HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/10/26 (8)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994
Page 1
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-47: request to add a self-
service car wash to the existing service station located at
501 TelegraDh Canvon Road- Shell Oil ComDanv
A. BACKGROUND
The proposal is to add a 630 sq. ft. self-service car wash tunnel along the northerly
property line of the existing service station located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road,
within the CCD (Central Commercial/Design Review) zone, The car wash is proposed
in conjunction with an exterior remodel and landscape program for the existing building
and site.
On September 14, 1994 meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony on the project
and expressed concerns related to both on-and off-site circulation. The project was
continued to allow the applicant time to consider solutions to these concerns, as well as
to provide an opportunity for the Safety Commission to review and comment on the
proposal.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-92-40, of potential
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the
attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there
would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-94-27.
The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on August 29, 1994
(Reference DRC-94-49), The Committee approved the project subject to conditions
relating to finish materials and signage.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt attached Resolution PCC-94-47 approving the project based on the fmdings and
subject to the conditions contained therein,
C, DISCUSSION
Adiacent zoning and land use
Site
North
South
East
West
CCD
CCP
R3GP
CCP
CCD
Service Station
Retail Center
Multi-Family Residential
Retail Center
Service Station
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994
Page 2
Existing site characteristics
The project site is an 18,698 sq. ft. (0.48 acre) parcel at the northeast comer of
Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive. The property contains an existing service
station facility, including a 1,764 sq,ft. three-bay service structure and adjoining
foodmart, and two gas islands with an overhead canopy.
Proposed use
The proposed project consists of the addition of a 630 sq,ft. self-serve carwash tunnel
with stacking for up to five vehicles along the northerly property line (at the rear of the
site), Also proposed is an exterior remodel of the existing buildings, rearrangement of
the on-site parking to provide 7 parking spaces, and additional site landscaping along
both street frontages as well as at the comer and adjacent to the parking areas.
D. ANALYSIS
Carwash Reauirements
Section 19.58,060 of the Municipal Code sets forth the following requirements for
automobile carwash facilities:
. all equipment used for the facility shall be soundproofed so that any noise
emanating therefrom, as measured from any point on adjacent property, shall be
no more audible than the noise emanating from the nonnal street traffic at a
comparable distance;
. hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. unless specifically
approved by the Planning Commission;
. vacuuming facilities shall be located to discourage the stacking of vehicles
entering the car wash area and causing traffic congestion adjacent to any areas
used for ingress or egress;
. the carwash location, technology, and related drainage facilities shall be designed
and constructed so as to prevent damage to pavement or other infrastructure from
water from the car wash operation being carried off-site, to provide a means to
collect and retain potentially toxic material, and to use recycled water to the
extent possible.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994
Page 3
Noise
The site fronts on Telegraph Canyon Road, a six-lane major street, and is in close
proximity to the Interstate I-80S freeway, The ambient noise levels from these sources
are higher than the expected noise level of the carwash. Additionally, the tunnel is
oriented toward commercial areas to the west and east, and the carwash will not operate
before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m, Therefore, as reflected in the Negative Declaration,
the operation is not expected to have any significant impacts,
Traffic/Site Circulation
Concerns were expressed with the stacking and exiting areas provided and the potential
for traffic congestion both within the site and impacting the adjacent public streets. The
existing site includes automotive repair, a small food mart, and gas pumps; the carwash
addition will intensify vehicular circulation on the site, and will create cross-patterns of
circulation wherein vehicles both entering and exiting the carwash will be crossing the
paths of cars entering and exiting the gas service lanes,
The applicant has provided infonnation from the manufacturer of the carwash detailing
the operation of the equipment and the time required to complete each wash cycle (see
Exhibit "A" attached), This infonnation shows that the equipment proposed in this case
can process up to three times as many cars per hour as the equipment used at the Bonita
Road/I-80S Shell, where stacking and interference with the gas services lanes have often
been observed.
