounding the site are as follows: North: South: East: West: Auto Repair/Auto Body & Paint shop/Retail Strip Mall Fourth Avenue right-of-waylMuffler shop Automobile Sales/Construction Storage Yard Liquor Store/Animal Shelter B. Proiect Description The prv~osed project consists of the expansion and refurbishment of an existing automobile service station, convenience store and canopy area. The proposal consists of the construction of 1,967 square-feet of additional convenience store area (to include a mezzanine area), five (5) new vehicle-fueling dispensers, three (3) diesel-fueling dispensers, five additional canopies covering the proposed fuel dispensers (canopy sizes range from 465 sq. ft. to 1248 square-feet). See exhibit B showing site plan. The exterior of the existing structure will also be refurbished to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Two new additional roll-up doors will be placed on the existing service garage bays. ' 2-34 1 .". ~f:..; .,1!.'....! p'.' I jj~li// ...~.,."'I, " .,- ~,~;-rD?L::~ _....- -.-. L., I'" .;: ~ "".'.1' .,...,." EXHIBlt-:!~ ,~ ill -l <{ \) \f) C) z (L <( ~ >- I- - Z - U - > {..", o ~ \\ \ \\ \ ,\ \ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ ,\ \ ! ," ~ t .w' e e ~ 0 C:::J N . o . ~-e €l . -----~I ~u; i - "'~ / II.lV' 0 . I( 14t;- F . 1/ l!.::.s- rfl --.' ~~Je I I - (.r--.- r-CJ L_ I I I II I . /'0 III Twenty-four automobile parking spaces will be provided along with two truck parking spaces for a total of twenty-six on-site parking spaces, which will exceed the zoning ordinance requirement for parking spaces. Additional proposed on-site improvements include enhanced landscaped lreatments, new lighting, and trash enclosure. A new lUlderground storage tank for diesel fuel will be installed. A limited variance to the landscape buffer requirement is being requested on two locations in order to accommodate two existing' fuel pump dispensers. In addition to refurbishing the two existing driveways, the applicant proposes to install four additional driveway approaches in order to better accommodate truck and automobile traffic circulation. Off-site improvements include removal, replacement and realignment of driveways, and new curb, gutter and sidewalks along Main Street and Beyer Way. The applicant will be required. to provide half-width street improvements along Main Street and Beyer Way property frontage including installation ofraised medians along both streets. The new raised medians will be provided with landscape features. The proposed project is subject to the approval of Design Review by the Design Review Committee, administrative approval of a Special Use P=it and minor variance from landscape setback requirements and a lot line adjustment. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the ILP (Limited Industrial Precise Plan) Zone and 11 (Limited Industrial) General Plan designation. The Limited Industrial Zone allows for the proposed automobile service station/convenience store with a Special Use Permit and Design Review. The proposed 24 off-street parking spaces .exceed the requirements of the Municipal Code. D. Public Comments On June 22, 2004, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended July 2, 2004. One written comment from the Sweetwater Authority was received. Sweetwater Authority concerns regarding soil testing and underground storage tanks are adequately addressed in Section E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Fonner Underground Storage Tanks. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect, there would not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described in Section F below have been 'added to the proj ect. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. lbis Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Air Oualijy The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed project will result in an increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during demolition, grading and construction activities. 22-37 3-30 Although air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations would be potentially significant, they are considered short-term impacts since construction-related activities are a relatively short-term activity. Dust control measures implemented during grading operations wo}lld be regulated in accordance with. the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitIgate potentially significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. The project would not conflict with or violate any applicable air quality plans or standards. No objectionable odors affecting substantial number of people would result from the proposed expansion of an existing automobile service station/convenience store, as ' compliance with APCD and Department of Environmental Health regulations are required. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts and no mitigation measures are required to address long-term impacts. Geology and Soils Pursuant to the "Report of Soil Investigation (for) Allen Gas and Truck Stop, 3205 Main Street, Chula Vista, California", prepared by C.W. La Monte Company, on June 30, 2001, the City Engineering Division states that there are no anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions. Due to the previous development of the site and minimal grading required for the proposed project, no significant geological impacts are anticipated. A formal soils report will be required with the preparation of the final grading and building plans to determine existing soil conditions and provide foundation and pavement recommendations. The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts downstream. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The implementation of appropriate water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction shall be required in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Chula Vista's" Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual (Manual). AIl portions of the development area disturbed during construction will either be developed or shall be" , appropriately landscaped in compliance with the Chula Vista Municipai Code, Sections ' 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with SUSMP and Manual requirements shall be ensured by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading, pe::mllts for the proposed proj ect. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage system will be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Former Underground Storage Tanks On January 5, 1994, as part ofa service station Upgrade, a total of four underground storage tanks were:: removed. This action required oversight and permitting by the County Department of Environmental Health, Site:: Assessment and Mitigation Program (DEB). 