The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/10/13 (11) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page I 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following requests bv American Stores Properties. Inc. for 5.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and "J" Street ill. GPA-93-06: Professional Commercial Amend General Plan from and Administrative Office to Retail Ql PCZ-93-E: Rezone from c-o (Commercial Office) and R-I (Single Familv) to C-C (Central Commercial) A. BACKGROUND The applicant, American Stores Properties, Inc., parent company of the Lucky stores, has submitted applications to amend the General Plan and rezone 5.8 acres at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and "J" Street. The proposal is to redesignate the site from Professional and Administrative Office to Retail Commercial, and to rezone the site from C-O Commercial Office and R-I Single Family to C-C Central Commercial. The proposal reflects an intention by Lucky to relocate from their existing site at the northwest corner of Third and "J" into a new, larger facility on the southwest corner. The property is currently occupied by the First United Methodist Church which intends to relocate to a new facility on East "H" Street at Paseo Ranchero. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-93-42, of potential environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that any potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-42. On December 8, 1993, the applicant held an independent public forum on the project, and on August 4, 1993, the Planning Department held a second public forum at the First United Methodist Church. B. RECOMMENDATION I. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant ~,./ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 2 environmental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-43. 2. Adopt Resolution No.'s GPA-93-06 and PCZ-93-E recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan amendment and rezoning in accordance with the findings and subject to the precise plan regulations contained in the attached draft City Council resolution and ordinance. NOTE: Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the General Plan Amendment must take place prior to action on the rezone request. C. DISCUSSION The 5.8 acre site is rectangular in shape and is located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and "J" Street. It presently contains a church sanctuary, assembly hall, meeting rooms, classrooms, parking and a single family dwelling at the northwest corner of the parcel. The property also contains an area which the Chula Vista Post Office presently leases to accommodate its current employee parking demand. The site is bounded to the west by single family dweJlings, to the south by the Post Office and Masonic Lodge, to the north across "J" Street by the present Lucky store and a condominium complex, and to the east by various professional offices (see Land use map). Present zoning is as follows: Site C-O Office Commercial R-I Single Family Residential North C-C Central Commercial R-3 Multi-Family Residential South C-O Office Commercial East C-O Office Commercial West R-I Single Family Residential (See Zoning Map) General Planning is as foJlows: Site Professional and Administrative office North Retail Commercial/Low Medium Density Residential South Retail Commercial/Medium High Density Residential East Professional and Administrative Commercial West Low Medium Density Residential (see General Plan map). ,;f"'~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 3 Lucky presently leases the 1.5 acre site and a 45,000 sq. ft. building across "J" Street directly to the north. Their present site and building are, by today's standards, outdated. The new facility would involve a 60,000 sq. ft. building on 5.8 acres to serve the same market area, according to Lucky. Lucky has prepared a preliminary conceptual plan which was presented at the public forums and which has been included with this report. However, they have not finalized a site plan or architecture. A number of residents in attendance at the City initiated public forum appeared to favor a new store, but expressed concerns about hours of operation, noise and fumes generated by delivery activities, and the proximity of the truck driveway to the residences located immediately adjacent to the west. They also expressed concerns with certain operational aspects associated with the existing store, which include the noise associated with a cardboard box compactor and the smell and litter associated with trash bins. Concerns were also expressed regarding the history of accidents at the 3rd and "J" intersection and the ability of "J" Street to carry additional traffic generated by a larger new store. ANAL YSIS The issues raised with respect to the proposed change from office to retail commercial include (1) the need to retain office commercial acreage versus the need for more retail commercial acreage in the area, and (2) the compatibility of retail commercial with adjoining uses, particularly the residential area adjoining the site to the west. In regard to the issue of office versus retail commercial acreage, the City as a whole, excluding Planned Community Districts, contains over 72 acres of vacant or under developed office commercial property, and over 125 acres of vacant or underdeveloped retail commercial property. The Third Avenue commercial corridor also contains a significant amount of underdeveloped retail and office commercial property. Thus there does not appear to be a general need or demand for either office or retail commercial, either on a city-wide basis or in the immediate area. The most important factor with regard to need or demand, however, it not the total available acres, but the suitability of a particular property for a particular use. In this case, the site is one of the few if not the only commercial sites available on Third Avenue which is large enough and of such a shape to accommodate a major retail user. In addition, the change will allow Lucky to upgrade and modernize, and continue to serve the same market area. In a general sense, smaller sites are suitable for most office projects, whereas larger scope retail development needs added retail depth to meet parking and building designs. Also, the General Plan and zoning pattern along both sides of Third Avenue between "E" and "L" Streets is predominantly retail commercial with the exception of the office .:; "-3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 4 commercial areas between "H" and Kearney Streets, which includes the site in question. The vast majority of these commercial frontages adjoin both single and multiple family residential areas. Thus, a redesignationJrezoning is not inconsistent with either the general pattern of uses or the relationship of uses established on and around Third Avenue. With respect to the issue of compatibility, ideally retail commercial districts are physically separated from single family residential uses by significant physical features including slopes, streets, and/or open spaces, and transitional uses such as lower impact commercial uses (such as offices) and/or higher density residential uses. Since the property is presently occupied by a church, which due to building locations has a relatively low impact on the adjacent residential area, development of the site with either office or retail use will have a higher impact than presently experienced, and retail activity has a greater potential for adverse impacts than office use based on traffic, noise and hours of operation. These potential impacts are identified III the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Traffic Study was conducted to compare the traffic volumes and level of service associated with the existing church facility versus three development scenarios: the development of general offices under the existing planning and zoning; the Lucky proposal; and the development of general retail uses assuming the site is replanned and rezoned but not occupied by Lucky: Daily Peak Level of Land Use Intensity Trips Hr. Service Trips Church Existing 1,009 144 B Office* 150,000 sq. ft. 2,550 255 B Lucky 60,000 sq. ft. 2,340 187 B Retail' 95,000 sq. ft. 3,705 296 B *Estimated maximum intensity As indicated in the table, daily trips in and out of the site could be expected to increase by 132% with the Lucky proposal, 153% with office development at maximum intensity under the existing planning and zoning, and 267% with general retail development at maximum intensity under the proposed planning and zoning. In all cases, however, the level of service at Third Avenue and "J" Street remains at LOS "B", which is above the City's LOS "C" Threshold Standard ("A" is best, "F" is worst). It should also be noted that the peak hour trips are only marginally higher for the Lucky proposal as compared ~,.r City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 5 with the existing church, and significantly less than office development at maximum intensity, because of the differences in the distribution of trips between the uses. The Study also reviewed accident data for the intersection of Third A venue and "J" Street (19 accidents over a 34 month period). It found that although this number of accidents is not atypical for an urban intersection, the characteristics of the accidents, as well as field observations of restricted left turn movements, indicate the need to add left turn phasing to the signals at the intersection. This has been included as a requirement for development under the precise plan standards. The recommendations of the Study with regard to the Lucky conceptual site plan have also been included in the precise plan standards. A Noise Study was also conducted to determine potential noise impacts from traffic as well as from operational aspects of the Lucky proposal. The marginal increase in traffic is not expected to result in an adverse noise impact. Several aspects of the Lucky conceptual plan were found to mitigate noise impacts, including separation and orientation of loading facilities away from residences, and the construction of a landscaped six-foot bock wall along the westerly boundary. These aspects, as well as the following recommended measures from the studies (or more stringent variations thereof) have been included in the precise plan standards: I. No delivery truck traffic shall occur in the alley between the rear of the store and the nearest homes from 10 pm to 7 am. 2. No truckltrailers shall be parked in the alley with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running during the time from 10 pm - 7 am. 3. The trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10 pm - 7 am, Monday through Friday, 10 pm - 8 am on Saturdays, and 10 pm - 9 am on Sundays and holidays. 4. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste materials during those times when operation of the refuse compactor is prohibited. In addition to the measures recommended by the Traffic and Noise Studies, the staff has recommended several precise plan standards which we believe would further ensure compatibility between the neighbors and the Lucky Store or any other use that would occupy the site if for whatever reason, the Lucky facility were not constructed. These standards include limitations on floor area, building size, and site and truck access, as well as parameters for loading, storage, and service access and equipment. Specifically, these standards are: ~-s City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 6 1. New access driveways along "J" Street shall be aligned with the commercial parcel located directly across J Street. 2. Development of the parcel shall be limited to a single tenant building and minimum building size of 50,000 sq. ft. No additional freestanding buildings will be allowed. 3. No delivery truck trafic shall occur in the alley with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running during the time from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4. The trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Saturdays; and 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and holidays. 5. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste material during those itmes when operation of the refuse compactor is prohibited. 6. Any site use should not create noise levels exceeding 65 db by day or 55 db at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at the property line of the nearest residential use. 7. Building Maximum Height: 28 ft. Building Setbacks: West - 40 ft. South - 0 "J" St. - 15 ft. Third Avenue - 15 ft. 8. A 20 ft. landscaping buffer shall be provided along the west property line. 9. All parking spaces shall be screened by landscaping which is equal in depth to the building setback. 10. All trash enclosures, storage of merchandise, mechanical or recycling equipment or machines shall be located within the building. 11. Delivery and service doors, and any outdoor working area shall be oriented away from the westerly adjacent residential neighborhood.. 12. Loading docks shall be oriented away from the westerly adjacent residential area and buffered with parts of the building and/or wing walls equal to truck height. ~ rot, City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 7 13. Driveway entrances shall be unencumbered for the following distances as measured from the public curb to any driveway or park space: Third Ave. - 60 ft. minimum "J" St. - 40 ft. minimum 14. Business identification signs shall be limited to the building and one monument type sign at each major entry along Third and "J" St. Note: Any sign on J St. shall be limited to an indirect lighted 30 sq. ft. (maximum area sign). Signage on the building shall be limited to the east elevation and shall be no larger than one sq. ft. per lineal feet of building frontage IS. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view. 16. A tree survey and evaluation shall be conducted and considered as part of the landscape and irrigation design. Trees shall not be removed without authorization from the City's Planning Director. 17. The zoning wall along the west property line shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height and architecturally treated on both sides. 18. A lighting plan shall address security and avoid light spills onto the westerly adjacent residential neighborhood. 19. 5 ft. wide street median shall be installed on Third Avenue south of the Third/"J" intersection. 20. Left turn traffic signal phasing shall be installed prior to issuance of certificate of a occupancy. 21. Truck access driveway shall be closed with gates or ballards before and after permitted operating hours. 22. Development on this property must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. CONCLUSION The proposal is consistent with the established land use patterns and relationships along the balance of the Third Avenue commercial corridor. There does not appear to be a shortage of either commercial office or retail commercial acreage in the area. However, ~"7 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 13, 1993 Page 8 although there is a shortage of large, rectangular sites to accommodate a relocation, expansion and modernization of Lucky, or other larger retail development in the area. The redesignation from office to retail use does have the potential to create greater friction with residential areas to the west and northwest. However, the apparent advantage to the surrounding community of a new larger grocery store (or perhaps retaining a grocery store which would otherwise relocate out of the area) in combination with safeguards established in the from of precise plan standards to address the potential impacts, leads staff to recommend approval of the requests in accordance with the findings and subject to the requirements contained in the attached resolutions and ordinance. WI'C F:\HOME\PLANNING\1293.93 ~ r ~ rJj ~ I I .--- ...----r ,...---- _____ --- --r!J Mn'SCHERIT --co ----- --err I I ~ -__ --- --- C -- t------ r---- p~ --. - R 1- _.J -r I I - i - ~ -- ----- r------ ----R115 - --: ~'- - --- 1------ ----- ,.-w~-J - - ,....-.-- W 1------ ----- :) ~-- I~-- ::1r--- i./ ~ ~ - __a Z r-'"'T--- I Z f:(oIAIION p~ W ~-- < --- --- ~~--- u > cc < 1------ --- < 1---1 T I R3 II ,--- .... --I ~.teROJECT SITE~ r--T- - .,-4--- ~. r--' i ! i : -: OJ" . . ~ ~",:"E~ , JR rR~fl' XJ :> .b= - EXISTING I .11' I fp( ~ _-L- ....... ~ ~~r ~l ~ ~-. 1'1 ~ CO- = ZONING = n.' 1--- - - ~- ....-- rt1 r\ n ..., r--- r-r- --- a: ~ I-- -! ! c ,.. U.f to-" I' ~ \J ',"" ~ I: I-- = R1 II: I-R1 i- ~ ~;= r- - I - . . l r--- - --- I KEARNEY IT ~~RN~Y COP --- I I -- I - R3~~..._. .R3D , - j- ~ \ I =i --. a:: ~ r- - 8 r---- I - I "" - CO - -' I ,..-- r-- I ;-I~co T ~ I' ! : , I .K._ STREET - " I I I I -- R3 I I I I I I l . ,...----- I I I I I R3G r , CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C) APPLICANT: LUCKY STORE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Propose Lucky Supermarket ADDRESS: THIRD AVE. AND "J" STREET , SCALE: FILE NUMBER, LOCATOR l NORTH I" = 200' PCZ - 93 - E ~,.p- ~ t.c'1-J DO'.;; ~ - - r- -1- -1.r.:. - --~ I I ~L-' "J" STREET w w :;) :;) z z w ~ w ::> > z < < w > tIl (::: ,fp < w > W I 0 "" iff1aS u --' "" IlL \;) < ::> \;) I U " PRqlECT LOCA nON MTS. p~ t'l'f1c:-e"; I c.d-"fJ~ I f-----r--- ~~L' J .L__ .- -., I I I 1 I r'----"1 I 1 I : I , I I I I I r-"--' I I : I I .&b"r<:; r---- Ir'[ I', . I I I 1 f---'-r--.I I L... - -'1 I I . I 1 1 I I I I m ,.11 ~l z u.J >- < - -- D ~. t><:: ::r: f- ilK" STREET I I ~ II CHULA VISTA PLANNINC DEPARTMENT .. C) APPLICANT: LUCKY STORE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Propose Lucky Supermarket ADDRESS: THIRDAVE, AND "J" STREET SCALE: FILE NUMBER, EXISTING LAND USE NORTH I" = 200' PCZ - 93 - E , ~'ID ~@~@rru(Q] LAND USE RESIDENTI.>.L c:=i CJ Cow dulac ,-, INDUSTRI.o.L c= ~~~~~~~~u~i~~m'ted It:" Gener., low- Medium H ~ ~ Medium 6-11 Medium- 11-18 Hi~h HIgh 18-27 PUBliC &. OPfN SPACE f:::=:=::' Public &. Quasi Public ~P.'ks&Rectntlon I : 1'.- I COMMERCIAL c.:::=J Waler ~ Retail c=: OpenSp.,e r--;TII'OUgllfare SPECIAL PLAN AReA c=J Vi.ilor ~E"1emUrban ~ICenter : J Prolenion.l.!. Admin,strati". ~ , ~ ~ ~ (f). - --~ (1) :J: 0 ~ ~ 0 :;:: ~ ~ , =' -, ~ Q.' 0 )> 'C ~ tJ, ..., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __-JJ::h..__- ~ ~~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I:' :-- :\ '" . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PROJECT LOCATION ~ 'fs. -J '. - -....... - - ....... - - ........ ....... ....... - - - ....... - ........ - ....... ....... ....... - - - - ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... - .........~- ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... - ""---......q....... - ....... - ....... ~-----Otil'1..-.h~- -- --....... ....... ~n ~ ~e.g~ ~ ~ ........ n._ n.............._ ....... ....... ."r:li- ........ _ _ ...... ....... 7-'-""'" ....... _ ....... - - ....flJt;:-.. ....... ....... ....... ....... -c.J_....... - - "'=- ":. "'=- ":."'=- ":."lJ · ....... ....... ...... " . ~ ~ , ~~~ .> (2) '11s:.~ '" ....... ...... . "': .... C) AMEND GENERAL PLAN FROM PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL CASE NUMBER: SCALB: GPA-93-06 I" '" 200' DATB: 10-5-93 ~!(?- -11- -~ CflYOF CHUIA VISTA PlANNING DEPARTMENT NORTII GENERAL PLAN MAP ~"'/I DRAWN BY: C. PERNANDBZ CHBCKBD BY: L. HBRNANDBZ I r- I w ::> z w > < \f) D Z < --' ------- '-- I - -- , - - - - - - -I . I -------J- -----t- ~ - I I I ---------1 ____1_ ___~- - - r- -1- -1.r.:. ----4 I I I r---- w :::) z a w > "' < to ... ~ I W IlL "" < \C) '. "J" STREET w ::> z l1J > < tIl l1J > o --' \;) '"' "- ..= to t<) w ::> Z w > I U - - - - 265.0' _ _ '7100.24' ~ 355.0' . / LU ~ Z LU :>- -< [Q KEARNEY STREET I \- ~ - -- I I f----r--- I I EXHIBIT A CASB NUMBER: pez - 93 - E ACREAGE: SCALE: 1" 200' =' DATE: 10-5-93 DRAWN BY: e. FERNANDEZ C9 CHECKBD BY: L. HERNAN DEZ NORTH I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CIlY COUNCIL ON CfIY CLERK DATE ZONING MAP - ~!~ _J!..._ (TI\'()f CHUA VISfA ~"'I<- ~ ~ ~ > g ~ ~ D [] I ~ , ~ ' ! 1 r.I U ~! - '= ~ ; . n " E-< ~ I ~~ " ~ . j z 0 ~ lf1 . I " ! ! I I I ~II .11111 111111111' !h!!ml IIn 110111 i I I ! ! ! , I , I i I II .jh! ~Id i , . ~ ~ . ! ~ IBBJIS PJ!41 .~ / ( r:1, ~" I zo I ~~ \ '> _z , ,. I << I;;} z <( ....I a.. Q .( UJ ~.u 1-' (j) O. UJ < (j) I ~ o :; a... < 0," < 0 a: 0 Z a.. -u ~ . .. .. ~ I ~ I ~ I - I Q) , gj (J) . o '0 ~ i H II . . ., .d_,"''''' . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ w <.> " ~ o " ~ o ~ t 1 g ~ , . 1't,,:: i .::t~W ~ ~ OIl o? ~ i ~::; o ~ ij ; 9 ~ ( ~ 6 \, ~~f1~~ ~~~.ff: loJ g-:J: ~ { ., '':: -' t: ~ ~ ' }- "''''''L1...l < < L L o Ii> l- ii! "--+ ! ! 'Ii . 'I ~ I , W C ...J e::( ~ I- a. W o z o o PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION e:j.../y RESOLUTION NO. GPA-93-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE 5.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD A VENUE AND J STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL TO RETAIL; AND FROM CoO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) AND R-1 (SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL) TO C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL PRECISE PLAN) WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on December 2, 1992, by American Store properties, Inc. and WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan designation on approximately 5.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and J Street be changed from Professional and Administrative Commercial to Retail Commercial and that the existing zoning be changed from C-O (Office Commercial) and R-1 (Single Family Residential) to C-C (Central Commercial) zone, and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-43. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Commission finds that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program issued on IS-93-43. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan and rezone 5.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and "J" Street in accordance with the attached City Council resolution and Ordinance. OJ> ~ ,/...s BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 13th day of October, 1993 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Thomas A. Martin, Chainnan Nancy Ripley, Secretary WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\1354.93 ~"'/~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ~.../? D R AFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE LAND USE DIAGRAM OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FOR 5.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND "J" STREET WHEREAS, on December 2, 1993, a duly verified application for a General Plan amendment was filed with the City of Chula Vista by American Stores Inc.; and WHEREAS, said application requested an amendment to the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan from Professional and Administrative Commercial to Retail Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 13, 1993, and voted_ to recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Professional And Administrative to Retail Commercial; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing. together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7.00 p.m. November 2, 1993 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the City Council. the Council has determined that there does not appear to be a shortage of either commercial office or retail commercial acreage in the area; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-43. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan and does hereby amend that portion of the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan from Professional and Administrative Office to Retail Commercial for 5.8 acres at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and "J" Street as shown in Exhibit A. Presented by Approved as to form by Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning (f: \home\planning\ 1293. 93R) :t.../ fIJ' CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE ~ -I, DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING THE 5.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND J STREET FROM C-O, OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-C-P, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezone was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 2, 1993 by American Properties Inc., and WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately 5.8 acres located at the southwest comer of Third A venue and J Street and diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, said application requested to change the existing C-O, Office Commercial and R-I, single family residential zone to C-C, Central Commercial Zone, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said rezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. October 13,1993 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-42, and voted _ to_ to recommend that the City council approved the rezoning from C-O, Office Commercial to C-C Central Commercial, and NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION I: based on the findings and recommendations of the environmental Review Coordinator, the city Council does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-42. ~r_4> SECTION II: Findings. The City Council finds that the rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C, Central Commercial zone. SECTION III: that the parcel located at the southwest comer of Third Avenue and "1" Street as shown in Exhibit A, be rezoned from C-O, Central Commercial and R-l, Single Family Residential to C-C-P, Central Commercial Precise Plan. SECTION IV: pursuant to section 19.56.041 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the following circumstances are evident which allows the application of the "P", Precise Plan Modifying District to the subject site. Commercial districts are ideally separated from single family residential uses by streets, significant physical features and transitional uses such as lower impact commercial uses and/or higher density residential uses. The Subject site abuts a low density residential district to the west which creates a unique circumstance for which the underlying zone regulations do not allow the City sufficient control to achieve a proper relationship with the westerly adjacent residential neighborhood and ensure compatible coexistence among the various surrounding land uses. Accordingly, Development of the site shall meet the following Precise Plan Standards: 1. New access driveways along "J" Street shall be aligned with the commercial parcel located directly across J Street. 2. Development of the parcel shall be limited to a single tenant building and minimum building size of 50,000 sq. ft. No additional freestanding buildings will be allowed. 3. No delivery truck traffic shall occur in the alley with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running during the time from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4. The trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Saturdays; and 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and holidays. 5. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste material during those times when operation of the refuse compactor is prohibited. 6. Any site use should not create noise levels exceeding 65 db by day or 55 db at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at the property line of the nearest residential use. ~..;}/ 7. Building Maximum Height: 28 ft. Building Setbacks: West - 40 ft. South - 0 "J" St. - 15 ft. Third Avenue - 15 ft. 8. A 20 ft. landscaping buffer shall be provided along the west property line. 9. All parking spaces shall be screened by landscaping which is equal in depth to the building setback. 10. All trash enclosures, storage of merchandise, mechanical or recycling equipment or machines shall be located within the building. 11. Delivery and service doors, and any outdoor working area shall be oriented away from the westerly adjacent residential neighborhood.. 12. Loading docks shall be oriented away from the westerly adjacent residential area . and buffered with parts of the building and/or wing walls equal to truck height. 13. Driveway entrances shall be unencumbered for the following distances as measured from the public curb to any driveway or park space: Third Ave. - 60 ft. minimum "J" St. - 40 ft. minimum 14. Business identification signs shall be limited to the building and one monument type sign at each major entry along Third and "J" St. Note: Any sign on J St. shall be limited to an indirect lighted 30 sq. ft. (maximum area sign). Signage on the building shall be limited to the east elevation and shall be no larger than one sq. ft. per lineal feet of building frontage 15. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view. 16. A tree survey and evaluation shall be conducted and considered as part of the landscape and irrigation design. Trees shall not be removed without authorization from the City's Planning Director. 17. The zoning wall along the west property line shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height and architecturally treated on both sides. 18. A lighting plan shall address security and avoid light spills onto the westerly adjacent residential neighborhood. 19. 5 ft. wide street median shall be installed on Third Avenue south of the Third/"J" intersection. ..;> ,... ':l 20. Left turn traffic signal phasing shall be installed prior to issuance of certificate of a occupancy. 21. Truck access driveway shall be closed with gates or bollards before and after permitted operating hours. 22. Development on this property must no net increase in water consumption and shall participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista may have in effect at the time of isuance of building permits. SECTION V: this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney (f:\home\plamung\1293.930) ~"::;3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIAL STUDY ~ ,~ JC '17 c. c:J . r:ii' 5 - Mitigated Negauve Declaratio PROJECT NAME: Lucky Store PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest Comer of Third A venue and J Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 573-320-01 and 573-320-45 PROJECT APPLICANT: American Stores Properties, Inc. CASE NO: IS-93-20 DATE: August 23, 1993 A. Proiect Setting The project setting consists of a 5.8 acre two-parcel site located at the southwest comer of Third Avenue and J Street. The site is currently developed with the First Methodist Church building, a fellowship hall, and several additional buildings are ancillary ~o the church and a single family dwelling. There are currently 72 parking spaces on site for the church and additional parking spaces that are in conjunction with the other buildings. Access to the church is from Third Avenue on the east, and J street on the northerly side of the site. Adjoining land uses are: single family residences west of the site, and the existing Lucky Store and a condominium complex located to the north. Third Avenue and commercial uses are located to the east of the store and tlie Masonic Lodge and post office adjoin the church on the south. B. Proiect DescriDtion The project description consists of amending the General Plan Designation on the site from Professional and Administrative to Retail-Commercial, rezoning the easterly 300 feet of the property from Office- Commercial to Central-Commercial subject to a precise plan and the westerly 325 feet of the parcel from R-l (Single family detached) to Central-Commercial subject to a precise plan. The applicant, American Stores Properties, Inc., is not filing a concurrent application for a precise plan. American Stores is the parent company of Lucky Stores and it is their intent, should they receive approval of the general plan amendment and rezone to apply to the City for a precise plan for a Lucky Store. Therefore, although the project description is for a General Plan amendment and rezone, the analysis for purposes of this enviromnental document reviews the proposed use with the caveat that an additional analysis for a "worst-case" scenario in regard to traffic and noise be included. An analysis is needed to determine if, in the event the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning amendment were approved, could another use be permitted outright which would require additional mitigation over and above that required for the Lucky Store. A determination was made by analyzing the impact of the Lucky Store with the proviso that the acoustician and traffic engineers undertaking the analysis determine whether additional mitigation was needed which should then be required as precise plan guidelines in the zone. Within the broader context then, of the proposed General Plan Amendment and ~ {(c.. -.