A comparison of the current volumes of business between the project site and the Bonita
Road Shell indicates the latter facility handles about twice the volume of activity as the
project site. The difference in equipment, even considering a substantial increase in
volumes, tends to support the applicant's contention that stacking and circulation should
not be the same problem presented by the Bonita Road facility. (Exhibit "B").
The applicant is continuing to attempt to obtain an easement and establish an exit drive
from the carwash directly east onto the driveway serving the adjoining commercial center
as previously recommended by staff, As an alternative, however, the applicant has
proposed several other measures to alleviate circulation conflicts, These include signs
and striping indicating no blocking of the entry and exit drives, and a proposal to allow
an independent review of site conditions after six months of operation to detennine if
further measures are required, such as restricting hours or sales (see Exhibit "C").
The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed on-site circulation, and has concluded that the
stacking areas are adequate, and that the additional mitigation measures proposed by the
applicant will facilitate internal circulation and should preclude vehicles from backing up
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994
Page 4
on either Telegraph Canyon Road or Halecrest Drive. Based upon this conclusion, staff
is no longer recommending that the egress point into the adjoining center be a
requirement of approval, although it would be a desirable addition to the plan if it can
be obtained.
The Traffic Engineering Division ltas also collected information on traffic volumes in the
area of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive (please see attached memo), The
current level of service (LOS) for the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and
Halecrest Drive are as follows: a,m. peak period, LOS "B"; mid-day peak period, LOS
"A"; and p.m. peak period, LOS "B"/"C". The estimated 40 additional trips generated
by the car wash would not change the current levels of service, Further, analysis of the
Halecrest Drive/Hale Street intersection was done; for the three peak periods of the day,
this intersection operates at LOS "A", and the carwash and associated traffic will not
pose a significant impact.
Safety Commission Comments
The Safety Commission reviewed this project at its October 13 meeting (see excerpt from
draft minutes, attached). Much of the discussion related to drainage issues; it was
suggested that drains and speed bumps be installed at the exit of the carwash to facilitate
the drying of the car and water drainage and these have been incorporated into the plan
by the applicant.
Also, as a standard condition of approval for carwashes, the applicant will be required
to enter into an agreement with the City to repair any water damage to public
improvements resulting from the operation.
With respect to traffic issues, Safety Commission members also felt that vehicle stacking
was a potential problem. To address this issue, they suggested that a "No Blocking/No
Stopping" sign be posted at the Halecrest Drive driveway to alert drivers not to block this
access point. It was also suggested that the asphalt area immediately inside the westerly
driveway be marked and striped "Do Not Block". As noted earlier, these measures have
been incorporated into the plan by the applicant.
Engineering Comments
The Engineering Department ltas provided the following list of items which will be
required in conjunction with the building permit:
1. Procurement of a Construction Permit for any work performed in the public right-
of-way;
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of October 26, 1994
Page 5
2, Payment of Sewer and Transportation Development Impact fees may be required,
and will be assessed upon submittal for the building permit;
3, A seven foot wide dedication of street right-of-way along Telegraph Canyon
Road;
4. Dedication of drainage easement enveloping the existing box culvert located in the
southerly portion of the property;
5. Owner must obtain an Encroachment Permit to allow private facilities to remain
in the City's right-of-way, The permit provides an agreement between the owner
and the City, placing on the owner the responsibility of maintenance and
relocation (when widening occurs) of the facilities.
Attachments
1. Locator and project plans
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Planning Commission Minutes
4, Safety Commission Minutes
5, Exhibit "A" - Manufacturer's Information
6, Exhibit "B" - Site Comparisons
7. Exhibit "C" - Additional applicant-proposed mitigation measures
8, Exhibit "D" - Memo from Traffic Engineering Division
9, Initial Study
10, Disclosure Statement
pcc944 7. rep
(
1~'1~ _J-'- ~M ~.. ~~
n~ f 'II' ~--~ - ~] S -r ~~ . ~
..' 'II ),~ . _. J ./ ~ ~ - \-
\"~ \ - _' ~ _ 'it- - ~ .- I...