2-38 ~ Three of the underground tanks were used to store fuel and one underground tank: was used to store waste oil. No release of fuel into the soil was detected from the three underground storage tanks used to store fuel. However, laboratory results of soil samples collected adjacent to the undergr:ound tank: containing waste oil yielded Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons concentrations of up to 30,000 ppm. .' In February of 1995 and under contract to Chevron, Applied Geosciences Inc. (AGI) conducted a remediation effort to remove the contaminated soils. AGI excavated an area measuring 3 feet by 3 feet to a depth of 4.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the1ocation of the former UST containing waste oi!. Soil samples collected after the removal of the contaminated soil samples collected in the vicinity of the UST indicated TRPH . concentrations ranging from less than the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) to 1,100 mglkg. The sample collected from a depth of 4.5 feet bgs did not contain TRPH above the MDL of 10 mglkg. The soil sample with the highest TRPH concentration contained non- detectable concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethybenzene, xylenes (BTEX), halogenated volatile organic compounds (HVOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In December 1999 and January 2000, TRC Alton Geoscience (TRC) advanced a total of seven borings to maximum depths of 30 feet bgs. Soil samples collected from the vicinity of the underground waste oil tank did not contain TRPH concentrations above the MDL. TRPH and MTBE were detected in groundwater at very low concentrations of 700 parts per billion (Ppb) and 2.2 ppb, respectively. On October 12, 2000, the County of San Diego DEH indicated that the site might be eligible for closure once additional data was provided. On July 11 and 12, 2001, in an attempt to satisfy the County of San Diego DEH, SECOR International Incorporated, an Environmental Finn, advanced three boreholes in the location of the former waste oil underground tank:. Three twelve-inch diameter holes were cored through the concrete/asphalt of each location. A total of five soil samples were collected, yielding low TRPH concentrations ranging from 13 ppb to 34 ppb. After reviewing the data submitted, the County of San Diego DEH concluded that based on the limited extent of soil contamination and the minimal MTBE concentrations in groundwater, the residual contamination at the site does not P9se a risk to impact any sensitive receptors in the vicinity. On May 7, 2004, the County DEH issued a letter of "No Further Action" required for the petroleum release at this project site. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also reviewed the det=inatiOlt by the County DEH and concurred with the County's decision and determined that the. corrective action protects both existing and potential beneficial water uses per the RWQCB Basin Plan. Hvdrology and Water Ouality Based on the City of Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSl\1P) and the Storm water Management Manual, post-construction pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include gasoline, trash, debris, oil and grease. Per the requirements set forth in the SUSMP, best management practices (Bl\1Ps) shall be designed to treat runoff generated by the Water Quality Design Storm having a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per 4~:U hour prior to discharge to public storm drainage systems. The City's adopted Storm Water Management Manual contains specific requirements for various types of developments. The City Engineer wi!) ensure that the above requirements Will be met prior to the issuance of grading/improvement or construction p=its for the proposed project. Based upon the .requirements of the City's Storm Water Management Manual, and the National POllbtant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal P=it, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP), construction and post-construction project-related water quality impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The proposed construction and post-construction BMPs are discussed below. Construction BMPs According to the Engineering Division, due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required. The applicant will also be required to complete Form 5504, "Construction Storm Water Management Plan" (CSWMP), prior to issuance of grading, public improvement and construction permits. The NPDES General Construction P=it requires all construction projects involving one or more acres of land disturbance to be covered under the P=it. During construction, BMPs from the California Best Manage:ment Practices Handbook will be required to be implemented, which have been frequently used on job sites and have been prOVen effective. Examples of construction BMPs include silt fences, sandbags, and hay bales, which are strategically placed around curb inlets, catch basins, and driveways in order to prevent silt and sediment from entering the storm drain system. Post-Construction BMPs Pursuant to the City's Storm Water Management Manual requirements for fueling dispensing areas consist of the following: 1) install a hanging roof Structure/canopy, 2) fueling areas must drain to the project's treatment control BMPs prior to discharging into the storm water conveyance system, 3) install proper pavement with cement concrete or smooth impervious surface, 4) create appropriate sloping to avoid ponding and separate with a grade break that prevents run-on of urban runoff, 5) meet minimum concrete fuel dispensing area requirements , 6) install filter inserts in catch basins that include oil absorbing media that prevent discharge of oil ilnd grease to public storm drains, l!;1d 7) provide periodic replacement of filter materials and oil-absorbing mcdia, as necessary to maintain effectiveness. ............- Final required post-construction BMPs will be subject to the approval of a project-specific water quality study by the City Engineer. The City Engineer will take all necessary steps to ensure that the approved BMPs will be implemented and will be sufficient to treat site runoff prior to exiting the site and entering the public storm drainage system in accordance with the applicable established water quality standards. The proposed off-site improvements will include creation or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. P=anent structural treatment Best Management Practices may be required for off-site improvements per the National Pollutant Discharge 2-40 <; Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) requirements. TransportationJTraffic Based upon the projected volume of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development, the preparation .of a traffic study was deemed necessary by the City Engineering Division. This study is available for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning . and Building Department and is summarized below. According to the "Revised Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Expansion of the Allen Diesel Truck, Gas and