The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/09/15Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church Multipurpose Building PROJECT LOCATION: 1603 and 1611 Fresno Avenue 337 Tremont Street 341 Anita Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 623-132-O1, 623-132-02, G23-132-03, and 623-131-14 PROJECT APPLICANT: Reverend Mario Vesga Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church CASE NO.: IS-03-004 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: August 28, 2003 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Project Setting The 1.61-acre project site, comprised of four parcels located in the urbanized central southwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista, is located at 1603 and 1611 Fresno Avenue, 347 Tremont Street and 345 Anita Street (see Exhibit A -Location Map). The proposed site of the new multipurpose building is comprised of three parcels totaling 22,484 square feet; one parcel containing the existing multipurpose building (1603 Fresno Avenue), one vacant parcel (161 1 Fresno Avenue), and one parcel that contains the church rectory and garage (347 Tremont Street). The Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church is located at 341 Anita Street, at the southeast corner of Anita Street and Fresno Avenue, immediately north of the existing and proposed multipurpose building site. The land uses surrounding the site of the proposed expanded church complex are as follows: North: Mobilchome park South: Single- and multi-family residences East: Single-family residences West: Montgomery Elementary School B. Protect Description The existing Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church multipurpose building, which is accessible via Fresno Avenue and the alley off Tremont Street to the south, contains 4,000 square feet of floor area; 14 off-street parking spaces exist on the Bile of the existing multipurpose building. The existing Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church site, located immediately north of the existing and proposed multipurpose building site, contains a 50- MOBILE HOME PARK ~ ~J I / I l Q c O LL L~ THUNDERBIRD MOBILE HOME PARK ANITA ST MONTGOMERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MONTGOMERY ST ZENITH 5T ~~ _ STRAWBERRY FIELD MAIN 5T MOBILE HNNNOME U i m 00 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^ PALM ^ e O^ M081LE ~ ESTATES OtJ 0 0~ I~Q o TREMONT 5T PROI_„ ~ ~. ~ LOCAT~~ON ~ ~ O Z N ~ W Q LL F Q O~ LJ.L-LJ~_~ a BAP~T _ s _ IIr _~ F• L MAIN SQUARE __ ~ AUTO IFg_ SELF _-J eF< A ~, STORAGE \FACILITY ~\ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT APPUCANrREV.MARIOVESGA,PASTOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INITIAL STUDY PRQIECT 1603/161 I FRESNO ST, Request: Our Lady of Guadalupe Church is proposing ADDRESS: 337 TREMONT ST and 341 ANITA ST construction of a new multipurpose building. DRC, NORTH SCALE: FILE NUMBER No Scale IS-03-004(rev) CUP,Variance and IS for environmental is required for the proposed use. Exhibit A space parking lot. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing multipurpose building, rectory and garage and the construction of a new 12,051 square-foot multipurpose building (8,840 square-foot ground floor level and 3,231 square-foot basement level) with 24 off-street parking spaces on the consolidated 22,484 square-foot site (see Exhibit B -Site Plan). For activities occurring at the multipurpose building, the 50-space parking lot on the church site immediately to the north will be available for use, totaling 74 off-street parking spaces to serve the proposed new facility. The proposed multipurpose building would contain an auditorium, an office, four classrooms, a kitchen, restrooms, storage rooms on the ground level and basement storage area, which would allow for the expansion of programs to meet the needs of the Our Lady of Guadalupe parish. Additional proposed on-site improvements include a new six-foot masonry wall along the eastern property line, landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along Tremont Street and Fresno Avenue. In accordance with City standards, a 4-foot widening of the alley along the southern boundary of the project site is required. The following deviations from the development regulations of the R2 Zone are proposed: (1) an increase in the maximum allowable height of 28 feet to 32.5 feet; and (2) a reduction in the minimum front yard setback of 15 feet to 5 feet. A height deviation within the R2 Zone requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, which will be considered by the Planning Commission. The proposed setback reduction requires the granting of a Variance by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the proposal requires Design Review approval by the Design Review Committee and the consolidation of the three lots comprising the multipurpose building site. C Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is zoned R2P (One and Two Family Residential/Precise Plan) and is designated RLM (Residential/Low-Medium Density) under the adopted General Plan. The R2P Zone allows for the proposed heiglrt deviation to be considered through a Conditional Use Permit, whereas the proposed front yard setback deviation requires the granting of a Variance; based upon staffs evaluation, no aesthetic impacts or impacts to the character of the neighborhood would result from the approval of the proposed height deviation and front yard setback Variance. The project has been reviewed preliminarily by the Design Review Conunittee and design modifications have been incorporated into the development plans that include building articulations, building height adjustment, and the blending and matching of architecture, materials and color to the existing church. D. Public Comments On November 2, 2002, 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 November 1Z, 2002. No written comments were received. 