\ " l-_' "" _ 1. 7 ~ I - 1-1-
{ '- '- - '- -..,.. ....j.,.".J :..-
~ \ J.,..I---. .. - _ - TI'~ III"" --
ltJ .-.U- If Iii' ;:
\ ~-~ -' -.,-. & : M.- \ ~-
~>;;'/ ' __ - ' I
;1I'y t s~ ~ - -- ;;tt i, T ~ r-
\ ~ l/ '. l~U ' rl
. \\'~" ~ - -, , I I i'rf
l \\\ - -i_,' - M~/.It-I!4~ u ..... ~
I I I I I .1
~\'r ~~~."f -e~~~
\ \~i~ 1-; LOCATION,
....... ~,~\,--~T~j..~ r
_ ~/ ~ ~j _, L r-
~ ~ ~/ _r!l.6~;j L
C \../ ~
~ !I. .... .
, , .
~,' ., . ---\ \,. T I ,~
, ~~ \ \""1 "
.- ~ ~ '-.....<
7 ~~ ~ '~W~ /~
>' ~-l ~ /~ ,~~
( t.
.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C) A"LlCANT:ROD BISBARAT PIIOJECT DIICIIIPTION:
SHELL STATlO1'l
ADD.IIIII: !O1 Telep'apll c..,...... De additioD of 630 sq. ft. to edatiDl
ICALE: FILE NUMIEII: lemee statiOD for a car wash a other
NORTH 1" - 400' . miDor lite ImprovemeDtI.
-
...d... ~
". : w llii if'ltl'I',!t11t'
. ~ I~r "~~i!; .r~t~.n:
~ i Z t~' ru...rnI~::;:h'~~!j
~ 0 :1;\ 'Ii:' ,;"1";'
1 I F 1(1'1 L,!!:!b!"I'!
\. I 0.... Is lil ~~I"t..!~!~t.tilt t':!
.._ J fi:: lii~;;:1 &i~;~RI~;~h::1
U his",~;..~ ~h~~~!;i'l.
(f) h~1' t~~6lir~~i~~---.i~.
o bl .'11. 11!1~ 1!..:;.hih~1
!.b:;t" _.;, 'lh~ii'~!!:I!1
".1 ~ ...t"";.IIIa'.t 'I
-.J<( 'l'i'j!!1!i1! ,1.11',"11'
. 11...1 ~..~ '.. .
C> 1~1" !~;H!~!:O~b!.: ~
i
~ .
,
~ .~~ I ~
<( i I r~." ~-::...... I
~ .". ~ ~ ~:: .I:~~ I~~~~
o ~? . ' ~"~. . '., "".-
u~o/ 8 ,'" :"m~i) e ~I ~:''''i'
W e;1~ ~ ~. ;i~o. ..:! ~t!:'i
t-...a ~ .. s<=! ":...... ~::::;!a
V; LI .!~ 1;5EI ti ~d .~...
0-
<(
::::;
>-
f-
Z
U
:>
I I
! .
~ qU
'" I ,II
0 ! f
:;: P I'
l.o- ~ i, !!
0 . -, ' Ii
w ~ '! i I
0- .h II
0 p, ,
0 , 1111
(I)
--~
-'P'..
\
\
\
\
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.
-~ \
.
It
II~
,-. \
\ \
. \
\
.
~
M"'
i
I
I
.
,
!
.
.
!
I
I,
I.,
"
.
i
" un1--_"
I,,_~~_-~--- _~:)
,'1--unnr--',
, ... Sial'
\ v "I
':!::::::::J::='
" ,......,
, ... J, 8..,
\._------------,/
"
.
i
.
--
--. n
.... T~ .'1
. ! I
~~"'~,~
.--
--~
Ii
m'i,
'.1
~~J;
b...
<I
__,10
~
-I · I
!,~ g: :
I I .
I I I
I I 11
I I ~.
I I .
I I I
I I I
. "
I I
U !
o
o
,
o
~
i
,
,
,
o
,
,
3A1~a lS3~:)31...H
" ~
; d ~ ~.