Convenience Store located at. the Southeast Comer of Main Street and Beyer . Way, Chula Vista, California,"prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc., dated April 23, 2004, the proposal is projected to generate 3,520 average daily trips (ADTs), with 246 trips generated in the AM peak hour and 282 trips generated in the PM peak hour. With credit for existing service station land uses, the net increase in area wide traffic attributable to the project is 2,620 new daily trips, 182 new morning peak hour and 200 occurring in the evening peak hour. Traffic Safety The project proposes three points of access off of Main Street and 3 points of access off of Beyer Way. All access points will operate with acceptable delays and levels of service. Sirmificance Criteria The criteria utilized to det=ine if a traffic impact at an intersection or street segment is considered significant is based on City of Chula Vista standards. Both project specific and cumulative impacts can be significant impacts. The applicable significance criteria utilized in the project traffic impact analysis are as follows: SignalizedlUnsignalized Intersections A proj ect specific impact to a signalized or urisignalized intersection would result if both. of the following criteria are met: . . 1. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. 2. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volu.me. . Cumulative impact if only condition #1 is met. Street Segments A project specific impact to a street segment would result if the following criteria are met: 1. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF for 1 hour. 2. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume. 3. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment. 6~:U Cumulative impact if only condition #1 is met. Existinf! Conditions Street Segments .' Main Street (4 Lane Major) adjacent to the project site currently operates at level of service (LOS) A. Beyer Way (Two lane Class I Collector) adjacent to the proj ect site currently operates at LOS B. Signalized Intersections The signalized intersection of Main Street and Beyer Way operates at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Third Avenue operates at LOS C during both AM and PM peak hours. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Fourth Avenue operates at LOS B during both AM and PM peak hours. Existinf! Plus Proiect Conditions Street Segments Main Street (4 Lane Major) adjacent to the project site is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. . Beyer Way (Two lane Class r Collector) adjacent to the project site is projected to operate at LOS B after project development. Signalized Intersections All intersections analyzed are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS C. or better during both peak hours under existing plus project conditions. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Beyer Way will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hours and LOS C during the PM peak hour. The signalizea intersection of Main Street and Third Avenue will. continue to operate at LOS C during both AM and PM peak hours. The signalized intersection of Main Street and Fourth Avenue will continue to operate at LOS B during both AM and PM peak hours Off-Site Traffic Conclusion The project does not have direct or cumulative impacts on study roadway segments or intersections in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, no off-site traffic mitigation measures are required. 2-42 7 On-Site Circulation The project proposes a total of six (6) driveways, three on Beyer Way (two of these exist) and three on Main Stre_et (two of these exist). The new driveway on Beyer Way is located at the southernmost property line and will accommodate large trucks and provide direct access to the diesel fuel stations on the eastern side of the project. The new driveway on Main Street on the eastern end is a modification to the existing driveway with a new driveway, which serves the eastern parking area. The driveways can operate with a single exit lane, while utilizing existing lanes on Beyer and Main without requiring additional improvements. The driveways located closest to the intersection of Beyer and Main operate as right inlout only. All other driveways operate. without restrictions and achieve acceptable levels of service. Project driveways provide adequate circulation for large trucks entering and exiting the site, with appropriate turning radii. Parking aisles are designed with adequate room for vehicles to enter and exit stalls without significantly conflicting with other on-site traffic movements. Driveways and internal circulation are designed to accommodate on-site traffic without vehicles stacking or obstructing through traffic on adjacent streets. The project circulation will not significantly impact any intersection or roadway segment in the vicinity of the project and no mitigation measures are required. Parking Based upon the Chula Vista Municipal Code parking ratio for retail use of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of floor area, the required offcstreet parking for the proposal is 15 spaces. The proposed off-street parking will consist of24 vehicle parking spaces plus two large truck parking spaces; therefore, the project would not result in any significant parking impacts and no mitigation measures are required. Infrastructure/Street Improvements In accordance with City policy, the applicant shall be responsible for the bonding and construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and raised median improvements along the Main Street and Beyer Way property frontage. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air OuaIitv ,"''''..:. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable demolition, grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. 1. During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material. Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt and debris. 8 2-43 3-36 2. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 231I 4, vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials must cover/tarp the I?ateriaI, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area, and the load shall not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the c~go container area. This measure shall also apply to the transport of any materials associated with demolition, grading, or building activities that can potentially become airborne. 3. Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working order and shall be periodically tuned in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pollutant- . emitting construction equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, shall be used as practical. 4. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved sUIfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. 5. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-generating activities as necessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible. G. Consultation . I. Individuals and Organizations City ofChuIa Vista: Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department John Mollen, City Attorney's Office Benjamin Guerrero, Planning and Building Department Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department Stan Donn, Planning and Building Department Gany Williams, Planning and Buildli1g Department Frank Rivera, Engineering Department _ o. . Khosro Aminpour, Engineering Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department David Kaplan, Engineering Department Sandra Hernandez, Engineering Department Jim Geering, Fire Department Others: Dee Peralta, ChuIa Vista EI=entary School District James L. Smith, Sweetwater Authority 2-44 o 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989. Final EnvironmenW Impact Report, City of ChuIa Vista General Plan Update, ErR. No. 88-2, May 1989.' A Fuel System Demolition Report; Station l8-GKR, located at 765 E Street, Chula Vista, California, TRC, April 23, 2002. Revised Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Expansion of the Allen Diesel Truck, Gas and Convenience Store located at the Southeast Comer of Main Street and Beyer Way, Chula Vista, California, Darnell and Associates, Inc., April 23, 2004. A County of San Diego, Departnlent of Environmental Health/Site. Assessment & Mitigation Program, Underground Storage Tank System Closure Report, May 13, 2004. Report of Soil Investigation Allen Gas and Truck Stop, 3205 Main Street, ChuIa Vista, California, C.W. La Monte Company, June 30, 2001. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of ChuIa Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the ChuIa Vista Planning and Bl.rilding Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. 0~0r</ L?~ f1' Marilyn F. Ponseggi EnvironmeiJtal Review Coordinator Date: _ ~~ Lt/ 01 ";'"""'-" J:lPlanninglBenGWlenGasOOSOMND.doc 10 ~~jH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ~l~ ------: ----= OlVOF (HUlA VI5rA 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3, Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4, Name of Proposal: 5, Date of Checklist: 6, Case No.: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Wouldtheproject a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resoUICes, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a stat(': scenic highway? ..-:...,.. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual Charactt:I or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new SOUICe of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2-46 1 Latif Audis Zoura ., City ofChuIa Vista Planning and Building Department 276 FoUrth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3205 Main Street ChuIa Vista, CA. 91911 (619) 585-0881 Allen Gas and Truck Stop July 14,2004 IS-OO-50 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation JDcorponttd Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 181 0 0 0 ;;'..-....... 0 0 181 o o 181 No Impact o '181 o o Issues: Potentially Significant Impact . Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: , a-b) As designated in the City's General Plan, the project site is within the Montgomery Specific Plan Area and Southwest Redevelopment Area. Landscape treatments along Main Street and Beyer Way are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Montgomery Specific Plan landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to Main Street create a positive image. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public, and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway. c) The project site is located within an established urbanized area of Southwestern Chula Vista. Surrounding land uses consist of commercial/retail uses to the north, east, south and west. The proposed project consist of the expansion of the existing gasoline service station by providing an additional eight new service islands (16 new vehicle fueling spaces) and the construction of a 1,967 square foot convenience store. The commercial project would not result in a change in the service station commercial character of the project site nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic impact to the adjacent commercial land uses. Proposed improvements are anticipated to have a positive aesthetic effect on the corner of Main Street and Beyer Way. The project would not substantially degrade the eXisting visual character or quality of the surrounding area but would rather enhance the current condition of the area. d) Compliance with the glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the. Chula Vista Municipal Code (CYMe) that is ensured through the building permit process, no substantial glare, direct or sky- reflected glare or light, would effect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area. Miti!!:ation: No mitigation measures are required. IT. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Fannland of Statewide hnportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pUISUaIlt to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultUIa! use? o o o '181 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? o o o 181 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFannland, to non-agricultural use? o o o 181 ~:1o Issues: PotentiaUy Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorpor1ted Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a-c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources or designated fannland. Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required. m. AIR QUALITY. Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? o o o 181 b) Violate any air quality standard or contnbute SUbstantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? o 181 o o c) Result m a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region IS non-attamment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? o o 181 o d) Expose sensitive receptOIO to substantia] pollutant concentrations? o o 181 ,p e) Create objectionable odOrs aifeclilJg a ..:...... o o 181 o substantia! number of people? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, (MND) Section E. Miti!!ation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the MND would mitigate potentially significant short-teIm construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. 