- ~-~--..: - - city of chula vista planning department CITY OF environmental review section CHUlA VISTA ~ -~4 -2- Rezone the applicant's eventual plan is for the removal of the existing First Methodist Church and its replacement with a 62,900 square foot Lucky Store. Approximately 50,000 square feet are proposed for the Lucky store. The remaining interior square footage is proposed for other drop-off stores such as a cleaner, or drug store, or a fast-food outlet. A conceptual development plan illustrating a potential site design depicts a 20 ft. landscape buffer and 6 ft. block wall on the westerly side of the site, a landscape buffer on the southerly side of the site near the post office providing a buffer between this proposed use and the post office and Masonic Lodge and a landscaped buffer along Third Avenue in front of the store. The applicant proposes a total of 315 parking spaces on the eastern and southern portions of the site. The unloading area for the store will be on the south side. Access for the site is proposed on Third Avenue and on the southerly side of J Street. The hours of the store operation are proposed to be from 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. Loading and unloading of the dock on the southern side of the store will be restricted to exclude the hours between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M, as will the hours for loading and unloading of the general store merchandise. According to the applicant, the trash compactor operation necessary to the store operation will occur inside the store. Public service and utility requirements will be implemented by the applicant as is appropriate. The applicant's original proposal had been: to include a fast food outlet on the northwesterly portion of the site and to include unloading bays for meat and produce on the westerly and northerly sides of the store, in addition to having a 24-hour store, In response to the Notice of Initial Study of the above cited proposal, numerous phone calls and letters were received from surrounding residents. Some of the concerns raised by residents included: hours of operation, hours of use and location of unloading bays and the noise accompanying the same, noise from the trash compactor, noise from truck trailers parking in the alley with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running, concerns about traffic increasing on J and Third Street, concerns about other retail uses. The applicant also met with City staff on several occasions to obtain staff response to the proposed project. As a result of reviewing the comments from residents as well as the comments from various City departments and the results of the acoustical and traffic analysis conducted on this proposed project, American Stores Properties, Inc. modified their conceptual development plan as is described in the beginning paragraphs of this section. This amended project description is in compliance with findings of the Court under Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act that .. Any needs or proposed mitigation measures must be incorporated into a proposed negative declaration and the project revised accordingly before the negative declaration is released for public review." (Sunstrom v. Mendocino- 1988). Discretionary actions for this proposal include a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment. C. ComDatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The General Plan Designation for the site is Professional-Administrative and the zoning for the easterly 300 feet of the site is Commercial-Office. The zoning for the westerly part of the site is R-l, single - family residential. Churches are permitted with conditional use permits in all zones. Grocery stores of ~-~7 -3- the size proposed here are not permitted in the C-O zone, the Commercial Office zone underlying the existing church building or the R-l Zone but are permitted in the C-C zone (Central Commercial zone). If the General Plan is amended to Retail-Commercial subject to a precise plan and the Zone is amended to Central-Commercial subject to a precise plan as the applicant is proposing, a grocery store of the size proposed by the applicant would be permitted subject to the review and approval of a precise plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. F. Mitigation necessarv to avoid significant effects Specific mitigation measures regarding potential noise and traffic problems have been identified. The mitigation measures required to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant are as follows: A landscaped 6-foot block wall along the western wall along the western site boundary is required for additional noise protection; no delivery truck traffic shall occur in the service driveway with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running during the time from 10: 00 P. M. to 7: 00 A. M., the trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10: 00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., Monday through Friday; 10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. Saturdays; and 10:00 P.M, to 9:00 A.M. on Sundays and holidays, refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste materials during those times when operation of the refuse compactor is prohibited and any site use should not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day or 55 db at night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) at the property line of the nearest residential use. Traffic impact mitigation include: the placement of a median on Third A venue south of the intersection of J and Third and the an exclusive right turn only lane on "J" Street for the Eastbound to Southbound movement, and that a separate left-turn phasing at the intersection of Third Avenue and "J" Street be provided. The attached Mitigation Monitoring Program must be adopted along with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval, the applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. ~",~g -4- G. Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially 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 of California history or prehistory. The proposed project, the amendment of the current General Plan Designation of Professional Administrative to Retail-Commercial and the amendment of the zoning on the property from R-l and C-O to C-C-P is within an urbanized area of the City. The site has been developed for years and a church is currently on the site. There are no waterways near the site or any known endangered species and the proposed project will not threaten or restrict any sensitive animal or plant community. There are no known significant biological or historical or prehistorical resources on the site. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. This project which consists of the general plan amendment and rezone of a site does not have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals with the adoption of the proposed mitigation measures and their incorporation as precise plan guidelines. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cnmulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. This project does not have the potential to be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study considered potential cumulative impacts. It was determined that with project specific mitigation measures the impacts to traffic and noise would be reduced to below a level of significance and would not be "cumulatively considerable." ~-~r -5- 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.. The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings either directly or indirectly as it must meet all Code requirements and requirements of various City departments. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Frank Herrera-A, Planning Martin Miller, Planning Steve Griffin, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Alex Saucedo, Building Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Rod Hastie, Fire Department Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Mary Jane Diosdado, Police Department Martin Sclunidt, Parks and Recreation Department Barbara Reid, Planning Luis Hernandez, Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Jim Hirsch and Jean Fallowfield 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Final Technical Reoort. Luckv Grocery Store Traffic Imoact Analvsis. prepared for American Stores Properties Inc. by JHK and Associates, August 20, 1993 Noise Imoact Analvsis. Chula Vista Luckv Store No. 257, prepared for FORMA by Giroux and Associates c:(.30 -6- Memo from Hans Giroux and Associates, Environmental Consultants, re: Luckv Store. #257 Site. August 17, 1993 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report. Proposed Luckv Store #257. Third Avenue and "J" Street, Kleinfelder 3. Initial Studv This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~~OORDINATOR (LUCND) ~..~, ~ " o ~ " ~ o ~ ~ ~ z o .... ... -< " .... ~ ~ Eo< ffi ~ .... ~ o ~ ~ z ~ o Eo< .... Z o ::E 1:! '" 13 ~ .~ ~ c:: '" P.. '" '" .~ U '" .... "" '" '" '" '0 '" 'a S '" P.. .5 '" ~ - '" ~ '" :a Eo< 1:' '" -g is ~ B .~ '" ~ ~ 1;1) ~ ::E z o .... Eo< < ~ .... Eo< .... ::E E B '" '" ~ '" d .s .9 - OI)U c:: B o 0 e; So - - '" '" '" ~ '0 ~ c:: g- - ~ ~ 0 .~ - - 8'0 '"" '0 , '" \C> .... '0<2 ~'O ~ .~ -g& '" '" - .... < .~ ~B S ~ ~ 0 .~ 13 ~ E c:: a -E.2 "':::: '" .~ 'u ~ ~ ~ o.QJ~ '" 13 8 ~~!.+:: ~._ t+-i "2 &0 = ~ = '" '" '" ~:s ~ p.~ ~ c:: 0 0 .== '" 'E ",c::",-, ~.g OJ) ~ ~ s::: ;:I o'S 13 .~ 0 >N ~ ~-S ~ .@ ~2 '" ~ -5 'S .~ ;:I ~ .... >,~ '" '" - '" c;~e Q.) 'i:; ~ -5B8 = ~ .. .- Q) t"'-- ~.~ 0 8';: - o ~ S - '" ca~o. ..c::..c::8 '" u ~~o .....-- '" c:: 13 tI S 0 ~ o.<l::: u .~ g ;:I '" ir .5 >.- - ...- '" '" "'u-", .2: '8 '" - l! 01) .g (,).5 o '" .... ZS-6 !JB '" .... 13 ~ ~ 0 '3 't:S irE ....2 ~ '" P..~ "':::: '" .~ 'u ~ ~ = o.o~ '" 13 '" r.t:)Q)~ "'.!:O ..... '0 &0 ~ ~ 1:= '" '" '" 13 .~ 13 '" -5 '" p.~ ~ c:: 0 0 .== '" 'E '" C::",-, .D.g bIJ - '" c:: '" o'S ~ .~ 0 >N ~ ~-S ",8 c:: J-j 00 is - 13 ..c:: .. . Q) ~ ~ -5:28 = ~ .. ",IJ..O\ "'..c:: 0 ~ 01)- -;:I . 2013 '0 .s Ii '" ~ ~8 """ 't:S .. '" = 0 ~o~ 2::E-g . '" g s '" ...... rd ~ ]8"E '" .. a r- '" '" 5 0 CI) ~ ........ .- ~ . 13 .::: "" 13 . ~ 13 . "'- o ""8 '0 u 8 oo ~ ..c::oooo ~ 0 0 ~ .t=~""~ '" 13 s-g ..c:: 0 . ;:I ~ tt:: Cl;CI') ~B S ~ .!:J 0 ;:1'0 irE ~ a '" '" P..~ "':::: '" .~ 'u ~ '" .... = o.(1)~ '" 13 8 rI}~!.+:: ~._ t+-i "2 &0 =~= '" '" '" ~ :s ~ p,4-0 ~ 500 ].~~ ~.; .~ 13 'S; 0 '" >,N .- = Q) ~<-5 '" ~ ~ ~.E - ~ u 2 '" 0-5 u ..... _ 0 g c:: o - .~ ca~ ~8. '" 0 ~ c:: g2 ~ ~ ~ .8.5 . '0-'0 ::a '" B u~:s '0 -'" .~ ","'..c:: - 01) 0 u c:: .... ~.t: .~ ~ .g ..... ~ ~ .s '" u ~ 't:: ~ .E~S' ~ 13 8 ~.s S ~ ~ 0 .~ "E ~ E c:: a -E.2 "':::: '" .~ 'u ~ '" .... = o.4J~ '" 13 8 t/)O!.+:: cd .= t+-i '0 &0 '" .'- -= ~ = '" '" '" ~ :s ~ Q..CoI-I 2 c:: 0 0 .== '" 'E ",c::",-, .D.g bO ~ ~.~ S'S; 0 '" >,N .- = CI) ~<-5 >,>' ~t: ~8. '0 8 "''''' \C> '" ~-5 .~ - '0 '" "'~ 8 . >< 13 '" '" ~8 > ",r- - '" 0 '" - 'S s ~ '" Ii;:l - - ~ 8.~ ~ ,. -= u 0 '" o~:g c:: - '" 't:S~~ "3'8 ~ ~.... ~ '" '" '" "'~ !:! ",'0 ~:g-s 'r;; ~ 4-0 o 0 ~~!:! <"0:'= ao1 ....3~ 1:! ~ .~ ~ c:: '" P.. '" '" .~ u ~ "" '" '" '" '0 '" = S '" - "" .5 2 - '" ~ '" ~ -s ..... o ~ '" '" a '" > < "E ~. c:: o . "E "2:a ~Eo< P..'O 2 ~ -..... "'..... ~ ~ s::: .52 .~ .... '0 ~ S ~ = < .~ 1:! S ~ .~ ~ c:: '" - "" ~ 'u ~ "" '" '" '" '0 ~ S '" - "" .5 '" ~ - '" ~ ~ -g is .e '" '" '" -s .... <2 - '" ~ 1;1) :' c::'O o '" '" .!:O ~ & - ~ >, "S .~ 0= E S a", - > ..c:: 0 .~ 13 ....'0 '" c:: .::: 6 ~~ 'U-5 >< ;:I '" 0 c:: '" ",,0 ~ (l <2 '" '" '0 '" !:!"2 0= .~ S 132 '" "" .s .5 '" '" "'~ -5~ .5 ~ c:: '" .9 ~ ~4-0~ .& 0 Q) .~ = e t: '" ~ '" S'~ "" >, ;:I '" '" 0' ~ 0. ~ rJ S ~ .- 00 Q.. 8:~~ Cd ..... ._ ~Q)~~ .... .... """" .... '" 0-5 c::<<;; o .~ - <<;; u >~ t}k)4-0 <<;; 19 ~ ~ o.~ c:: u '" ._ 1-4 cd ",..c:: ~<<;;.f3 ~ ~.~ .~ ~:: ....~"3 !:! "'..c:: ..c::u", g ~..... g .5 0 '" B",~~ ..~ ......_ rn - '" U'~ '" "" - :;0'- Q.) .- '" '€ -5 E ~a~8. e .... ... 01) _ 0 ~.S c:: c:: ....:s! ~ 0 0.'- .~ '+:j .... ~ - o.OJ- ~E;~4-0 Cd 3 t+-i 0 '" 19 ~ !:! ~ 8 ~.s :e ~ ~ ~ ; I " I , I f I ~ i ! ~ ~ i. , , n " U i , : 1 " I ~~ ! . ~ ! I ~ 11 . ~1 ~ I E--< ; - 0 ~ U1 ! ! ! u . I i , I ~I ~ I '. . , I , I I I I I I 'I' ~ I ~u ,.dl , ' I ~ t I Orf'1l i ". I." I I . ~ I . ,I I' I - ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ D U ~ ~ > . ~ ~J. 199JIS PJ!41 / I A f. \ ~~ \ '0 , i~ I ....~ I wo ~. I :a . .... ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I 0; I ~I --, . i " . n , i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ....,..,,~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~.3.3 ~ I I ! I I , 1 o ~ t- 1't'~: ~ .::~ Hi . ~ ~ .. 0'" ~ ~ ).~; z <( ...J a.. 0.( wiY t::. (j) o w ~ 2 I (f) l[) ( Q S' O - (., > ( ( ".0,1 0[ ~ a.. !JOIn'''' O <( ,~... 8'""',,- "~ I( I! -:. '21 (:) oJ.,.-) ~ { a:~a .. ~S..t(, a.. 'r '" f ;;, ~ :. t < ( L L o '" 15 ~ ~ o ~ "' o ~ .Ii ,i;lr ---t ! ! 'Ii . ,. -l I I < ! ~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EARTH As the site is already developed with a church, there will be no changes in topography, or conditions that could lead to an increase in wind or water erosion. No unique geologic physical features exist on the site. At the precise plan level, the applicant will be required to meet any conditions recommended in the soils study. AIR The project is in conformance with the existing Air Basin Plan. WATER This project is not in the Coastal Zone and there are no rivers or wetlands or other sensitive aquatic resources within the immediate area that could be impacted by the project. The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that the developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The Sweetwater Authority stated that the 4750 GPM fire flow at 20 psi residual pressure for a 2- hour duration, as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department is not available to serve the above-referenced project. The Authority recommends that a fire flow test and a hydraulic analysis be performed to determine the available flow. The existing off-site drainage facilities are surface flow along Third Avenue northward to "J" Street and 33" RCP in "J" Street. Engineering staff have noted that site specific drainage improvements will be needed to adequately convey site runoff to offsite facilities. These site specific improvements are not mitigation measures. PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE The project is in an urbanized area of the City and the site is already developed. There are no sensitive or endangered plant or animal species in the immediate area. The project is in an urbanized area of the City. NOISE The noise study, that was conducted by Hans Giroux and Associates determined that noise changes along the site access roadways do not create an unacceptable exposure, but only increase noise levels by an incrementally small and generally imperceptible amount. Operational noise impacts from project implementation are incorporated into project design by maximizing the distance separation between residences and a landscaped 6 foot block wall along the western site boundary and is included for additional noise protection. Additional operational measures recommended as inclusions to the precise plan guidelines, in effect measures to further mitigate noise impacts include the following: Page 1 LUC.CKL ~-3'" No delivery truck traffic shall occur in the alley between the rear of the store and the nearest homes from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. No truck/trailers shall be parked in the alley with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running during the time from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10 p,m. to 7 a.m., Monday through Friday, 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. on Saturdays, and 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. on Sunday and holidays. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste materials during those times when operation of the refuse compactor is prohibited. Any site use should not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day or 55db at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m) at the property line of the nearest residential use. LIGHT AND GLARE As the project is for a general plan amendment and rezone and not for a precise plan, the details of the proposed lighting have not been submitted at this time. However, when a precise plan application is filed, staff will review the project to be certain that lighting will be in accordance with City regulations. LAND USE The current land uses on the site are a church and ancillary buildings. The proposed amendments to the general plan and zoning would permit retail commercial uses on the site. Although this is a substantial change, the mitigation measures that are proposed here would reduce potential land use impacts in the areas of noise and traffic. NATURAL RESOURCES No natural resources are expected to be impacted. The proposal, therefore, is not expected to increase the rate of the use of natural resources. RISK OF UPSET No hazardous materials or substances will be stored on site. Therefore, there cannot be a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions. POPULATION There is not expected to be an increase in population at this site as a result of the proposed general plan amendment and zoning. Should the applications be approved the predominant land uses will be commercial and it is expected that the future users will already reside in the City of Chula Vista. LUC.CKL ~-.ss Page 2 HOUSING The proposed project is not expected to create a demand for additional housing as it is expected that users of the Lucky Store or other commercial uses which would locate on this site already reside in the community; many probably are users of the existing store located across the street. It is also expected that the majority of the future employees are already employed at the existing Lucky and that some of the additional employees that will be needed will already reside in the area. TRANSPORT A nON/CIRCULA nON The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. Engineering staff commented that the proposed change in land use would impact the traffic circulation system and as a result required a traffic study. A traffic study was carried out by JHK and Associates. The review included: the analysis of the accident history at this intersection over a three year period (1989-1992), an analysis of the adequacy of the number and location of the proposed project site access points, the storage capacity provided for vehicles attempting to turn into the project site via Third Avenue, and a detailed review of internal circulation and an identification of conflict points with passenger vehicles, delivery trucks and pedestrians, the issue of truck access, minimum turning radius circulation, the adequacy of the planned parking supply, design, and passenger vehicle circulation, pedestrian safety, flow and potential conflict points and recommendations for revisions to the proposed project site plan. Specific mitigation measures recommended by JHK and Associates include: that a median on Third Avenue south of the intersection of "J" and Third be constructed, that a right-turn only lane on "J" Street for the Eastbound to Southbound movement be added, and that a separate left turn phasing at the intersection of Third Avenue and "J" Street be provided. The applicant will be required at the precise plan level to install curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lighting as specified by the Engineering Department. PUBLIC SERVICES A. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1.5 miles away and would be associated with a 2 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. q-J3lP Page 3 LUC.CKL The Fire Department is also requiring standard fire prevention equipment and facilities on-site, such as fire extinguishers. Staff from the Fire Department have also indicated that the fire flow is required to be 4,750 gallons per minute, that fire department access be maintained at all times and that plans should be submitted for a sprinkler system. B. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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% 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 Police Department has indicated that the proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. C. Schools State law currently provides for a developer fee of .$.27 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.12/square foot, Sweetwater Union High School District - .15 square foot). D. Parks As this project is a non-residential project the project is not covered by the threshold/standards policy for Parks and Recreation. Therefore the applicant is not required to pay impact fees or dedicate park land. E. Energy The proposed facility is not expected to substantially increase demand on existing energy sources or to create a need for new energy. F. Water The applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed project is not expected to create a need for any new utilities or service systems. The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City engineering standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with sewer master plans and City engineering standards. The existing 8-inch VCP in Third Avenue and la-inch VCP in "J" Street in "J" are adequate to serve the project. A NPDES construction activities permit will be required for this project. LUC.CKL ~..3? Page 4 HUMAN HEALTH This proposed project will not create any hwnan health problems. AESTHETICS As the project is for a general plan amendment and rezone and not a precise plan there are no aesthetic considerations at this time. RECREATION The project is not expected to cause a need for additional recreational facilities as the residents shopping in the proposed store already reside in the City and existing use residential facilities. CULTURAL RESOURCES There are no significant cultural resources in the area. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. While the City is not required to prepare a negative declaration where a categorical exemption is appropriate (Guidelines 15301), as is the case here, the City recognizes that transitional housing is often controversial and that a negative declaration provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the project and to better refine mitigation measures. 1. The project has the potential to substantially 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 ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project, the amendment of the current General Plan Designation of Professional Administrative to Retail-Commercial and the amendment of the zoning on the property from R-l and CoO to C-C-P is within an urbanized area of the City. The site has been developed for years and a church is currently on the site. There are no waterways near the site or any known endangered species and the proposed project will not threaten or restrict any sensitive animal or plant community. There are no known significant biological or historical or prehistorical resources on the site. LUC.CKL ~"~i Page 5 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. This project which consists of the general plan amendment and rezone of a site does not have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals with the adoption of the proposed mitigation measures and their incorporation as precise plan guidelines. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. This project does not have the potential to be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study considered potential cumulative impacts. It was determined that with project specific mitigation measures the impacts to traffic and noise would be reduced to below a level of significance and would not be "cumulatively considerable. " 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings either directly or indirectly as it must meet all Code requirements and requirements of various City departments. LUC.CKL c; - 3'1 Page 6 ~ . iI )1 \1 \1 \ "-.1 m~ I I I I a I I I I Ii .. .. ao,... "" .: ..'l .. .C~ 1;:: oilo:; o~ E-~ -~ .:~ ? ~ -~ I:;' .... ...e t . E~ ~f. iL _:.c:::O t~... - i _ c "" _ 0 f:;::!-': :; r IS ~~F "J! ~ ;; ."''1 . .. . .115 :.. " ~ ';~ - - I~ c "II . .- -- ~ l~t ~ ~:I-'': _-'E -. . "I..: .. I~ ! '; ..0 fD.': :: .~ I; · 0.. 1"_ 0... 15 " . ~:=. ~. e ., =: '10 - r'f_" .~fI/I.a: .!:1 ~ ..- ..- o. .;:~ . 'il ..- 10_ - i" i .. II - -;;'5. .: r " " I~~ !~ ...:J~ - - ... - - " eli 'E i 0 .. -is. f -., 0"".... 0 ... ::..! .- " - I ,",0: ~- . ., 0 ..N ! o~.. -~ cic,!.... 0" .... -- ,,- ;: " ., _ 0 ".. I". ~ c r.: - 0...... ~ - . ~ -g; __ o_ r U~ .. .... " -t- ~:: ...",.. c: -- ~ co e .. ~ ,,- r -...- E: g"; ~ ,,- " .. t.... -0 .I: "'-.. ~.. U t"'. - - 1.1&._Ilol .. t-~- -~ ;0 ,,~! .. .... 1'"'" 00- ~.. . ~ - ~'O ..:: J:" ..... Ie...... ~~ ~ -..- .,-- u ~ M~ w_~ :a "'.., cou ...... ~ .; .,; ,;. .; ,,; .; i .; 0. ... '" .. ..; .; ~ ~ i , ~ Ii iI '\1 \1 \1 '>1 1 i~ I I: a " i " .0.1 I ..u Ii t 0_ I} ~~ I' . " I~ 1'1 ., - u . UO . " .. I; .. - 1;;.., 15 :: 'O.!' . H - . ~ ~ ..~ "- I~ & -.. 0_ - - Ii" "t ..~ Uti . " _I: i ~ .. ~- . e .. ~ :; 1 .~ i or ..':; 2:: U ij , .. _e r Ii .. u.. B". . f " -.... .. .,11 .. ~ .. ~o" r. t- o : ~ .: . .. :~ ,; c_ ..1- -01 - ! !! -e "-0 " .1' ....u !~ i .. o. n ~~ . u.. - f:':.... fU H ..- - .: o . ;0 .. t:: - .. ".. ~h .. &:: _ 0 .,~ - U DU" ..... 0 i I 1 ... ~ ... il w .; ,,; .; .,; ... '" _u ~ :5 .." ~ ... ...:.. ..i...... w.. ..: -0 ~ .. i , - ~ ..: - ~- ,/0 iI \1 ), \1 \1 \1 \1 m~ I I I I I I a I I I I .~ . .... =.: I' i' .;~~~ .... ..,,- ~- ~ co co o oS i "c~ " ...:; .I-~ " ~ -"" ~ i-'S~ ~ l_L " -O~ " ~.. ..- a...1C .Ii.! ..- M-i ou .. ou "- - M.. Z. "L" 0 Z. -~ - ~O.: 0.: ..- - lEL ~ MM .. 0 '" MM ~ r O...a.... Ll! :t,; o M n M 0 a>t.! ~';;' h - " ~:..5 1511 - "\.I":'" i~.. ...--- " '; & tot:i -;;:.1:.... I .:; , M M C !:: ~ LM - " ~....~....-; " "" " ~ J!l! .oSJ !.. -It: J!l! r:;' , .: ",,':1.1 ....... ~ "C ._ -" LM "I ..~ -" -t-= L ..0- ..15 Oc J! J!..-t ..0 o .Ii .I....~~= "J! - _0 or I"~ .. 0"_ ~ or 0- - _f::: ..-.. 0 !~o';; - C L fl! " " ;; ilL -" C ~ .", Ii "".... ...-....- -1-" ~e ~ -i .::5 !!I",...; . i.. - .~ _ .M _"M ~"-.. f M:;:C -..- ~_..- ~ I'c~:' ~g.~ ,,- c'E..... iH ;- c ..~!!!~ L" .:...~f l!-" .:...:; E'f' __L :; c_ ceoa. cc I:c...... uo_u ..~~ __c'" uo_ 0 ..~" -_AD i ~ it .; ... .; .,; .; ... .; :: :; . It ... i ~ \, \ \ I I I I I iii /!,J 2~ a f'; =1: ,,~ ~I ='1 11" ~ " 111: -~ - ~J! o_~ M .. 'I........ 00 oS . E ~ ME" "III~ c_.. ,,_ L fi :.a ... .. o L = ; ~ ~ M I I: 15 " .. ! ! .. o i~ J!] -Ii - c" -a ".. fli " "'c u_ o -~ M ML 11:1 :;; " !! c.. .; .,; ~ ... "0'" IE" 0 ~- .-il: .i_! ~.... JC .111_ 0 --- ;; 'I .... ~ ~~=o .... M !;L M ~~ - M_'O ,:.....1 co. - r !oll..~~ _c.... ...-..- .:~~t~ u.._ 1'.. tot.. u ... __ II: ~ CII..-.... ,,; \\ I I I " - " L ~ o Ii :;.. ~~ -" '0- " .Ia :1 0.. Ii':; ~I L_ ".. - -.. co ...: - li1-: _t_ oo'" ~ -u :t~; .. ~... -..:;..- "'-I=- Ii L. =- i 11 c L_" J.:..... __ 0 .1;1':; ~ ",OZIS ..I t:: fM- u" ........:. iII_... ..-,:I...u ~""CJC us._. 0)- ,,/ \ I I }! " ,It -= " c. -- 1.-;; -~" ~ii 1!J! !t 1:_ M OL - " =t~ ~... .:i::! i....i ..o~ ..; \ I I \ I OM -" .. 1:'" (~ I;i~ N: ..: . = . ~ .. .. :; It ... i ~ ill --.1 ~I ~~ e - ~ . .. ..... iii . : 1': i M . = I .-~ .... ... -"8-_011 . - t...~ .15 '5~ . ! .I~-;:S;: 'i M ~::'ilc1 \(J~ ~ .. - c 0 o~ ~ ... M ..."" ..-... -c .. t 0.__ .0.. - 0 i~{ol-;: I .. ~,~ !1: - ~ -- -... .c 0 ;'::.s~t . a ~~ ~ -'" - !i~ M 1'='111 t ~. ~ ~M. I.: ~ ,; ~~ - .. ... L... .:t~ . c WI" ~ C . c. a . i- 0': ~ I!' ~ -E . J) ....'!-....'U .t'~ I\! . o_.._1oJ M M_ " ....=o~.. _cc :t .. oooo "'.. B i ",,.:1:_ C ';;~~ C U~ 't ..I" ill - coo ....:J&.... - _c ... CO,QI"IO O~ 0 ~;; .. ~M M H .; iii .; ,,; .. .. .. .,; !2 ~ ~ i ~ ~ -b \1 ~~ 2 a t .. ~ M ~ i ..... .., M ~ M .. ;:: ~ E ~ . - = r . ,~ . .. ~ M :I , - u .. .. ";' . . - :I:; I . ~ I::> ... -oo .. ~.., . ~ M !~ . W=: M . ~- E .... 'a ~~ ~- II! .!Iii ~Ii - ... \ .; ,,; ~~ I; .. :r; ':t ~ i . ~ q;.. J(~ iii \J \ \1 \1 ~I \1 ~~ m~ I I I I V)~ a I I I I ~ uo; - .: t It I . .e I :! ... .. ~e :; :: ! ..::- . - J po; M1J e t u ~.: ~ :! ... i.. ... . e. M A.~ 0 .. ~~I ~ u I .!~t ~ i I . - ....M ! M o - .. : : . -,,- ... - - -~. ! 0 . . eM...... - ... ... ...... .. :; ... ~ :II",.. ! .. OM e e ~~ ! .. ~ ~ = ~ . . .. ,~... .e .. MJ! . .;O.,t ~ .. M e O~ ... - ..... u 0 . t ..>. .. .: U' B. " _ 0 e. e o. ... M -8.CJlg' M .. e- ...... ~rf.. ,i:1! o. 0 j ._ 0 t ~ M_ ..1 ~ .~ -::~';~ M_ e_ J! - ~u _ u o. ~_"'::iI :a:..~ 0 ,)I .. ,~ 2:: 1J1oo-'" 0 ... .. .. ... :!:e a:t::t -'-........ -.. :! c I-~ .; ..; .; .,; .; ..: .0.. .; ..; .. .. ~ :!; ~ .. i ~ , ~ \ ~ \1 '1 \ '\1 iii "I m~ I I I I I a I ..~ - 1'''' ! .... t ~ UO . -I' :1 0 .... .! .. ... ... -r::; .. I~ ':;1 i .~ :! - Ii o.- = t ~ 0- o. ..,:; ..... 1'1 ~o MM .... t o. i d M - f; :! .. ::~ ii f N .. .~ 2 e M ..I .&0 . . ':l! M. t .. ta .. uM . M... oJ I": I -.. u 11" ...M !~ Me ::- ...- ...1 O~ .- - " b~ " It ! ..0 .. ... o' ... - il' I M ... ~:; .: -.. MI} MU - - I~ .. I- I;:: --~ :! :;1:: '"'~" -. -.. .. -... .M ".! ..- M" 1& ... ... M. ." ..- .- ~ .~ .- .!- ~U ~:: "M ~"O ~.. r~ n Me ::~:z . . ...u is ~.!: ~'f 'I!'e .... -- r-~ w... cu. c. -> -.... .~- 1;;'8 .; ..; .; .,; .; ..: ;; !; .. J - .. :i ~ i , ~ ~ -1{.3 iii \1 \1 \1 '\1 i~ I I a ~.~ :. . -,,- 1'.1 "01' .u. ~~.. --.. -~ 00 i~3! ii~ ~ ~ ':C ccM _ o- M- ~ ~ ..- -" =~.i I.cu ." ~ I' ~ ~u ~'i -~ ~ .I. u ~~u ,,- u :=-:;: .- .."'.I 't; t. - .. ~ O;:M ... .. i!:uS :.... . r;l~ , ..._0... t-M... .:~!: .. ~-~ -!~ ": ." c -.I" ~ M~ ~ ...:..!' ~I; -;; =;~~ ." c .u. .. ..~ M.~ - '.0= I. r~ .; ..~ . f.~ 0 u D.~UO Dot! . u_ .. ~ i ~~';:~ .I_H ~. ~::: .IM- ..._0.... ~~o ........::11 -'=::iI-fIoo ...a.:! M .M. UM~ ~. M -~ :I ..- . __u ..."';!:!!: '"c ......c.c :: ~i ~ __c ::;:tt . i- --~ j _.c~'" 8~ = s~1. :>>.. Alii a AD." 0 .. ..; .; ,; A ... '" on .; :; Oi: N .. i ~ iii '>1 i~ a .... :: 1;1' - ~!:=- ~ .'f . 0 ~ 'E~ j M. .. ~~l. H t -.. ~ ia .u ~o ~ .... i .. A. .. .. t. " .... ,,- ...I..... ... .. ...:...:1 .'0 f "... :I ... .- ..... ~.. M ~ U -. f"'-C ... --.'" ,12 . lii-..~ .. .I I "~..Ol. ~ :-s .1M .J~Olio ~- - .-- - .... .-... .. .- M ~~c -~ S ..1" -.= .. :: ~';-tf :;:... ~~ . .. Situ. :a I~.I . 0.1 ~ t: - .I~ -~- .....- j ~c. M~ o~" M ..~ .c~ &;; .. ~ c ... - t~ c .::!-:::o-~ i..,!1 ...1.. ....1 j,Q......-; ..uu h o _ c r- c~c t'O o. ___ .!I"'~ -A r~ .. ..; .... t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~'I it \1 \1 \1 i~ I a - .,.! II.~ 0_ ~ ~"'.J Jo, ..1 i! !..:,!:: ~~C1!" ..... -- . ,:;,,==::,,";000..1; .....1- \01_0_ "'"'" -.. .. 0"_1 i liio;;" "-go i .. __M.... .. .. .... -1; Ii ~~;:2 &"'E...""'= I --;".:,....15 I~- ......=0....- : 1-;ooS: "Og.- ~ ". .- 1:1 ~J: .. &.0,...... ... &... _.:...~.:t 't'l.o.J';-'" _ic~ ;:: .. -"'till ..._....11: c__ .I. _1:;;1 ""..- ....1 i .I':-..~o.l~o ."'iE I''iil :;...; E"f:; ..._..... 0 ..! - ~ - --.....~. I =: ~ -- 6: J. .... ;:; ..... 0"'._ e:: f~:: -.. .-'= : g.-.&:-l ..... 0_... : -:..1: .I , ... III.... E .. '......- >> .. c- ... f U J!to...~ .J .. .. JJt:,.... tot_ ... ....1.111.: ~.. t .. .. ... a" .. II: j .... ""1 M ..~"'t. ....g ....1,: I: t: i~'= ..... i. -+I- f -5"" ~"':I..O. _ ~ .J 11:..." . 1 ~ .. .....-. At""'" ... ..-&i~ .e: tJ.. .......... ...- i: t. ......: .I _'it' fr""'; t -= ~~It!....~..; '1...ov "'_0 ;~~I IS~!!; r .I.' H.':: '-I.";: .1'1: ::t~ .!.... :;; Z' ..--...........- --.. '"' .. .......c._""... JJt:, ~. ... .. ......~i-- .. "D =':;!.~Ct .f...t .. i ... -..... .:~:~ .~ ..V..... "' '"'~c I .. t.l J .. --1.:11...1....00. .. _......-1'0 j: Iti;JH- ./;j a...._ ... __ lOll. _.... .. Jii~ 80i"' ~~_ :'1-.. 80- C ti~ C ... .11:_ ...'" .. 0 "'''De- -- . '" A.M ..... - .; ... .; ... N &:j ~ If.s . ill. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) 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 the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required........[ ] lie'] d:r, Ie; 9.3 ~;f"~ Signature Date For \I? l' u:'/ E/!vlrc~/!'kJ ,A(<,c.J!(:.Ji,..L) (C'C''JC~'/1Q Yc---1 WPC 0413p/9459P -25- C;; - -S" t;, , DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION. (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AS 3158) ~ It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildl ife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project. _ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. ~(UU1 (J,~ Environme al Review Coordinator (/, '1 ,y '3, 1973 Date WPC 0413p/9459P -26- ~ - 't'? APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTm UNLESS SITE PlAN IS FOLDm TO FIT INTO AN B-I/2 X II FOLDER INITIAL STUDY FOR OFFICE USE Case No. /5 .Q3 -020 Deposit Receipt No. Date Rec'd Accepted by Project No. A. BACKGROUND City of Chula Vista Application Form 1. PROJECT TITLE LUCKY STORE 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 3RD AND J STREET Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 573-320-01; 573-320-45 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPOSED REMOVAL OF EXISTING FIRST METHODIST CHURCH - REPLACEMENT WITH 50.000 SQ. FT. LUCKY STORE. 12,900 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL RETAIL AREA cON 5.8-ACRE SITE. 4. Name of Applicant AMFRICAN STORES PROPERTIES. INC. - JEFF GUTH Address 6565 KNOTT AVENUE Phone (714) 739-7865 City BUENA PARK State CA Zip 90620-1158 S. Name of Preparer/Agent FORMA/JIM HIRSCH ~,J.)-'- ' Address SQlO UNIVERSITY CENTER LANE. STE 250 Phone (6IQ) 453-1QOO City SAN DIEGO' State CA Zip 92122 Relation to Applicant PLANNER FOR APPLICANT 6, Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: -1L General Plan Amendment ___ Design Review Ap~lication ~ Public Project -lL Rezone/Prezone ___ Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan ___ Grading Permit ::: Redevelopment Agency ::: Specific Plan ___ Tentative Parcel Map O.P.A. ___ Condo Use Permit Site Plan & Arch.Review === Redevelopment Agency Variance ::: Project Area Committee D.D.A. ::: Coastal Development Use Permit Other Permit b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ___ Grading Plan ___ Arch. Elevations ___ Parcel Map ___ Landscape Plans Precise Plan ___ Tentative Subd. Map ::: Specific Plan ___ Improvement Plans ___ Other Agency Permit ___ Soils Report or Approvals Required ___ Hazardous Waste Assessment ___ Hydrological Study ___ Biological Study ___ Archaeological Survey Noise Assessment --- Traffic Impact Report Other WPC 9459P -6- ~_ J(g B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 254.600 or acreage 5.8 ACRES If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of structures d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units e. Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixl2 .IIH. a. Type(s) of land use SUPERMARKET AND RETAIL SPACE b. Floor area 62.900 Height of structure(s) 35' c. Type of construction used in the structure CONCRETE TILT-UP OR MASONRY BLOCK d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets TWO ACCESS POINTS PROPOSED ON 3RD ST., ONE ON J ST. STORE REARS ONTO ADJOINING USES, ~IDES ONTO J ST., FRONTS ONTO 3RD ST. e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 315 ' f. Estimated number of employees per shift 30-35 . Number of shifts 3 Total 90-105 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and bash of estimate _ 4.000 - LUCKY STORES MARKET INFORMATION h. Estimated number of deliveries per day 6 PLUS VENDORS WPC 9459P -7- ~-1f1 i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate 2.5 MILES -- lUCKY STORES MARKET INFORMATION j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings PARKING. lOAOING k. Hours of operation 24 HOURS 1. Type of exterior lighting TO RF DFTFRMINED 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g.- Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. POTENTIAL FOR AIR EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK TRAFFIC SUCH AS EXISTS' ACROSS THE STREET AT EXISTING lUCKY STORE. WHICH WIll BE CLOSED. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated ~ (If yes, complete the following:) SITE IS FLAT. a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? TO BE DETERMINED b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? TO BE DETERMINED c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? TO BE DETERMINED d" What will be the. Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fili 3'-5" IN TRUCK DOCK WELLS 1'-2' 3'-5' 1'-2' WPC 9459P -8- 6l - 50 3. Will there be any noise. generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land .uses? POSSIBLE NOISE FROM LOADING/SERVICE AREA 4. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) STANDARD HEATING AND COOLING DEVICES ASSOCIATED WITH GROCERY STORES 5. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) NONE - SITE HAS EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON IT 6. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. RETAIL AND SERVICE JOBS Will highly flammable or potentially substances be used or- stored site? NO 8. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 6.000 TO 8.000 APPROXIMATELY. TRAFFIC STUDY WILL BE SUBMITTED TO VERIFY IN TWO WEEKS. 9. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of- access or. connection to the project site. Improvements include but not 1 imited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. explosive materials or within the project 7. POSSIBLE STREET WIDENING TO BE DETERMINED BY TRAFFIC STUDY D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I. GeoloGv Has a geology study been conducted on the property? YES (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? YES (If yes, please attach) 2. HydroloGY Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in. detail.) a. Is there any surface eYidence of a shallow ground water table? NO b. Are there any watercourses or drai~age improvements on or adjacent to the site? NO WPC 9459P -9- ~ - .5 r c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? NO d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. SHEET FLOW PLANNED TO STREETS 3. b1a a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which lilY i~act the project site? NO 4. BioloGV a.__ Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? NO b.- If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No (Please attach a copy). c. Describe all trees and vegetation one the site. Indicate. location, height, diameter, and species of trees, and which '(if' any) will be removed by the project. A NUMBER OF PINE TREES ANb n~rTnllnllC;: TD~F'C;: ~YTC;T nN ~TTF IT HAS NOT RFFN -nmRMINEO:VE'f : HOW MANY WIll RFMAIN AFTER DEVELOPMENT. 5. Past Use of the land a. Are there any known historical or- archeological resources located on or near the project site? NONE KNOWN b. Are there any known paleontologica'l resources? NONE KNOWN .. c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NONE KNOWN d. What was the land previously used for? FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH WPC 94S9P -10- df - ~;z, E. CERTIFICATION r~. J OWner/owner in escrow* or I ,~ p' C 1-w/Y1tW1 1tJR-ml1 / , Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and infomation herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known infomation concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: /~/tL' *If acting for a corporation, 4..",-<r;:"'"" include capacity and company name. 5~-'./::;'r<'r/,rJ . he. . WPC 9459P -12- ~ -51 ,- w -+- :) Z W > < 1-PR ..L......a ~ ~ I r-i I I ~ - - - 1.J- -. --J5 / r MITSCHER ST -- r-./i I r w f--- ~ - - -- p~ -- -- I' I I--- I-- - f--- - - ul <II - -- ~ - is -- --t - z --- 'Of ~ , - - '-- -- - :ru .- - -- f-- ~ - --. - ..L --. ---- -- -- OJ ECT ~~T~'~ , , , , , , , OJO "'- - --- -- ~ -- --- -, - - - I.. II: JE ~ " ICEARHEY ST - I - I - - -- - I C \ a:: :i: ~ ~ . x ~ a:: ::I o "" K" ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- w -____ ::I Z W ~ ---- W '"'T-- ~ "-- ---- r- -.-- --- - -~ -T-I~ T,-4-- -""'1 I I I I -,- -,i STREET L I .,j- w a: ~ ! ICEARHEY T % Ii ::> % () -' -r-w " I I C I I I , STREET ---- I I I I L _I..J _ I I I o 75' 300' Approximate Scale S NORTH EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP ~p5S T- W :J Z W > < , -,.- ~PR .l.-..J ~ ~ ::t ~ a:: :J o u. I r-i I I ~ -- _.L_ ------- L---5 / /" MlTSCHER ST r 10---- f..--- - --- -. ==Hil , w --- ~ ~ ---- -- f--- p~ / 1---- ---- I' ,--I I r-- <II --- --- -- ----- r--- I ~f-- is 1-- f---- - ---; f-- z --- I-- ~- -- ----- 1-- < ~ --' - r-- w 1--. --- ------ t--- L/ J ,....--- :J -'"'T--- W f---. f-- ~---- Z ~ f':(JAllClNPl _.J-___ W ~-- ~ --- f--- --- I-- ---V T --,....-- f---- r-- --- ,94~~T-~.rr~"" f-- --- f- --I ---, e..- ~---, T,-4-- f-- I !! i : --ri ; i oJ" " STREET i I r-- f- .- _L_ I f..- 1--- -- ~ f--- f--- _..:.1_ ~ 1-. f-- --- -. --- f..- f-- w - II: ~ i - f-- f- I.. Ii f..- a: ~ II- r --- - c:J 8 KEARNEY ST L.-- - - KEARNEY - J - / .... -- t .- f-- - / '---T - 0 I 1-. a: :z: I :r f-_ - Ii ~ .....-- :> -. / :z: " - I -' w i I r- c i I I "- ! , i ! ! i~j OK" STREET -~ I : i I - ---- _L _U - I I ~ 8 .;1--.s~ EXHIBIT B ,- , , TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP 0 75' 300' NORTH Approximate Scale Vi6-J' of First M=th:::dist Chlrd1 (cn-site) fron "J" Strret:. - "'-'- . '-. _. '_ h ...... _'. . , __ -. - . . ~ - -. ..---- .~ .-~---:..-,::.i..~:o__.--. :: ...:~' ~~-..,.~...:....-~-- - - -~- . ~=- ~- - -- ViewofFirstM=th:::dist Chlrd1 (cn-site) fron "J" Strret:. ~"'S7 EXHIBIT C-l SITE PHOTOS View of First Methodist Church (on-site) from center of property, View from "J" Street (looking east) of existing Lucky store. ~-.s~ EXHIBIT C-2 SITE PHOTOS View from "J" Street of condominiums (to the north). m;.. .. . . '~"--''''''.- ~ --...-. ' -' '"-:.~-~~~:.;--'--::;.~ - , '-....., _ ...:::...:.....-.'-4-~_ ~ . ~~:-:~.~~.::.~-_.-:~: - <.-- . ~~- .__ ;-M -" . ,",'~~"'._'~--~ ~ _ _ -'_~_~d ~_..~ ~~-~~--, ~.~~ ':~';::-'~-.~~~i~~~ View from property edge of Masonic Lodge (to the south), ,p....si EXHIBIT C-3 SITE PHOTOS View of residential uses (to the west) and Post Office (to the south), View from property edge of residential uses (to the west), ~....,o EXHIBIT C-4 SITE PHOTOS " .' ........ ~....' '~-:..~~ . --~ .... ,~",~",,_:.~ View of office/retail (to the east and northeast) along Third Street. ~ -4,/ EXHIBIT C-5 SITE PHOTOS THIRD 6TREET (,~", Im\UT ) I- W W a:: I- 0) >;) ~ -~ , \" ,,', '\. I -'"'" '. " , t .\.~S' ,',0 "- '>'ffi~' .~~i' ,~'\ ~~ . " , [' . \:1 '\ f .. -.,,-:. ,~\';..,.3 .. .. " '. -iJr -- ,- -d~=---= '. ~ 16:;)1-0. ''\..'\ t~" ':\~'-" .~', ~~~>~"> ... ,\, -0" '. J: . . " :1 I : I oomm l..-'", " " " " " " " ...:~ - oi 5 .' to '8 . Jir':~) ~-~~ w cr: ~ (J)~ ~~ u,1 ~I' -1.'. O~ ~~ ~ .j t ~ ' ~ ~ . \, ~ ~ ~ S ~. ~ ~ '5 " . '" on ~ ~ c; Q c" :;: Q <If" .. :z J! ~ ~B OJ iiiH ill U j[ II.. Q ~ ~ THE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA PAR1Y DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments. or campaign contributions. Dn all matters which will reqUIre discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission. and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names or all persons having a financial interest in the contract, I.e.. contractor. subcontractor. material supplier. AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC,' 6565 KNOTT AVENUE BUENA PARK, CA 90620-1158 , If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individuals owning mDre than 10% of the shares in the corporatiDn or owning any panncrship interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non.profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non.profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards. Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No _ If yes, please indicate person(s): " Please identify each and every person. including any agents. employees. consultants or mdependent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. FORMA 8910 UNIVERSITY CENTER lANE, STE. 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 I" I-Iave \'OU and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate. contributed more than S 1.000 to a Counciimember in the current or preceding election period? Yes ~o If yes. state which Cotlnclimember(s ): :)~'r", \11 IS defineu :.is: ".-JIJY Iffd/\'idllOI. Jirm. I.:o-I'(11'{fI('r.Jhip,joiflf \'emur!!, m'soc/mirJ!l, socwl cluh.frarc11Inj or'.!(1ntzt/lwn. carport/flD11. ,'iiilC. irust, rL'CCiI'Cr.\YlUilcml'. fIllS (lna' (/I/V other COWl!.\'. CIf.\' (/nd cou",ry, CllY. /1fl11l1CI{Jn/tn', fiis/rlel Of (lriu:r !)(J/!f:t:al .\:16(.,11"1.\"1011. ,,' ,::)\' Olll/:r '.trO!!P ur C011lfJlJIllllOfl (1[1I1l'~ os tI IImf." \ur=:; ...\11:1C:1 ;::':Ji(jon~1l p:!!;CS :lS nCt:c~!\:HY) :J" :c: /~2-/r;L Jl-I f .K. / :::l;"L ('; ..:; 1:1!r;il'IU! "::':':!l':;::: ,( , Ic' Cj ~ _02'" Case No. I ~ - ,~ u CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Co "","'^' ~-- \ 1. Current Zonina on site: North South East West ~~~::=~b.I~) - 2. Does t e project conform to the currin 1/ c.cm ae.L \.I!>~ 01"\ ~ eo ~ . General Plan land use . designation on site: uo North South East West uUl. \"0 . . Is the. projec~ compatible with the, ? - U ~-'L Is the project area designated for to an area so designated? ~ e eral Pl,!!! Land Use ~m? ~ '" ~ ~ -R.I\ ~~~~~~~~~~. . conservation or o~en space or adJacent Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route.) 3. School s . If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: ~ttpplrQli~ Students Permanent Temporary Current Generated CaDacitv CaDacitv Enrollment From Pro1ect School El ementary Jr. High Sr. High 4. Remarks: ~i1,;'J ~. V) ~q. ~I Director of anning' or Rep esentative A<:; c-Q';>] /99,::( Date WPC 0413p/9459P -8- ~ - (, 1 ROUTING FORM DATE: December 4, 1992 / TO: ~n Larson. Buflding & Housing · John Lippitt. Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson. Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg. Engineering (EIR pnly) Roger Daoust. Engineering (IS/3; EIR/2) Richard Rudolf.Assi~tant City Attorney (EIR only) ..-tarol Gove. Fire Departlllent ' "Marty Schmidt; Parks & Recreation Reith Hawkins. PoUce Departlnent ~urrent Pl.nning '.Frank Herrera. Advance Planning .sob Sennett. City Landscape Archite~t lob Lefter. Phnnfng Director Chula Vfsta Elementar,Y$choolQfstrfct. Kate Shurson' Sweetwater Union H.S. Ofstrfct~'Tom Sflva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) Other FROM: SUBJECT: Marvann Miller Environmental Section []]] Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-020 /FA- 606 c:=J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- /FB- D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- c:=J Review of Environmental Review Record FC- /DP 979 /DP /DP /ERR- ) ) ) ) The project cons.ists of: Romoval of existing First Methodist Church and replacement with a 50,000 sq. ft. Lucky Market, and an additional 12,900 sq. ft. of retail on a 5.8 acre site. Location: Southwest Corner of 3rd and 'J' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 12/18/92 . C01II11ents: " ,? - 45 ROUT! NG FORM DATE: December 4, 1992 1NJA ;' ;40 SUBJECT: ill] D o D ~n lirson. Buflding & Housinll ~ohn Lippitt. Engineering IE~ only) Cliff Swanson. Engineering EIR only) Hal Rosenberg. Engineering EIR only) Roger Daoust. Engineerfng (IS/3. EIR/2) Richard Rudolf. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove. Fire Department Marty Schmidt. Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins. Police Department Current Planning Frank Herrera. Advance Planning Bob Sennett. City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter. Planning Dirl!ctor Chula Vista Elementary School District. Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District. Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber. library (Final EIR) Other Marvann Mill er Environmental Section Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-020 IFA- 606 Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFS- Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- Review of Environmental Review Record FC- lOP 979 lOP lOP IERR- ) ) \. ) ) . The project cons.ists of: Removal of existin9 First Methodist Church and replacement with a 50,000 sq. ft. Lucky Market, and an additional 12,900 sq. ft. Df retail on a 5.8 acre site. Location: Southwest Corner of 3rd and oJ' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 12/18/92 . COIII11ents: ~f)e- A~~~ .ltN: - . 1 I~ /IM",i ~. - '-~ ~ilc. . -" f'6A-IN-r ~ ~ ~, n I ~'~'i :\.., ,I . ~ ~O I 0 V" U,l - - - -. -.. - ~ 0J1 J) I. , ! 0 E C 0 4 1992 ~-I,~ ~ # /'L.111 __ / ------------.._-------- ------ - . r ~ . , ROUT! NG FORM DATE: December 4, 1992 ",' TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering !EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering 15/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove. Fire Department "rty Sclunfdt, ,.rks , Recreatfod' "fe1th Hawkins. 'o1fce Oepartment Current Planning Frank Herrera, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter. Planning Dir,ctor. Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate 5hurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, library (Final EIR) Other . FROM: SUBJECT: Marvann Miller Environmental Section [1]J Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-020 IFA- 606 D Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB- D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- D Review of Environmental Review Record FC- lOP 979 lOP IDP IERR- ) ) ) ) '. The project cons.ists of: Removal of exi st i n9 Fi rst Methodi st Church and replacement with a 50,000 sq. ft. Lucky Market, and an additional 12,900 sq. ft. of retail on a 5.8 acre site. location: Southwest Corner of 3rd and 'J' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 12/18/92 . COI1ITIents: ~~ c:tr ~ ~ t-'O ~ ;1,. \~;~Co~" f~\~, ;?- t,? .'C -'. 1:.., '~.~ ",- "~ , ., "-"L, < /,;: , ,~ ... . CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address cJ~ <I J' Sr Plan File No.'13-0:WChecker /.krie. Date 1~/f-/7c)- Type Constr..1ZT-N Occupancy ;S'd- No. Stories I Bldg. Area ~t1nJ t/1 The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: /- 7/lt ;:;;,w A J.Io~.' h,,-~ //tc Q - 4- 7S() CA-,v ,bE ~f:d---c..'iLJ . tA- r"'-'-'" '7E ~'7. , 1PN.:v "LLl'/lltJ . - .-2.- --. /Ill, ~-I-P--qu/s J, ~ 5 / ~( - ,;L A /tJ ~ ~ "'v~o ON tu/?PL jlfji..(,4A-.lD : V /....... ./'9GC.ESS /hLF ~ :3 - S- rT ~,.., Ao~ ~ , / 7I&?r/i [ d S //lNcr ,(/0 T ~ ~ff' t/ v ~ ~CC~LJ €-V-h"'- 9-'U'/s /, 4C' , 7~#, / .;1- /7jz f flLL dEiPh7LT/1bvT /tC.LESS -//_zS . -,.b ke M.4?/\/??r/Nr-;/.;> AT 4- Ls :;;'-'S ~"'1 &'flJ. S/.dUY hE ~ 6;-.; 77lo Jt/! fP"t,';".i::b.-t . ~ J;.s~ ,Hc..,S/ he C"EA..-//V'?LLy /'-!<WI' - FPB-29 ~-~~ ~~~ .,,~"":-"~ Case No. \S-'13-0W H-l. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Is project subject to Parks & Recreation Threshold requirements? ~, If not, please explain. -\ 'b) - .~":>, ~, 2. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? 3. Are existing eighborhood and community parks near th roject adequate to serv the population increase resulting from t s ,roject? Neighborhood Community Parks 4. If not, are parkland de ations or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to erve the population increase? Neighborhood Community Parks 5. To meet City requirements, will Provide land? Pay a fee? / / ant be required to: ~ " 6. Remarks: ~~~~ Parks and Recreation Director or Representative t t .1 ~'2-- Date WPC 0413p/9459P -13- cP - ~r - . ROUTING FORM DATE: December 4, 1992 ~. TO: Ken Larson. Building & Housing John Lippitt. Engineering {EIR only) Cliff Swanson. Engineering EIR only) Hal Rosenberg. Engineering EIR only) Roger Daoust. Engineering (IS/3. EIR/2) Richard Rudolf. Assi!tant City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove. Fire Department Marty Schmidt. Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins. Police Department lurrent Planning Frank Herrera, Advance Planning Bob Sennett. City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter. Planning Dir~ctor Chula Vista Elementary School District. Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District. Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, library (Final EIR) Other . FROM: SUBJECT: Marvann Miller Environmental Section [1]J Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-020 IFA- 606 c::J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB- t::] Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- c::J Review of Environmental Review Record FC- IDP 979 IDP IDP IERR- ) ) ) ) . The project cons.ists of: Removal of existin9 First Methodist Church and replacement with a 50,000 sq. ft. Lucky Market, and an additional 12,900 sq. ft. of retail on a 5.8 acre site. Location: Southwest Corner of 3rd and 'J' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 12/18/92 Comments: . ~ ~-~ SWEETWATER AUTHORln ~t.TIN~~ fI :1'. "" '(;"'''0''''\ 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-232B (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 GOVERNING BOARD SUE JARRETT. CHAIRMAN BUD POCKLINGTON, VICE CHAIRMAN WAYNE W. SMITH EDWIN J. STEELE GEORGE H. WATERS MARGARET A. WEL.SH CARY F. WRIGHT December 14, 1992 WANDA AVERY TREASURER ClAN J. REEVES SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVe AIDE Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula vista Planning D~partThent 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED 50,000 SF LUCKY MARKET AND 12,900 SF RETAIL A.P.N. 573-320-01, 573-320-45 CASE NO. IS-93-020 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1992 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is an a-inch water main located on the east side of Third Avenue and a 6-inch water main on the north side of "J" street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there are three existing water services to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 139 map which shows these facilities. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection for this project. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow requirements. Based on this requirement, this project may result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. The Authority recommends that your agency work with ours to determine if the existing water system is adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building permit. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from a maximum of 62 p.s.i. to a minimum of 37 p.s.i. ~- ?( A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surruunding Areas Mr. Douglas Reid Subject: Water Availability December 14, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 239. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ~~ ~y~ t- Acting Chief Engineer JLS:RC:rms Enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 139 map pc: Mr. Jeff Guth American Stores Properties, Inc. 6565 Knott Ave. Buena Park, CA 90620-1159 k:\laurie\letters\luckymkt.ltr ~-?~ "I'" _"""H..e., t _ Z2~~.., ','" I I I I ,1.11 I 1 ,"zo'if ,Ai ~.'G4W~"'ib'" ~'~I:,:I.;:: a I ~ :~ : e. ~.,: ::." ~ l-i tOIl" :. . ~ S LJ B. S ~ z. z I ";>7~ . : , \47~/48 ,......-i =" I ~; Iota i ~)O' EAKMDfT (3'1.".. I ,~.:/ " IE.. ,~.~ '" po- ,..~ ~ J$ .." --~,).... .. ..A~ I...... . .... :f - ~ ~, tj/!:; ~ ... t ... 4'....... 50< ......~ ~1!12 31.../,'" ,...,... . 14 II~ '~. /.,.....,''''1'"';<:;.''' .~I u,.ln....i.,-, .OI~I ..UA" 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ .z~ . - . />>4ii '.0 -IY21" _ I .. ~ I. .;w ;'" 52 53.. ~ '54 '-;;- .u... _ ~. ~ GLb /ER~ p"'. ~ ""'~. L Ii , .' , . I ~ :50 =" I I JtCHER~S ~ ' 40. I z"I,.a -r ," 1.1.... ." . >. . . .'9~ ~ iN-ZI4.1.J 2"m "'fr C\I - . -"{tl ~ 27] .. ....,,-- ~ .'1 "'~ ~o 26 _ ~_ ?O .: "'."-''1 -~ . ~ _z~ '- ~ ~ it 38~ ~37~. 9 ..".I...... _ 36 ..' >~ .....~t~4 . (\ O~!..l} Z::'.. sa; t\A.!t~ :.e '/ .N.e 't = /IU"'4"CA.'i;/WO,1O . . (7.- /,~ ~Lt: ~ MAN'bttN ~ , -' ~. f:\.C! ' M P. 'c ; .. ;;J )5 ~ <I : 4!i17~ l JI Z ....,~ j 32 "ZIIW .,/ ....... .. ~ 33~ t ~ ... _. '""~ - j- '- ! 0 . '] j ~ - .! . " . . . 1- I I ..,.. '. 138 w.o....na.1 .a (WOUI2O,OI I U - .~ I ........:I'L'.....c.P,..., . I 12-".'\t If I~: i . , pc . o ~) - < . 'I: ...n~ N I:; ;; C .' " z . ..."u, - .....,... L "'-"61: -. ""."4~ ::> .....~... z . ...u.... ~ ... 0: 20 ~ ~ CI: Q . -- :>- '.451'11 ;(( 7/<) ........~ ""',.-.. I - ~)~ 3Z<&, -- . ~ WOAI04).1 ~. "f.I.I'OU ......': z " <(.._a 2:........ ~ 19 , .....n 1-9~ '5 10::E M..&Mt' ~_ r... 17 e ; I!-L' 4: rr 16 -I ~ 0........ -:- I~ . f ~~. " ..I.".. I'.! ....- '" .........., 13 -J ~,- - - I I 15 .He 1ft ". I'j ~":,I. r:c,. ,&~ J,~J..' ~ j . .. j ~ I I ::j- ::~:;~ - '"1':104.'" W0611116 I.. (W.OA6~)j1 WO&.21200 I ..... !~':"';~~M ..tt111 m.' "'-.,r4c)J4 .... Z '01 .. nas~ I.IP. -.;- o ""J.. F -.< ..... ..., V) ,".K'tQ .~.o..no IWo.A, '-'5 o ..... ~~<D~ c...._."" <,. .... \"'_. ~'LO. '."Iot *0 ~ 'F',~.:.] I ..; 1 ~ , , , , + , . Q t/ ". I .. . Ii !II:~ 1= I '- , , our'n::':~! t2-SW'~ I uooo .It.. M c: :Jnf .- U"TI w.o. AD"~ 0 ;E "t(C - C\J> .u~ 3 6 '0 ~ ~I -~~ '71170 i".: CD :.;:: 0 0 U) t g Q) (.) ~ C..2--Dr--Io o c: C) ~ . '- :'=---(1)0::::(:"" ('Q (1j.:J 0 Q DU'g 1? 3 E ~ CI) _ 0 U >. cvZ];jc;::::::-o {U c.r c..~ :.::; ('J ... I.. C :...... f?:. U C .- 0 ,9,~ 'y ?~ ~N~-:: }J ~ , &5.~ co j, 0 s"" s ~ .t:~! .~. 3 0- .4~~: LA ~ I ( h ':,,1 T '\."~< -~J ~1~ ",. .", -' ., ,; . . J ~( " w '01..." '~.;I: , . ')g. . .. '''~I: tw,o ,.... 44,4. ~" "te._1''' ''''..~ ...0....01 'l:.f BO'S'1Lne....1 "-I '- ~_.. I I I 'W.o...to~ .. .....,' :; ~;,w; :;:&~~~ "'~ -', t= I' 6641:; 7'iO r~ ~ b ~ :;: ;:~:~ ~ ;,~~,~ ,..... 0;,,~ ~ :_m. 9 rt 68 ! 11 '.. 11 ~ ...."".0.. rO ....'1':10'') _ "'.!>012. -! ~ .......rel;iii! N';:r"4 _ H'I~'Tb.. .__ _________ ~"Hn } ex PROJECT SITE ' ; 57 lO I- ~ 75 - I ....... -- ~ W'.'.' :~. ~~~i:~~. ;',;.:. -- -- -- -- - - --~}-.: :.;3- T - - - - --; ~ tf/I#C" / 3Z:ne. ;; Z"'17 .......15... .....!!.. - - ; 73 1;,,,,1 t) '-I LU -' ~ V) , ~ 1-4 1 n . on , . ~I ~ I -I ~ =, 00<> . 1413 ! .as. 47.C . . . ...0.C.I......IZ4Ii " ~ . , ,. _._- ." .~ )j -. I ~B:~ 0" . ~'% ,-, . ..... 1, ~ ..-: ~~ ':;0. '" #I 7.,. ..... ....~ '-;; 1If'''' :::1t ...,tot -. .. ...,...., -'-'- .. '19. ._- I N: .. tit ....0 . "'.... .., .I-.I.---z::;rr .... "7'" .----- - ......"4.!Z 2 =....' 1~32 !!! !!.rt~33 :! !!! TYlF ! "'" """. "!6"~ -".ur& "'Ul ...It! ,.,.... , ::.,... , ;;; ~t...n ;.. ~ u \I . ""lt~O ~,*.nl.. T - ".2.....'''32 ::'" ~ .. .... '. .h .....21 I.. .".. ~"'.. SWEETWATER AUTHORn I 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-232B (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 GOVERNING BOARD sue JARRETT, CHAIRMAN BUD POCKUNGTON. VICE CHAIRMAN EDWIN J STEELE GEORGE H. WATERS MARGARET A. WElSH JAMES S. WOLNIEWlCZ GARY F. WRIGHT WANDA AVERY TREASURER DlAN J. REEVES SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE September 1, 1993 Mr. Jim Hirsch FORMA 8910 University Center Lane suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 Subject: CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY LUCKY SUPERMARKET THIRD AVENUE AND "J" STREET SWA FILE: LUCKY MARKET Dear Mr. Hirsch: It appears that the 4750 GPM fire flow at 20 p.s.L residual pressure for a 2-hour duration, as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department, is not available to serve the above-referenced project. The Authority recommends that a fire flow test and a hydraulic analysis be performed to determine the available flow. We require a $1,500.00 deposit to perform the test. After receipt of the $1,500.00, the entire analysis can be performed within approximately one week. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 239. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY (C~L-.) ~~ ~~~ -L. Smyth Acting Chief Engineer JLS:RC:le pc: Ms. Carol Gove, Chula vista Fire Department Ms. Barbara Reid, City of Chula vista Planning Department k:\llurie\letters\lucky e:; - 71 A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chulo Vista and Surrounding Areas Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691 -5500 Division of Planning and Facilities December 9, 1992 Ms. Maryann Miller City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms. Miller: Re: IS-93-020jRemoval of Existing First Methodist Church and Replacement with Lucky Market The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit, Sincerely, // I / f-7d/1"""/0 ~~L7_____ Thomas Silva Assistant Director of Planning TSlml ~-?5 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ptl.D. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON GilES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R SANDOVAL SUPERINTENDENT JOHN F. VUGRIN, Ph.D. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425~9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH December 10, 1992 " /' <{ Ms. Maryann Miller Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: IS.93-020/FA-606/DP.979 Project: Removal of Existing First Methodist Church & Replace with Lucky Market Location: SW Corner of Third Avenue & J Street Dear Ms. Miller: This is to advise you that the project, located at Third Avenue and J Street, is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 3 - 4 percent over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $ .27 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $ .12/square foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $ . 15/square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. Since developer fees currently allowed under State law provide approximately twenty-five percent of the facilities costs to house new students, the District encourages developer participation in alternative financing mechanisms to help assure that facilities will be available to serve children generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing Community Facilities District (CFD's) as one method to help fund this shortfall. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of developer fees, with school mitigation paid by the homeowner in the form of a special tax. ~ -?(P December 10, 1993 Ms. Maryann Miller Page 2 RE: IS-93-020/First Methodist Church @ Third Avenue & J Street The subject project is located in the Rice School attendance area. This school is presently operating at or near capacity, and an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a Community Facilities District is recommended. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, M[ ~~(;-- Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Jeff Guth Jim Hirsch win:m,un.tingrmsw.c:smaUcom c:; -?7 December 14, 1992 Environmental Review coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula vista, CA. 91912 SUBJECT: CASE No. 1S-93-020 Lucky Market, 3rd & J Street, C.V. Gentlemen: From looking at the Project Locator diagram I am unable to determine where the proposed entrances/exits would be. I would have no opposition to the site provided the entrances/exits were located on 3rd Street and none on J Street. While not currently residing at 333 J street I am familiar with it. The street already carries a significant amount of traffic. By placement of entrances/exits on to J street would increase with a neighborhood values and also lead to residential neighborhood. on J I feel that the traffic corresponding decrease in increased trash in the Dtt I appreciate your consideration in this matter. ,},./ / S7;~e~~l~_~, [--- Donald &. cunningham 13-5 'Haven Hill ct Danville, CA. 94526 e:}-7't . .. . . - '.v.{'c c~se Ne ,S-'l]- DW . PI\'eJ""''' pff'l.o..i: IJ"I(J~I""N stellc.s f'~()p~tI!il/:''i 11If" - -:kif cr",TI.J j7lft;je.:.T Lec.,. TloN ~THwi!3T cO~"OI1-S 3,d "N,j J' $'/ .. f)f ( .,. D(!j,y:...T'.,t~ /-ls1.d Qi:/{PKI- f' i}eZOh"''''f rc '"'3- 9/i'e.41 .s:o ~ Tffe sTorr<- - <2..- .dlfJ I1F7{:; It .T"'1f( r/?' .'ltJ dW61/ ~ ""rs <:> "" c.{pre.... - $b",-rfl ""'tf~.-t' s. J. e ""$ 1" f?OfB/I."tI: ;j.- rfl~I'O'i. 6 J ;"''l>c.,." n t>~ S-r"tre 4- 1'<' t/. hlR 11_ Wily! II ffl'....rf P. II i ?f>lv(l/fJ "1l(Jt8,Qr~ C?,vwt:9'T SIJ~c.f ?1f"'ftSd1.Ty' /rt..>T of /.oS' h~ "c.. t>e.r: '" 1-11I'"yr ~ e/l 11 'To V.... ~_ .G'A71t.!~ 7e>.so G'" 1/. t/co V s..cI e Ii> II r, p,r, J. - #&>15" J C. J t/ .,f. ~ , c; " O:::SfllJ/. /R...c.l;'..r. Ti?/I.II C';p{je.c I 1001// t<6~)!e~f'('C'tV 7~~,{n' .R'V,;-#.>er 1tI, ~6 ,...J.. V ( JJwNt.""'~ ~ ~'ncktVf C- IMp Ty c.fJie'V s:~1'1 ~-re.R,-. R . / '1,- ~ ... ~111aR rc.f!""''''1 1~/o fJ"'5{'c.-1". - ~~ Ie-,t!; 'r r"~/JPI'e. s. Mo'Ot/.t NC>I$'e.. f'1I~ '0 if ! c.oAl$'III",-r /( "t IIfP511 Pll6s Oy j'lfe> ",I' /..&>wP~' ~cc,.c,"'"'IeAld.AT /04/ 1._ 1'\.",. ~7()iPd A/~"r 5c..:..-rH ~n.Je. e.S ?/Wpen.ty A{Cyr p~s7 0$/ c; 6 P~I {J., "'f I ;. J/r1fT eN" 5', .I c.. J,)/o /f&$Jd.:-w(f I- I je,. A ()tlf /'t1~ + /rt ftr .J"tf,v y j3/~H~/'(Ie.~ 2S'9>J-~C.o/ p~ I;/Iflf-r 0( - 71 I ; i,' .... . .t~ J.s. 19 ~~ ~ (1-/~.lkk .-' .'SSe: ?J:i!~ ~, q,y/cJ ~..~. .' "/~<--'~~~1:L. 9!Jo A1trz:koj:1J{~ a~, J ~ ~~i t:lu- ~ ~ tL.. ~ ."'~.dJI ~7~ ~~/c;5:<)-tk ~~ 3a-.dt;~ ~~-tL.w~~4-. ~~P~t7 ~A-t~4-0-~~ ~ o-<.J a..a- ~ c......J~~ .J ~ <'r~~~~ ~-r-tk?7A-',-d.__ ~~ UK+<-- ~ w-d:l ~ cJj!Q~ Ai- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~,~ (N- ~~ eN-' ~ ~~~ ~(I-a.Lf. Vu7'V h~~~d.;;J-ti~ ~~ ~+~~~. ~.~~~Ii-~'~~ (,t:~ w-I ~U -I~a-t/~ p-t~ ~~, -i/u-r,~ ~--t.c-IV ~f~~~"~ ~ .~~A.:1;~ i~~b;~~iA~(~~!!) (1~/~4~c&7- 'f~, ~-AA-~ ~ A-<.H cl.r-d ~ tKi..4- ~,d.Z~ :Z:;~~7 uX+<./~ ~~ ura_LI&~O~th-wt.-IJ~ik~~~""" ~~~ ~ ~ ~-~ r cfJ~6~ ~(fl,<ft\~ i-~. Jj~:Jr~~3r.I~ W-H~~' -i~ ~--tJU.. ~ :J6d.~ ~f- v) if~ ~~ 4 ~ ra4~ ~6~, Uk~~t'tr~~~~ ~~. -a'11 1:C\- ~ ~ ~J ~ l -&L -eJu--ttV7>U ~ ~ .;A-~A~~~~L.J~ ~~~4~ u~~~&~~A~~()~1J;:fP;;~_~, ~ Mr. ~Mrs. Matthew Henderson 715 ~_rett Avenue Chula Vista, California December 9, 1992 ...- -~- Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California DEl.. ' F'__,/"., .., ..-....:, Dear Mr. Reid: Last night representatives of American Stores Properties, Inc. held a meeting for interested parties to present their plan for the parcel of land at Third Ave. and J St. We are at a loss to see why they would propose a plan that seemingly represents no consideration at all to surrounding residents. There are existing homes on only a small corner of this property. It makes no sense to place the loudest, most unpleasant part of the project, in the foem of 24 hour loading docks and the actual store itself, right on top of the few homes that border on this parcel. We do" not object to the new store. If planned properly it will enhance the general neighborhood and be convenient for all of us. That seemed to be the general opinion of the all the people attending the meeting. However, we would like to propose that the store be positioned on the south side of the property facing north with the loading docks toward the Post Office. Delivery trucks would then have direct access from Third Avenue. The parking lot will have entrances from Third Avenue and J Street in either case so we think it can be arranged and landscaped just as effectively as it is on the proposed plan. Also, we have a few other concerns. The height of the wall between our homes and the parcel is important. We would like to feel reasonably 3ure that people in and around the store property will not have easy access to our yards. Six feet does not seem high enough. A higher wall would also muffle some of the noise. We are interested in the lighting too. will our yards be like daylight all night? We hope you will seriously consider our concerns and suggestions. Most of the families on Garrett Ave. have lived here since 1952. We have a lot invested in our homes and property. We would appreciate being informed of further proposals and any meetings regarding this plan. Sincerely, cJf11i.,Qp,~/v~IM<h/ cc: Jeff Guth American Stores Properties, Inc. J. Patrick Senn Area Real Estate Manager -:)-SI -----...,~.__...-- ,.. fA I- DEC.] '1" .;::1,'-;( Pi..! .. "\,\, Chula Vista. Ca. Dec. 12, 1992 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Dear Sir. After attending the meeting for the Initial Study (Lucky Market) on Tuesday Dec. 8th. it is our personal opinion that this project as it is presently planned as shown to us will have a definite environmental i.pact on all the neighboring residents and especially the nine of us on the east side of the 700 block of Garrett Ave. · Speaking for ayse1f, I a. definitely against having^loading and unloading facilit~nd all the noise. traffic and fumes just sixty feet away from my back yard. Yours truly. Jeanae . Fred Goodhol. ~,lU~ 77-.S- ~~ ~:LO -/07'-8' t:R - tI~ ~ r ''---'" BPbBums Cleaners"' - Dl' <:.C, ~ , December 14, 1992 C1ty of Chula Vista Planning Department Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91912 Dear Mr. Reid, The notice of Initial Study on the proposed Lucky Market and center located at 3rd and "J" streets requested comments regarding any anticipated environmental impact. My business, Bob Burns Cleaners, is located immediately south of the Post Office. Traff1c 1n the vicinity is so heavy, at times, that exiting my park1ng lot is very difficult. The Post Office has found 1S necessary to restrict vehicles eX1ting thier lot to right turns only. The 1mpact of the proposed center on traffic, and specifically on the ability of vehicles to exit my lot and that of the Post Office, would be severe. Slncerely, -r;~~ Terry Tanber Owner ,:;,.. 8.3 768 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, California 92010 619-422-2922 ~. /a4~ ~ IVJ...~ / j~ I /,L-- ~ ~ eu~ IJ-~ (f~rJ {J<-(j~ ~. ~CJ- j;v. ;cL /Ldr~ c1- ~ ~~ ~ ;tz; P--<- ?J1.!.-~ ~ ~, c;T ~~ ~ J k. ~ i~ oX 73+ !&~~~. ~<yYt7 ~~L ~~--<vv~cR .i~ u~ ~ Y[7 ~~ ;t;; ~~ ~~~? ~ V(; e-f1~ z;;- ~~ (}~ . tJ--L ~ ~ ~ vet ;dv. /)1.c7 &--?~~ c><{-4- ~,' :hi h.:rc~ ~,' l~ ~~ ~d~~/L-'"'~(J ~d~; )1 <~d luj& (Jv~ -!ta'~ ~~d'- ~ ~ rr--x ~ d- ' )/1.i9-c--<- 1:l1f-c... /1Lv'V ~ ~~J CVUc..- 5'('rJJ~ ~.~ ~ h'-*"'-~?~ y~~ ;t;t-!ccc cA- c~ ~ n---_JJ~ q, ~~~ z-J.dL ~;;.~ ~d- ja.~.J'L NO--L- rL<- ~ fit. e-/vlL.-rc Jr'-<- ~ cL~ ~ ~..c ~.~ J 5. J~'~ ~.( ,<2-c-yp.- --0-7 ~~v-t~<-(j'~-t6-'hrJ V~d :;z:L..f-c cL cd- ~ ~. ~, ~~p-r ')Yu~ /1--1 /1.J;:.., 4;t: L a/~J! ~.&'"-'~ "rr "I u~" I " Il - J 'oJ_, fl)car' /fle!, ~ ~?-(~ ~a~ ~v~ t:~ wJ'C;t~ 11l~ ;:h.t~ ~tJ[~J JJf..~ w:u 7C-Iz:- ~ Btr C4~ ~ ~ ~ ~'L~ ~~f! / 73Lf)d~a~ ~.8t1 ~.vJJ.~ ~-<--L~ /7) /1S-7 ~ :j J .i"' 0 11 ,~ t I , ~ ~5 . . t....0-::::5 l' d f1,J1~ he?] q , i. r v ri. ~ di j ~ J 1 va ~j~f~~.j" d~Jo{ "1 J~ j .J d' .~ 1 .g H.1 , I r!\. a- (j- ..... ......, - . , ;;: d- . '-~--- ~ 1 ~ r! 1J~~I~ r-f r P {4 -A l ~ ~ ] L~ ~ ) , -) ~. J 11 ~ ~ r A.1 ~~ " ~ ~ V1 j 1 j --:~ ~ ~ 1 ~ -r J - J B'~ '17' leA ~ 7 ~ 4 ~ JP ~ d c5 J. 1- rj 11 : ~ f' H J ~ - ~ 1 ~ ~~ J ( ~ ~ J j f .