~ d~~ I. ~ I . Ii! , ~ N
!~;~~ :i. ill ~ Isl ~r~
~~~U ~ 511i~1 ::6
If W' ~;.~ ^
~;~~~ ~.-. "0.'. ~ i ! _. ~il'
..i~ ".'
. . . ,"
" ' .. ,,-I'
\
\
\
~JO'.Q/::~J1I'I
" -
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.
i
~
.
i
'~
\
~. '1\.
,
lID" .I...""
---
o
<(
o
'"
z
o
>-
z
<(
_____ __5;_______
I
0-
<(
oc
'-"
W
-.J
l ~
.'
,
I .
i
I
,
_J'
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
..... r------------
, \-
---J
..
i
~I
I
~
\" ,01 I
III ~"'''Jf''' _ __ _ __
~. ~~_!'"2,~...._____
I. '
.
..~
p-
-.
Iii! IIi l!i 1'1'"", I' ill' ;.,' .1 1 .
H\ 'I! Iii 11-1"1" '\ "11,' 1. -j,
,1': !"J :.J I' J J . I:
. '!II I'; ilt JiI'j.! ,~ 1:11 Ii !III!!'
ii:i 1:1 m ~i:1!i! Ii 11'1 I; !~. l!il!
'fll . I'i ,lili,1 I III. !j II; :il'l
I I r,1 ,I 11,,11 I. I'! It " 111'\
'I'i; ~,f fil 11"llil I lit II II! III'
I II I' ,"'. J ! I.'! I '! .t J
;II!I~ IIi 11~I' I!j.;ti.t 1'!,.{I:ilj.iiJ' i,"1 1II,ii
I .1' . I I " , .tll ,. 'I " I
i; 11 I i Ii oi' I' ". '!I: I! III
1\111 I I:. I;i II!,III !lt~iJ!I;!lj~ 11:11
II:h!11111 I j!j!,!ll ! Ij!l!J;iItlili '1;\;
III!II~ I fill 1111~iJiIIIUI!:!:;!!'I'!!!iiij!J!!iII!
lillI' ,I!! 1'\!"1,!1 1;.1., !'!i!!I'jl'I"J
" 1,1 I. .,. I' II.a"'i~I"i.j
!
~
ii
,-
i
,.-
.....-/ '-""
t [Q]
-~
., r..--------.----~
: '
,
.( ,
.
~ 0
Ib
"" :
" I 0
I ,
. It>
. 0
,
0
,
~ ""
.:..
'"'
.j
~
'.
-
,
o
.
t
1
i
I
5
i
t
,
j
- $
, ,
!: I ),C ~ :1 t .
! ~ili !i. illl ~ifl' .;
~:!i~ i Iii! h6
~13i I.~
iil~ ~. '" ii, ':"
. a ! I ·
II . ." 11.111 h,ll!
I"
~ 6t"
'U'
.
,iii
I
~i
. ..~
\!"
~-
,-!
#l~
I II
'l! i L,
.r: I ~
I
I
0 I
< I
0
II::
U z I
. ~ ,
z
<
()
:I:
0..
<
II::
CI
w
~
~
3f,1~O J.S3~:>31"'H
,
I
,I
,,~ II
th -
:. f
,- .
.M .
tii d-
I~~ I.J
If ,!
t! ti
d ~I
I~ If
i,1
.11
J,.
,.,
.2f' .
-, -
.. ,
c
,.......
i
I-
ii
~
;:
~
~ ~
... :
----r l . & :1
I~i~~ Ii i;I ~ I Ifil'l
iiuHqsSI ~ '3
~:ri~ ! ! Iii f
d ~I iill-i
Ii I' ~ i
;11 ~ ~
.
,
."..
....
!
!
f
~;
,
:.
=;!
00
e
if.!
~
;:
I ~.
..J'
... :
~ ;
-
. ! i I
; f! ·
J i' p_
I! I u ~
~ , ;:
ill ill <(
... 'jj';i~. )0 ~
... I-IJ i I ~ ... .
. 1 , ..J.
... .... . ...'
J,. ... 1,1 ~ f
!II. ~'" il II l ~ ,~ ' . II r <( :l ~
'. . !