2-48 ; Issues: IV,BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any speCIes identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural conimunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected, wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through diIect removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordimmces protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Na!tjra1 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ~:H Potentially Significant Impad . o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o , o o No Impact I 181 181 I2l 181 181 181 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less nan Signifieant Impact No Impact cODSCIVation plan? , Comments: a) The project site involves ao existing developed use. b) There are no sensitive natuIal communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area c) No wetlands are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area d) No native resident or migratoIy wildlife corridors or native wildlife nUISeIy sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. e) No biological resources would be affected by the proposal and no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would result f) No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is fully developed as are surrounding properties. Mitil!atiou: No Initigation measures are required. v, CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resoUICe as defined in State CEQA Guidelines g 15064.5? o o o 181 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological reSOUICe pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines ~ 15064.5'1 o o o 181 ,",: c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resoUICe or site or unique geologic feature? o o o 181 2-50 ~ Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 ! 181 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Commeuts: a) No historic resources are known or are expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no substantial adveISe change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is anticipated. b) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site, and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the proposed project, the potentia! for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant c) The project site is identified as an area of low. potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan EIR. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading for the proposed project, the potential for impacts to paleontological resource or is considered to be less than significant No unique geologic features are present on the site. d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project Mitigatiou: No mitigation measures are required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map is:;ucl1:rj the State Geologist for the area or' best d on other substantial evidence of a known fau It? ."f':'. . o o o 181 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? o o 181 o iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? o o o 181 iv. Landslides? o o o 181 62-51 3-44 VTI. HAZARDs AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to' the public or the enviromnent through the routine trnnsport, use, or di5p(l'.a1 nfh:v;ardous materials? o o 181 o b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 181 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0 0 181 acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed 2-52 ... Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With Issues: Significant Mitigation Signific.ant No Impact Impact . Incorporated Impact school? .i d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 0 181 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazm'd to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 181 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two Iniles of a public aiIport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 0 181 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair ,implementation of or physically interfere 0 0 0 181 with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 181 loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildIaods are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intemrixed with wildlands? Commeuts: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Miti2atiou: No Initigation measures are required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALTIY, Would the project a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving, waters (including impaired water bodies o o 181 o !=4S Issues: PotentiaJIy Significant Impact . Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303( d) list), result in significant a1terntion' of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? -' b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inteIfere 0 0 0 181 SUbstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volwne or a lOwering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearny wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing dIainage pattern of the 0 0 0 181 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation 00- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing dIainage pattem of the 0 0 0 181 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of SUIface runoff in a manner which would .result in flooding on- or off-site, 'or place structures within a 1 DD-year flood hazard area which wouId impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, 0 0 0 ~ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result oi the failure of a levee or dam? f) Create or contnoute runoff water, which would exceed 0 0 0 181 the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. 2-54 q Issues: PotentiaJly Significant Impact _ Less Than Signific:ant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. ! IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING, Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? o o o 181 b) Conflict with any applicable land use pIan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the pwpose of avoiding or mitigating an enviromnentaI effect? o o o 181 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? o o o 181 Comments: a) The proposed commercial project would be consistent with the chazacter of the SUIroW1ding area amI, therefore, would not disrupt or divide an established community. - ,b) The project site is within the ll.P (Limited Industrial/Precise Plan) Zone and IL (Limited Industrial) tJ<:Ilexa1 Plan desiglll.tions, within the Montgomery Specific Plan and Southwest Redevelopment Area. The project has been found to be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations, Genexa1 Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan. c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental. plans or policies. Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required. 1~:~~ Issues: x. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resoUICe that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recoveIy site delineated on a local genernl plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: Less Than Potentially Significant Los. Than With Signific3nt Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact , Incorporated Impact ! 