~ ~ 1 J 3 ~ b 1 ~; ,? - 's . . ,. ,~.' . # , C '. " ~'"""'V-':1::''''''''''-- - 0 " ::..-~~ ~-'-....- t .0 <<~_;....>>.. ., C.. J.;l~. ~ ( 10 (. ..:b~o ~. .;.~ C. ( ,=wJ:... ,-' { 0<< ~ -~. . ~"" G . ' c --r:--. f< ~~........'-',"""'" ....... L . <.: c..~ C .CoCA - c 0 c'c"c'~'b r c .-_ <. (,;. .~ ' 0 eLl.: eo . - c:, i -_~.. r 'a,~:;:.~-'.[ cftr"t'X.., f 0 (":r~a. [ c .. _ \,..C; .<:< ~ 1(, . Mrs. Robert F. Kelley 875 Otay Lakes Road Chula Viota, California 91913 9anua~v /8, /993 /. m~. Steven q~LlfLn ChuLa VL4ta PLannLn~ Dept. 274 Fou~th Avenue Chula VL4ta, CA 9/9/0 Dea~ m~. q~LffLn: """ , ,-' /> <.., We want to a4k fo~ vou~ 4Uppo~t Ln the matte~ of LUCkV'4 Supe~ma~ket bUVLn~ ou~ chu~ch p~op- e~tv (FL~4t UnLted methodL4t) at ThL~d and 9 St~eet. We beLLeve a new and La~~e~ LUCkV'4 at Ou~ Lo- cat Lon WLlL be an Lmp~ovement to the neL~hbo~- hood, att~act mo~e bU4Lne44, and facLLLtate the fLow 01 t~affLc a4 opp04ed to Lt4 p~e4ent LocatLon. We can unde~4tand the neL~hbo~4 who a~e p~o- te4tLn~ the new 4to~e a4 Lt maM abut theL~ p~ope~tM' Howeve~, aLL ThL~d ~venue wLLL eventuaLLM be aLL comme~cLaL bU4Lne44e4, and the~e WLlZ be no wav the4e neL~hbo~4 WLll not be affected Ln 40me waV4 not to theL~ LLkLn~. ShouLd the [LtV ~Lect to do an tI~ 4tudv of thL4 matte~ (WhLCh we unde~4tand couLd take 4LX month4J, Lt wouLd mean 4e~LOU4 fLnancLaL p~obLem4 fo~ FL~4t methodL4t. much tLme and moneV ha4 aL~eadv been 4pent Ln bUVLn~ the new 4Lte on H St~eet, Lmp~ovement4 to the Land, ~e~mLt4, etc., etc. (ove~J . ~- 9'=- 325 Montclair Street QuIa Vista, CA 91911 January 15, 111113 Steven Griffin QuIa Vista Planning Dept. 274 Fourth Ave Quia Vista, CA 91910 R-r -~. /- . -- ". \ '"") .L......\".. ,_,-- '.. 1 ;J!\h 1S:'. Dear Mr. Griffin: pi 4'"" ."f'I,r, _. ., ~ ..., J Ii l.... I am writing m support oi Lucky Stores move to the southwest comer oi 3rdAve. and J Street. I think this wiIJ be a significant improvement to this part of town and long needed. I believe it wiIJ generate increased business by offering more spacious and attractive shopping to the many customers who patronize the stOTE', induding myself I urge that you approve their request for a Genera! Plan ammenJment and the other necessaryprocedures. Smcerelv, C8}~~t~AJ-) 3,25 IJ&-;dcf.~c~ S . C [~~ /,;,-.;tcl (A 1;q I) ~-1J ? . ". ~.- .,. , c. " ,...."..,.~... . .~~ , 0 ( ... :....~., I c -. .....J'.-:l ;:-l-:w.Lrt;- O(~ I o . (....l ~~) o ( ,:{ ;.jJ Ii I C . ' ::::: :~ :...... ~ . c' c..~ CoC'.J ..... j t~=<.:.>,_ ;\, =:,) ., 1 i ...: ~\ '1 <;J. " ,..... . .~. fl.r-/D D [ JJt,. ~) J ~ 1.:L ;;4.P:t ~.-k~ ~ j '""- M ~ r 1 ~ ~ _nrt f ~~-- 3d{:r~. 1L.~i-~ ~/~ w-lJ~~~~~~/~ ~)A<- ^- ~~ ~~. 7:0- ~~i~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~P>t~ r7("1~~ ~~. J~ ~~;;t;.. ~ ~~ .......J. .--0'<~ 4~j ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~. ~) ~r~ Y",rl f. B L<k.hr /.$'3 ILJ',^ DAb C.r~~ C k""lo.. V,sf<.. C. A r!"ro~ (~30 ) "p- ,$ J JAN. 12, 1993 MR. STEVEN GRIFFIN CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPT. 274 FOURTH AVE. CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 r...., '- "- -":"~.' .:=~..", " . 1..' I ....-, RE: LUCKY MARKET CHANGE OF LOCATION DEAR MR. GRIFFIN, WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS, AND PRIOR TO THAT, WE GREW UP HERE. SINCE WE RETURNED TO THIS CITY, WE HAVE WATCHED A NUMBER OF SUPER MARKETS CLOSE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. THE SAFEWAY (WINDMILL FARMS) AND ALPHA BETA, TO NAME JUST TWO IN THE OLD CENTER OF (HULA VISTA. THE LUCKY STORE AT 3RD AND J STREETS HAS BEEN IN THAT LOCATION FOR MANY YEARS. IT SERVES A VERY LARGE SECTION OF (HULA VISTA AND, IN MY OPINION, HAS REPLACED THE STORES THAT HAVE CLOSED. WE HAVE SHOPPED THERE SINCE WE RETURNED TO THIS CITY BECAUSE IT'S LOCATION IS CONVENIENT FOR US AND THE STORE IS COMPETITIVE. THERE IS ONLY ONE PROBLEM WITH THE STORE - IT IS TO SMALL! WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT EXPAND IT'S FACILITY AND IT'S PARKING LOT. WE SUPPORT THE RE-LOCATION OF THE LUCKY STORE TO 710 THIRD AVE. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOU ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY YOURS, , '. ) ~:, '\ ;':)U~{ iL.Li,'')!{...@--> LY-NDA REYNbLDS 510 HILLTOP DR. CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 ,R-g,r ._i,.;; 677 G St., Sp. 26 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Jan. 9, 1993 Mr. Steven Griffin Chula Vista Planning Dept. 274 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Griffin: This is to support plans already approved for Lucky Market's move to the site, corner of Third and J Sts., now occupied by First United Methodist Church. Surely the new location will facilitate both ingress and egress for customers and thereby improve traffic flow in the area. With the building properly positioned on the property there should be neglible noise increase in the neighborhood. As Lucky customers we look forward to the new location of the store. S.in. cerely ~ours,~.. ._ h~, 8--/< ';J-t-/V7 I1"JLoJ. - t-Q.L\.(l \'-!':/.)'-'~j Mr.& Mrs. Earl BiggersV 0 -- ,Ii . yo ~M Luetta L. Newman . 677 G St #186 , Chula . Vista CA 91910 p..v_ 1J//<:Jq3 ~ /3~~ ~ 11J.d::..- p~ j)~. ~7'1 7-~ t4-c. ~ V ~ C.A q/q/ f.) l r -~-:.. . . ---. .,' . r' 1 .... - '.,),",".J.. '_. i.:;_ r. ~_! - :\, f)~ IJJ.JI. /'j~ J /I<- . ~ ~ A4.A. ~ trf ~J-' %1 wJ>---T # 7/0 I~ ~ ~ p, /1Iu..c..v~~- 1-h ~ ~~ ?J? ~-:t fYl...U.4G.J.- -1>'I'~.Ar-p-C~ a ~r ~ po":"A.J ..J.;-<. tJ.-V' ~-:t... fr-'t ~ Uly?VVIW...O.....T(j- ~j A-'-<"U ~..l:i.....?tI-<. ~ </- ~ I. ,} C---JL.o'>" 4--v- /jIwr ~~1'\ ~ ~ -;;U'<./J {~ .. ~ 1iI..-w. ~ <?:PV(/V,.~,.~ 417 G-. ";:1'. sp /'r' ~ 'J~ c.tr c1lq/o / . . ~ ~-,!/ . r /-z, 1993, ~-<5"t;~~.~ C'~ ~ti, ~~.64r/Z; , ;:2.7'-1 ~z:6~. v ~ ~',L'"'t:V' Cl/qlo R~r-r::-!' I'~,--, --_ "'I......io-- ; ~ '.'\ 1 " 1.1[< .... '_. ....' /)~.AAoJ, C', ..6-<',-<~,-,,~ P:..tJ\i\;i" c.O ";;at~ ~/ Q//~t:-L;;~ ~~ . ~ ~ .c>-f~_d, .~ ~c.e.- /95.;,- '~'cr,...-- a.:C -0 ~,~ ~~ A~~, ~ ~t. ao..d:.;: ~ ~ ~ ~,..e L;"~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~'.J;7/,~...c~ ~ ~ ~11> ~-v~ ~t;' ~~, ~ ~. t:2z.nC.R/ -& ~. ~ ~ ~ -7 Q:'../ ~-07~~~~'~~/c ' ~,.{/ ~ -*-v~~~ 7' a ~ ...:t; . ~H,-c--!~J ~-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~'~71 du ~ -t; ~ ~v2-~ ~~ T.. .;;l-t?~d C'~. CV1-,4/ 9-- 4D, ~~, C'~~~ ~W 1" .~/~- ~, ~~ ~Z:~. u-n-~CJ!t;~ ~ ..e'7 ~-v~' .,f, ~ u~t:f6 ~""""(J' ~I ~ ~~-OV ~ .~/ ~We-<J- ~/ .:t:kJ ~c$ ~ r ~~' ~ 7~ ~ ~~' 4':u~,~' ~~, ~~ ~t;..fNv~~~~ !. . ~ '~cVl:.U~ ;;r:~~~,,g/' (;t;~~~~d7 ~ ~.d.o . ~~ --I-u ~ ' ~-"',v ~ ~c"w~~,~' nv~d;:;.1 ~, fte ~. ~ h;...t9u~ .33o--R~,.Jc; #"1/ ~~,&,.qqIO ~I '-- ' Mr. ar' Mrs. Matthew Henderson 715 G. 'E!tt Avenue Chula Vista, California December 9, 1992 --~- Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California DEl., J :.... - ..I~' -: F'i . .,., . __...r.j"I,.I"~ Dear Mr. Reid: Last night representatives of American Stores Properties, Inc. held a meeting for interested parties to present their plan for the parcel of land at Third Ave. and J St. We are at a loss to see why they would propose a plan that seemingly represents no consideration at all to surrounding residents. There are existing homes on only a small corner of this property. It makes no sense to place the loudest, most unpleasant part of the project, in the form of 24 hour loading docks and the actual store itself, right on top of the few homes that border on this parcel. We do' not object to the new store. If planned properly it will enhance the general neighborhood and be convenient for all of us. That seemed to be the general opinion of the all the people attending the meeting. However, we would like to propose that the store be positioned on the south side of the property facing north with the loading docks toward the Post Office. Delivery trucks would then have direct access from Third Avenue. The parking lot will have entrances from Third Avenue and J Street in either case so we think it can be arranged and landscaped just as effectively as it is on the proposed plan. Also, we have a few other concerns. The height of the wall between our homes and the parcel is important. We would like to feel reasonably sure that people in and around the store property will not have easy access to our yards. Six feet does not seem high enough. A higher wall would also muffle some of the noise. We are interested in the lighting too. Will our yards be like daylight all night? We hope you will seriously consider our concerns and suggestions. Most of the families on Garrett Ave. have lived here since 1952. We have a lot invested in our homes and property. We would appreciate being informed of further proposals and any meetings regarding this plan. Sincerely, <11'11i..Q /;tJiwrj/l:;kIJA.{h./ cc: Jeff Guth ~rican Stores Properties, Inc. <:::: J. J Patrick Senn Area Real Estate Manager :) -V . .~ . tt - .*. " . . ., . -~. _.~,... c.. ~c:t l 0 ( ~~.:o. C'. \. :ld...:Jt. O('~'~ , ( . '.' A...~r.- C'.(~:P' ( ~ ( ..-: ~ -p. c. ('-; -r." .ill ,~ " -... L .l:'c..-~c,c~ t - - ~ r--' C 0 C.c:c::cf c.... ( (.;.41 '. o. c'C 1.:-.... C...~.; : 'a., "r"f:fJl.. C'ft~1i- .'41 . 0 (("Fait c. ~'\'" C: c'<. ~ n 11~1i. j / J, If 'i '3 ~G Ac, J~/f") . .~y .A-c.J ~ pJr~ J ~r ,J-f ;Zk- ~i~J ~'~~~,-?O 7:--tJ: d<J k.JJ ~TL,.LJ c.k~ ,(/J ,:f f'v.~ '71.1",-' .--f-hd:-cl J~~~~~r-r-<! .J.~~{~ f"'" iN c . 3 ""'r<< 0~ 4,"" d t~'d.; ~ ';&...-k ({ :;,:,,~/:f"'1...<..'. 7'"11c/0.~~ l'J..c"t-t-~.(r')-ro.'l ..L A ".L-r; (f ~v, ~, AJ.f'-v /~~-L:.....- i-c.'~~ (-l n. :d.: f; '",<u3 c/i,< vcl L";7.J! L'~11, I A ,(( 7., ".L ~ ---'-W-v .. Jdl '- ::.AA Ii >11 ~~ J."r ~--cJ-i .~ '-i~ /Y1 (<7 ~ 1'-<7..[ ~ (~(,.A"- ~ J'~ ...00 ::?/~ --"l""",-, 7o!.~.../ '1.1..('-' ,(i ~ ,~"I...:.. cF ., . . J1 ?-r-rc/c{ ...;, C.i.:.'L i --k.. <<.." ILM..",1..--f; Ik<- {('7~")~"n.LS, jrt 77~J /1".1) .'. xL ~~~/ -V~ ..AuJ~' ~k f~" I . /.,;{:- ",-'t.!..Llc-"[ .~rin-a.... ~.A.cl..kJ ~J~ ''''':.'( ~~~dJ<........~ y.,.,,~ '1.ti..l~o) . Ii j,,->,-, pj." / iT :.> 1::>t f.,;u J' I.... \,ll<l.':! ChI,<.. )c... \/i~+<l. k (wi 1/ ) '--~ ;... 'I '.J. 1~~, : -- ~, , ". -- ~. :...... '.> /. , ........., ~" 1i I ~:-: ~'. --, .,_7,~".,_ -- - .-- ---.---- --- ---- ,...----~ ~jqq~7~cij- Jkrr!~_~IM"'_G(~-~- -/Va~- ~ U<Cuvr ~, --------- ---~ ,fdd1 t /.J/.J roK.U1f( ?f<.o..u - ---r "!.: . --0 - - Jf u..A;t;P; IT"/' --'''' i2--:' ;~ s- r - 'I;(,~- S25'? oj ~'-' lJnf)~~~ 35'';Z. 'l :d- ~ ;3 ~~ 3 ~ Lj.' ('f' //7 r...." _ _ j7 . C/ "" 7""'" /I~,.l~ 39, f -OJ ij}IlMAR~"'~' BPS/V Bo.fJ "ok'lw,7?JAJ o.J6 ~'Y6( /'I. -:.:r::::. v /;4"1;,iK ~rA:JlH :J 7.>-r -.:rC1N--r..;:>fjjD 2"1" ../ Sr- Q.-Ix.J '-f .~ lOt N."cl.dr,X nld< tyJ~C:Ru~tf,'1 70 7 d,,~<1I Ave- ,<" 7,0(. clluR-cJJ livE )k ~ it-M. 1;; <J (~w:ti JA'ti,{ rJt IA. -rD1fII- 3~1f f.4>ON ?L i3c (3 ?1Z () /H. 71<'(; C-L.cH/,_, ,!-, wA ~ n TJ W/l.S'oI' ,'if Iii "J"5T, '~"Id..'1 't 'SR,', ~,"'k \ 11<;:: e htu"Ii'\. /'<.I)P ??"",,,,1, '~/7Ei=A.;"'A-L-"'~r7JI' ;,?C r.."rq1;'1 iA"r:=. 't'4--"~'i'&.- .=1;.."K r:f?7 J'f.,-FJ ";;roO", 9/'i,c 'I~[-5'a,;:J.:t) :.<.1l't' liEU ~/i.y.1,( 1'3, C,9fiRE1i ,Iv~ "- v '/19/0 S~5-3\lj/.3 E\:lt.40E-"iS i,:",C"",rl,(l", (1",^h,,ia,Go9i9(() ~ - 2'/,'IJ_ j"'I,'/)"I...- L:+:/7i 7~:~M'12..r2",1I\\L~ C.L, q,'cJ// - <7 . <"'N' 1):.,,. 1-::",< 7' 2.7... - 6' 651. '7'.2 ~ I ~i?5- 4~L.-75'2..? .. " '/?7 I 3e7 "',,;lG-.A~~~ .tI2-2.... C,CS, )- J.!J-7-7CZ7' 1 '=--"'ij" C..........:: I"~ Ill",,,,,,,,/, <:;T (J {/ 4T-.) ~!~ Au c..v S'S'S c'fP5 q/~/o - 1,I;;-7-7/bC) "'1"TiC E C (f--r,..j IJd/W'l .715 G'~~I-'...I'TAj""'- ~ \..' '11'1/C ..y ?cJ~/~~5" <1' J / Ji1_,I!oJ(/-st.. ~-h/-tf;..f{IT? ?c./"";-/.z..Il~A.;- .>,?,,/,!_'-I27~Z<+~ N\~ 4- tJ\Rs h\jW(it'IPr( !ok~1'J ~l5 C:AA~r- ~8.0~~'~,\ - ~ .. ".5 I ... '~1:{~.: ,. ",'--~'..I' .' , " --:~.- :" '''-:';''':'''''.;'~~~~':f:' . .~'...'. , .._~,-_._---- '.-. -__L:.."'': ", .-'.,. "-.-.- .-,,- '.,'. - __'n____ - ~.- ~- .._-- ._~_._-- -- ;1:, /c;t: !1<t1Aj 72,,/ 6Mr-e..if ~ ~Z'] -t:,J.)~ ''z,,iv 12f"-I~J.-1. ~CUb ~~ ~~~ 31a~ ,'\ , U- )' 0 . <3 ;, ~~ ). ~A,)/" Y~-JcfCf7 ---:*::b../ t S1NI f4--#JJJIlJZ'J)'1 7W (:;,wJ~ f},)~ fJkj;':a, (J/-fo71l eA c1>553 -lfLf~ ~ , j1-1.~".)~ )1/ (;~~ '-"2....1-?-S-';;7 . -- V~7-.::;{YO) yf/o? ( / /~ - //;!rJ - 33t.c; - , C(f.iA/../'Dlf~ ~ G-L0~\~ BH::.!.\ tyl-~ GLo..:-Eft,L)t./Cl/qfC;f,8 -Jfz.:2..-'5'~5~ --,.-- r I -C!AN(lpg \.. 'M C-~ .4fn L ~~ ., I / ,- . _ .-/1<7;; I ( L4J ' I -=11"./ f,3'c3 V,d I-fA/r_' /I (,oE C2 tI 4/(t'c ..::n Ifc ,It, ( 0-. ..); 9// i./.s;-C,'V ")~% .1);51... ~'- t3L. ~/I,Q S I.) Y;(/.5-'' ,- ~~:",,,, vt ~d ,-", k-c:;1- '''i(S ~~;~t,"1 1..14 c" V:-11Q I ( ,-, /'~ I' _ ;" . !!-!4/c 1 ( _ ").:;i,::' '5 CN7-:) j)" I D (....1/( , jS-{'M// h '1 / '9 /.~ .::2- n.,., c.a, -/1;. ,...t"YI - 5"10 '7> -H~Z ~ AJ. ~' MIW~if0 k.P.t1dAl. &~ /tIC! <58S--7J ~ 1 ~~ ,,, UG 17 '93 15:06 GIR~UX ' SSOCIATES ""U.UUA" AaB . . , &V11'ODmenu.J Cons" lta MEMO I TO: Barbara Reid; City of Chula Vista FROM: Hans Girouxl Giroux & Associates RE: Lucky Store #257 site August 17, 1993 DATE: We have reviewed the information you provided relative to noise impacts from development of the proposed project site. The issues we evaluated were as follows: 1. What constraints should be placed on site uses in a CUP if the site is developed as a grocery store and ancillary retail uses. 2. What is the worst-case noise impact potential for commercial development if the site is not developed as a grocery store. For development as a grocery store, we determined that noise impacts would be less than significant if a 6-foot block wall ia constructed along the western si teboundary and II nul!lber of operational constraints were adopted as follows: 1. No delivery truck traffic shall occur in the alley between the rear of the store and the nearest homes from 10 PM to 7 AM. 2. No truck/trailers shall be parked in 'the alley with any mechanical equipment such as refrigerator/freezer units running during the time from 10 PM - 7 AM. 3. The trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10 PM - 7 AM, Monday through Friday, 10 PM.- 8 AM on Saturdays, and 10 PM - 9 AM on Sundays and holidays. 4. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste materials during those times when operation of the refuse compactor is prohibited. .:J-'17 \ J7744 Sly hrJc aid; Suite 2JO, lrl'i11e, c.Jjfamia 927/4 . PboDe (7/4) m-8609 . Fu (714) 8$1-8612 r- RUG 17 '93 15: 07 GIROUX .~SOCIRTES P.2 ~l ") . -2- The hours of operation do not measurably affect the noise impact at the adjacent homes because the building shell will almost totally block noise propagation from cars in the parking lot as the only significant noise source. We do not believe that sales hours will have any adverse effect as long as the above conditions are met. We reviewed the list of permitted uses that could be located on the property if a non-conditional use were developed instead of the grocery store. The uses that have noise impact potential include: Automobile Installation of Accessories AnilDal Hospital Appliance Repair (major) Bars, Lounges, Cabarets Dancing Studios - Nightclubs Drive-in and sit-down Restaurants Health studios and spas Lawn Mower Repair Music Schools/Stores Newspaper Publishing Parking Lots/Garages (commercial) Pet Shops Our recommendation to limit possible noise impact is to establish rftt,-noise performance standard for any potentially noisy alternative uses. ~'~ ~~~-ondatin~r an app~riate performRnce standard ,""\ill! ~ h' ny site use should not create noise levels exceeaiftg 65 dB by day or 55 dB at night (10 PM - 7 AM) at the property line of the nearest residential use.~ If there is some way to incorporate such a standard into any conditions of approval for the current proposed action, it would provide an adequate safeguard for the existing residences regardless of the ultimate site use. ,:("'8 jhk & associates August 20, 1993 Mr. Jeff Guth American Stores Properties Inc. Lucky Store 6569 Knott Avenue Buena Park. California 90620-1158 RE: Final Technical Repon - Lucky Grocery Store Project (JHK 20123) Dear Mr. Guth: JHK & Associates (JHK) is pleased to submit this Final Technical Repon for the Lucky Grocery Store project. This repon details the existing conditions in the immediate area of the project site at J Street/Third A venue in Central Chula Vista and documents the forecasted circulation system operating conditions for Year 1995 under the existing land uses and the proposed project. This Final Technical Repon contains a critical review of the proposed project site plan and also incorporates revisions based on city review comments detailed in our memorandum dated February 5,1993. It has been a pleasure working with American Stores Propenies and FORMA on this project. If you have any questions regarding methodologies, assumptions, or findings of this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. S incerel y, JHK & Associates })?I1d~ ;II ~ Daniel F. Marum Senior Transponation Planner cc: Leslie Freeman, FORMA Barbara Reid, City of Chula Vista DFM/sg 20123b1.a/2~3 ~.'r 8989 Rio San Diego Drive . Suite 335 San Diego, California 92108 . (619) 295-2248 . FAX (619) 295-2393 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT LUCKY GROCERY STORE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Pren3red for= American Stores Properties Inc. Preoared hv: JHK & Associates 8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 335 San Diego, CA 92108 January 15, 1993 Revised: August 20, 1993 o1..IC~ TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 Background 1-1 Repon Organization 1-1 2. CIRCULATION 2.1 Methodologies and Threshold Standards 2-1 Existing Conditions Analysis 2-4 Future Conditions 2-7 Future Conditions Analysis - Future Year 1995 Conditions 2-10 3. PROJECT SITE PLAN REVIEW 3.1 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4-1 Existing Circulation Conditions 4-1 Future Year 1995 Conditions 4-1 APPENDIX A - HCM SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX B - HCM SIGNALIZED ITNERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROPOSED PROJECT APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT CONDUCTED IN AUGUST 1993 ~"Icl Fip:ure 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 LIST OF FIGURES fm Project Site Locations 1-2 1-3 2-11 2-12 Proposed Project Site Plan Project Trip Distribution Daily and PM Peak Hour Year 1995 Project Generated Traffic Assignment (Cumulative) Daily and PM Peak Hour - Year 1995 ~~ It:> 2. LIST OF TABLES hbk ~ 2-1 Chula Vista Summary of ~oadway Capacity and Level of Service 2-2 Threshold Standards Average Daily Traffic Volumes 2-2 Arterial Levels of Service 2-3 2-3 Level of Service for Signalized Intersections HCM Method 2-4 2-4 Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Existing 2-5 Year 1992 Conditions 2-5 Arterial Segment Levels of Service Existing Year 1992 Conditions 2-5 2-6 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing Year 1992 Conditions 2-6 2-7 Estimated Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation 2-9 2-8 Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Future Year 1995 Conditions 2-14 Levels of Service 2-9 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Future Year 1995 Conditions 2-15 .:/ r IcJI 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to document the assumptions, methodologies, and findings of the Lucky Grocery Store Traffic Impact Analysis Project. The primary focus of this report is to document existing and future traffic conditions in the immediate study area adjacent to the project site and to provide a thorough review of the proposed project site plan. The remainder of this chapter provides a description of the proposed project and a summary of the traffic engineering topics covered in this report. BACKGROUND American Stores Properties, Inc., the project developer, is proposing the construction of a 50,000 square foot grocery store and 12,900 square feet of associated retail commercial space on a 5.8 acre site located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection at J Street/Third A venue in Central Chula Vista. A total of 315 parking spaces will be constructed on the project site to serve the grocery store and the other retail commercial uses. The project site location is shown in Figure I-I, and the proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 1-2. The project site is currently occupied by a church and a pre-school facility. Church services typically accommodate 400 people, and approximately 125 children attend the pre- school facility on a regular basis. Currently, these is an existing Lucky Grocery Store located on the northwest quadrant of the J Street{l"hird A venue intersection. The project proponent envisions the relocation of this grocery store to the project site, while the existing building will be occupied by other retail commercial uses. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report consists of three major sections. The first part details the existing and future circulation conditions in the project study area, and the second part provides a thorough traffic engineering review of the proposed project site plan configuration. The final section summarizes the necessary circulation and project site design mitigation measures that will be required for implementation of the proposed projecL The circulation analysis focuses on the existing and future roadway segment operations in the immediate area of the project site and intersection operations at the primary study area intersection of J Street/Third A venue. Existing peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department. As the proposed project is expected to be implemented in the near future, the analysis assumed that the proposed project would be open and fully operational by the Year 1995. With consideration for "passerby trips," the portion of vehicles that visit the project site but would already be on the adjacent roadway network, project 1-1 c:) -/d If ~z CI) !;i o o CI) CI) 0( Its ~ :I: ... ~ .. !:z ..:. <1.)0 f tiS ~ ~u iO:~9 r:. ~ ... ~ ... " ~\ -:J. ~ ,.) (9w ZCI: ~Q XCI) w ....,0'1 'OIOOU" .. 0)- !." 0;, .... A.tn QI" ..0 00 "a. C:e ..- >Q)o ~o- uo= ;:)..0 ...~.: 1-2 ell - / d.,S ~ W It: I- 0) '1 ~ THIP-D STREET ,-..-.) 2 ;( t. " ~.. I ~t~ .. il ~ ~ ....Ji i1 u" II ~ =r ~ - g f I) ~d t': , .. .. ..;:, " '\ ~ ..,...= JeOI-o' .. 1m umi I MttHM -- -- ~ -'~/:1 1-3 en ~ i ~ .. :w: :z: ..... z -< ...:I ;. ~ - rI:) ~ ~ f.: ~ i 0 I;: f = ro:I ~ ;. o " ;. w u ~ ~ .. U> .1'0 2::J A, en !'U ,20 < Cl)D. ~ >E o ..- ..... > GI u iIi ~ u- !:1 00= :J :::;)..0 c5! ....~~ trip generation is estimated. The cumulative trip generation from the existing land uses on the project site are compared to that of the proposed projecL Project site contribution to daily and peak hour traffic volumes is detailed, and analysis of impacts is provided. Additionally, a safety review of the intersections of J Street!Third Avenue adjacent to the project site was conducted. This review involved the analysis of the accident history at this intersection over a three year period (1989-1992). The second part of this repon details the detailed project site design review conducted for this analysis. This section details the adequacy of the number and location of the proposed project site access points. Also, given the close proximity of the Post Office, located to the south of the project site and the shon distance from the J Street!fhird Avenue intersection to the proposed project access driveways, special attention is given to the storage capacity provided for vehicles attempting to turn into the project site via Third Avenue. A detailed review of internal circulation, and an identification of conflict points with passenger vehicles, delivery trucks, and pedestrians are provided. The issue of truck access, minimum turning radius, and circulation is also described. A review of the adequacy of the planned parking supply, design, and passenger vehicle circulation is included in this section. Special consideration is given to pedestrian safety, flow and potential conflict points in this repon. Recommendations for revisions to the proposed project site plan are detailed in this chapter. This repon concludes with a summary of the major findings and recommendations developed for this traffic impact analysis project. ~ .../~ '1 1-4 '. 2. CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This chapter details the assumptions, methodologies and findings of the transportation impact analysis conducted for the Lucky Grocery Store project The existing conditions of roadway segments immediately adjacent to the project site and at the study area intersection of J StreetfThird A venue are defined. Future conditions are also detailed, including estimates of daily and PM peak hour trip generation for the existing and planned land uses under the proposed project scenario. Driveway and passerby trips are estimated and the total new trips are distributed onto the study area circulation network. The resulting circulation system conditions are then assessed. The following data sources were used to define existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project site: . City of Chula Vista Engineering Department, Traffic Flow Report, December 18, 1991. . City of Chula Vista Engineering Department, 1992 Traffic Monitorinl! Prol!Tam, Arterial Sel!ment Level of Service Report. City of Chula Vista Engineering Department, PM peak hour turning movement counts taken on October 27, 1992. . METHODOLOGIES AND THRESHOLD STANDARDS In order to assess the existing and future daily segment levels of service, JHK utilized the methodologies and threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. Segment operating conditions are defined using the City's Roadway Capacity and Level of Service Standards for average daily traffic volumes (ADT). The maximum desired ADT levels for Level of Service (LOS) C conditions are shown in Table 2-1. The basis for the development of this table was the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element (June 1989). Additional sources which provide further traffic engineering criteria used in the development of this table included the City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards (July 1988) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) regional modeling input parameters and guidelines. The values shown on Table 2-1 are not an exact description of the actual operating level of service. The actual functional capacity of roadway facilities are based on the ability of arterial intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service. High quality intersection design could result in higher segment capacity and thus, higher volumes may occur on arterial segments than those shown on Table 2-1 while maintaining adequate perfonnance levels. Therefore, for arterial segments capacity analyses under existing and future (near-tenn) analyses, it is recommended that all study area 2-1 GJ -I tt:!J " Table 2-1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD STANDARDS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Roadway Classification Maximum Desirable ADT Volume LOS C. Arterial Facilities Expressway (6-Lane) Prime Arterial (6-Lane) Major Street (6-Lane) Major Street (4-Lane) Class I Collector (4-Lane) Class IT Collector (3- Lane) Class ill Collector (2-Lane) 70,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 22,000 12,000 7,500 Notes: 1. The volumes shown are intended as planning guidelines to determine the functional classification of roadways under investigation. The values are not an exact description of the anticipated operating level of service. The actual functional capacity of roadway facilities is based on the ability of arterial intersections to accommodate peak hour volumes. Special designs of intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service could result in higher capacities than those shown above. 2. Level of service standards for two-lane collectors (Class IT and ill Collectors) and local streets are not typically evaluated at the General Plan level. Source: City of Chula Vista Design Standards Policy, December 1988. 2-2 :)-/(17 segments be reviewed to determine if the segment operates under or over the recommended LOS threshold (LOS C). This planning tool does, however, provide a guideline which indicates where further analysis is required, while peak hour intersection level of service provides the primary source of information on which actual circulation system performance is based under existing and near-term future timeframes. As a further check of roadway segment operations, JHK obtained information contained in the 1992 Traffic Monitorinl! Proe:ram Arterial Segment Levels of Service study prepared by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department. This study utilized the "Urban and Suburban Arterials" methodology outlined in the 1985 Highwav C/lPacitv Manual (HCM), Chapter 11. This methodology defines level of service, average travel speed, and travel time by direction of travel. The City of Chula Vista has adopted a threshold standard of LOS C as measured by observed travel speeds on all signalized arterial segments, except during peak hours, when LOS D can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. The following table shows the level of service values for arterial segments by average travel speed. Table 2-2 ARTERIAL LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service Average Travel Speed (MPH) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 A B C D E F ~35 ~28 ~22 ~17 ~13 <13 ~30 ~24 ~18 ~14 ~1O <10 ~25 ~19 ~13 ~9 ~7 <7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.. 1985. This report contains existing travel time data for informational purposes under existing conditions only. For the analysis of project impacts it is recommended that peak hour intersection operations be reviewed in detail as described below. Signalized intersection operating conditions during the PM peak hour are assessed using the "Operational Method" outlined in Chapter 9 of the HCM for signalized intersections. The HCM methodology defines level of service as a function of vehicle "Stopped Time Delay." Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The level of service criteria for signalized intersections is shown in Table 2-3. LOS A through C are considered acceptable in all conditions, and LOS D is also considered acceptable in densely 2-3 ~ ~ /J C developed urban study areas, such as the Lucky Grocery Store project area. Level of Service E and F are considered unacceptable, and. if possible, mitigation measures should be implemented to allow LOS A through D conditions to prevail under future conditions. By achieving LOS A-D at all study area intersections under future conditions with the proposed project, all City threshold standards related to performance standards for the circulation system will be met. Table 2-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS HCM METHOD A B C D E F Average Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) <=5.0 5.1- 15.0 15.1 - 25.0 25.1 - 40.0 40.1 - 60.0 60.1 or more Level of Service Source: HCM Chapter 9, "Signalized Intersections." Note: For all capacity calculations JHK has assumed 0 volume for right turn on red. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS This section defines the current circulation network operating conditions on roadway segments immediately adjacent to the project site and at the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue. The purpose of the existing conditions analysis is to document existing segment and intersection levels of service and to provide a baseline for determining project impacts. Roadwav Sepment Oner3tion~ Because of the limited area of impact expected from implementation of the proposed project, the roadway segment operating analysis is confined to J Street between Fourth and Second Avenues. and Third Avenue between I and K Streets. The roadway segments are all classified as Class I and II Collector facilities. Table 2-4 summarizes the existing ADT, LOS C capacities, and relationship to the adopted threshold standards of these four roadway segments. As shown in this table, the segments in question currently experience traffic volumes below the LOS C threshold. The following section details the existing average travel speed on roadway segments in the project vicinity and the associated levels of service. 2-4 ~. 11/ . Table 2-4 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING YEAR 1992/1993 CONDITIONS Relationship to Roadway Segment LOS Capacity · ADT Threshold Standards J Street (Class II Collector) Fourth Avenue - Third Avenue 12,000 11 ,220 Under Third A venue - Second Avenue 12,000 7,640 Under Third Avenue (Class I Collector) I Street - J Street 22,000 21,630 Under J Street - K Street 22,000 24,300 Under . Currently, the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C conditions as a maximum design volume on all Circulation Element facilities. Source: Existing Year 1992 ADT data was derived from Chula Vista traffic counts (Traffic Flow Report, 1993). Using the HCM "Urban and Suburban Arterials" method for determining arterial level of service as a function of average travel speed, the City's Arterial Segment Levels of Service study included all but one of the study area roadway segments (the segment of J Street between Third Avenue and Second Avenue was not included in this study), and an excerpt from this study is shown on Table 2-5. As shown on this table, all study area roadway segments included in the analysis currently operate at LOS B, above the minimum threshold standard of LOS C for acceptable operations. Table 2-5 ARTERIAL SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE EXISTING YEAR 1992 CONDITIONS Direction of Average Speed Average Travel Roadway Segment Travel (MPH) Time (Min:Sec) LOS Third Avenue (Class III) H Street - Naples Street NB 22.0 4:05.3 B SB 20.5 4:24.3 B J Street (Class lID 1-5 NB Ramps - Third Ave. EB 22.0 3:03.6 B WB 22.0 3:04.6 B Source: City of Chula Vista 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program. 