Iou ' ' .- I. ! ~ , ... ~
I. , :Er",.'; . I
.......7"~ "- ..J :
i!\Ct... iii :
~"'<<".;.~ ~ ~ ... I
I; n--' ; ! II ' ' ~.
~; . , . I ... !
. ,,,.:..'. I i . , I
---. I- I; ':'r.~" i- I;
~! I'" i d I
If ~ . ~ ! ~! U ~ , ~ ~l U
. - . .
. .....4. . .... . ......... .....
-.. .....
-
-- -
.. .'.
j
i-
J
..
! ;
.,.~...-.. -
... ...
""
..
f'
i I
!I "
f.il
...
"-
... '
~
I
, ~
. .
.
.
.
.. "'" ..~ . "'" I
-..
'II 'i
t" t-
d' ~
I~! I
I i ~
, I >
- s- ;... ~
of 2, iiJ :
~. 11 I ;
i
t'
fi
.~
i~
!!
~ I
Ii
. -.. - .
...
,
I J'
~M:li
" J'~
i 'I
-;Pl i"
II!. ..
I" .
.
~.
-'.' -.:;"
I
, i
- .
~
.. .....,.... 4 oM'
......
)
, ~~ 1~
~
I I
.
. 1Y>J
~ -
-- -- -
--
~
on .
f- I
~ III" ,. " .. ~ .
. ~ I. '. ,.1 ~ ~ :
. s.
. . .
h · 0
o' ,n I
,I r'
.' .?
'I i~ ~
'f .i_
r. .',. r
.. In
i' ~
. f.' i
~f\! .' ,
ft. P :
i~l ~~ li
t" 2, "
!i~ H h
".,.
III' Q'
~ . i~i~!~1
~
on
f~ I
!!! II
~ ~
....
. . .
.
.Ii Ii!; II 1',1 Is ,:t ;!! IiI
.I~ f II i' '61 t" ,
'.:;. ; " ~~t 11~!i II I!J 'I~ tll!
y., "i! I'g ti " t.' 'Y} "
f;l f - ~a~ ,t,!1 .t f~' 'II .~
r., , ~ ~.,., I. · If' J.' ~Il
if! & , ~fi ;I~.~ tt ~I~~ ~ii! 'ii
I h~. i ' r2: t.J Is · f!2' In. It,
.. i,ra! r I ~t U: ~!~ in fin I' ~ . ~ii ,d
i' , '. .. -'0 J.o ~, .r I I 'I'i l'
IiI! ~i ~j ~i! ~!! !il !II ~i!; ~I!! !:I!
I
I
I
. " ~' ,
, ~ I ,'.'
'. ' ,
. ~;t ; 1
I ~;, t !I!!. <'I I I"
)lSn !'" I ~Q
Iii!! ~I ;;iil ~ b'3 ,I! 11111
. .' IS .or ~5 ~II I I I,t.
.. Ii;: R1 :!iJ-I '; : I
~:j~; ! i I!f i I! }..'.
;';~ ~I:.I 1'0-
.h I' .
ill I ~ul!
:!
0
t W
...... ~
- I [
~ : i~
. Is ' ..w
onlD
XO
WOo
!!!
=
.
..
i11~'1i j2ili
~i\" "
~' I .
J~d8 ,S'II :I .1
III
~
III
l\
~
..J
~~
!:!
.'.. "...,...., "..,
....--+
.'..
!' I
~ E
.
~ I
~I ,.... 'r., II
~I,I -1.I.g a~I!I's'f
I ,! ~ I'
I I' ., r. 01 e'
. i I. .
. : ~. ~
Gee 0 e 0, e e e ~ Ii>
i
I I !
I I' i I
I
.