0 0 0 181 o o o 181 a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of aVaiIability of a known minernl resource of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. ' b) Purnuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista Genernl Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation bas not designated the project site for minernl resource protection. Mitil?:ation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) - Exposure of persons to or generntion of noise levels in excess of standaIds established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ,'- b) Exposure of persons to or generntion of excessive !r,l'oundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 2-56 11 o o o 181 o o 0, 181 o o o 181 o o 181 o Issues: levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use aiIport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, wouId the project expose people residing or working in the proj ect area to excessive noise levels? Comments: Less ThaD Potentially Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact , 0 0 0 ~ o o o 181 a, c and d) There are no sensitive receptors within the surrounding area of this existing setvice station. b) It is not anticipated that peISons WIll be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels, as there will not be any heavy indus1riaI equipment or machinery operated on-site beyondshort-tCInl cQI1Struction activities. e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people worlcing on-site to excessive noise levels. f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels. Mitilmtion: No mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 12-57 3-50 , , o o o 181 o o o ~ elsewhere? Less Than PotentialJy Significant Les.s Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact , 0 0 0 181 Issues: c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replac=ent housing elsewhere? Comments: a-c)No residential development is proposed that would induce substantial population growth in the area or require substantia] infrastructure improvements. No pennanent housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or person would occtn" as a result of the proposed project. Based upon the size and nature of the proposal, no population growth inducement is anticipated. The project is an allowable retail use per the Zoning Ordinance and is in compliance with the GeuCIll! Plan and the Montgoroery Specmc Plan. Mitil!atiou: No mitigation measures are required. XIll, PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental fucilities, need for new or physically altered governmental "fucilities, the construction of which could cause significaot environmental - impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfonnance objectives for aoy public services: a. Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b, Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c. Schools? 0 0 0 181 d. Parks? 0 0 0 181 e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 181 2-58 13 Issu es: Potentially Significant Impact Less nan Signific.ant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Commeuts: ! a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site without an increase of equipment or pexsonnel. The Fire Department's estimated time of arrival is within 5 Ininutes. The applicant is required to subInit plans for a fire sprinkler system prior to building construction and is required to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building construction. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. The City perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met. b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public schools would result. Furthennore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutOIy building permit school fees for the proposed new corrnnercial building. d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not induce significant population growth and thus not create a demand for neighborhood or regional patks or facilities or impact existing park facilities. e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure. XIV, RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? o o o 181 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? o o o 181 l~:S~ Issues: Potentially Significant . Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated L... Than Significant . Impact No Impact Comments: a) BecaUse the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for neighborhood or regional patXs or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. , b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. According to the'Parks and Recreation Element of the Gen=I Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities orprograms. Mitil!ation: No Initigation measures are required. XV, TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in 0 0 181 0 relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the s1reet system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 0 0 0 181 service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? . c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 0 0 0 181 either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantia] safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 0 0 181 (e.g., shatp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., !ann equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 181 2-60 1~ Issues: f) Result in inadequate parlcing capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? Commeuts: See Mitigated Negative Declazation, Section E. Mitil!atiou: No mitigation measures are required. XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant enVironmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water chai:nage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it ~:U Less ThaD Potentially Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated . Impact 0 0 0 , ~ 0 0 0 181 o o o 181 o o o I8l o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact . Less Than Significant With Mitigation IDcorponte~ Less Than Significant Impact No Imp"'t has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? .' f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? o o o 181 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? o o o 181 Comments: a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed proj ect. , b) See XVI.a. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would be necessary. c) No construction of new stonn dIainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be uecessary. d) The project site is Within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to infonnation provided by the Sweetwater Authority, the project is serviced by an existing 1 inch existing potable water main. No new or expanded entitlements are anticipated for the proposed project. e) See XVI.a. and b. f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to Il')eetthe solid waste needs of the region in accordance with State law. g) The proposal would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste. Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required. XVII, THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? 