2 Community Meeting A Community Meeting was held on July 21, 2003 at the existing multipurpose building to present the proposed project and to solicit input regarding the proposal from residents in the area. No environmental issues were identified by members of the public during the meeting. 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 project. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Transportation/Ci rculation/ParkinQ Based upon the proposed increase in the size of new multipurpose building compared to the existing, the proposal is projected to generate 245 average daily vehicle trips beyond the volrime of traffic generated by the current facility. Based upon the projected level of traffic generation and the level of service of the surrounding street network, the City's Engineering Department has determined that the proposal does not have the potential to result in any significant traffic impacts; therefore, the preparation of a traffic study was not necessary. Anita Avenue (Class II Collector) in the vicinity of the project site currently operates at level of service (LOS) A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. Third Avenue (Class I Collector) in the vicinity of the project site currently operates at LOS B and is projected to continue to operate at LOS B after project development. Fresno Avenue and Tremont Street are residential streets; no operational problems are known to exist on these streets and none are anticipated after project development. Based upon the proposed maximum occupancy of the new multipurpose building of 260 persons, required off-street parking is 74 spaces pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code requirement of one parking space per 3.5 persons for assembly uses. Proposed off-street parking consists of 74 spaces, comprised of 24 spaces on the multipurpose building site and the existing 50 spaces on the church site immediately to the north. In the event that the occupancy of the multipurpose building were to exceed the proposed maximum level, the project would potentially impact on-street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhood; therefore, the maximum occupancy of the facility will be limited through a condition of approval, as outlined below in Section F. Similarly, if activities at the church and multipurpose building were to occur simultaneously or with little or no gap between them, impacts to the surrounding neighborhood could result; therefore, the project would be conditioned to prohibit the concurrent scheduling of activities at the hvo facilities and requiring a minimum 45-minute gap between activities, as outlined below in Section F. 3 Noise The new multipurpose building is proposed to be situated within the northwestern portion of the site, fronting Fresno Avenue and Tremont Street, with parking provided along the eastern boundary of the site between the building and adjacent residential development to the east and to the south of the alley. The auditorium is proposed within the eastern portion of the multipurpose building, buffered from adjacent residential development by space within the building to be utilized for classroom, office, kitchen, and storage uses. Four non-fixed windows are proposed along the western building elevation and the auditorium, facing Fresno Avenue, more than 400 feet from the buildings on the Montgomery Elementary School site to the west. The activities to be conducted within the new auditorium are proposed to be the same as those presently conducted in the auditorium of the existing multipurpose building. According to City code enforcement records, no noise complaints associated with the existing multipurpose building have been received. Due to the buffering of the auditorium from adjacent residences by additional building area to the south and east of the auditorium and the substantial distance between the auditorium and the buildings on the school site to the west, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, compliance with the noise control ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which regulates the maximum one- hour average sound level that can be generated at the property line, is mandatory for any activities occurring on-site. Aesthetics The City's Design Review Committee provided input to the applicant during preliminary review workshops. Based upon this input, the applicant made revisions to their proposal to address the Committee's comments regarding building mass, height, and architectural compatibility with the existing Church. The final revisions to the original proposal include a reduction in the maximum building height from 34 feet to 32.5 feet, architectural features to eliminate the "box-type" style and blend with the architectural design of the Church, movement of the location of the multipurpose building on the site, and reduction of occupant seating inside the multipurpose building. The height limit within the R2P zone is 28 feet or two and one-half stories. The proposed maximum height of the multipurpose building is 32.5 feet, compared