2-5 c.1.. I / ~ Although the average travel speed on J Street east of Third Street was not included in this study, given that the average daily traffic volumes on J Street range from 11,370 west of Third Avenue to 7,640 east of Third Avenue, it can be assumed that acceptable arterial levels of service prevail. The discussion of roadway segment level of service presented above is useful as a planning tool to indicate where further analysis is required. However, peak hour intersection level of service provides the primary source of information on which actual circulation system performance is based under Existing Conditions. PM Peak Hour Intersection Onerafions To analyze existing Year 1992 intersection operating conditions, PM peak hour turning movements volumes at the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue were obtained from the City. Due to the proposed land uses (retail commercial), it was determined that the PM peak hour was critical, since only a minimal amount of commercial traffic is expected during the morning peak period (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM). Analyzing the peak hour is important because this generally places the highest demand on the surrounding street system. Level of Service for the PM peak hour was calculated using the "Operational Method" for determining average vehicle stopped time delay as detailed previously in this chapter. The results of this analysis are shown below: Table 2-6 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING YEAR 1992 CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Approach Delay (see) Approach LOS EB 14.8 B WB 7.8 B NB 9.3 B SB 12.6 B 11.5 B J Streetffhird Avenue Overall Intersection Operations Source: JHK & Associates Note; The peak hour factOI' (PHF) for the eastbound approach is .91 and for the westbound approach is .98. As shown, the intersection currently experiences a PM peak hour level of service B on each approach, with an overall intersection stopped time delay of 11.5 seconds per vehicle, well within the LOS D threshold standard adopted by the City. The detailed HCM worksheets used in this analysis are contained in Appendix A of this document. 2-6 ~ -1/3 Accidents The folJowing accident data was provided to JHK by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department regarding the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue for the period of January I, 1989 to October 10, 1992. Number of Collision Types Accidents Percent Head On 2 10.5 Rear End 3 15.8 Broadside 11 57.9 Hit Object 1 5.3 AutolPedestrian 2 10.5 Total Accidents 19 100.0 The City has indicated that the occurrence of 19 accidents over a thirty four month period is not atypical for an urban intersection such as J Street/Third A venue. However, the characteristics of these accidents indicate that the intersection may warrant traffic signal improvements to provide left turn phasing. In addition, field observations indicate restrictions to Northbound! Southbound left turn movements due to higher opposing traffic volumes and lack of adequate gaps during peak periods. Thus, the City of Chula Vista should consider the provision of left turn phasing to improve traffic operations at this intersection. Summarv - Existinp Condition!'; This section has documented the existing roadway segment conditions in terms of level of service by average daily traffic volumes and average travel speed. Also PM peak hour intersection operations were defined in terms of average vehicle stopped time delay. In each. instance, the calculated level of service for study area roadway segments and intersections were found to operate in conformance with the adopted threshold standards. From an operational standpoint, no roadway segment or intersection improvements are required at this time to accommodate existing travel demand. The accident data compiled along with field observations at the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue indicates that the intersection may warrant traffic signal improvements to provide left turn phasing. The City of Chula Vista should consider the provision of this phasing to improve traffic operations at this intersection. The remainder of this chapter presents the future operating conditions that can be expected with or without the implementation of the proposed project. 2-7 ~ -11'/ FUTURE CONDITIONS This chapter defines the expected driveway and cumulative trip generation from the existing land uses and the proposed project. Also, an estimate of future growth in traffic is estimated. Project trips are distributed onto the adjacent roadway network and the resulting circulation system operations are summarized. Passerby Trio Contribution As mentioned previously in this document, the issue of passerby trip contribution is critical to the understanding of the actual impacts the proposed project will have on study area roadway segments and the primary study area intersection (J Street/Third A venue). The traffic which will result from the implementation of the proposed project is estimated using standard trip generation rates and peak hour factors for each category of land use. These rates have been developed by various agencies and summarized by SANDAG in their Traffic Generators manual. According to SANDAG, the proposed 50,000 square foot grocery store will generate a total of 150 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). The associated 12,000 square feet of retail commercial space to be located on the site is expected to generate 40 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of GFA. Some of the trips generated by the project will already be on the street system and linked with other trips. This type of driver behavior is known as "passerby trips". The City of San Diego has completed research on passerby trips through detailed surveys at similar sites in the City of San Diego. Passerby trips refer to a driver stopping at a commercial establishment during the conduct of another trip, then continuing on the original trip. Therefore,. the vehicle is already on the adjacent street system and should not be "double counted" by the gross traffic generation rate. The recommended cumulative or linked trip rate for a grocery store and retail commercial spaces is 40 trips per 1,000 square feet ofGFA. Thus, based on the City of San Diego passerby study, approximately 74 percent of the total number of vehicles are assumed to already be in the traffic stream. This trip reduction was confirmed with the City Traffic Engineer (Mr. Harold Rosenberg, November 10, 1992). Trio Generation/Distribution Using the standard SANDAG trip generation rates and the cumulative trip generation rates developed by the City of San Diego, Table 2-7 summarizes the estimated daily and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the project site under the existing land uses (church and pre-school) and under the proposed project (grocery store and commercial shops). As shown on this table, although the total daily trips generated by the site under the proposed project land use scenario is almost ten times rnore than the daily trip under the existing land uses, when the passerby trips are removed (to avoid double counting for vehicles already in the traffic stream 2-8 .;11-/1.5 - >. .,'" 0 < C; ::c ....- "'43 0 -5 .- ., -..c "'"0 5_ ..cc Cc .:0= .,., 1 ... 0 9 "1 ~ <..- ..!:!1;! <<1- p..", ~~ S ... '" .- ., ~ c; - 9 .,p 55 ; \C ~'E .,a - .... ...,. =- -5", g. 0 ... - N ..c~ I- "'- ",d .~ ::I "'S ~~ :z (J ... QI :;1- ~~ 0 >~ C ... ;:M ...,. ~ '" 8 1 \C .,.- I- '"~ 00 g ... .~ u t., -< :; '" .... IIj, CI).~ "'F ... N -'" == e .;: N ~c (J I.:i .=0 ..::. "'... ...~ :z u 0... <<I'" I.:i s..o t:I.9- C ...'" .,t:I 1 ..c'- oS1;- g. - ...,. 9 '" 8 1 \C -'" >.~ ..c~ ... :; ~ 00 =- ... 0... == .... =- .,., =- bl)d -., ... ,.: ~ '" C "0'" ... Q'I: 0<<1 .,'" == ... ... ... "0 <<I . ..c..c "0 p..", ;:J :;- d"'C 0 0 "'c l! "'.- c- ::c d.- ._ (J .::: .::: p.."O "OS" I";' ~ .::: "0... '3f1)~ g p.. 1i - '" o Q.,~ N -< .C ~ 1i :2 go '" '" 0\ QI I.:i 0 ~.t:.S - :is ...- :c 8 8 ~~ - g. >.'" 8 ~~"O N .. ~ ::== ~ <<I", ..c::; 'N I- '" - .,., - - ..c... -d 0_ g. Q ~ 0- 0- -... "'''0 '" 0\", '" '" ... - 0\", Q - .,., ...,. ..!:!bI) U II 5 - bI) - :z .!:!t::: .- '" S e:-'" -< ..c... ..c p.. bI) d-< U._ (.) ...", >t:I", "'...: >- > ... ... Cd "'" 'OF 0">' d'" .::: c .::: .::: > <<I ""c - QI ~ ... ....- ~ -d -< "'- 1i 1i 1i l!,,; l!:o"O Oj~ Q ;:J 'Ii; :2 S.~ s:; d '" Q 'Cc 8 :c ~ ~ ",se c c c~ (J "'- c"'_ dO I.:i '"c .,., c~ "'<.IC ~.~ ... "'"- N N 0 N <a., -5 .... ",'" -< - ..1;1 ... ... .... .,., - OC OC ~ -... <a ..~ -... - "'0 ",Cog fO !;; -5>. 5"=_ c ~p.. >. -;i: cn~O ....C ~ - =., p.'~!i .01- ~ 'E 0 if~ ... 1;1 "'<.10 .!:! fZ: CO E ",<"0 S .- f'- "::: ... ~ e~ = '" .E" " ca CI)'- 8...0 rJ p.. a~ -0- ::io a ;;S p..... 0 >. .- '" p..~ "',..... ~8. ..c - >.> S e.= <<rI:J ';a .- ->. f rI:J .,- " p.. e 'C <.1_ 0-5[;1 ctd~'O ;j c .....c g <a u= p.. c -~ :.:: ~ .. rl:JO rI:J .~ "'" .....bI) 8_ M ~<.- ..cC ..c ._ e:- ~ - rl:JU ~:a <.I..c ... .5 rI:J<.I ~ == ~E ;,; - o~ 8 ... '" 0 ;,; '.. !! ~ I.:i = " 0 0 ... :z rI:J 2-9 dl-/I(, adjacent to the project site). the net increase in daily traffic volume is 1,507 vehicles daily and 62 vehicles in the PM peak hour. It is important to understand that for the analysis of roadway segments and intersections adjacent to the project site, the cumulative daily and peak hour trips are added to future traffic volumes. For the analysis of internal circulation and driveway operations, the total daily trips (cumulative plus passerby trips) are used. The distribution of trips generally results from an estimation of ultimate travel destinations and the determination of which elements of the street system would be used to reach those destinations. The basis for this recognition is the driver's consideration of time, distance and convenience in choosing a route. Trip distribution for this project was based on JHK's knowledge of traffic patterns in the Chula Vista area and previous experience with other similar projects. Figure 2-1 shows the distribution of project traffic onto the adjacent roadway network. As shown on this figure, it is assumed that the majority of the trips associated with the project would access the site via Third A venue (seventy percent) and over half of these trips would orient to and from the north on Third Avenue. Thirty percent of the project trips would access the site via J Street, evenly split between east and west. Figure 2-2 shows the assignment of the cumulative daily and peak hour trips generated by the proposed Lucky Grocery Store project. These trips will be added to the projected traffic volumes for Year 1995. The following section details the methodology and findings of the future Year 1995 conditions analysis of the "No Project" Alternative, which assumes the existing land uses on the site will remain unchanged, and the projected impacts of implementing the proposed project. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS - YEAR 1995 The following assumptions were used in the projection of future Year 1995 traffic volumes on the study area circulation network: . First, since the existing Lucky Grocery Store building, currently located on the northwest quadrant of the J Street/Third A venue intersection, is expected to remain and be converted into other retail uses, no reduction in trip generation from the site has been assumed. . Second, a standard annual growth rate of two percent has been applied to existing daily and PM peak hour traffic volumcs to simulate expected increases in traffic due to other development projects in the City of Chula Vista. The resulting volumes were used to define Year 1995 "No Project" conditions. . Third, as stated in the previous section, only cumulative trips associated with the project (total trips minus passerby trips) have added to the Year 1995 Base Condition volumes. 2-10 ~rl/7 en !ii () ~ 0 'i ~ ! .,. otS .... ~ % .... ~ 1 ~ z ae ~ o~ II) ~ 50 !~ == -~ ~ ~ - f!J<on , rn~~ II( N _Cl.~ t Q::;; = e::CI.< .. ~ f!JQ~ ~II( :z>- . E-< ~ ~~ ~\ 0< ~ ~ c:l:Q CI. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ 0>- !." ~ o~ .... Q.CI) ~ GI" IJ ..0 1 ~~ 00 ill) "0. ~E .. - >Glo ~o;: 00- ;:)..0 _dH: Third Avenue 1( )I 2-11 -? -/1 B en ~ () IS. 0 ~jE ~ ~ Qj ~~ c lIS I!! z ~- ~ i'ii w E "-g % .... (J) ~u .... w <( .... a a ~ :;' ~ .. ~ W > 5 ;:J ~II) I;,)~ ~- 1-" z< Ww ::E>o z' CI" -~ il .... V,) 0 , V,)::c ... <~ -- ~ 8~ --", 1;,)< :g~ == Ew -~ ....~ .. 1( ~ !O: <I:- Third Avenue ..: ~ ~f ~I CiCi wz '1-< ~~ w- z< wCi CI l- I;,) W .... 0 " I:- .. 0>- .!" ~I O::s .... ~ ~ Q.CI) .... .... CD" P) ..0 ~~ 00 "0. 0... Cl)E '" A. >-- .. >CDO ~O;: 00- :)..0 ....~~ ~,II ? 2-12 . Finally, the same geometric and signal phasing assumption used in the Existing Conditions Analysis are used in the following analysis of future Year 1995 segment and intersection operation. Sel!menf Canacitv Analvsis . Future Year 1995 f'ntditions Table 2-8 summarizes the forecasted ADT traffic volumes under the "No Project" and "Proposed Project" land use scenarios. As shown on this table, with the assumed annual growth rate of two percent, projected ADTs on J Street and Third Avenue are expected to exceed the LOS C operating threshold under each land use scenario, with or without the proposed project. Under the proposed project land use scenario, the project contributes two to three percent to the total daily traffic volumes on these impacted segments. As mentioned previously, the analysis of segment performance and impacts is only provided for review purposes. To precisely define circulation system impacts under Future Year 1995 conditions, the following analysis of PM peak hour intersection operation is provided. Intersection Canacitv Analvsis - Future Year 1995 Conditions Table 2-9 summarizes the forecasted PM peak hour intersection operating conditions under the "No Project" and the "Proposed Project" land use scenarios. As shown on this table, even with the two percent annual growth in traffic, the intersection of J Street/Third A venue is expected to maintain LOS B under each land use scenario, with or without the proposed project. Under the proposed project land use scenario, the project contributes four percent to the total PM peak hour entering volumes at this intersection. Appendix B of this document contains the detailed HCM worksheets used in this analysis. ,;; _ I.. (J 2-13 C 0 - 'St;= C 2:"'= ~ ~ ~ ~ E ....,Q .. Q-- N '" '" N .!! ~...= c..c..C I1J 0 C t,,) 0 .- - OS - 0 = Eo- .~ Q, "C '" t,,) -;.. __-"'C .. :; ~ .QO.. ~ u .. .. ",.Q .. "C u u , C~"C 0 C 0 0 .. 0 O..C ~ oS .. .- .. c.. -.Q- 0) "C .!!Eo-V) e ... 1.:1 ~ =: = t,,) "0 ... > ;> E 0 N ... r-- C Q=: * bO c.. * N -0 '" 0\ 'iij :zf}3 - Eo- '" '" -0 ... u Q N 00 ,..; ,..; "C !i <", < - N N e e V)O = -5 1.:1 V) e ::;..:1 0 'j( ~ ~I.:I f- .. 0 ..:I;> Q, "C '" e to 01.:1 __'Q"'C .. .. - ;>..:1 .c.=; .. ... .. .. C u ... u :i u .... ~ fI)"C 0 "C 0 > R t,,)V) o...c C 0 '" CIC ...:z &: .-... = ~ C . 1::9 . -.c_ .2 '" E .!!Eo-V) - 0 ... <f- ... :a ! :c; =:... c.. =: c: .. Eo-Q 0 0 "a Eo- >:z :z u = : * -0 00 ...,. 0\ U c: ..:10 c: * -0 0 II'> 00 <I) OS ...t,,) 5 0 - 0\ -0 g i ~~ N 00 N N ... N N < .. "C 1.:1- oS i ~=: '" ~ < r:>. "C ~ c: ;>1.:1 N N N N g <=: ... ... N N .- ~ ;> - .. OS ~ - u = 'C '"" ~ a g .. '" 0 ... .- 0) i 0 ..c: 0) = ~ C .,; ,.... = C 0 = ... !! .. 0) C5 .- j co 0) > u os - > < t,,) 'g ~ < 0) - oS ~ ]; "0 :! = BI >,. 1 0 u ... * - < > < . , * * t < - - u '€ ... ... 0; ] "CI g g ~ .. ~ - = :s = V) 0 ~ <I) <I) 0 .... u.. f- ... ... :z <I) :J -leJ I 2-14 Table 2.9 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS FUTURE YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS "No Project" "Proposed Proiect" Cumulative Approacb Approaeb Approacb Approoeb Project Trip Intersection Approach Delay (see) LOS Delay (see) LOS Contribution J Street/Third Avenue EB 17.3 C 17.8 C 3% WB 7.9 B 8.0 B 5% NB 9.6 B 9.9 B 5% SB 13.9 B 15.3 C 4% Overall Intersection Operations 12.6 B 13.4 B 4% Source: JHK & Associates. Summarv - Future Year 1995 Conditions The future conditions analysis described in the previous section revealed that the following roadway segments are expected to experience daily traffic volumes in excess of the LOS C threshold standards: . J Street between 4th Avenue and Third Avenue . Third A venue between I Street and J Street . Third A venue between J Street and K Street However, as stated previously, the PM peak hour intersection operations provide the primary source of information on which the assessment of actual circulation system performance is based. The PM peak hour intersection capacity analysis found the intersection to maintain level of service B both with and without the implementation of the proposed Lucky Grocery Store project. Thus, from a circulation perspective, no significant impacts were found as a result of the project under Year 1995 conditions. As stated previously in this chapter, the existing accident data compiled for the intersection of J StreetlThird Avenue along with field observations, indicates that the intersection may warrant traffic signal improvements to provide left turn phasing. However, the traffic generated from the proposed project site is not expected to significantly contribute to the amount of accidents expected to occur at this intersection. To improve the traffic operations at this intersection, the City of Chula Vista should consider the provision of left turn phasing. 2-15 ~ - /';;; ';(, Analvsis of ImDacts . BuiJdout General Plan Conditions The change in use from the existing church and day care center on the project site to the proposed retail commercial shopping center will have an impact on the adopted General Plan for this portion of the City. Currently, the adopted General Plan land use assumptions designate this parcel as Professional Office/Administrative which is different than the intended commercial use. This change in land use will require a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the area. From a transportation planning perspective, however, the rnain issue is that regardless of the type of use, will the total number of trips generated by the site remain approximately the same. If the gross number of project trips are the same under both land use scenarios, then it can be said that there will be no impact. Since the determination of how much professional office space is not governed by preset floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, the only limitation to the amount of development is the required onsite parking. The City of Chula Vista currently requires 1 space for every 200 square feet of GF A. Thus, approximately twenty percent more professional office space could be built on the project site than would be allowed if the site were to be used for retail commercial shops. The SANDAG trip rate for office uses ranges from 20 daily trips per 1,000 square feet for a medical office. The cumulative trip rate for retail shops has been estimated to be 40 daily trips per 1,000 square feet. Thus, with the range of possible uses under the General Plan land use designation and the opportunity to increase the amount of office space beyond that allowed for retail commercial development (due to onsite parking restraints) it is possible to conclude that no significant impacts to the adopted General Plan Circulation Element will be created as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and the associated rezoning of the project site. As requested by the City of Chula Vista, JHK conducted a worst case traffic analysis of potential trip generation for this site. Appendix C contains a copy of this traffic analysis report conducted in August 1993. Conc-ltl~ion Based on the analysis of future traffic conditions (Year 1995 and Buildout General Plan), it has been determined that no geometric improvements to the critical study intersection of J Street/Third A venue will be required. Thus, the existing geometric configuration of this intersection will provide adequate capacity, and acceptable levels of service will result upon the implementation of this project. It is anticipated that the project will be required to contribute to the City of Chula Vista's Traffic Signal System Fee program along with other typical development fees established by the City. The following chapter details the project site design review conducted for this project. ~ ,1a3 2-16 . 3. PROJECT SITE PLAN REVIEW The proposed Lucky store site in Chula Vista was reviewed for site design requirements. The issues addressed include: . Adequacy/location of proposed site access points . Internal circulation . Truck access . Adequacy of parking supply . Parking design/circulation . Pedestrian safety JHK's comments of these issues follows: 1. The driveway on Third Avenue nearest J Street will pose conflicts with vehicles making V-turns on Third Avenue and is too close to the intersection. Driveways should be approximately 300' from the intersection. 2. The truck circulation within the project site provides adequate turning radii, but it poses a conflict point with shoppers entering and exiting the store in front. 3. the number of parking spaces proposed (315) is just adequate when based on 1 space/200 sft. Removal of any spaces would produce an inadequate number of spaces. 4. Parking spaces are sometimes unusable because shopping carts are left in them' instead of being returned to the store or cart corrals. The addition of cart corrals near the middle of the parking rows would be beneficial. 5. The southern most entrance to the site (near the Moose Lodge) will have left turn vehicles waiting for adequate gaps in the north/south traffic along Third Avenue. As these vehicles queue on-site, shoppers will not be able to back their cars out of their parking stalls, In order to improve the circulation, design, and operation of the proposed Lucky site, JHK suggests the following recommendations: 1. Remove the northern most driveway along Third Avenue. 2. Reconfigure the parking aisle along the southern driveway to eliminate parking conflicts. One solution for preventing conflicts with vehicles rnaking U-turns on Third A venue and vehicles accessing the project site would be to consolidate the two driveways on Third Avenue into one central driveway located at the center of the property frontage on Third Avenue. 3-1 Ol-/tiJ1' However, the most efficient way of resolving site access issues is for the Project Proponent and the Project Architect to meet with the City Traffic Engineer directly to best address City concerns regarding access. 3-2 ~"'J~S 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITIONS The calculated level of service for study area roadway segments and intersections were found to be in conformance with the adopted threshold standards from an operation standpoint, no roadway segment or intersection improvements are required at this time to accommodate existing travel demand. As a condition of development the City of Chula Vista should require the dedication of additional right-of-way along the northern property line of the proposed site. This additional right-of-way will allow for the constrUction of a new exclusive right turn only lane for eastbound J Street traffic to proceed southbound on Third Avenue. FUTURE YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS The future conditions analysis of roadway segment capacity revealed that Third Avenue between I Street and K Street and J Street between Fourth Avenue and Third Avenue would experience daily traffic volumes in excess of the LOS C threshold standards. However, since the PM peak hour intersection operations provide the primary source of information on which the assessment of actual circulation system performance is based, and the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue was found to maintain LOS B both with and without the implementation of the proposed Lucky Grocery Store project, no significant impacts were found under Year 1995 conditions. The accident data compiled for the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue indicates that the intersection may warrant traffic signal improvements to provide left turn phasing to improve traffic operations at this intersection. It is anticipated that the project will be required to contribute to the City's Traffic Signal Fee program along with other development fees established by the City but no specific geometries mitigation measures are required for this project. PROJECT SITE PLAN REVIEW In order to improve the circulation design, and operation of the proposed Lucky site, JHK suggests the removal of the northern most driveway along Third Avenue and the reconfiguration of the parking aisle along the southern driveway to eliminate parking conflicts. It is recommended that the Project Proponent consult with the City Traffic Engineer to develop the fmal site access plan for the site. ~,I"2.. 4-1 APPENDIX A HCM SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS EXISTING YEAR 1992 CONDITIONS. PM PEAK HOUR 0; .'-7 . 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT **********************.****************..***********.**.****************** INTERSECTION.. J Street/Third Avenue AREA TYPE.... .OTHER ANALYST.......PAB DATE..........12-01-1992 TIME..........PM Peak Hour COMMENT.......Existing Year 1992 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 71 95 54 57 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 255 163 622 866 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 207 37 43 92 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 50 Y 25.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 50 Y 25.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 50 Y 22.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 50 Y 22.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.132 0.450 7.3 B 14.8 B TR 0.797 0.450 16.0 C WB L 0.306 0.450 8.2 B 7.8 B T 0.231 0.450 7.7 B R 0.079 0.450 7.2 B NB L 0.297 0.450 8.2 B 9.3 B TR 0.532 0.450 9.4 B SB L 0.189 0.450 7.6 B 12.6 B TR 0.788 0.450 12.8 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 11.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.792 LOS = B ~ -I Pi 2J . INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Page-2 ====================================================================== NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION INCLUDING TURN BAYS: EASTBOUND = 2 WESTBOUND = 3 NORTHBOUND = 3 SOUTHBOUND = 3 EB WB NB LANE TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 2 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 3 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 4 5 SB TYPE WIDTH L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12 . 0 6 L - EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT - LEFT/THROUGH LANE LR - LEFT/RIGHT ONLY LANE LTR - LEFT/THROUGH/RIGHT LANE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS T - EXCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE TR - THROUGH/RIGHT LANE R - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT LANE ====================================================================~= GRADE HEAVY VEH. ADJACENT PKG BUSES (%) (%) Y/N (Nm) (Nb) PHF ---------- EASTBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 WESTBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 NORTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 Nm = number of parking maneuvers/hr; Nb = number of buses stopping/hr CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAN BU'I"rON (peds/hour) (Y/N) (min T) ARRIVAL TYPE ---------------- ----------------- ------------ EASTBOUND SO Y 25.8 3 WESTBOUND SO Y 25.8 3 NORTHBOUND SO Y 22.8 3 SOUTHBOUND SO Y 22.8 3 min T = minimum green time for pedestrians IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 J Street Third Avenue 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour .:; ../ 2. " . SIGNAL SETTINGS - OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Page-3 ====================================================================== PRETIMED LOST TIME/PHASE = 3.0 CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 EAST/WEST PHASING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 EASTBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X WESTBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X NORTHBOUND RT SOUTHBOUND RT GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NORTH/SOUTH PHASING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 NORTHBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X SOUTHBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X EASTBOUND RT WESTBOUND RT GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 J Street Third Avenue 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour ~- J 3<!J VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-4 ====================================================================== LANE LANE ADJ. MVT. ADJ. LANE GRP. NO. UTIL. GROWTH GRP. PROP PROP VOL. PHF VOL. GRP. VOL. LN FACT. FACT. VOL. LT RT ------ EB LT 71 0.98 72 L 72 1 1. 000 1. 000 72 1.00 0.00 TH 255 0.98 260 TR 471 1 1. 000 1. 000 471 0.00 0.45 RT 207 0.98 211 WB LT 95 0.88 108 L 108 1 1. 000 1.000 108 1.00 0.00 TH 163 0.88 185 T 185 1 1. 000 1.000 185 0.00 0.00 RT 37 0.88 42 R 42 1 1. 000 1. 000 42 0.00 1.00 NB LT 54 0.93 58 L 58 1 1. 000 1. 000 58 1.00 0.00 TH 622 0.93 669 TR 715 2 1. 050 1. 000 751 0.00 0.06 RT 43 0.93 46 SB LT 57 0.91 63 L 63 1 1. 000 1. 000 63 1. 00 0.00 TH 866 0.91 952 TR 1053 2 1. 050 1. 000 1105 0.00 0.10 RT 92 0.91 101 * Denotes a Defacto Left Turn Lane Group IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 J Street Third Avenue 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour 0(-/111 SUPPLEMENTARY WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR Page-5 INPUT VARIABLES ========================================================================== SB EB WB NB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cycle Length, C (see) Effective Green, G (see) Number of Lanes, N Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) Left-Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol., Plto 60.0 27.0 1 544 471 72 1. 000 1 227 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 335 227 108 1. 000 1 471 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 773 715 58 1. 000 2 1053 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 1115 1053 63 1.000 2 715 0.000 COMPUTATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB EB WB NB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))) Yo=Vo/Sop Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(l-Yo) FS=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) Gq=G-Gu Pt=l-Pl Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl El=1800/(1400-Vo) Fm=Gf/G+ (Gu/G) (1/ (l+Pl (E1-1) ) ) + (UG) (1+P1) Flt= (Fm+N-1) /N IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1800 0.126 22.231 0.733 1.000 4.769 0.000 0.000 1.53 0.685 0.685 1800 0.262 15.290 0.580 1. 00 0 11. 710 0.000 0.000 1.94 0.440 0.440 3600 0.292 13.362 0.217 1.000 13.638 0.000 0.000 5.18 0.244 0.244 3600 0.199 18.821 0.428 1. 000 8.179 0.000 0.000 2.63 0.413 0.413 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 J Street Third Avenue 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour t5}. I ~~ SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-6 ======================================================================= IDEAL ADJ. SAT. NO. f f f f f f f f SAT. FLOW LNS W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1.000 0.685 1220 TR 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1. 000 0.800 1. 000 1. 000 0.922 1.000 1315 WB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.440 785 T 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1.000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1782 R 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.800 1. 000 1. 000 0.826 1.000 1178 NB L 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.244 434 TR 1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 0.890 1. 000 1. 000 0.989 1. 000 3136 SB L 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1. 000 1.000 0.413 737 TR 1800 2 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.890 1.000 1. 000 0.983 1. 000 3119 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 ~ ~ I ~.3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Page-7 ====================================================================== f ADJ. ADJ. SAT. FLOW LANE GROUP FLOW RATE FLOW RATE RATIO GREEN RATIO CAPACITY v/c (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) RATIO --------- --------- ----------- ---------- EB L 72 1220 0.059 0.450 549 0.132 TR 471 1315 0.359 0.450 592 0.797 * WE L 108 785 0.138 0.450 353 0.306 T 185 1782 0.104 0.450 802 0.231 R 42 1178 0.036 0.450 530 0.079 NB L 58 434 0.134 0.450 195 0.297 TR 751 3136 0.239 0.450 1411 0.532 SB L 63 737 0.085 0.450 332 0.189 TR 1105 3119 0.354 0.450 1404 0.788 * Cycle Length, C = 60.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.713 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.792 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS... . OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 J Street Third Avenue 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour ~..I'3'-1 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Page-8 ====================================================================== DELAY LANE DELAY LANE LANE DELAY LOS v/c g/C CYCLE d GROUP d PROG. GRP. GRP. BY BY RATIO RATIO LEN. 1 CAP. 2 FACT. DELAY LOS APP. APP. EB L 0.132 0.450 60.0 7.3 549 0.0 1.00 7.3 B 14.8 B TR 0.797 0.450 60.0 10.8 592 5.2 1.00 16.0 C WB L 0.306 0.450 60.0 8.0 353 0.2 1.00 8.2 B 7.8 B T 0.231 0.450 60.0 7.7 802 0.0 1. 00 7.7 B R 0.079 0.450 60.0 7.2 530 0.0 1. 00 7.2 B NB L 0.297 0.450 60.0 8.0 195 0.3 1.00 8.2 B 9.3 B TR 0.532 0.450 60.0 9.1 1411 0.3 1.00 9.4 B SB L 0.189 0.450 60.0 7.5 332 0.0 1.00 7.6 B 12.6 B TR 0.788 0.450 60.0 10.7 1404 2.2 1. 00 12.8 B Intersection Delay = 11.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... OTHER INFORMATION: Existing Year 1992 J Street Third Avenue 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour 0l..J'35 APPENDIX B HCM SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR PART I. "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE PART ll. "PROPOSED PROJECT" "',/3" APPENDIX B.PARTI HCM SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS YEAR 1995 CONDmONS PM PEAK HOUR "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE ,,:;,/3'1 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************....**...***************************** INTERSECTION.. J Street/Third Avenue AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......PAB DATE..........12-01-1992 TIME..........PM Peak Hour COMMENT.......Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 75 99 57 60 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 271 173 660 919 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 220 39 46 96 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 50 Y 25.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 50 Y 25.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 50 Y 22.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 50 Y 22.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETI'INGS CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.142 0.450 7.4 B 17.3 C TR 0.847 0.450 18.9 C WB L 0.340 0.450 8.4 B 7.9 B T 0.245 0.450 7.8 B R 0.084 0.450 7.2 B NB L 0.348 0.450 8.7 B 9.6 B TR 0.565 0.450 9.7 B SB L 0.212 0.450 7.7 B 13.9 B TR 0.834 0.450 14.2 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.841 LOS = B ':;,132i' 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-l ........******....**.........****...................**.***...****.**** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ====================================================================== NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET........ J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET...... Third Avenue AREA TYPE........................... OTHER NAME OF THE ANALyST................. PAB DATE OF THE ANALySIS................ 12-01-1992 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project TRAFFIC VOLUMES ====================================================================== EB WB NB SB LEFT 75 99 57 60 THRU 271 173 660 919 RIGHT 220 39 46 96 RTOR 0 0 0 0 (RTOR volume must be less than or equal to RIGHT turn volumes.) ;j-/31 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Page-2 ====================================================================== NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION INCLUDING TURN BAYS: EASTBOUND = 2 WESTBOUND = 3 NORTHBOUND = 3 SOUTHBOUND = 3 EB WB NB SB LANE TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 2 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 3 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 4 5 6 L - EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT - LEFT/THROUGH LANE LR - LEFT/RIGHT ONLY LANE LTR - LEFT/THROUGH/RIGHT LANE T - EXCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE TR - THROUGH/RIGHT LANE R - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT LANE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ====================================================================== GRADE HEAVY VEH. ADJACENT PKG BUSES (%) (%) Y/N (Nm) (Nb) PHF ---------- EASTBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 WESTBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 NORTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 Nm = number of parking maneuvers/hr; Nb = number of buses stopping/hr CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAN BUTTON (peds/hour) (Y/N) (min T) ARRIVAL TYPE ---------------- ----------------- ------------ EASTBOUND 50 y 25.8 3 WESTBOUND 50 Y 25.8 3 NORTHBOUND 50 Y 22.8 3 SOUTHBOUND 50 Y 22.8 3 min T = minimum green time for pedestrians IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project ,,> _ 1.1/' cJ SIGNAL SETTINGS - OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Page-3 ====================================================================== PRETIMED LOST TIME/PHASE = 3.0 CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 EAST/WEST PHASING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 EASTBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X WESTBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X NORTHBOUND RT SOUTHBOUND RT GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NORTH/SOUTH PHASING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 NORTHBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X SOUTHBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X EASTBOUND RT WESTBOUND RT GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project ,;J ~I 'II YOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-4 ====================================================================== LANE LANE ADJ. MVT. ADJ. LANE GRP. NO. UTIL. GROWTH GRP. PROP PROP YOLo PHF YOLo GRP. YOLo LN FACT. FACT. YOLo LT RT ------ EB LT 75 0.98 77 L 77 1 1. 000 1.000 77 1.00 0.00 TH 271 0.98 277 TR 501 1 1. 000 1. 000 501 0.00 0.45 RT 220 0.98 224 we LT 99 0.88 113 L 113 1 1. 000 1.000 113 1.00 0.00 TH 173 0.88 197 T 197 1 1. 000 1. 000 197 0.00 0.00 RT 39 0.88 44 R 44 1 1.000 1. 000 44 0.00 1.00 NB LT 57 0.93 61 L 61 1 1. 000 1. 000 61 1.00 0.00 TH 660 0.93 710 TR 759 2 1. 050 1. 000 797 0.00 0.07 RT 46 0.93 49 SB LT 60 0.91 66 L 66 1 1. 000 1. 000 66 1.00 0.00 TH 919 0.91 1010 TR 1115 2 1. 050 1. 000 1171 0.00 0.09 RT 96 0.91 105 * Denotes a Defacto Left Turn Lane Group IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project ~ ../ ~ :i? SUPPLEMENTARY WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR Page-5 INPUT VARIABLES ========================================================================== SB EB WE NB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cycle Length, C (sec) Effective Green, G (sec) Number of Lanes, N Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) Mainline Flow Rate, vm (vph) Left-Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, PIt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol., PI to 60.0 27.0 1 578 501 77 1. 000 1 241 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 353 241 113 1. 000 1 501 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 820 759 61 1. 000 2 1115 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 1181 1115 66 1.000 2 759 0.000 COMPUTATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB EB WB NB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))) Yo=Vo/Sop GU=(G-C*Yo)/(l-Yo) FS=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 Pl=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) Gq=G-Gu Pt=l-Pl Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/Pl El=1800/(1400-Vo) Frn=Gf/G+(Gu/G) (1/(1+P1(El-1)) )+(2IG) (l+Pl) Flt=(Frn+N-1)/N IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1800 0.134 21. 901 0.724 1. 000 5.099 0.000 0.000 1.55 0.670 0.670 1800 0.278 14 . 272 0.562 1. 000 12.728 0.000 0.000 2.00 0.412 0.412 3600 0.310 12.186 0.178 1. 000 14.814 0.000 0.000 6.32 0.220 0.220 3600 0.211 18.182 0.401 1. 000 8.818 0.000 0.000 2.81 0.388 0.388 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project .:} , / tt .!J- SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-6 ====================---================================================ IDEAL ADJ. SAT. NO. f f f f f f f f SAT. FLOW LNS W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1.000 0.670 1195 TR 1800 1 1. 00 0 0.990 1. 000 0.800 1. 000 1. 000 0.922 1. 000 1315 WB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1.000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.412 734 T 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1782 R 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.800 1. 000 1.000 0.826 1. 000 1178 NB L 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1.000 0.220 391 TR 1800 2 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.890 1. 000 1.000 0.989 1. 000 3136 SB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.388 691 TR 1800 2 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.890 1. 000 1. 000 0.984 1. 000 3120 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER, INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project ~-II{-f CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Page-7 ====================================================================== ADJ. ADJ. SAT. FLOW LANE GROUP FLOW RATE FLOW 'RATE RATIO GREEN RATIO CAPACITY v/c (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) RATIO --------- --------- ----------- ---------- EB L 77 1195 0.064 0.450 538 0.142 TR 501 1315 0.381 0.450 592 0.847 * WB L 113 734 0.153 0.450 330 0.340 T 197 1782 0.110 0.450 802 0.245 R 44 1178 0.038 0.450 530 0.084 NB L 61 391 0.157 0.450 176 0.348 TR 797 3136 0.254 0.450 1411 0.565 SB L 66 691 0.095 0.450 311 0.212 TR 1171 3120 0.375 0.450 1404 0.834 * Cycle Length, C = 60.0 sec. Sum (v/s) critical = 0.757 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.841 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project ,;:; -/ ~..5 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Page-8 ====================================================================== DELAY LANE DELAY LANE LANE DELAY LOS v/c g/C CYCLE d GROUP d PROG. GRP. GRP. BY BY RATIO RATIO LEN. 1 CAP. 2 FACT. DELAY LOS APP. APP. EB L 0.142 0.450 60.0 7.4 538 0.0 1.00 7.4 B 17.3 C TR 0.847 0.450 60.0 11.1 592 7.7 1.00 18.9 C WB L 0.340 0.450 60.0 8.1 330 0.2 1.00 8.4 B 7.9 B T 0.245 0.450 60.0 7.8 802 0.0 1.00 7.8 B R 0.084 0.450 60.0 7.2 530 0.0 1.00 7.2 B NB L 0.348 0.450 60.0 8.2 176 0.5 1.00 8.7 B 9.6 B TR 0.565 0.450 60.0 9.2 1411 0.4 1.00 9.7 B SB L 0.212 0.450 60.0 7.6 311 0.1 1.00 7.7 B 13.9 B TR 0.834 0.450 60.0 11.0 1404 3.2 1.00 14.2 B Intersection Delay = 12.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and no project ~ -/if" APPENDIX B.PARTII HCM SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR "PROPOSED PROJECT" .tl'II.{? 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT **......***............***..****......**...*...***.***...**............*** INTERSECTION.. J Street/Third Avenue AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......PAB DATE......... .12-01-1992 TIME..........PM Peak Hour COMMENT.......Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 85 109 57 60 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 277 178 692 951 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 220 39 56 106 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (t) (t) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 50 Y 25.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 50 Y 25.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 50 Y 22.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 50 Y 22.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS PH-l PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-l EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 26.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.163 0.450 7.5 B 17.8 C TR 0.856 0.450 19.5 C WB L 0.380 0.450 8.7 B 8.0 B T 0.252 0.450 7.8 B R 0.084 0.450 7.2 B NB L 0.376 0.450 9.0 B 9.9 B TR 0.599 0.450 10.0 B SB L 0.227 0.450 7.8 B 15.3 C TR 0.870 0.450 15.7 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 13.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.863 LOS = B ,;J./o/8 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS page-1 ****************.*.***********************************.._**w_.._.__..* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ====================================================================== NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET........ J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET...... Third Avenue AREA TYPE........................... OTHER NAME OF THE ANALyST................. PAa DATE OF THE ANALySIS................ 12-01-1992 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project TRAFFIC VOLUMES ====================================================================== EB WB NB SB LEFT 85 109 57 60 THRU 277 178 692 951 RIGHT 220 39 56 106 RTOR 0 0 0 0 (RTOR volume must be less than or equal to RIGHT turn volumes. ) ~'I4/" INTERSECTION GEOMETRY ====================================================================== Page-2 NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION INCLUDING TURN BAYS: EASTBOUND = 2 WESTBOUND = 3 NORTHBOUND = 3 EB WB NB LANE TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 2 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 3 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 4 5 6 L - EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT - LEFT/THROUGH LANE LR - LEFT/RIGHT ONLY LANE LTR - LEFT/THROUGH/RIGHT LANE SOUTHBOUND = 3 SB TYPE WIDTH L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 T - EXCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE TR - THROUGH/RIGHT LANE R - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT LANE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ====================================================================== GRADE HEAVY VEH. ADJACENT PKG BUSES (t) (t) Y/N (Nm) (Nb) PHF ---------- EASTBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 WESTBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 NORTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 Nm = number of parking maneuvers/hr; Nb = number of buses stopping/hr CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAN BUTTON (peds/hour) (Y/N) (min T) ARRIVAL TYPE ---------------- ----------------- ------------ EASTBOUND 50 Y 25.8 3 WESTBOUND 50 Y 25.8 3 NORTHBOUND 50 Y 22.8 3 SOUTHBOUND 50 Y 22.8 3 min T = minimum green time for pedestrians IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project ;; ~/S 0 SIGNAL SETTINGS - OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Page-3 ====================================================================== PRETIMED LOST TIME/PHASE = 3.0 CYCLE LENGTH = 60 . 0 EAST/WEST PHASING .. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 EASTBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X WESTBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X NORTHBOUND RT SOUTHBOUND RT GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NORTH/SOUTH PHASING ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 NORTHBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X SOUTHBOUND LEFT X THRU X RIGHT X PEDS X EASTBOUND RT WESTBOUND RT GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project .:l./5/ YOLUME ADJUS'IMENT WORKSHEET Page-4 ====================================================================== LANE LANE ADJ. MVT. ADJ. LANE GRP. NO. UTIL. GROWTH GRP. PROP PROP YOLo PHF YOLo GRP. YOLo LN FACT. FACT. YOLo LT RT ------ EB LT 85 0.98 87 L 87 1 1. 000 1. 000 87 1.00 0.00 TH 277 0.98 283 TR 507 1 1. 000 1. 000 507 0.00 0.44 RT 220 0.98 224 WE LT 109 0.88 124 L 124 1 1. 000 1. 000 124 1.00 0.00 TH 178 0.88 202 T 202 1 1. 000 1. 000 202 0.00 0.00 RT 39 0.88 44 R 44 1 1.000 1. 000 44 0.00 1.00 NB LT 57 0.93 61 L 61 1 1. 000 1.000 61 1.00 0.00 TH 692 0.93 744 TR 804 2 1.050 1. 000 845 0.00 0.07 RT 56 0.93 60 S8 LT 60 0.91 66 L 66 1 1. 000 1. 000 66 1.00 0.00 TH 951 0.91 1045 TR 1162 2 1. 050 1. 000 1220 0.00 0.10 RT 106 0.91 116 . Denotes a Defacto Left Turn Lane Group IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project ':;'/5:? SUPPLEMENTARY WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUS'IMENT FACTOR Page-5 INPUT VARIABLES ========================================================================== SB EB WB NB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cycle Length, C (see) Effective Green, G (see) Number of Lanes, N Total Approach Flow Rate, Va (vph) Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) Left-Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, PIt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol., PI to 60.0 27.0 I 594 507 87 1. 000 1 247 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 370 247 124 1. 000 1 507 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 866 804 61 1. 000 2 1162 0.000 60.0 27.0 1 1227 1162 66 1. 000 2 804 0.000 COMPUTATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB EB WB NB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sop=(1800No)/(1+Plto((400+Vm)/(1400-Vm))) Yo=Vo/Sop Gu=(G-C*Yo)/(l-Yo) FS=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 PI=Plt(1+((N-1)G)/(Fs*Gu+4.5))) Gq=G-Gu Pt=l-Pl Gf=2Pt(1-(Pt**0.5Gq))/PI EI=1800/(1400-Vo) Fm=Gf/G+ (Gu/G) (1/ (l+PI (EI-1) ) ) + (2/G) (1+P1) Flt=(Fm+N-1)/N IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1800 0.137 21. 762 0.721 1. 000 5.238 0.000 0.000 1.56 0.665 0.665 1800 0.282 14.055 0.558 1. 000 12.945 0.000 0.000 2.02 0.406 0.406 3600 0.323 11.281 0.149 1. 000 15.719 0.000 0.000 7.55 0.203 0.203 3600 0.223 17.506 0.372 1. 000 9.494 0.000 0.000 3.02 0.363 0.363 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project ,;z - I 53 SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Page-6 ======================================================================= IDEAL ADJ. SAT. NO. f f f f f f f f SAT. FLOW LNS W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.665 1184 TR 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.800 1. 000 1. 000 0.923 1.000 1316 WB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1.000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.406 724 T 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1. 000 1. 000 1.000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1782 R 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.800 1.000 1.000 0.826 1.000 1178 NB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1.000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 1. 000 0.203 363 TR 1800 2 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.890 1. 000 1. 000 0.987 1. 000 3131 SB L 1800 1 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1. 000 0.363 646 TR 1800 2 1. 000 0.990 1. 000 0.890 1. 000 1. 000 0.983 1. 000 3117 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project ~-ISLj CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Page-7 ====================================================================== ADJ. ADJ. SAT. FLOW LANE GROUP FLOW RATE FLOW RATE RATIO GREEN RATIO CAPACITY vie (v) (s) (vis) (g/C) (c) RATIO --------- --------- ----------- ---------- EB L 87 1184 0.073 0.450 533 0.163 TR 507 1316 0.385 0.450 592 0.856 * WB L 124 724 0.171 0.450 326 0.380 T 202 1782 0.114 0.450 802 0.252 R 44 1178 0.038 0.450 530 0.084 NB L 61 363 0.169 0.450 163 0.376 TR 845 3131 0.270 0.450 1409 0.599 SB L 66 646 0.102 0.450 291 0.227 TR 1220 3117 0.391 0.450 1403 0.870 * Cycle Length, C = 60.0 sec. Sum (vis) critical = 0.777 Lost Time Per Cycle, L = 6.0 sec. X critical = 0.863 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST lWEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project ~...16' LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Page-8 ====================================================================== DELAY LANE DELAY LANE LANE DELAY LOS v/c g/C CYCLE d GROUP d PROG. GRP. GRP. BY BY RATIO RATIO LEN. 1 CAP. 2 FACT. DELAY LOS APP. APP. EB L 0.163 0.450 60.0 7.4 533 0.0 1.00 7.5 B 17.8 C TR 0.856 0.450 60.0 11.2 592 8.3 1.00 19.5 C WB L 0.380 0.450 60.0 8.3 326 0.4 1.00 8.7 B 8.0 B T 0.252 0.450 60.0 7.8 802 0.0 1.00 7.8 B R 0.084 0.450 60.0 7.2 530 0.0 1. 00 7.2 B NB L 0.376 0.450 60.0 8.3 163 0.7 1.00 9.0 B 9.9 B TR 0.599 0.450 60.0 9.4 1409 0.5 1.00 10.0 B SB L 0.227 0.450 60.0 7.7 291 0.1 1.00 7.8 B 15.3 C TR 0.870 0.450 60.0 11.3 1403 4.4 1.00 15.7 C Intersection Delay = 13.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... J Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... Third Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS.... 12-01-1992 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION: Future Year 1995 w/2 percent growth and project ~...I.s'" APPENDIX C TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT CONDUCTED IN AUGUST 1993 Ol-/S? _jhk & associa[cs August 23, 1993 Mr. Jeff Guth American Stores Properties Inc. Lucky Store 6569 Knott Avenue Buena Park, California 90620-1158 RE: Draft Technical Report - Lucky Site Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Guth: JHK & Associates (JHK) is pleased to submit this Draft Technical Report for the Lucky Site Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis. This report documents the potential daily and peak hour trip generation for each land use scenario and evaluates the potential for "passerby trip" behavior for the types of land 'uses proposed for the site under each scenario. Given these land use and peak hour trip generation assumptions, Year 1995 peak hour intersection operations are evaluated at the primary project intersection located at Third A venue/J Street in Chula Vista. BACKGROUND Proposed Project American Stores Properties, Inc., the project developer, is proposing the construction of a 50,000 square foot grocery store and 12,900 square feet of associated retail commercial space' on 5.8 acre site located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection at J Street/Third Avenue in Central Chula Vista. A total of 315 parking spaces will be constructed on the project site to serve the grocery store and the other retail commercial uses. Attendant with the development of the Lucky Grocery Store project is a rezoning of the site from Professional Office to Commercial land use. Trip Generation Rates The issue of passerby trip contribution is critical to the understanding of the actual impacts the proposed project will have on the primary study area intersection of J Street/Third Avenue. Based on adopted SANDAG trip generation rates, the proposed 50,000 square foot grocery store will generate a total of 150 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). The associated 12,900 square feet of retail commercial space to be located on the site is expected to generate 40 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of GFA. Some of the trips generated by the project will already be on the street system and linked with other trips. This type of driver behavior is known as "passerby trips." The City of San Diego has completed research on passerby trips through detailed surveys at similar sites in the q~/.sfl _jhk & asSOCIa'es Mr. Jeff Guth August 23, 1993 Page 2 City of San Diego. The recommended cumulative or linked trip rate for a grocery store and retail commercial spaces is 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of GFA. Thus, based on the City of San Diego Passerby Study, approximately 69 percent of the total number of vehicles associated with the proposed site were assumed to already be in the traffic stream. This trip reductiort was COnI1ITI1ed with the City Traffic Engineer (Mr. Harold Rosenberg, November 10, 1992). Trip Generation/Distribution Table 1 summarizes the estimated daily PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed project (grocery store and commercial shops). As shown on this table, although the total daily trips generated by the site under the proposed project land use scenario would be over 8,000, the actual amount of new trips (those not already in the traffic stream for other trip purposes) would be approximately 2,516. During the PM peak hour, a total of 206 new trips would be added to the Year 1995 traffic volumes as a result of the proposed project (see Final Report). It is important to understand that for the analysis of ro3.dway segments and intersections adjacent to the project site, the cumulative daily and peak hour trips were added to future traffic volumes. For the analysis of internal circulation and driveway operations, the total daily trips (cumulative plus passerby trips) would be used. Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions The following assumptions were used in the projection of future Year 1995 traffic volumes on the study area circulation network: . First, since the existing Lucky Grocery Store building, currently located on the northwest quadrant of the J Street/fhird Avenue intersection, is expected to remain and be converted into other retail uses, no reduction in trip generation from the existing site has been assumed. . Second, a standard annual growth rate of two percent has been applied to existing daily and PM peak hour traffic volumes to simulate expected increases in traffic due to other development projects in the City of Chula Vista. The resulting volumes were used to define Year 1995 "No Project" conditions. . Third, as stated in the previous section, only cumulative trips associated with the project (total trips minus passerby trips) were added to the Year 1995 Base Condition volumes. . No changes to the existing intersections geometries and signal phasing were assumed. ':;~/l51 _jhk & assOClatC$ - .. :is ~ z o - E- -< t:!:: I.:i Z I.:i t.:I Q. - t:!:: E- t:!:: ;i o :: ~ -< I.:i Q. ::!: Q. Q Z -< ... ...:I - -< Q Q I.:i E- -< ::!: - E- U'J I.:i .. ~-~ ou~ - II> .; .i: u- -~ ;"-11> ~~ c. 'i: E- .. ;..,- = e\I out:!:: Q ~.-III> " = = .. ~.5 -g 'E Q. 1 t ~ N 8 .,.. r: .::: e- ll> ~ - ~ .,.. - .::: It ~ o .,.. 2:! o - en ~ .. e o ., c. o .c en O! t> 'C ~ 8 ~I 'oC - "i. N ~I 'oC - C>. QC .::: It ~ - ~ ..... .:: It ~ N - ~ ' I" d ..." ~ ~ J1 = .. 0 ....::1 ..c '" ~"3 ~.g .. t> ~"iiI ~ C :a~ .- :2 !! ....- t> ., t> = .. 0 B.... ._ 0 ., -.~ t> II> .~ >. eO! Q,1ij ... 01) oS.:; ..c = bO._ = ]~ - = 5 ~ Q,O! -0 "3 ~ o ~ II> _ 2:! '" = ..ceo -I;:: ., ..!:! !/! .~ u ii~ > .... <Ii o Q, ,8's E ~ = 01) = = O! !$ o - >. "'of oS!/! . -II>>' as cu.-= = Q, > cr .- 01) v t: ., Oi '" .sQ, >. >. ... ou ~.c ~ ~- 01) :; O'~ 0=-0 - ;,; B o Z .... II> o .- ., = >. 00! ": c S '" = 01) eoS v.5 !~ 01) = -5 ~ -5 ., .- 2:! ~ 6:, CI;:: '" g ~ ., ... J:!~ .... . ~~ ... 'S .c - >. g-e 1 ~ -o~. -0 II> '" ., = = 0 01) = ._ .c._ - :s!E~ = .. ... O Q,... ~ 'S c .- ;; ~"'O .c '01 = --0'" ., ., ..!:! II c t> .. e .- Q, ..c.s ~ t' ....01)., 0.:: >. h ;;; '" 15"3~ EE"g = = e = t> . - 01) . = ..c~0I) -.- CJ '-"", O! - .= = -~ "g if.= = ~ e 0 Q,Q,., .S is ~ ... ., Q, > 0 E .- - - 0"- .!...., = Q,::! E' .= = 01) i=' U-5C: ~ ...; fN -1 i~ _1 I~ 1M h. a~ E !o~ h-s ~3B ~ ii j N _jhk & assoc,.... Mr. Jeff Guth August 23, 1993 Page 4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 2 summarizes the forecasted PM peak hour intersection operating conditions under the Proposed Project land use scenario. As shown on this table, even with the two percent annual growth in traffic, the intersection of J Street/fhird A venue is expected to maintain LOS B conditions. Under the proposed project land use scenario, the project contributes four percent to the total PM peak hour entering volumes at this intersection. Appendix B of this document contains the detailed HCM worksheets used in this analysis. Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS FUTURE YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS "Prooosed Proiect" Cumulative Approach Approach Project Trip Intersection Aooroach Delav (sec) LOS Contribution J St.!Third Ave. EB 17.8 C 3% WB 8.0 B 5% NB 9.0 B 5% SB 15.3 C 4% Overall Intersection Operations ' 13.4 B 4% Source: 1HK &; A1sociales Summary The analysis conducted for the proposed project concluded that from a circulation perspective, no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project under Year 1995 conditions. The traffic generated from the proposed project site is not expected to significantly impact traffic operations at this intersection. CITY'S LAND USE SCENARIO With the completion of the rezoning as required for the Lucky Grocery Store Project, there is a possibilty that the project site could be developed with additional intensity beyond that of the proposed project. ".? p IJ,I _ j hk & aSSOCIates Mr. Jeff Guth August 23, 1993 Page 5 Based on applicable development regulations and required land area set asided to meet the development regulations as they pertain to the Lucky Store Site, the City determined that the approxirnate maximum amount of development that could occur on the site is as follows: Land Use TVDe Total Square Footal!e RetaiVCommercial Shops (Same Proportious as Proposed Project) 95,000 Commercial Office 150,000 For the puposes of this analysis, it was assumed that twice the amount of GFA as the proposed project would be constructed, with the same mix and proportion of land uses. This condition would produce a "worst case" analysis with a total of approximately 125,800 square feet of retaiVcommercial shops in the same proportion as the proposed project. Table 3 shows the assumed land use, and peak hour cumulative trips that could be generated on the site uner the City's Land Use Scenario. As shown on this table, the project site could generate over 16,000 daily trips, with 5,032 new daily trips (minus 69% passerby tirps). During the PM peak hour. 312 additional trips would be added to the 1995 volumes as result of' the City's Land Use Scenario. For the Commercial office scenario of 150,000 square feet, a total of 2,550 new trips would be generated. This value represents the approximate loading of the propsed project without the increase in development. Thus, only the RetaiVCommercial shops alternative with a doubling of allowable square footage was tested. Traffic Impact AnalJsis . Assumpitons The following assumptions were used to deterrnin Year 1995 traffic conditions under the City's land Use Scenario: . The same distibution developed for the "proposed project" was used. . Only cumulative trips (total trips minus passerby trips) were added to year 1995 Base Condition Volumes. . No changes to the existing geometries and signal phasing were assumed. ~ ../,,:tit. . _jhk & .... CII :E os I- Z o - I- < III: !oJ Z !oJ ~ g. ... III: I- III: ;J o = ~ < !oJ g. ::; g. Q Z < >- ~ - < Q Q !oJ I- < ::; ~ aSSOCiates 1 =/ ::; ~o g. .- ~~ '::I =1 tg-- E= -, = OS U ~ .~-~ os!:! ~'r: =1- U ~~ Q, '1: I- CII ~- ~os .; = Q ~.;~ " = c CII j! .i f g. i '" f g. 0""1.... CON: C\""/a 00'""_ 0"'/1oC "'.".0 - N 8~1~ _ .,., "i- '"" N 8~1~ """"= r-: oC <<t:. .,:: <:r . '" <:r 8 oo -8 0-::::. ""0 -.". ~c:: gogo ~~ ON 111- oo C. o .c ~tI) 0- - OS tI) .- ~ ~.., .., E ~ g C)U 0"'1 ~.". ~~I ~'""I ""e>> ~81 .". -1 ~81 .,., -1 - C:::..J . ..... <:r' '" go 88 -- ~..... .,.,~ - .:=,::: gogo ~8 . IX) 8";- -'"" Q '1: OS = t {I) ~ " = OS ~ '" . oo 8- .c ~tI) B-a tI) .- ~t CII E ~ g C)u - u :!a N_ :!a N_ ~:! 'OFN N IoC ....- ~"i- It)N NIoC ....- ~= IoC ~ -IX) ~ {I) < w III: ..U ~z <- 1-1- Ow I-Z ~ ,. /1#.3 - >, o OS = ~ :s ~ t:a -U" ~ 1i . = ~.g 01 - ~,,!g ell = ~ '6 "-a ~ E ~ ~ ~.- .- B ., .- - oo .. = .., 0 ..,., e..... =.0 u.~ .c oo - >, .c- bO:g " 01 o .. ell oSo5 I:! c 01 .- Co" :s! ~ " " ~ ~ - 01 oo oS ~ oo " .., bO 'Ut::: :c II! CII .., ~~ .. ,8 iii Co g 'S c ~ -a .., o = - u 5 05>, "i-e " .., <:roo ell ::i ~c. 'S ~ io ~ .- ::: >..~ ~~t: .... - OS - ;,; ~ o Z ..... oo o .- oo C >, o,,!g .~ 1i C ell ~oS u .5 t~ ell " oS ~ oS oo .- ~ ~ 6h ~I.O: t ~ oo .., J:!~ ..... . ~~ l! 'S - >, 0" - .. -g ~ " 01 ~ Q. r,) .. oo C ell " 0 ~ C.- :s! 's ~ = a. .... o .... ~ ~ "'.5 ~~~ .c .- c -.... oo" U II ::i - C .. oo .., .- Co E .c .... ell '" bO ~ ell II! o.=: >, .. ;C; ~ ,8=" E E .. " " e = .. . - .. . C -'" .. .., ...... u '-'.. -a - ..... =' -... "'C CJ .. 8".g, C III f: 0 =. Co :I 'S i ~ ~ 0 c:t.. .:: Co E .. 0'- -..- " c. i:! E: ..... " .., e UoSc. N ~ .. ~i 11 ii Ji 8 ~ E IO~ h.. .,38 ~ ii j . _jhk /Ie aSSOCIatcs Mr. Jeff Guth August 23, 1993 Page 7 Intersection Capacity Analysis - City Land Use Scenario Table 4 compares the forecasted PM peak hour intersection operating conditions under the Propsed Project and the City's Land Use Scenario. As shown on this table, the LOS at thisintersection is expected to remain unchanged under the City's Land Use Scenario. The Appendix of this document contains the detailed HCM worksheets used in this analysis. Table 4 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS FUTURE YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS Intersection .ProDosed Proiect" Approacb Approacb Approacb Approacb ADDrocb Delav (see) LOS Delav (sec) LOS EB 17.8 C 18.3 C WB 8.0 B 18.2 B NB 9.9 B 10.3 B SB 15.3 C 17.4 C 13.4 B 14.4 B J SL/Third Ave. Overall Intersection Operations Soun:e: 1HK It As$ociatcs Summary The PM peak hour capacity analysis found that the intersection of J Street/Third Avenue would maintain LOS B with both the proposed project and the City's Land Use Scenario, that represents twice the level of development of the proposed project. Thus, from a circulation perspective, no significant impacts were found as a result of the proposed project or the City's Land Use Scenario under Year 1995 conditions. It is important to recognize that as a result of the original traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project, the project applicant has committed to providing an additional lane at the subject intersection. This additional lane would be placed along the norhtern edge of the property, on J Street, and would allow for an exclusive right turn only lane for eastbound to southbound movement. Also, the City is still considering the possibility of providing exclusive o";,.'/,.I/ _jhk & assOClarcs Mr. Jeff Guth August 23, 1993 Page 8 (protected) left turn phasing on Third Avenue for northbound and southbound turning movements. This would assist drivers in the completion of left turns at this intersection which are difficult under peak conditions today due to lack of adequate gaps in north/south through traffic. It has been a pleasure working with American Stores Properties and FORMA on this project. If you have any questions regarding methodologies, assumptions, or findings of this study, please do not hesitate to contact rne. Sincerely, JHK & ASSOCIATES j)~?/II~ Daniel F. Marum Senior Transportation Planner DFM:cb cc: Leslie Freeman, FORMA Barbara Reid, City of Chula Vista ttJ... 1'-5 - . _jhk & asSOCIates APPENDIX · Proposed Lucky Project HCM Analysis · City Land Use Scenario HCM Analysis cj>.../&,~ . 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..J Street/Thrid Street AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......JHK & Associates DATE..........08-17-1993 TIME..........PM Peak Hour COMMENT.......Lucky PrOject Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT. 85 109 57 60 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 277 178 692 951 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 220 39 56 106 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1:::.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HII ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (/. ) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 50 y 25.8 e, WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 50 Y 25.8 ~ .' N8 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 50 Y 22.8 ~ .' S8 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 50 Y 22.8 ~ .' -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS PH-l PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-l EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X S8 LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 26.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 CYCLE LENGTH = PH-2 PH-3 60.0 PH-4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. 