2-62 17 Issues: A) LibI1lIV The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by bUlldout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Libmy facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B) Police a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One" emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an avernge response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or less. C) Fine and Emergencv Medical Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) TIlIffic The Threshold SllIndards 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 durmg the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west ofl-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the avernge weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway I1lIIIps are exempted from this SllIndard. E) Parks and R=eation Areas The Threshold SllIndard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres 112-63 3-56 Potentially Significant Impact _ o o o o o Less Than SigJIificant With Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o 181 o No Impact ! ~ 181 I2l o 181 Issues: of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilitiesll,OOO population east ofl-80S. F) Thainalre The Threshold Standards require that stann water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessaxy improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. Pote:ntiany Significant Impact . o Less Than Sjgnificant With Mitigation Incorporated o Less Than Significant Impact No Impact , I8J o G) Sewer 0 0 181 0 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master PIan(s) and City Engineering Standards.' H) Water 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that adequate stOIage, treatment, and lransmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset progrnm the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of bUIlding permit issuance. ','.", 2-64 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact " Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: ! a) The project is not a housing development; therefore, no impacts to hbrary facilities would result No adverse impact to the City's LIbrary Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. b)' According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project The proposed expansion project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection semces. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold standanis would occur as a resultofthe proposed project. c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical semces can continue to be provided to the site. The proposed project would not have a signiiicant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medica! Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. d) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, with the addition of projected generated traffic, all roadway segments and intersections within the study area are estimated to continue to operate at level of service "C" or better in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standards. e) Because the project site is located west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable. f) A drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the final grading and improvement plans and drainage facilities designed in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering standards will be installed at the time of site development. The applicant proposes new and improved drainage facilities incorporated within the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project. g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of a lO-inch sewer line running westerly along Main Street and an l2-inch sewer line runni:rig southerly along 1bi:rd Avenue prior to reaching Beyer Way on the west side of the project site. The Engineering Department has detemrined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No uew sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will OCCUI as a result of the proposed project. h) Pursuant to infonnation received from the Sweetwater Authority, on June 23, 2004, there is an 8-inch water main located on the south side of Main Street, a;:!d there is currently an existing I-inch domestic water service currently line serving the project site. Project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. z!:g~ Issu es: XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rnnge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods. of California . history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other curn:nt project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial advexse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectIy? Comments: Less Than Potentl.aIJy Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ! 0 0 0 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 a) The project site is currently developed and is located within an established urbanized area,. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cu1tuIal resources on the site. b) As descn'bed in the Mitigated N~go.ti"e.Declaration, no significant direct project impacts would result from implementation the project No cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other curn:nt projects and probable future projects have been identified and none are contemplated. c) See the "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" discussion in Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.. 2-66 '1 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION :MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-OO-50. ' , XX, AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. '- f\'T,( z..CL\.(lA- Printed Name and Title of Applicant (or authorized representative) ~ ~ ~-1_o'-j Signature of Applicant (or authorized representative) Date Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Applicant) Signature of Operator (if different from Applicant) Date .,,;. ,0.." ,j-67 '"3-60 XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTlALL Y 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 previous pages. -' o Land Use and Planning o Population and Housing o Geophysical o Agricultural Resources o HydrologyfWater 181 Air Quality o Paleontological Resources DTransportation/I'raffic o Biological Resources o Energy and Mineral Resources o Public Services o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics o Hazards and Hazardous Materials o Cultural Resources o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance . ;~. " " 2-68 ..,~ XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the, 0 environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 181 environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation" measures descn'bed 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, 0 and an 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 pmsuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eaxlier analysis as descn'bed 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. 