with the maximum heights of the Church of approximately 34 feet (excluding the tower elements). The surrounding single-family building heights are as follows; the one-story, single-family residence to the east is approximately 13 feet in height and the two-story, single-family residence mm~ediatcly south of the alley is approximately 24 feet in height. The highest element of the multipurpose building is roughly within the western-central portion of the stnicture, with the rooflines slopping down towards the perimeter of the building. "I'he eastern portion of the building, which is nearest the existing one-story, single- familyresidence to the east, is equivalent in height to a single-story building. Furthermore, a new six-foot high masonry wall and landscaping, including four trees, are proposed along the 4 eastern property line (with the exception of the front yard setback azea) that provides some aesthetic buffer. Along Tremont Street (front yard), the property line is approximately 25 feet from the face of the curb. The Engineering Department does not anticipate the need to widen Tremont Street in the future; therefore, project and frontage improvements, including landscaping and hardscape within the street right-of--way and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the same location as existing are acceptable to the Engineering Department. Therefore, despite the proposed 5-Foot front yard setback, the proposed multipurpose building would be approximately 24 feet from the back of the sidewalk. Based upon the site layout of the proposed building along the frontages of Fresno Avenue and Tremont Street, the lower project site elevation in relation to the adjacent eastern and southern single family residential areas, the architectural compatibility with the existing Church, the new masonry wall and landscaping along the eastern property boundary, and enhanced landscaping throughout the remainder of the site create a compatibility with the existing surrounding single-family and multifamily residential community and would not result in negative aesthetic impacts. Water Ouality/Drainage The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage study prepared by CDS Civil Engineers dated January 3, 2003, which was deemed adequate by the Engineering Department. A final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans. Based upon the findings of the preliminary drainage study, the Engineering Department has determined that no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system would result from the proposed development. Properly designed drainage facilities will be required to be installed at the time of site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Construction and post-construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required to be incorporated into the project in order to minimize discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage system, in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. During construction, BMPs from the California Best Management Practices Handbook, which have proven to be effective, will be implemented. Examples of constrnetion 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. The proposed project would not result in any sigmificant water yuality impacts or significant impacts [o the existing storm drainage system serving [he project site. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Traffic/Circul ation/Parking The following mitigation measures shall be inc]uded in Conditional Use Permit No. PCC-04- 014 as conditions of approval and shall not be deviated from unless approved in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator: The church and multipurpose facilities shall not be used concurrently. A 45-minute gap shall be maintained at all times between scheduled as well as non-scheduled activities held at the church and multipurpose facility. 2. The occupancy of the multipurpose building shall not exceed 260 persons at any time. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Department Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Department John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department Harold Phelps, Planning and Building Department Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department Miguel Tapia, Community Development Department Frank Rivera, Engineering Department Alex Al-Agha, Engineering Department Jeff Moneda, Engineering Department Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Department Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department Majed Al-Ghafry, Engineering Department Jim Geering, Fire Department Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office Others: Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District 2. Documents Cdy of Chula Vista General Plan, 1959. Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 88-2, May 1989. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003. Drainage Study for Our Lady ofGuadalupe -Chula Vista, California, CDS Civil Engineers, January 3, 2003. Geotechnical Feasibility for Development -Our Lady of Guadalupe Multi-purpose Building, 301 Tremont, Chula Vista -Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., September 10, 2002. 3. [nitial Study 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 Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Our Ladv of Guadalupe Catholic Church Multipurpose Building - IS-03-004 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church Multipurpose Building. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-004). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3I 80 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Traffic/Circulation/Parking MONITORING PROGRAM Duc to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator shall be the Envirommental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-004 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-004, which will be implemented as par[ of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. J'\NlmmingublARIAAImtial timtlyVlti-03-004MMRPtext.doc d s e p ~~ a d m oa IE 1 U m a T Q O~ ~d N~ ~ LL 6 U Z ~ N C O „O ~ ~ V d rn m ~_ u] G U a y`a ~'~ ~ Q 1-7 a'i 4 2 Q c r_ o a Z oR ~ o u `v Z 7 Q 9 .m g a d O c > 6 U [n oA ~o ~ 9 O 6 O o ro U `° U m $ d w a N > C C O p L m= C O p N N j U N p' 6 D C C a t 'n % -p N ~ ty N y U Q C 3 C J~ C C _ G O d p1 N O N 9 ~ E G ` ~. 7 L D `~ p d N N G 9 .y a n °-' `°E °~ m `° n o s (7 ~' 0 9 G U N d 9 ~ ro d Z d U m rc ~ m ~' ~ i q Q R 9 ~ 6" d 7 L EZ 9uA n~v~ 6 G ~ 1 p p_~ 7~[l~~ CC ~ ~ i ;~ 'o q a~ ~V E `T s n N S 6'a N J o c 2 N N d U~ s _ m~ ` ~i ff m~ Ra o may f O O j@ 9 U U N U ~ LL O .~ O O N C E LL p dTi p L p Y ~ r 6 oZ A 61 N ~~ 0 ~' 1r 0 N v. n S 4 w. c I h a Case No.IS-03-004 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. 2. Name of Proponent: Lead Agency Name and Address: Reverend Mario Vesga Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. 4. 5. I. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Name of Proposal: Date of Checklist: 341 Anita Street Chula Vista, CA 9 19 1 1-4198 (619) 422-3977 Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church Multipurpose Building August 28, 2003 rmemuuy Potentially Significant less than Significant Unkss Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact LAND [iSE AND PLANNING. R'ould the proposal. a) Conflict with general plan designation or ° ° ° L()ning'? b) Conflict with applicable environmental pans or ° ° ° policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project'? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., ° ° ° impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uscsl? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ° ° ° established community (including aloes-income or minority community)'? Comments: The proposed 12,071 square-toot church multipurpose building is consistent with the existing R-2P zoning designation and the Luw-Medium Residential General Plan designation of the property. 'The established surrounding land uses are the church and auxiliary uses, single- and multi- family residential uses and a public elementary school. The proposed project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community. No agriculhlral resources are present on-site or in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ° ° ° population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ° ° ° directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)'? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ° ° ° housing? Comments: The proposed project would not create local or regional population growth. The proposal includes the demolition of the rectory; the loss of the existing rectory is not considered a significant loss of housing. The project would not require [he extension of major infrastructure since there are adequate water and sewer lines and access to the project site according to the Engineering Department. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Putentially Significant less than Potentully llnless Significam No Significant Mitigated Impatl Impact Impact III. GEOPIIYSICAL. Mould the proposal resldt in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic ° ° ° substructures'? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or ° ° ® ° overcovering of the soil'? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief ° ° ® ° features'? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any ° ° ° unique geologic or physical features? c) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, ° ° ® ° 2 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach ° ° sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic ° ° hazards such as earthyuakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: a) A geotechnical investigation of the project site was conducted by Geotechnieal Exploration, Inc., the results of which are contained in their report entitled "Geotechnical Feasibility for Development -Our Lady of Guadalupe Multi-purpose Building 301 Tremont, Chula Vista, California," dated September 10, 2002. The purpose of the investigation was to observe and sample prevailing soil conditions underlying the site and to provide recommendations relative to geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The field investigation was performed on August 30, 2002, and consisted of the advancement of 7 exploratory excavations across the site. The excavations were advanced to a maximum depth of T6" below adjacent grade. 17te soils encountered during the field investigation consisted of undocumented fill and formational soils of the Bay Point Formation. Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation and is not anticipated to significantly impact the proposed development The report recommends that existing undocumented fill soils be removed from the site and replaced with imported, compacted, clean fill soils. According to the lingincering Department, the proposed project will require a grading permit due to the anticipated 500 cubic yards of earth to be excavated and approximately 290 cubic yards of fill. Based upon the results of the geotechnical investigation, the proposed project is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering point of view provided the structure is designed in accordance with the applicable building regulations and provided the engineering recommendations contained in the report are followed. b - g) See Ill.a. above. Mitigation: No mitigation measures rcyuired. Polemially Significam lecv than Parentally pnless SiQniriaam Nn Significam Mitigated Impact Impact Impact IV. yVATF.R. [f'oulrl the proposal result in. a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ° ° or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ° ° ° hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration ° ° ® ° of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ° ° ® ° water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction ° ° ° of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ° ° ® ° through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ° ° ° groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ° ° ° i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood ° ° ° waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water ° ° ° otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments : See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Potentially Potemially Significant Less Ihao Signifcant Unless Significant No impazt Mitigated Impau Impact V. AIR QUALITY. IVnuld the proposal a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ° ° ® ^ an existing or projected air quality violation'! b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ° ° ° c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ° ° ° or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? a d) Create objectionable odors? ° ° ° e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or ° ° ® ^ non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: a) Grading and construction of the proposed multipurpose building would temporarily create dust and constnstion equipment emissions. Based upon the limited extent of site grading, short- term construction-related dust and emissions are not considered to be a significant impact. Standard dust control measures would be implemented, including watering exposed soils and street sweeping and required as construction notes on the grading and improvement plans. According to the Traffic Engineering Section, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes projected to be generated by the proposed project is 280 one-way trips; this volume is not considered to be significant and would not contribute significantly to the degradation of ]ocal air quality. b) See V.a.above. c) The proposed development of the new multipurpose building on the project site would no[ alter air movement, moishlre, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. d) Neither development nor operation of the proposed multipurpose building is anticipated to create any objectionable odors. The kitchen area within the building is separated from residential development to the south by on-site parking and an alley_ Compliance with the Fire Department and the County San Diego Department of Environmental Health standards regarding ventilation and installation of safety features is required. e) See V.a. above. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentally Potentially Significant Unless Lets than Significant No Significant M1liligateJ Impact Impact Impact VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRC[tLAT[ON. 6f'ould the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ° ° ® ° h) IIazards to safety from design features (e.g., ° ° ° sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm egmpment)'? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ° ° ° nearby uses'? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ° ° ° S e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ° ° ° f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ° ° ° alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ° ° ° h) A "large project" under the Congestion ° ° ° Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: Sec Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. Potentially Significant Less than Potenl'ully Unks Significant No Sigoificant M1fitigaled lmpatl Impact 1mvn~t VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would dte proposal result in irnpacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of ° ° ° concern or species that are candidates for listing? h) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)'? ° ° ° ^ ^ ^ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal ° ° ° pool)`? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors'? ° ° ° ~ Affect regional habitat preservation planning ° ° ° efforts'? Comments: a) The protect site is located within an urbanized area. The majority of the site is developed; the remainder of the site was previously developed, but is presently vacant. No habitat for endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing exists on or immediately adjacent to the project site. 6 b) See VILa. above. No locally designated species are present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. c) See VILa. above. No locally designated natural communities are present on or immediately adjacent to the pr oject site. d) See VILa. above. No wetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. e) See VILa. ahnve. The proposal would have no effect upon any wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. f) See VII.a. above. The proposal would not affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potcnlully Significant Less than Potentully Unlrss Significant No Sig~canl Mitigated Impact Impact Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wuuld [he propuscrl: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ^ ^ ^ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ^ ^ ^ inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource ^ ^ ^ protection, will this project impact this protection`? Cororoents: a) The proposed project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. 