'JIC GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS E8 L 0.163 0.450 7.5 B 17.8 C TR 0.856 0.450 19. =. C WB L 0.380 0.450 8.7 B 8.0 B T 0.252 0.450 7.8 B R 0.084 0.450 7.2 B NB L 0.376 0.450 9.0 B 9.9 B ' TR 0.599 0.450 10.0 B SB L 0.227 0.450 7.8 B 15.3 C TR 0.870 0.450 15.7 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTJON: Delay = 13.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.863 LOS = B .:; ,/~ '1 . 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTJON..J Street/Thrid Street AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......JHK ~ Associates DATE..........08-17-1993 TIME..........PM Peak Hour COMMENT.......Lucky wi Suggested Project Volumes -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SE LT 95 119 57 60 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0. L 12.0 TH 283 183 724 983 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 220 39 66 116 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (t.) (t.) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.98 50 Y 25.8 ", WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.88 50 Y 25.8 ." -' NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.93 50 Y 22.8 ." .' SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.91 50 Y 22.8 ." .' -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 PH-l PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-l PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.184 0.450 7.5 B 18.3 C TR 0.866 0.450 20.3 C WB L 0.421 0.450 9.1 B 8.2 B T 0.259 0.450 7.8 B R 0.084 0.450 7.2 B NB L 0.404 0.450 9.4 B 10.3 B TR 0.634 0.450 10.3 B SB L 0.243 0.450 7.8 B 17.4 C TR 0.905 0.450 17.9 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.885 LOS = B t$-/4-;r Giroux & Associates Environmental cor(,. jts '- NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA LUCKY STORE NO. 257 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared. for: FORMA Attn: Leslie Freeman or Jean Fallowfield 3100 Bristol st., Ste. 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date: March 30, 1993 ~t) '" :;~/~? /7744 Sky Park Cirde. Suite2/O,IrviM. aJifomm 927/4 . PboDe (7/4) 85/-8609 . Fu (7/4) 85/-86/2 ~ .., NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of human sensitivity more heavily (middle A and its higher harmonics) in a process called "A- weighting" written as dB(A). Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq) , or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some stated fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise metric called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). An interior CNEL of 45 4B(A) is mandated for multiple family dwellings, and is considered a desirable noise exposure for single family dwelling units as well. Since typical noise attenuation within residential structures is about 15-20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the design exterior noise exposure for new residential dwellings, schools, or other noise-sensitive land uses in California. Because commercial or industrial uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, a less stringent noise/land use compatibility criterion is generally specified for these less noise sensitive land uses. The City of Chula vista Noise Element does not currently contain specific noise compatibility standards, other than those mandated by the State for mUlti-family residential units. For purposes of land use planning, the City of San Diego has established a complete set of community noise standards. The City of Chula Vista currently follows the noise guidelines established by the city of San Diego. These standards establish maximum allowable noise levels for various types of land developments and are reproduced in Figure A. Under these standards, the maximum exterior noise level for schools, residential development, hospitals parks and playgrounds is 65 dB (A). Office buildings, auditoriums and churches may have exterior noise levels up to 70 dB (A). Commercial uses may have exterior noise exposure of 75 dB (A). The City's 1 ~, I?d ~ ., TABLE A ON-SITE NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY 01/12/93 (Short-term readings in units of dBA) Location I&g I&x I.Hin I.lQ I..U L.5Q I...2.Q v Q 3rd Avenue 75' to C/L 65.6 78.0 49.5 68.0 66,0 64.5 59.0 @ J street Near Exist. KinderCare 84' to C/L 64.8 82,0 53.0 66.0 62.0 61.0 56.5 J(JJ J Street at West End of site 110' to C/L 59.1 72.0 48,5 62,0 59.0 57.5 52.5 e On Western Boundary 1/2 way between J st. & Post Office 55.3 65.0 48.0 57.5 55.5 54.0 51.0 ) ~ Southwest Corner Near Post Office 51.8 64.5 44.5 54.0 50.5 49.5 47.0 elL roadway centerline Source: LDL Model 700 Integrating Noise Dosimeter, 01/12/93 (1140-1340 ) ~.../?I " ~~ o\'~ ~ Je \-JIj I ~dr\ ~ee'J'~. r"d 1'.'''1 ~~... I 0, cI' I I ! ~ ., noise policy states that every citizen has a right to live in an environment where noise is not detrimental to his or her life, health; and enjoyment of property. within the policy's implementation provisions, there is a mandate for the City to consider the effects of noise, especially from transportation sources, in its land use decisions to realize the above objective, Existing noise levels around the proposed Chula Vista Lucky store site derive mainly from vehicular sources on the roadways in the area. In order to better define the existing project site noise exposure, an on-site noise monitoring program was conducted on January 12, 1993 and centered on five locations on the project si te: Near 3rd Avenue, along J Street, and at three locations near existing homes on the western site boundary. Measurements were taken for 20 minute intervals with an LDL Model 700 Noise Meter. The results from the noise monitoring are summarized in Table A. Although these readings are short-term Leq's while the noise standard is in terms of CNEL, monitoring experience throughout Chula vista has shown mid-day Leq and CNEL to be very similar. With a small margin of error, the on-site measurements reasonably well define baseline noise exposure relative to the City's noise exposure guidelines. This data shows that the project area experiences noise levels below 65 dB along 3rd Avenue and J Street 100' from the centerline. Even in close proximity to the roadways, noise levels are no impediment for planned commercial development. These levels are, however, in excess of those considered acceptable for residential uses such as those west of the site, Noise levels drop significantly in the interior of the site, such that homes away from J Street are protected from traffic noise. The residences directly adjacent to J Street, nevertheless, are subject to elevated noise levels that may be exacerbated by continued areawide traffic growth. The traffic generation scope of any future development is therefore an important consideration in not substantially worsening the noise environment for these residents. ,,+ 'CA(~ {)Je~i ~ (loiS€- ff'~ h K~I d;,..e~--j..ro -1 ~ GI -I"d !,\()..i- -led 'j T Jc. --I Jp- ~~e(.e II~.)# ffiC-c..P^ ("C<~ ,",0 cA tv' l ,';-- +,(1 .R ~.;;t. {'O{l . , J C 8^ -I-rcvrl 3 c9 -/,~ /' ( ) ') FIGURE A NOISE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CHART ADDuaJ Commllllily Node EquivaIcDl Level in Decibel> Laud Use SO 55 60 65 70 75 / : : : : : : : : : : 1. Outdoor Amphitheatcrs (may be suitable : : : : : : : : : : : Dot : : : : : : : : : for certain types of music. : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . Schools, : : : : : : : : : : : : 2. Ubrarica : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . : 3. Nature Prcacrvcs, Wlldlifc Prcacrves : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4. RcsidcDtial.Sin~ Family, MuJtiplc Family, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Mobilc Homes, Transient Housing : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : 5. Rctircmcot Home, IDtcrmediate Care : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Fadlities, CoDValc&ceot Homes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : . : : : 6. Hospitals : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7. Parks, PlayllCouods : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . Office : : : : : : . 8. Buildings, Business and Professional : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9. Auditoriums, CoDcert Halls, Indoor Arenas, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Churches : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : - 10. Riding Stables, Watcr RccrcatioD Fadlities : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 11. Outdoor Spectator Sports, Golf Courses : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 12. Livestock Farming, Animal Breeding : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13. Commercial-Retail. Shopping Centcrs : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Restawanta, Movie Tbciatcra : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . 14. Commercial- Wholcsale, Ind\l$trial : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Manufacturing, Utilities : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 15. ApicuJture (except Livestock), ~tractive : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Industry, Farming : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 16. Cemcreries : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Soun;o; Progress Guide and General Plan (Tl'IIIIBponatioD '<lI'""'~t). ,:; --/?~ ( . . . . .' .' ......1 ........ . ......... . ......... . COMPA T/BLE 71Ie a ~ge noise /eyel is sucb Ibat indoor and outdoor activities associaJ<<i wjth Ib~ /aDd _ may be carried out wilb U3rntiaJly no iDlI:rfe~DCe from DoUe. iNCOMPATIBLE The a .'era~ noise Jevel is so scv~rr Ibat construction costs 10 maJ.e 1M indooretJYI11J=1 alXeplabJe for perlormance of activities would probably be probib,iiYl:, Tbe <J<III:trJ<r..,~ 0K>Uki be iD~ /iJr ouldoa tlaMDr:S 1ISIOCial<<l with /be l4Dd use. ) ) NOISE IMPA.CTS Three noise sources are typically identified with urban development such as the proposed Lucky Store relocation. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. Upon completion, vehicular traffic on streets around the development area may create a higher noise exposure to Chula Vista residents beyond the noise levels currently experienced. On-site activities such as truck deliveries, unloading of goods and waste collection/disposal at the store may also impact homes on the west. Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts from most commercial development vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its acti vi ty level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by large earth-moving sources, then by foundation and parking lot construction, and finally for finish construction. The large earth-moving sources are the noisiest with equipment noise typically ranging from 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Figure B shows the typical noise emissions associated with specific construction equipment. Point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The quieter noise sources will, thus, drop to a 65 dB exterior/45 dB interior noise level by about 200 feet from the source while the loudest could require over 1000 feet from the source to reduce the 90+ dB(A) source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dB(A) exterior exposure level. Existing traffic noise and surrounding structures will somewhat screen temporary construction activity impacts such that the actual noise impact "envelope" will be smaller than its theoretical maximum. Given the close proximity of homes to the west of the project site, noise peaks in excess of 80 dB may be temporarily experienced. Although impacts are short-term, construction of a substantial commercial development very close to existing residences may nevertheless have a temporarily significant noise impact. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a community noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time, The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on construction activities imposed as conditions on construction and use permits, Weekday hours during periods of least noise sensitivity are typically the allowed times for construction activities if there are occupied dwellings within a 5 ~ .-/?4j' ._-~----~_..~-- .., ~ FIGURE B TYPICAL CONSTRUcnON NOISE GENERATION EQUIPMENT LEVELS NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT SO Ff 70 80 90 100 Compacters (Rollers) - Front Loaders 00 Backhoes rI " " 'S: '61> 0 Tractors " ::E ~ .c " 1: Scrapers, Graders Q .. - ~ on = Pavers - .r> ~ Trucks U 0; 00 Concrete Mixers G .51 - '6 oS " Concrete Pumps .. - ~ ::c on Cranes (Movable) ] 0; 'C ~ " Cranes (Derrick) 0 ~ - ~ - Pumps . "" I Q ~ [ Q Generators 'S 0 ';:J <:r .. Compressors ~ ciS Pneumatic Wrenches - Q " Jack Hammers and Rock Drills 1:; E .. 0. 0. ,- .EI 6- Pile Drivers (Peaks) ~ Vibrator ... " .c Saws 6 Source: EP A PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 31, 1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment & Operations" ~,.I?..5 --, ~ reasonable exposure zone surrounding the construction site. Because this site clearly meets the criterion of having sensitive recei vers in close proximity, a time limit on on-site heavy equipment operations is needed to minimize noise intrusion. Given that heavy grading will be minimal since the site is pre-graded, the combination of a limited requirement for heavy equipment operations and a time limit from 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday ~ for motorized equipment operations will minimize sleep disturbance~" or interference with exterior property enjoyment during evenings ~~ and weekends. For purposes of minimizing operational activity ~ ',f) noise impacts, a sound wall will be constructed along the western ~l~ site boundary. The utility of that wall will be enhanced if it is ~~J constructed early during site development to also screen out-lOee(\ construction noise. Combined effects of time limits to hours Of5~~~~ lesser sensitivity and early construction of the sound wall will 00 maintain temporary construction noise impacts at a less than significant level. Materials handling and small stationary noise sources have lower initial noise levels, and their corresponding noise impact zones during later phases of construction are, therefore, much smaller. pieces of equipment are also often smaller (compressors, generators, etc.) such that they lend themselves to placement in areas where existing structures or larger pieces of equipment may screen a portion of the noise transmission, Once the western wall of the store structure is completed, it will act as a further noise barrier to many finish construction noise impacts from the store interior. Except during actual construction of the western store perimeter, noise impact potential will be substantially reduced once the western store wall is erected. Exterior finish construction will also be shielded by the recommended noise wall along the western project boundary. Noise generation during finish construction may thus be audible at times, but not at levels considered to have a significant impact. Vehicular Noise Impacts Incremental noise as it relates to commercial use may be important in terms of commercial activity traffic noise impacting the adjacent residential community, In the case of commercial projects, existing roadway noise impacting the project site is generally not a concern because retail uses are less noise sensitive than residential uses and compatible with noise levels up to 75 dB. One would typically expect the proposed development, by virtue of its traffic-inducement, to create an increase in community noise exposure. However, the increase would be superimposed upon existing roadway noise generation and may therefore not, of itself, create a noise impact that would be individually perceptible near the project area. In addition, this 7 &>-/"7~ .., ~ is a commercial relocation of a relatively short distance and most of the traffic is not "new". Much of the travel to the site is also expected to be drive-by trips that are already on the surrounding transportation system and would not contribute significantly to noise levels. Changes in vehicular noise patterns were calculated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model (FHWA-RD-77-108, CALVENO-85 mOdified). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers. The project traffic study shows that future uses will generate 2,516 new trips for the proposed Lucky store and retail shops, These trips will be fractionally distributed in four different access directions. The number of new trips on individual sections of J street and/or 3rd Avenue will thus be small. Project-related traffic noise impacts were calculated for existing traffic and then for the future "no project" versus "with project" cases. Traffic noise impacts were calculated for a 50,000 square foot Lucky store footprint as well as for a somewhat larger 65,000 square foot alternative, Table B summarizes the traffic noise level at 50' from the centerline of surrounding roadways near the proposed Lucky Grocery store. Along both J street and 3rd Avenue, existing traffic levels are more than 20 times higher than the new additional traffic created by project implementation, project- related traffic noise impacts are therefore masked by noise from existing traffic. The maximum project-related noise impact is 0.2 dB, Although there are no absolute standards of noise impact significance, an increase of 3 dB or more is perceived by most human receivers as a substantial degradation in the areawide noise environment, The 3 dB threshold is not attained at any analysis location. The incrementally small, individually insignificant, project traffic noise impact creates a correspondingly limited change in the distance of noise-contours for noise-sensitive land uses. Table B also shows the distance from the roadway centerline to the 65 dB CNEL contour, which is the noise level considered normally acceptable for residences and other noise sensitive land uses. The calculations show that the project impact is minimal with the zone of residential incompatibility along Third Avenue increasing by only 1 foot at maximum project impact, A small increase in the magnitude of project-related noise, with the corresponding small change in the area of noise incompatibility engendered by the project, supports the finding that project traffic will create an individually less than insignificant noise impact. cumulatively increased traffic increases throughout the area. will interact with projected The Chula vista area will 8 Ol - r?? ~ ..., TABLE B LUCKY STORES OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CNEL @ 50' to Roadway Centerline (dBA) 1992 1995 1995 1995 Location Existina No proi. 50K proi. 65K Proi, J street 4th Ave. - 3rd Avenue 62.9 63,1 63.2 63,2 3rd Ave. - 2nd Avenue 61.1 61. 4 61.5 61.6 Third Avenue I street - J Street 65.7 65.9 66.0 66.1 J Street - K Street 65.6 65.9 66.0 66.0 Distance from Centerline to 65 dB CNEL Contour: J Street 4th Ave. - 3rd Avenue 3rd Ave. - 2nd Avenue <50' <50' <50' <50' <50' <50' <50' <50' Third Avenue I Street - J Street J Street - K Street 55' 55' 58' 57' 59' 58' 59' 58' ~-I? s ~ ~ experience traffic increases from the intensification of under- utilized lands. Table B, however, shows that the "Future-wi th- Project" noise exposure, including currently anticipated cumulative traffic growth, is not measurably different from the "Existing" condition. There are anticipated increases of 0.2 and 0.3 dB from non-project traffic growth along J Street and Third Avenue. With project traffic noise impacts of 0.2 dB, no road segments will experience cumulative impacts that exceed the 3 dB significance threshold previously noted. Traffic noise impacts from the proposed Lucky store relocation are therefore not considered individually or cumulatively significant. Because the "with project" off-site noise impact is much less than significant, a somewhat larger store similarly creates a minimal change in the community noise environment. Maximum off-site noise impacts for a 65,000 square foot store alternative are 0,0 to 0.1 dB higher than the 50,000 square foot site. Maximum total noise increases of 0.2 dB above the no-project alternative are less than significant. A subsequent site plan developed for the project changed the non- grocery mix of uses proposed for the site. The proposed grocery store was retained at 50,000 square feet, and the Moose Lodge parcel was integrated into the property. Shop space was expanded by around 8,000 square feet and a 4,200 square foot fast food restaurant was added. Off-site trip generation is slightly higher (because of the fast food component) than for the 65,000 square foot grocery alternative. However, since the addition of 15,000 square feet to the grocery store would add only an imperceptible component to the off-site noise exposure, the off-site noise impact of around 12,000 feet in shop and restaurant space will be similarly masked by the existing traffic noise environment. site Operations Noise I.pact Grocery stores are generally not perceived as major noise generators, but do sometimes have site-specific noise generation acti vi ties that could be audibly intrusive or annoying at the residential development west of the site. Such intrusion may resul t both from the nature of the noise (motors, compressors, blowers, metal banging on metal, etc.) as well as from the time at which it occurs. Impact potential is exacerbated by the short distance between the grocery store and the nearest homes backing up to the western site property line, Two store orientations were considered in terms of potential impacts on the adjacent residences. The initial site plan called for most receiving functions to be located at the rear of the store along the western wall of the store building. A revised site plan 10 ~-I? , , J o was subsequently developed which retained the refuse compactor and the meat receiving door along the western side, but relocated the grocery receiving dock, well and ramp along the north side of the building adjacent to J street. In order to quantify the typical range of noise activity levels at the rear of a grocery store, a n01se measurement study was conducted at a market that has a similar relationship to adjoining residences as the proposed Lucky Store at Third and "J" in Chula Vista. Measurements were made for almost two days at an older store in Irvine from a Wednesday evening to around noon on Friday. The measurement location was near the rear property line at around f a 60 foot setback from the rear of the store wall, Produce, meat and grocery receiving were on open pads and an open truck dock along the length of the rear of this store. Some car traffic uses this alley to circle the store, but the primary noise source is from grocery store activities. Results of these measurements (in dB[A]) were as follows: \ 01/20-21/93 01/21-22-93- 24-Hour CNEL Noisiest Hour Time of Peak Hour Noisiest I-Second Peak Time of Maximum Peak 68.9 73.5 ( 9-10 AM) 97.5 (10-11 AM) 70.8 76.5 ( 9-10 AM) 97.0 (10-11 AM) * - assuming Friday PM was similar to Thursday PM At this older store, the meat cooler refrigeration unit was built into the wall above the receiving door with the compressor running 24 hours per day. since this represents old construction and noise generation technology, another store was tested on March 9-10, 1993 with its refrigeration unit mounted on the roof within a sound- proofed enclosure. The measurement data at 30 feet from the rear of the store were as follows: 11 c:J ~ f S'C) '" ~ , ~ ~' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ... ..Q ~~ ., ., 24-hour CNEL 65.3 dB Peak Hour Leq 73.5 dB Noisiest Hour 9-10 AM I-Second Max. 101. 0 Time of Max. 10-11 AM If the above readings at 30 feet from the loading ramp are adjusted for the 40 foot setback proposed for the Chula vista store, the 24- hour CNEL is 62.8 dB. These measurements show that even with the ramp/deck and other loading and unloading facilities along the rear of the store, a 40-foot setback would be adequate to meet the City of Chula Vista noise standard. The margin of safety is adequate to allow for day-to-day variation and still meet the standard. Unfortunately, meeting the standard is no guarantee that a noise nuisance will not exist. Peak noise hours in the 9-11 AM time period had maxima in the mid-70 dB range with impulses of 90-100 dB. Even with typical structural attenuation of 15 dB, the interior of homes adjacent to the project site would still have average readings in the 60 dB range and peaks into the 80' s. While the 24-hour CNEL may be within acceptable standards, residents exposed to these noise levels would still find site activities intrusive. To reduce noise intrusion potential, the proposed project site incorporates several additional noise minimization features. In the latest site plan, the grocery receiving facility has been relocated to the north side of the building with the well opening further facing eastward to minimize westward noise propagation. A 6-foot landscaped block wall is also proposed for the western site boundary that will provide an additional 6-8 dB of noise reduction for off-site ground floor receivers west of the grocery store. Several additional time constraints on noise-generating activities are proposed as conditions on any required use permit to further insure noise compatibility with adjacent residents. The overall conclusion is that a new facility could meet the city's noise standard at the nearest residences as initially configured as long as all mechanical equipment was roof-mounted and sound- protected. Relocation of the receiving/loading dock and addition of a 6-foot landscaped masonry wall increases the margin of safety to not only meet the standard, but also reduce the nuisance potential from individual noise events (especially within the 9-11 AM peak noise period). A few additional measures are proposed under operational activity noise mitigation. 12 ':?,./1!'/ ("'< ~ NOISE IMPACT MITIGATION Traffic noise impacts the Lucky store relocation represent only a minor increase in existing exposure. Noise changes along site ... access roadways do not create an unacceptable exposure, but only increase noise levels by an incrementally small and generally imperceptible amount. No noise impact mitigation is indicated as being required. Operational noise impacts from project implementation are incorporated into project design by maximizing the distance separation between residences and receiving/loading facilities, including orientation of the loading dock well opening facing away from residences. A landscaped 6-foot block wall along the western site boundary is included for additional noise protection. Additional operational measures recommended to condition the project include: 0c-w o.b::,.-.;, <-,; ooPt'i\ '\-c 7~ooP..f(-.- 1. No delivery truck traffic shall occur in the alley between the rear of the store and the nearest homes from 10 PM to 7 AM. 2. No truck/trailers shall be mechanical equipment such running during the time from parked in the alley with any as refrigerator/freezer units 10 PM - 7 AM. 3. The trash compactor shall not be operated between the hours from 10 PM - 7 AM, Monday through Friday, 10 PM - 8 AM on saturdays, and 10 PM - 9 AM on Sundays and holidays, 4. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks shall not collect waste materials during those times when operation of the refuse t compactor is prohibited. Short-term construction noise intrusion should be limited by conditions on construction permits to weekday hours with least noise sensitivity recommended to be from 7 AM to 5 PM except in an emergency. Those same permits should also specify construction access routing to minimize construction truck traffic past any existing residential or other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the site. The sound wall recommended to mitigate operational activity noise potential should be one of the first site improvements constructed to also assist in screening site construction noise impacts. The western perimeter wall and the construction time limits on operation of motorized equipment will maintain temporary construction noise impacts at less than significant levels. 13 q -I S ~ ,"\7~i~~:;:::':~~:: 29 r ,-" ,J ID:F~Y DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-:; '18 IrnM\ MEMORANDUM 11846 P01 ~ Date: ~ Job No. ~ To: 6 ~f-ftf'\ \10 rv\.~ ') ~ Client: C::-\.~~.J~ r bp\ () \1 \~ ~ Project: jL\ 0. ~ Y\i f""I3 ~ Purpose: ~ Tra ~ For Your Approval ~ ~ ForYOIX Uae ~ For Your Review/Comments ~ Bluepnnt.r ~ As Requested By ~ Other ~ Other X Facsimile: Fax No PhOne N No. Pages InclUding Co ~ MeIscIge: From: ~-I fI.JJ lilt... ~ C.C.: 3100 8rtSlOl 911"'. 9..;18 lID. CoaIg 1'01...,. CA 92626 Tel (714) 5404700 ''''''71.0>_'" 10790 CIvic CanIet Drive, Sui'e 100. Rol'1Cno Cucamonga. CA q, 730 tel (714) 98902232 ,""'7141 ",<11M ~~.~~I~T1IOIII_.o.....,....wcr..\,NIIM_.~M."..' --.A'.aovI~...............-... SEP-10-'93 14:30 ID:F~ DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-540~6618 j 11846 P02 ~ ....,. KLEIN FElDER II. ~ ~ . TAo'P..LE OF r:ON".fENTS I B I ~ I J ~ Transmittal ......,..,....,...... f'............. I............,.......... I........,. I 1.0 IN1RODUcnON ...........,.. I . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. I . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. 1.1 General ................................................................... .... . .. . 1.2 Project Description ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work .......................,........... 1.4 Authori2.a.tion ........................................................................ 2.0 INVESTIGATIVE MElliODS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Field Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . 2.3 I..aboratol)' Testing "", I I I .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. I . .. .. .. . . .. . I I . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . 3.0 SrrE DESCRIP'TION ............................................ 3.1 Surface Conditions ......................................... 3.2 Subsurface Conditions . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Geologic Hazards ..................:,....................... 4.0 CONCLUSIONS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 ~ 5.0 PREUMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 8 5.1 Earthwork. I I .. . . . . . . .. . I . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. ... 8 8 11 11 11 12 12 5.1.1 Site Preparation and Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . 5.2 Utility Trenches ........ I I . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . f . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . 5.2.1 Trench Excavation and Stability ...................... ~ . 5.2.2 Pipe Bedding and Backfill ......................... ~ . . 5.2.3 Thrust Block Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Foundation and Floor Slab Support Alternatives .....;............ 5.3.1 Foundation Alternative I: Support on Low Expansion Potential Mt'a1s . a en ....................... .,........................... I I I I . ~ I I I - 5.3.2 Foundation Alternative II: Deeper Shallow Foundations With Floating Slab .... I I . . . . .. . . . . . I . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 5.4 Free Standing Posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade .. .. . . . , f If' . . . .. . . . . , , . . . .. . . , , I I . .. .. . , . 5.6 5.7 5.8 " 16 17 18 Lateral Pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Pavement Sections ........................................ 20 Other Geotechnical Considerations ..,...,........,............ 22 5.8.1 Seismic Design Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .. 22 5.8.2 Soil Corrosivity .................................... 22 5.8.3 Reduction of Moisture Fluctuations and Surface Drainage .... 23 6.0 ADDrnONAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 7.0 UMITATIONS . . . , f . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . , I . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . I . . .. .. .. . .. . . . I ... .. . .. . . "' 27 jj Copyrilbt 1m, taemr.-. .... ~ ,./ S 7' " i 1 i 1 2 3 , 4 4 4 4 5 5 5. 6 14 , . , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , . II II SEP-10-'93 14:30 ID:F~ DESIGN.. INC TEL NO:714-540-6618 . 11846 P03 --~ ~...... KLEINFELDER : Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 8 , 5.