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR pursuant to applicable standanls and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pllISUant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project An addendum has been prepaxed to provide a recOId of this determination. o M?2~tl?~~. Environmental Review Coordinator City of ChuIa Vista gJ~uJ [)~ Date { " ., . J:\Planning\BcnG\AllcnGasIS-oo.SOChccklist.doc 22-69 3-62 .... .. :c '" E-< e '" ... lOAl Q ... ~ lOAl '" :e Q l:l. .. ~ "0 '" '" lOAl '" ';: Q - - = Q ~ = Q ;: '" lOAl ;: ~ '" Cl :;::: '" .... <:I.l .>/ <.l C ... E-< .., '" .. ., .. c:I '" ..!:! :;;: I S '" ... .. Cl ... p., .. .5 .... ... Cl Co <ll ~ .., '" '" .. '" 1: Cl .... .~ '" Q ;:s '" .S .... '" ~ - ~ ... oS C lU .S ~= .~ ~ ~1: rl> ~ ~.. .- = ... Cl Cl_ - ~ - .. c_ i~ ... '" .s=~ .! 0 = :e~c ~ .. .. =.- 5 Q:::: Q,) 1:'~ 'E .. E ~ ... ~ ., .. ... Cl ... ll< .. .5 1:: o '" .. ~ "Cl C .. .. = 1: .s '2 ~ .. ... = ~ .. .. ~ = .S - .. ~ ~ .. :; .... U .... c . o~ U> - "0 .~ =ll< .S b.Q .-:= :: ];0 o e U<::l ~ Cl -:< ~ .. '" o '" " ~ o ...: " .. 3 = 1-0 ",Sh " = ~~ a.~ ::EU = 3 .S u.J tlt: ~~ S ... u:;:; ~ 8 E ~ .~ ..g ''S,."s: "'8 -< '" S~"5.8 ~.~ ~ C; o W I-o..r:: ""0 = II) l:I.I " > "Cl '" C " '. .... '" " " .. ~ :t " -'~: E ;; c QI ... < .. " C ; rn a" ::'c 11).9 -"B >ti"C Cl.5"Cl "; 8 E lIJ ; .::.s~ 6.E lIJ e 0 tJ "0 'c ;.a <<) "0 .J:I.s~-ss -8.!! cu "O~ES~ ; ~ u.J C 0"0 .B .9 t:e~6tJ ;00.;.....05 c'" = (J"5 ~ .9 :: ... cu 0 uo~e~ = Cl .. '" C ..l:: l:I.I S IJ" >. l'I:Il'I:I <_ 6 ar D '; U Co -; . "0 oo:::l"3:!"O I: - u .... u 'C Q..'.l: S ; ::I ~ aa cu..!! Cl rn j:l. 0 .. ] U .... '" . c~ u> - "0 .~ =ll< .9 0.0 ::g .s =11 o " U<::l ~ o e " '" o '" " ~ o ...: " " .s .5 ~ .. " = '"'~ ll!~ .. ,- ::EU = 0 .9 - tjt: .5e. " ~ = ... c3;;;;: ...rJJ 8 -a :t .. " ""Cl ;.:: 'S;: "'0 -<"a ~.. t;.8 &1 ~ ~.. :i ..; = _:::I C - C'I:I .....C-= -e-.-c....ueu M fg.soc.. u~ N l=:!C~rn~=.~ l:I.I J;O 0 tJ.-=:: E._ =C;_t,,}cu_._ > .9 'C.! u ..c = .s ~ '':: "t) .B ~.; "0 "0" C a ~ Q,)=-;c....cc8~ CI:ISl=:!on:~ obO I; u - 'i< 0 :: ~oo0lJ6of.Ot;a 8" !; .; 1i ~ '0 ~ 8..:a ff"O" ... U,J" :: 0 is...c IU ~ e 8.~ = -= r:! 5 1ioooQ...;::= oW "i3ca~:::::;~~.,gca ;:>c....ou,.c"Cu-.5 o--5-cuooo"'O . .! g 5 ~ .s "'8 ~ ~ S e ~ ~ _8 l! ~ ...."'S. .. 0 r.S ClI .... C - u 0.. c..c .- 0 l5 to C "'0: ~ = 0.':: -- u u C - .- CIS Uta: ".c_=::J0_"= 00"'; u = U W) Q I) ..c C'C c-.: =..,;:= 8 8 .~.fB'~~ e~= u g Stot':l_-~t':IOcu"Cu c..E!Wl_"'t:"'5.::..c gW Cgg _~ uCU=..ccClSu':::_ c F1.;:.c _._~...___"; cu:: -uS =._ "C e-......c~="'Oc 5~l!~.,gg=OJerJ~ u_-u3: OJ -_0 ~..2 ti C Q g,,! III ~ ~ .c > w~ .- w C CUQO...ca rC:w)t':I - > u C CIS U t':I~ t':I U .. :; .... U .... '" . .c~ u;;: .., "0 .~ r::ll< .S O.Q :g _5 =11 Cl ~ U<::l ...: B e " '" o '" " ~ o -a 0"Cl " - = 5 ~ .. '" ~= 'a~ ta: 0 C'" ClS ;; 8 ~ ~ ~ .e. ~' a c &".E go .,g~~s uO"'ijt,;:; .5"='"' w ~ 8-s 6 ~ = g Co) 1;; ~.5 ~::::r.S ~ ~~~~ -~~ ~ b - > 0.- g; 0 ''': Co) -( IS.. e .s ~.= s.8 .- =.- ~~u ~ 's.5 ] ... '8 = W) 0._ 0 _ g.805 ... 0 co S ~-.5 c.. _5 G.:S'S "'l:j"CEO'" u 5 '{ u = -"Cl ',S.5;e = - u 't;"E:5~ a ~ 8. 8.. " ...!. ..c >. a: I'll _:::: Oo~ ";rf;:.t: -;;;00..2 c.E! ~ u o 0 ::I OQ e c. .. = .e. u ~:.a ::I...c 0 = 0"'_ or;; '0-; o c; .~ .S .~ =.... a " .9 w o.....:! u~=5o.. ECQ.e~; ~a.a.=-"'O o"Eo6-~ U 0 0.. n ,n'" ...: Cl e " 8- '" " c ~ o ~ ClU -.... ... ,~ ~~ .. ~ =<02 ~s = " _9 ] tl .. Es " u S~ U"Cl = ..w _;: ;: " .. .!l Q, '" <( " .0 -;; .... " ..; ~ " " c ".... <o!! " 6 i>l '" " "Cl..!! ns [", =N C"Cl U = " Cl ~ u u" >1l ~ " '" " "Cl"Cl 1; _5 :t " = " u a.... of it *1l .- "Cl .., = u c. :~ ~ .. :; .... u .... '" . a~ u> .. :; .... u .... c . o~ U> - "0 'g " =ll< .,g co :.a ,5 ="Cl Cl e U<::l .., "0 .~ =ll< .S ~ ;a .5 ="Cl Cl el U<::l ...: B e " 8- '" " ~ o ..; ~ " Cl " .-:: c s'So 5&1 ...: " " Cl = tOg ~~ aJi ::EU =3 Cl " '"fi t: .5 fl " ~ s.?; U... ..0 g -a :t .. " .~ "'tj 0"> ",Cl -< l:i 1; ~ ~.- B~ .. " ~'ii -=~ ,- - ~ ~ "Cl"Cl " ~~ 'C .~ 5i'''Cl .8:l _ = '-;; ~ ....ii ., "0 :lb ~ = .. Cl = " Q ,- - ti ~ .5"Cl :=..2 8~ lle > " .. u "'.. C C :; =.... 4-_~ t: ~ ~ .... " .g ~ ~ '" OJ.$! c3-:o "'- ~<:I.l .....>/ :5 OJ \.:) = ",E-< ""0 S '" ea'" .S = :g\.:) J! '" E,,~ .. " ~=~ .. Q .. :E-- .- = = ~ .. .. ,,- e c =: fU l;o l?! -= .. e ~ ..... ~ ... :: a - .. :c "" .... s "" .. tlAl Q .. ~ tlAl = - - .. Q "" .. .r:: "Cl = "" tlAl = i: Q - -= Q ~ = .Si - .. 2' ~ .. oS" .. Q :0= -'" ~ .... "c Q- "," :!> ~ t: ~ Q i ~ :> .... ..5" ,-~ .. Q Q- - ~ " "2 ~ ~ ~::i1 .. .. .5 "'0 .. .. " ~ ~ .. .... Q .. ll.. .. .s t: Q '" .. ~ '0 " '" .. " ;:: .s 'c Q l?! " " " .5 OIl " l>l ~ U .9 t! o @" ,., :;;j " " a: " "'0 .> e '" N J!t;~ -..g .5 .s ... ~ Q " 2 bO C .9.5 1=; ~ .. 'F.! ! u a: .. ... = "' .. ~ " s: -:;; if ::i1 ;; c: 0; .. ~ d'~ .al5~ "':: "C . u'- C) ,!:is ::g ~;e <"t:: CII .- ::s"> .5 "'0_ e '"'0 0 ~oc ..c:=u o at Q..... - 0 c.. ~ ::>.,".: IoU '" ",,"g 10 S = ...,.0..... :J Q..,=.; y=jge ~ s UlI u ,., "'- .. u C ; .. .."'0 w.l e:sa::: ,,= - :" s '0 5 > - l: "= ~ = ~ ~ e :3 ~ u {l ~ ~ = ti-S CJ't;; ~rij ::::~ :s .., CJ = "'.... "'''Cl S = l><l"" '" .. .- "" ~c .s = ~.!! "'-i:;;: L' " I 3-64 ATTACHmNT 4 P I ann n g & Building Planning Division I Department Development Processing cnv OF CHUlA VISTA Disclosure Statement APPLICATION APP~NDfX 8 Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and ail ather official bodies of the City, a statement of disciosure of 'certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions far a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The foilowing information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of ail persons having a finan9ial Interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Latif Zoura JI~~ Ma~n Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of ail individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Piease identify every person, Including any agents, employees, consultants, or Independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. TRH Inc. i Tobv Hallal ~~uu 4tn ve., g 206 San Dieqo. CA 92101 5. Has any person' associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an officiai" of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No...1S- If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chuta Vista City Council? No ~ Yes _If yes, which Council member? 27b Fourth ^venu~ ehwi" Vista 12_7'~fornla 9191U (bI9) b91-S1Ul P I ann n g & Building Planning Division Department Development Processing em OF CHUlA VISTA APPLICATION APPJ;NDIX 8 Disclosure Statement - Page 2 , 7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (1~ months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes_ No_ If Yes, which officia'" and what was the nature of item provided? Date: '"L~ 1..3-,)'1" Latif Zoura Signature of Contractor/Applicant ~ ~ type name of Contractor/Applicant Print or . Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social ciub, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county. city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. - " i , 27b Fourth A"enu~ Chulil Vis.ta Ca.lifornia ~H'U (el~) e~1-51Ul 2-73 3-66