6) The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Rcyuirements of the Uniform Building Code and, therefore, is not anticipated to result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. c) The project is not located within an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined in the City's General Plan. No significant energy and mineral resource impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 7 Potentially Sigvificavt Less thav Potentially Unless Significant Nn Sigvificant bigigated Impaat Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal iyrnolve a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ^ ^ ^ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ^ ^ ^ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ^ ^ ^ health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ^ ^ ^ potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ^ ^ ^ brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Project implementation would not pose a health hazard to humans. No significant hazards to human health and safety would be created as a result of the proposal and no known hazards exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would pose a potential health hazard to occupants of the proposed facility. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Less then Potemially Unless Significavt No Significam Mitigate0 Impact Impact Impact X. NO ISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels'? ^ ^ ® ^ h) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ^ ^ ^ Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 8 Potentially Significant Less iM1an Potemuay pMess Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Imvncl XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in u need for new or altered goverrnnent services in mrv of the fnQowiug areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services'? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Comments: Both the Police and Fire Departments indicate that current levels of service would not be impacted by the proposed project. The Sweetwater Authority issued an availability letter for this project on August 15, 2002, and indicated that the fire flow reyuircmcnts would be met. The Chula Vista Elementary School District has indicated that any facility used exclusively for religious/educational purposes is exempt from the statutory school facility impact fees. The project would not have an adverse effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures arc required. Pntentially Significant Icc~ IM1an Potemially poles Significant No Significant Mitigalyd impact Impact Impart XII. Thresholds. 6Vi11 the proposal adversely impact the ^ ^ ^ Citv's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does nut result in significant impacts to any of the Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS ^ ^ ^ 'Ihe "Fhreshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 io of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75°~o of the cases. the Ctty of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: According to the Fire Department, the current level of service to the project site can be maintained provided the proposed development complies with the requirements of the California Fire Code. 9 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. h) Police ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: According to the Police Deparhnent, the current level of service to the project site can be maintained with the proposed development. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. c) Traffic ^ ^ ^ L City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. Z. West of I-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Comments: The Traffic Engineering Section indicates that the LOS "C" threshold would be maintained on affected arterial street segments adjacent to the proposed project. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, for a detailed discussion of project traffic impacts. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. d) Parks/Recreation Potentially Significant Less than Potentiapy Unless Significant No Significant hfitigated Impact Impatl Impact ^ ^ ^ The 'Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate ROS. Comments: No park pad obligation will be required as the project site is located west of I-805. No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities would result, as this project is not a residential use. Therefore, the parks and recreation threshold standard does not apply. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 10 e) Drainage ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. f) Sewer ^ ^ The '17ueshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Department calculates that the project would generate approximately 952 gallons of effluent per day. The proposed project is located in the Main Street Sewer Basin. There are two 12-inch pipes running westerly on Tremont Street that connect to a 12-inch pipe running southerly on Fresno Avenue; according to the Engineering Department, existing sewer facilities are adequate to handle the proposed project. No significant sewer impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. g) Water ^ ^ ^ The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of ('.hula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No significant impacts to water storage, treatment and transmission facilities would result from the proposed protect. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 11 Polentully Significant Less than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impatl Impact XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. {t'ould the proposnl result in u need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities_ a) Power or natural gas? ^ ^ ^ b) Communications systems? ^ ^ ^ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ^ ^ ^ facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ^ ^ ^ e) Storm water drainage? ^ ^ ^ 1) Solid waste disposal? ^ ^ ^ Comments: The proposed multipurpose building would not result in the need for new service systems or substantial alterations to any of the above utilities. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Sigoificam less than Potentially Unless Significant No Significant MhigatcJ Impact Impact lmpac[ X1 V. AESTHETICS. 6f~ould the proposal a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the ^ ^ ^ public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view'? b) Cause the destruction or modit3cation of a ^ ^ ^ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^ d) Create added light or glare sources that could ^ ^ ^ increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19 bfi 100 of the Chula Vista Mumclpal Code, Title 19? e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? ^ ^ ^ 12 Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. .l"V. CLtLTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? el Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: Pntemiauy Significant IRU thav Potevtully pnleu Sigvifiravl No Sigvificavt M1fiGgated Impact Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below. b) The project includes the demolition of the church rectory and garage buildings. There would be no physical historic or aesthetic effect as no prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area. See YV.e. below. c 1 The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values. dj No sensitive religious or sacred uses would be impacted by the proposal. e) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for archaeological resources in the City's General Plan F,IR. The protect site was previously graded to accommodate the existing rectory, garage and multipurpose building and an on-site residence that was previously demolished. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the minor amount of additional grading excavation that will be necessary to accommodate the proposed multipurpose building, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. 13 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Pmemully Potentu0y Significant Less than Unless Signif ant No Significant Mitigated Impact Impact Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the ^ ^ ® ^ proposal result in the alteration of or the deshuction of paleontological resources? Comments: The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for paleontological resources in the Ciry's General Plan EIR. However, based upon the previous disturbance to the site, the presence of undocumented fill soils on-site, and the limited amount of excavation within previously undisturbed formational material that will be necessary to accommodate the proposed multipurpose building, the potential for impacts to paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Yotemially Significant Leis than Putrvtially Unless Significant No Signifieam Mitigated Impact Impact ]mpact XVIl. RECREATION. II'ould the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ^ ^ ^ regional parks or other recreationalfacihties? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities'? ^ ^ ^ c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation ^ ^ ^ plans or programs? Comments: The applicant would not be required to pay park fees as the project site is located west of I-805 and is not a residential use_ No impacts to parks or recreational facilities or plans would result from the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Less Than Potentially Unless Significam No Significant Mitigate) Impact Impact Imps 1 XVIIi. 11ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for rr7undatorvfndings ofsignificance. If an F.IR is needed, [his section should be completed. 14 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ^ ^ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The entire project site was previously developed and is located within an urbanized area within the City's Southwest Redevelopment Area. No known sensitive plant or animal resource impacts are identified in the General Plan LIR. No significant impacts [o plant or animal species would result from the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ^ ^ ^ short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals'? Comments: "fhe proposal would not effect the attainment of any long-term environmental goals and, therefore, would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. c) Does the project have impacts that are ^ ^ ^ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are constderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments. "fhe project does not have any tmpacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. No stbmtticant cumulative impacts would be created as a result of the pruposed prolect. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. d) Does the pro~eet have enviromnental effects ^ ^ ^ which will cause substantial adverse effects on ]5 human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 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-03-004. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLF,MENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate that they have 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 the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner's and Operator's desire that the Prolect be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Repor[. Printed Natne and Title of Property Owner (or authorized representative) Signature of Property Owner (or authorized representative) Printed Name and Title of Applicant/Operator (if different from Property Owner) Signature of Applicant/Operator (if different from Property Owner) X.Y. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at ]east one impact that is a "Potentially Sigmificant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Land Use and Planning ^ Population and Housing ^ Transportation/Circulation ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics Date Date Date Date ^ Biological Resources ^ Geophysical ^ Energy and Mineral Resources 16 G18; 2E~+'Yt1R9 15:16 615422105E PAGE Ft1 O H.'2:,. LDOJ AIO\ 17::49 F'aY i((.i 1705 tiK. >GHka~D4FN'1 71111-IPI_H.Mk;1~I~A91T1(.AI"lU~:17IS.1,Sl~liEti Nv clgnatg th:' Itnu•I~1 ttruriued 1>Llm+., the Nropcrip Otmci aad (ihcrntnr;uprhnc rhnt I tcy hen+~-read. +aiderslo+i,I :utJ hate ihctr resoecrir~c s+,n+panv'~ autltnrtty to and da a~~ee to t{)e nntr~a4,nc n~ra~.ur~s c+a~tuincd Lcn~:;, and'~~I'1 urplcrnepr same to tht ~~Listauron r^t the 1iwtrnnntenlal Revte~w 4"ourdvtaror F~atlttro ttt d'.bm nc~ hne151 providr~;: helotti prtor 'O postrng oY !hta Mutg'ated Neyzame [jeclarouon with the C.+unty ['fork '+hal? u~~lnr:ue the Yr:.petry (h~ncr',; and C)prreurr's dcs~re +hat die f7oject hr held m soevance a~rhom approval and -hut the Yn,uert. U-.vr.er and Vprretot shah ,qa ''. +,r an Fn~: itot n, ccrtlal Cm}?xt Rupm. ~ (/ r ~~a rz~__~~s_ ~: __ _ ~U ~ 0~3 PrinteJ Aante and 11t1r of Pr tp nl ON~nrr ~ - ~ ~~ I):t(c' ~~~ htr at;thnn r+:J rrpresc nriti: cl SSKuatu re qi F~rnperri t)svner~~~~~~ _~ c Iur' aul;un.-iz.ctd repre~certtativel Printed Numr and Tide of 4ppft~ nt+Uf erautr D ur iit J~.fft"rent frniv PruF; c~rt; Uwnerl StRtt+tWrr-uF Ayuhcunt'Op~rap)r DaFi 1 ~t cLifd rent fnat Proprrn+~)wn,tn \. Pr~IH(tA.~1 M~V'14I.FAf'TI)R4PO'Ilf~`v"ff a1:1, )'AFPFi'I!'a: Che' ~t!wronmcntai ;aotu rs checked orlVN '.++-~ul+l n~° porrnh,tlly aPt"uuied hq +n ~.. :)r. +,,a: tn~nl v'~nE 4I feast :;nd ,irpacl that u 'a "f'utenu,~lly 5!gnitieaJU :rr+psct" m "t'~nrntccl'.v Si~riitr..i.r l ~nh:,, ;blitcatra," nr ur Laated ~y the chrc 6lir,i of the i] 1'.+pc!:~.von at d Ho~a;n;~ i.J '.1'ab'~ j ~'' 1._I L1t.Nltr\. TI 311J:A>t1aLJr1 Clrcul d_lU]'. [. ~ I~~ecrn~~ otttl \lirrra, It,;Ot, .c: ~'~ J Lrrnn.I •, '',~ I tih'.irs,mdtiervirr 4~ 1larK~ i ' t ~ ;lu+rl k..,+++vees Ltr'> ~W 1 ~tCir l: ft'dt ~.] khnda ui , 1 u+_1m>s u) 5~ ur'. iti, enC~ ^ Water ^ Air Quality ^ Paleontology XXI. DETERMINATION: ^ Hazards ^ Noise ^ Cultural Resources ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR"C is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT he a significant effect in this case because all potentially sigmitcant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista J APlanningUlAR1AAInitial Study~IS 0? V04chklstdoc Date n t~ ~^ E (~~ 9$$ yy E~~~~ ~~ il~g~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Cl m sp 7C~~ ~~ ?Sa~f~ y y '6E~` § a = O ~~~ ~ ~~~ .~ ~~~ ~ ~ €~~ ~li~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~S ~~ ~~ ~ ~ N N t 1 a~~~ a~ ~~ ~~ m R $~e € ~~€ a~ ~ s Z _____________________-________-_____-______ __~TRLINE./FgESNO AVENUE _ _ _ ,______ wn. renu utura I 1 _ ~ E ~ ~`-~. I : I::'. .. ~ ,.~.~,,. .. I~ ~ -' ~:,,; '~ . I: .~ I ~ G- ~:: ~ ~~ . .. ... .... .. .i •:. j m ~ ; ::.-~;:;. r" ~. ~~ - . ~. : I :: ~ : ~~~ .... mm ~ __ a a~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ H H Y u H H V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ E t 7tly . ~~~p k 00000000 = ~w ~ ~ ~ z ~' -~O r~ y 2 ~ g N `~ ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ ~ _I i ~ `~ a r ° ~ ~ ~ ti $ N ~ ~ z ll! 2 v C r m s ~ n m m o n m D ~ ~ [~" ~~ 4~R~4~g '?Mga~$ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~F ' Q 4 ~~ I °- I / I : a ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ a ~~~~ .~~~ ~~;~ qa€Rp y Sd ~fe~ ~~ ~~'~~ ~~~Q ~~gq ~n ~ ~ ~ a ~ ®~~ ~I~ ~~ 3~ d ~ > 8m~'q~ 9 B "~md ma~l:'~e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~ q ~g~€ ~q~~ ~~q~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~9 # 9i ^~ ~ b~ ~-®~'~'o°ot ~b~ ~~~ € ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ JOSEPH F. DAM~Oti, ARCHITECT INC. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE Pf•,RIS!•-I NEW MULTIPURPOSE 5???SANTA FE STREET, SUITE 201 REV., MARIO VESGA, PASTOR 5AN OIEGO, CALIFORNIr182108 __. _. .___.... _._.. .._~ BUILDING PHONE (858)2733200 FAX (858)2733701