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Earthwork Site grading design and project specifications should be developed in accordance with the followingrecomrnendations and the suggested guidelines for earthwork construction included in Appendix D. S,P Site.Preoaration and Gradil1i .. Grading plans were not available for our review at the time this report was prepared. Based on our field observations and understanding of the project, we expect that required grading may result in less than about two feet of cut or ffil in some portions of the building pad and pavement areas. Final grading plans should be reviewed by our firm for conformance with bur recommendations prior to construction bidding. Areas receiving engineered fill or supporting project features should be cleared of existing structures, pavements, and sidewalks. During the removal of the existing site features, structural foundations, floor slabs, buried pipes, and utilities should be removed within two feet of existing or final grade (whichever is lower). Subsurface gas tanks, septic tanks, manholes, and cesspools should be completely removed. Excavations for removal of the above items should be dish-shaped and backfilled with properly compacted engineered fill. There is a possibility that the surface clays may dry during the excavation process, and shrinkage cracks may start to open. We recommend that periodic sprinkling be performed to maintain the moisture content within the soils. If cracking has already occurred, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least six inches below the lowest depth of cracking, moisture conditioned to ~o to five percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to within 88 to 92 percent of maximum dry density as determined in Copyn,bt Itn, KJoioIoIoIor.... , ~ -/9..5 SEF'-10-' 93 14: 31 ID: F DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-540-6618 ij846 P04 HI KLEtNFElDER - , Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 9 accordance with ASTM Method D15S7 "Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soils- Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop". The native soils above the lower six-inch scarified area should be placed in uniform layers of eight-inch loose thickness, moisture conditioned to two to five percent above optirnum moisture content, and compacted to 88 to 92 percent of the ASTM D1SS7 maximum dry density, except for the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade where the percentage of compaction should be raised to 90 to 93 percent of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. All areas to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of four inches or below the surface cracks (as described above). The surface should th.en be moisture condltlOned by. working with a harrow, disk, blade, or similar equipment to obtain a uniform moisture distribution of two to five percent above optimum moisture content. After a uniform . moisture content has been obtained, the scarified area should then be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of ASTM D1557 for soils with a plasticity index of 15 or less (hereinafter referred in this report as low expansion potential soils) and to within a range of 88 to 92 percent for soils with a plasticity index greater than 15 (hereinafter referred in this report as moderate to very high ~xpa~ioD. pot,nua.! soils). The pcrccntatr. of compaction should be raised to 95 percent if the scarified area is within the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade for low expansion potential soils and to within 90 to 93 percent for moderate to very high expansion potential soils. In general, the clays, sandy clays, and clayey sands are expected to behave as high expansion potential soils; the silty sands should generally behave as low expansion material soils. -! 1 ! - , , Engineered fill consisting of low expansion potential soils should be placed in lifts no greater than eight-inch uniform loose thicknbs and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density at a moisture content one to three percent above the optimum moisture, except for the upper 12 inches of fill in pavement areas where the percentage of compaction should be raised to 95 percent. For moderate to very high expansion potential soils, the degree of compaction should be between 88 to 92 percent of c.p,n,bll992,lCIeio/ddet. Joe. ~ ~ ../Btb ., SEP-10-'93 14:32 I D: F~'__D_ES fGN I NC TEL NO:714-540-6618 . --.- !j846P05 , Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 10 ASTM D1SS7 maximu:m dry density with a moisture content between two and five percent above the optimum moisture, except for the upper 12 inches of fill in pavement areas where the percentage of compaction should be between 90 to 93 percent at the same moisture content. Moisture content is considered very important and, therefore, cornpaction acceptance should be evaluated by both relative compaction and moisture content. If either criteria is not within the specified tolerances, the compaction of the fill ~hould not be accepted, and the contractor should rework the material until the fill is placed within the specified tolerances. '- The, surface of the compacted fill and cut areas with moderate to very high expansive potential soils should not be allowed to dry below the specified moisture content. Periodic sprinkling should be required until building floors, exterior slabs, or pavements have been constructed. This sprinkling is recommended to maintain adequate moisture conditions and to reduce shrinkage cracks in the expansive soils. ; If imported illl is required, we recommend that it be a semi-impervious to impervious soil classified as either GM, GC, SM, or SC under the Unified Soil Classification System and also meet the following requirements: Liquid Limit: Less than 30% Plasticity Index: Less than or equal to 15% Percent Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve: Less than 30% Maximum Particle Dirnension: Less than 3 inches Al.l imported fill should be compacted to the general recommendations provided for engineered fill, except as described otherwise in later sections of this report. Copyritilllm. _. r... ~-1'is7 ~ . ". .".."'," .~ ......~..-."",.. _.."'" _ _,~ ...".,,'" _ . ~ . ...t. ~ .. .~ __ , - ... .....-.-.-.-..........-......-------..- ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP-10-'93 14:33 ID:F~ DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-540-6618 . 1;846 P06 III KLEIN FElDER , Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 11 5.2 Utility Trenches ' 5.2.1 Trench E~cavation and Stability All excavation work should comply with the current requirements of OSHA Trenches (either open or backfilled) which parallel structures, pavements, or flatwork should be - planned so that they do not extend below a plane having a downward slope of one vertical and two horizohtal from a line nine inches above the bottom edge of footings, pavements, or flatwork. Also, no parallel trenches should be closer than 1.5 feet from the closest edge of footings, pavements, or flatwork: Should it be necessary to locate parallel trenches which do not meet the criteria recommended above' for footings at conventional depth, we recommend that the footing depths be increased until the criteria are met. A check should be made by the civil designer to verily that all trenches comply with the setback recommendations of this paragraph. If there are special cases where these requirements are not practical, the civil designer should communicate with the project geotechnical engineer and architect on a case-by-case basis. Temporary shoring to provide footing, pavement, flatwork, or utility support is not recommended unless localized settlements on the order of one percent of tbe trench depth can be tolerated. Based on present safety regulations of the California State Industrial Safety Orders and OSHA. shoring and/or bracing of excavations"Will be required where personnel are working within excavations deeper than five feet. As an alternative to shoring and bracing, excavation walls may be laid back to a slope ratio no greater than 1:1. 5.2.2 Pipe Beddin~ and Backfill Pipe bedding should consist of sand with a sand equivalent (SE) of not less than 30. Bedding should be extended the full width of the trench for the entire pipe zone, which is the zone from the bottom of the trench, to one foot above the top of the pipe. The sand should be brought up evenly on each side of the pipe to avoid unbalanced loads, On-site materials will probably not meet bedding requirements. ,!;/ ... / Cjij B' , Cap,....b. 1992. lCIeiofddel, 10.. ___ "', ,.,. '_"." ~'.'W"" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP-10-'93 14:33 ID:F~ DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-5~-6618 . 11846 P07 k~ KLEINfElDfR - ~ Project No. 51-1776.01 Septl:mber 14, 1992 Page 12 All trench backflll and pipe bedding should be placed in lifts not to exceed eight inches in , compacted thickness and should be compacted by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction except the upper 12 inches of backfill below pavernent sections, which should have a relative J:ompaction of at least 95 percent. The moisture content of compacted backf1l1 soils should be at or above optimum moisture. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of backfill soils should be obtained in accordance with tJiTM D-1557. The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill above the pipe zone provided they are free of organic matter and have a maximum particle size of four inches. Use of on-site expansive soils in critical areas has the potential risk for soil swelling (which may damage buried utilities and/or overlying paved surfaces) and backfill settlement unless these soils have been , properly moisture-conditio~ed and adequately cO~pacted. Compaction by jetting or flooding is ngt recommended. 5.2.3 Thrust Block Suwort . For design of buried thrust block systems, an allowable passive earth pressure of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth can be used for both undistllrbed and recompa~ted native materials. Also, the frictional resistance of the block can be added to resist thrust Tbe allowable frictional resistance may be calculated as the dead weight of the block plus the overlying soils times the factor 0.30. For design purposes, a moist density of 125 pcf is considered appropriate for compacted fill over thrust blocks. 5.3 Foundation and Floor Slab Support Alternatives Based on the results of our field and laboratory investigation, it is our professiohal opinion that the proposed foundation loads may be supported on shallow foundations, bearing on natural soils or properly compacted engineered fill as described herein. Due to the presence ~r-l ~ ~ . c.of",~llm. KJeiaf...... r.c, ~ I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP~10-'93 14:34 JD:F-~ DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-S, .18, 11846 P08 RI~K L E r NFEl DER - Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 13 of expansive soil conditions, two foundation and floor slab support alternatives are presented' for consideration. These alternatives are: 1. Support on Low-Expansive Potential Soils n. Deeper Shallow Foundations With Floating Slab Foundation Alternative I consists of the overexcavation of moderate to very high expansive potential soils and placement of foundations and slabs on structural fill with low expansion potential. Foundation Alternative II consists of placing foundations on existing soils at a sli~htly deeper depth with slab and foundation reinforcement combined with limited presoaking of the upper subgrade soils. The most direct method of reducing structural damage due to swelling soils is removal of the upper expansive soil 'and replacing it with low to nonexpansive potential materials. This procedure reduces the thickness of the expansive stratum, provides a surcharge for any remaining exPansive potential materials, protects the underlying clay from excessive moisture content fiuctuations, and provides a uniform thickness of dense soil which ten!JS to distribute soil pressures uniformly. Conventional shallow foundations and floors can then be supported on the fill. Although it may have a higher cost, this foundation alternative is favored in lieu Q~ Foundation AltcrnativCl TT. nr:tllil~ nf Fnnnr1Rtion .Alttrn:lti\l, I nr. contained in the next section. Foundation Alternative IT involves constructing the foundation system on existing soils and using a combination of, nominal reinforcement of foundations and slabs with limited subgrade presoaking. This option is probably the least desirable of the two alternatives since the swell susceptible soils would not be removed and a complete structural design to ..,Ju\,:~ ~w~llIlIg. hCllve would not be proviaea. However, this procedure has been used effectively in the past. If the potential risk for some swelling can be tolerated, this method docs have the merit that it is probably the least expensive of the two alternatives. ~q>-I"O - ~blltt'J, KkioEou.. Ioc. , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l ,::.c:.r-.LU- ::'...J .I........)::) l.u.r.._..!--'c.~ll.:ll'l ),1'1"- ;CL ,"U: (i'-!-::J'-!I:J."b_-kqK'-~'-!:F~~"DEK . , Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 14 The two alternatives presented have been used in the San Diego area in the past and are probably representative of the more cost-effective methods in common use. Alternative II bas risk since the potential for swelling should be reduced, but will probably not be completely rernoved. Past experience has been that, if the soils are properly moisture conditioned and the foundations and slabs are constructed as recommended, the amount of heave, if any, should be minimized and any cracking should be more of an aesthetic rather than structural problem. If the two a.lternative presented are not acceptable, we can provide other options. However, these additional optioI1S may be cost-prohibitive for this project. '.3.1 Foundation Alternative I: Support on Low E'lPansion Potential Mttterials Under this alternative, the expansive soils should be partially overexcavated and replaced with a semi-impervious low to nonexpansive structural fill. The amount of overexcavation should be to a depth of at lease four feet below the existing ground or pavement surface. The fill should extend laterally beyond the perimeter of the building by at le,ast 5 feet. The fill soils should meet the quality and construction procedure requirements for import fill detailed under Section 5.1.1 with the exception that the relative compaction requirements should be raised to 95 percent to provide additional surcharge weight. It may be cost- effective to over-excavate the native expansive soils, treat them with three to four percent lirne by dry unit weight of soil to reduce their expansive potential, and replace them as structural fill instead of importing nonexpansive or low expansive fill materials. However, further testing with lime is required before any tentative recommendations for lime treatment can be made. . Foundations bearing on this low to nonexpansive potential fill should have a minimum embedment depth and footing width of at least 12 inches. Footings can be sized for allowable soil contact pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot for support of dead plus norrnallive loads. This pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as , Copy.... 1m, XIoWeUet. 100. ~ ~ -1'1 ' ".,.'... ...... ....... ._..-.... -...... -..- - '- " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---. ___ SEP-10-' 93 14: 35 ID:F~ DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-540~18 11846 P10 III KlflNFHDER I , I I I Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 15 seismic and/or wind loads. Total settlements are anticipated to be less than 1/2 inch with maximum differential settlements of 50 percent of total settlements over a nominal column span of 30 to 40 feet. Resistance to lateral forces may be computed utilizing either friction or passive pressure resistance. The coefficient of sliding friction recommended for use in design between concrete structures and the supporting granular fill soils is 0.40. For passive pressure design, an allowable equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot is recommended. If friction or passive pressures are combined, the larger value should be reduced by 50 percent. Interior subgrades supporting concrete slabs under Alternative I should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 200 pounds per cubic inch (Pci) can be used to design floors and walkways on the compacted granular fill subgrade. The compacted fill subgrade beneath floor areas should be covered with four inches of free- draining sand or crushed gravel base meeting the Unified Soil Classification for OW, GP, SP, or SW soils. A moisture barrier membrane should be placed.over tbe sand or gravel base in locations where moisture vapor transmission through the concrete slab is to be mitigated. This membrane should have a permeance of less than 0.3 perms as determined in accordance with ASTM E96. If polyethylene plastic sheeting is used, it should have a minimum thickness of ten mils with joints lapped at least six inches and taped, This membrane should be overlain by one to two inches of moist, clean sand meeting the Unified Soil Classification for SP or SW soils. This sand is to help promote the proper curing of concrete and to provide a degree of protection for the plastic membrane during concrete pouring operations. In areas where tbe floor slab is not sensitive to moisture and where items stored on or above the slab are not sensitive to moisture, the vapor rnembrane and overlying sand can Copyn,bllm. KJeiofdde<. .... 0l...,,1-;Z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEP-10-'93 14:36 ID:F4IIf pESIGN INC TEL NO:714-540-6618 ~ 11846 P 11 III KlEINfHDER , : Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 16 be omitted. 1bis omission is not desirable in any areas where floor coverings will be placed ' on tbe slab. 5.3.2 Foundation Alternative II: Deeper SQallow Foundations With Floatinl1 Slab Under this alternative, the foundation system is constructed directly on the expansive subgrade. Minor floor cracking may occur although the footings and slabs are nominally reinforced toreduce the opening of cracks. Perimeter and interior foundations should have embedment depths of 30 and 18 inches, respectively, below the lowest' adjacent grade. The foundation should have a minimum projection on each side of the wall of at least two inches for a singl~.story structure and three inches for a two-story structure. The maximum " allowable soil contact pressure for support of dead plus normal live load under this alternative is 2,500 pounds per square foot for engineered fill and native soils. These values may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as seismic 8.'!Id/or wind loads. Estimated total settlements ar<<: 3/4 inch with differential settlements expected to be less than 1/2 inch. The floating slab should rest on a gravel subbase and be reinforced as described below for all slabs under this alternative. Resistance to lateral forces for Foundation Alternative II may be computed in similar fasbion as described under Foundation Alternative I with the exception that the coefficient of sliding friction recommended for use in design between concrete structures and subgrade soils should be reduced to 0.30. Support for concrete floor slabs under Alternative II may be provided by a six-inch blanket of select granular subbase. The granular subbase and low permeability membrane should be constructed as described under Foundation Alternative I. In addition, the floor should have a minimum concrete thickness of six inches with a joint arrangement which will provide complete low friction separation at all footings and slab interfaces to allow for minor rnovernent. A modulus of subgrade reaction, Ie, of 75 pei can be used to design the floor for structural load. Copf!icbll992.lCIoiotcldcr, Joe, .. .:( "'/'13 ~_,.(t.:,.,.~~f:;J.~:':,2;>...~:I~,~_..LRl.F.:~_P.S.~.U:jt;Llt;LC:.".._,,,~li;:.k-~"Nlt 714-5~~Jl~, , 11846 P12 ""', . u. _.,. " ".. . ~. " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . - ~~ KLEINFELDER Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 17, Care should be taken to avoid drying of soils exposed in the floor slab subgrade and footing excavation. The moisture content of the subgrade for foundation and slab support should be checked 24 hours before pouring concrete. Supporting soils should be in a moist condition prior to the placement of concrete to reduce the potential for volume changes in the soil. If moisture contents are below 1 percent above optimum moisture, the foundation material should be sprayed or flooded with water 24 hours prior to pouring concrete to increase tbe moisture content until the moisture exceeds the above requirement for a depth of 6 inches beneath the foundation. The granular subbase will help maintain the moisture and will also provide a workable surface for the slab-on-grade. Reinforcement steel requirements for foundatio~ and slabs should be designed by the structural t':ngineer. The presence of mediurn to very high expansive soils will probably control the reinforcement requirement~. We recommend that slab-on-grade foundations be designed in accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-4, Part 1. For tbe geotechnical input to the design procedure, we recommend a climatic rating factor, CW, of 15 and an effective plasticity index (p.I.) of 42. & a minimum, we recommend that continuous footing reinforcernent consist of at.least two No.4 bars placed at the top and two placed at the bottom of the foundation. These reinforcement guidelines should not supersede the reinforcement requirements calculated by the structural engineer. di Construction employing posts or poles as columns embedded in earth or embedded in concrete footings in the earth to resist both axial and latenil loads (such as for light standards) can be designed in general accordance with Section 2907.(g) of the Uniforrn Building Code. We recommend that lateral soil-bearing pressures of 100 psf and 50 psf per foot of depth below natural grade be used for parameters SI and S3' respectively. An allowable soil-bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used to support vertical loads. Furthermore, the ground surface should be prepared in the area of any post-type foundation as described in Section 5.1 of this report. ~...Itp~~ Copyriabl 1992, Kkiaf...... !Dc. ~~. ~_. -~ ~ ..,~~ .-.'.' ---'~", ,"'- ............. ,.~. ,~--. _w.o. ,.,,_.-...~, , ...- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - k.~ KlEtNfElDER , Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 18, 5.5 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade There will be a tendency for' exterior slabs-on-grade to move if they are constructed on expansive potential soils. Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. To allow the slabs to move as unit and help mitigate the opening of any cracks which rnay develop, we recommend the exterior slabs be reinforced. Reinforcement should consist of: 1) No.3 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions at mid-height in the slab or; 2) W5.8 x W2,9 Davis Walker Econolap fabric placed at mid-height; or,3) 6 X 6 - 6/6 wire mesh placed at mid-height. These recommendations are given in order of preference frorn a soils engineering'standpoint. If the ~re mesh is proposed for .use, we strongly recommend tbat great care be taken so that the rnesb is placed at mid-height in the slab. Misplacing of the mesh would result in sufficient reinforcement which could result in breakage: of the slabs if the clays swell. Exterior slabs at entrances should be recessed to allow for heave of the slab without interference of the door operation. Concrete aprons on expansive potential soils should not be doweled into the foundation wall to prcvent transmission of swelling pressures. Frequent expansion joints are recommended. Slabs should be placed on four inches of imported fill placed over 12 inches of compacted sub grade which has been moisture conditioned two to five percent above optimum moisture. This condition should be verified 24 hours prior to slab construction. A sub grade soil modulus of 50 pounds per cubic inch can be used in the design for exterior slabs resting on compacted moderate to very high expansive potential soils. Some movement of slabs should be anticipated. , Exterior slabs constructed on at least three feet of low expansion potential fill can be constructed in accordance with conventional practice and the use of reinforcement and extensive expansion joining is not required. A subgrade modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used for low expansion material. .:}"'/15 .. Cop1rilbll992. KIciAr.-. 1Bo. c SEP-10-'93 14:38 ID:F~ DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-54041J18 1:1846 P14 .-_.&_.- I I I I I I I I I I . . . . . . . . . , k'fJ KlEtNFELDER - Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 19 5,6 Lateral Pressures Lateral earth pressures for the truck-well retaining walls in the loading dock area can be calculated assuming that the retained soils act as a fluid. Generally, truck-well retaining. walls are restrained at the top and are sensitive to movement and tilting. Therefore these walls should be designed for the at-rest equivalent fluid weight (efw) of 60 pcf.' Retaining walls at the project site which will be free to rotate at 'least 0.1 percent of the wall height may be designed using an active efw of 40 per. These values assume that imported, low to non-expansive sandy soils (SP, SM, SC) will be used as backfill and that the backfill is level and well drained behind the wall. Soils with a UBC expansion index greater than 50 should' . . 'w not be placed within a lateral distance frorn the back of the wall that is equivalent to the unsupported wall height. Wall backfill should be rnoisture-conditioned to at least optimum and cornpacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D1S57 maximum dry density. Surcharge loads should be added to the efw where appropriate. Fifty percent of any uniform areal surcharge placed at the top of the wall (within a distance equal to the height of the wall) should be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure over the entire wall. We recommend that at least 250 psf of uniform areal surcharge (125 psf uniform horizontal pressure) be incorporated into tbe design of !ruck.well retaining walls be added to the top of wall if surcharge pressures of less than 250 psf are anticipated. Walls should be provided with backdrains to reduce th~ potential for the buildup of hydrostatic pressures in areas where surface runoff water, such as from irrigated landscape, may enter wall backfill. A typical drainage system could consist of a one- to two-foot-wide zone Of permeable material immediately adjacent to the wall with a perforated pipe at the base of the permeable material. The permeable material should extend at least two-thirds the height of the wall, and the pipe should discharge to a storm drain or other appropriate outlet which is protected against erosion. Surface water should not be allowed to drain toward, or pond near, the top of the wall. Furthermore, the wall backfill should be capped ~..I?" " Copyrit'" 1991. Kleiafoldo<. 100, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . SEP-10-' 93 14 ,: 3~, ~Ri~.;.p,~~,r~~>. L'E. "C..,"">J.\ih,.,~eJ.<T:l,~~oiP~,~.",_",,,.\;~53^~?; ~.j~." .,.~>., ....~.. III KlEINfELDER Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 2Q with 12 inches of silty or clayey material or provided with some other type of protective covering. 5.7 Pavement Sections For purposes of analysis and design of pavements, we performed an R-value test on a selected soil sample considered repres.entative of subgrade rnaterials that exist below the , proposed parking area. Based on laboratory test r~sults, an R-value of 6 was used to develop the following pavement section recommendations. In general, paved areas sbould be prepared as described in Section 5.1 of this report. Pavement sections have been evaluated in general accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design. Traffic indices of 4.0, 5.0, and 6.Q were used to facilitate the design of driveways and parking areas for the shoppin& center. Recommended flexible pavement sections for these conditions are given in the following table: Class 2 Asphalt Concrete Aggreaate Base Traffic Index (in inches) (in inches) 4.0 2.5 7.5 . 5.0 2.5 11.0 6.0 3.0 13.5 As an alternative to asphalt concrete pavement sections, rigid portland cement concrete pavement sections may be constructed. Rigid pavements are recommended in areas that will be subject to relatively high static wheel loads and/or dolly pad loads such as related to tractor-trailer units. The recommended minimum rigid pavement sections are given in tbe following table: ~~/'7 , c.."riobllm. KIoiat...... ..., ,~,~...- SEP-1gJ-'93 14:40 , ID:F~ DESIG.t-I I NC::" ., , '" TE;l"NO:?1.4;;~40~18.."., 11846 P16 "0 ,!,'" ~~!!o~";;"~'''::':'L+;.~: __.",,<','!,;r':";'{" C'i;~i~<;.1ln:'f'ii't..'~~~it1~.(~ji:"~,~,,);~,,,\\~,,;"~':~ii:\.,,;~,:,v~,~,:,'~att:,t-t(ft"~~\,,>,.,.: . ,;.; .,.- "t:..t ,," >,:II'r-~':". ;~',:\', ,,"'~'~ "":!"" , L' / . I' I 1 I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. III KLEt~fELDER Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 21 Tramc Index Concrete Pavement Class 2 (inches) Aggrecate Base (Inches) 6.0 or less 6.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 The recommended pavement sections assume the following conditions: 1. The upper 12 inches of subgrade and base materials are compacted to a minirnurn of 95 perc~nt of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density; , 2. The finished subgrade is in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time aggregate base is laid and compacted; 3. Asphalt concrete pavement, portland cement concrete pavement, and Class 2 aggregate base materials conform to, and are placed in accordance with, the latest revision of the Caltrans Standard Specifications; .. 4. Pavements slope towards an adequate drainage system such that the subgrade soils are not allowed to become saturated; and' S. All concrete curbs separating pavement from landscaped areas extend at least six inches into the subgrade to reduce movement of moisture into the aggregate base layer. This reduces the risk of pavement failures due to subsurface water originating from landscaped areas. The concrete pavement should be constructed in an approxixnate IS-foot square grid system. If a square system is impractical, rectangular panels can be used with the longitudinal distance a maximum of 20 feet. All longitudinal or transverse control joints should be constructed by hand forming or placing a pre-molded filler such as "zip strips." Longitudinal or transverse construction joints should be keyed. Expansion joints should be used to'isolate fixed objects abutting or within the pavement area. The expansion joint should extend the full depth of the pavement. Joints should run continuously and extend through integral curbs and thickened edges: We -< '1" Ii' , Copy,.", Im.~. r.o, ....:.''',..,~.. ,., !;1Ef;-}g~,i,..J~ :j!."1",..!.!1-jX.P~~.LGl}"..lli~, """",,,.'wTS:'c, _\'lg;3,1f!::.~4~18.. ". " 11846 Pi? . 'j~"',,:' ;, ,r ,:... ."" ""., jp",,".'.I'.,' I" I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <; III kLEINFElDER Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 22 recommend that joint layout be adjusted to coincide with the corners of objects and structures. In addition, the following is recommended for concrete pavements: 1. Slope pavement at least 1/: percent to provide drainage; 2. Provide rough surface texture for traction; , 3. Cure concrete with curing compound or keep continuously moist for a minimum of seven daysj 4. Keep all traffic off concrete until its compressive strength exceeds 2,000 pounds per square inch; and 5. Consideration should be given to using slip dowels on 24-inch centers to strengthen control and construction joints. 5.8 Other Geotechnical Considerations S'.8.1 S",ismic Dcsi~n Parameters We recommend that the proposed improvements be designed for a subsurface soil profile type Sj (see UBC Table No. 23-J). . 5.8.2 Soil Corrosivi1y Soluble sulfate, pH, and resistivity tests were performed on a selected soil sample to evaluate the corrosivity of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are included in Appendix C. The test results indicate ,the existing soils contain a negligible concentration of soluble sulfate. A Type II cement is considerecl appropriate for use in concrete which will be in contact with on-site soils. Furthennore, no special protection should be required for steel rebar in concrete which comes into contact with on-site soils, provided a minimum of three inches of concrete is maintained between the soil and the steel. Laboratory tests also indicate that on-site soils have a low minimurn electrical resistivity and are slightly basic suggesting a potentially severe corrosive environment for buried rnetal that comes into contact with these soils. The impact of corrosive soil conditions can be mitigated for buried ~ ~/", c:.,.yricbll992.~. ID,,' ... :-"""..,(( f",~S~;t,~::-",:,~j"2:1.~;,r,.,.W~~.",,~S.IG~1~w,,,,' :'~'~1\:' ~g:_;.;q~~'~"'r,,^(1'{i,':<;;>'!:~WIiI'~J1,~ - , ....~ KlEINFELDER Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 23 utilities by the use of inert materials or by providing metal pipes with cathodic protection and/or polyethylene encasement. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for more specific recommendations. 5.8.3 Reduction of Moisture Fluctuations and Surface Drainllie Due to the relatively high swell potential of the surface soils on-site, special precautions should be taken to reduce moisture fluctuations of subgrade soils. Positive drainage gradients of at least 1/2 percent to two percent should be established away from the exterior walls of structures for impervious and pervious surfaces, respectively. Concrete walks and- a.~phlllt pllv~ml'mt~ rnnstmctf'd adjacent to the extcrrior foundation wnlls will aelp reduee moist\lre fluctuations. Where used next to structures, paved walks should extend five to ten feet from the building perimeter and should contain a vertical shoulder at the outer edge which is four inches in depth below the bottom of slab. Horizontal water migration from irrigation, planter, or landscaped arc:<u placed adjacent to building5 may be comtructed \vith nn undcrlyil'lg moisture ba.rrier At .. Jc:})tL uf two feet which slopes away from the building. This barrier can be provided by the use of either a concrete cut.off slab, a polyethylene moisture barrier at least ten mils thick, or two feet of compactcd impervious soil extending at least five feet from the building perimeter. H raised planters are used, the bottom should be closed and the outer walls provided with weep holes for proper drainage. Architectural and garden waJls should have reinforcement in both foundations and walls. Footings should have, as a minimum, four No.4 bars placed two at top and two at bottom. The walls should have minimum reinforcement of No.3 bars at IS-inch centers each way. Concrete walks adjacent to lawns should have a vertical cut-off shoulder extending at least eight inches below the bottom of the slab. --? ".::J c>-d Cqty,.bllm. KIoiotoldor. Joe. ,., _'_.",___ .-.. SEP-10-'93 14:42 . ID:F~ DESIGN IN~ TEL NO:714~~18 1184S;P19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ~"I KLEINfHDER Project No. 51-1776-01 September 14, 1992 Page 24, All utility lines leading into structures should be ~ackfiU~d with impervious, low r.xpllmion potential compacted backfill or otherwise effectively sealed to reduce moisture migration. Special care should be exercised during installation of subfloor sewer and water lines to reduce the possibility of future su!,Jsidence through saturation. In addition, perimeter roof gutters should be utilized with downspouts carrying drainage at least ten feet beyond the exterior wall. .:t' ' ,;; t!> / ( Copyricbt 1992. Jaeiofold..-. Ioc.