Ii> , !i>, !i>,
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-94-47
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47 FOR THE
ADDITION OF A SELF-SERVE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE
STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on June 2, 1994 by Mark Hayden for Shell Oil
Company; and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a conditional use permit to construct
a self-service car wash for the existing service station located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road
in the C-C-D zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Envirornnental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study
(IS-94-27) of potential envirornnental impacts associated with the implementation of the project
and based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon the Coordinator has concluded that
there would be no significant envirornnental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-94-27; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners within an area greater than 500 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
October 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
I. Adoption of Negative Declaration. That the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-27.
II. CUP Findings. That the Commission makes the fmdings required by the City's rules and
regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets
forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated fmding to be made.
A, That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed car wash will provide a convenient service to residents in the area as well
as motorists by providing an accessible facility along a major thoroughfare.
B, That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect on- or off-site circulation and
has been found to comply with City noise standards,
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The project will be required to comply with all applicable codes, conditions, and
regulations prior to the issuance of development pennits, and on a continuing basis
thereafter.
The conditions herein imposed on the grant of pennit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development.
D, That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The approval of this pennit as conditioned is consistent with City policies and the
General Plan.
III. Conditional Grant of Pennit; Conditions.
The Planning Commission hereby grants conditional use pennit PCC-94-47 subject
to the following conditions whereby:
A. Carwash hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m,
B. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby after a six-
month period, the Zoning Administrator may require that the applicant employ
a City-approved Traffic Engineer to monitor and assess traffic conditions at the
site, If said monitoring reveals that the site operations are creating traffic
congestion affecting either Halecrest Drive or Telegraph Canyon Road, the
Zoning Administrator has the ability to require further mitigation, which may
include, but need not be limited to, limiting the hours of operation of the
carwash.
E. The project will be subject to all requirements and conditions of approval of the
Design Review Committee (DRC-94-49).
F. An Industrial Waste pennit shall be obtained with the connection of any floor
drains of the car wash to the sewer system.
G. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to repair any water
damage to public improvements resulting from the operation of the car wash,
H. A soils study shall be submitted to the Environmental Review Coordinator for
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits,
IV, Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant.
A. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions
imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance
written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the
right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this
reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive
Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
B. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of
approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional
conditions or revocation.
V. A copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of October 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\pany\pcc9447.res)
Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of 9/14/94
ITEM 2:
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-47; REQUEST
TO ADD A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH TO THE EXISTING SERVICE
STATION LOCATED AT 501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - Shell Oil
Company
Principal Planner Griffm presented the staff report and stated that the Design Review Committee
had considered and approved the project design on August 29, contingent upon the Planning
Commission approving the conditional use pennit. The Commission would have ultimate
authority unless appealed. The primary elements looked at by staff were noise and circulation.
A study was done in-house and it was found that the ambient noise levels from the 1-805 freeway
and Telegraph Canyon Road and separation from the residential areas to the northwest were to
the degree that noise would not be a significant impact and would confonn to City standards.
There was a concern regarding ingress and egress from the carwash tunnel, stacking for entry
into the carwash from the gas dispensing islands or from Halecrest Drive, blocking traffic
exiting and resulting in stacking occurring on Halecrest. Staff had proposed as a condition of
approval that the applicant obtain an easement from the adjoining shopping center to create a
direct exit drive onto the shopping center service lane, The City Attorney had stated that that
sort of condition was inappropriate. Alternatives were to recommend approval without the
condition, recommend denial or continue the project and work on some alternate solutions or
allow the applicant further time to work with the shopping center in obtaining an easement. The
applicant states they had approached the owner of the shopping center and they were not
interested in granting an easement. The applicant wished, however, to receive comments from
the Commission. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take
testimony, offer comments, keep the public hearing open, and continue it to October 12, 1994.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Gary O. Wilson, 490 Hale Street, CV, stated he lived directly across from the station. He had
seen nothing in the proposal about whether the water would be recycled. He commented that
he had seen the intersection of Halecrest and Hale Street flooded; the drain had not handled the
run-off in the past. He questioned why no traffic impact analysis had been done. He stated that
there were truck trips Willig trucks, UPS trucks, the colleges, schools, the Olympic Village, foot
traffic, an increase of joggers, and future traffic from the Daley Rock Quarry. He wanted to
know why that was not in the report, There were problems getting across the street even with
the lights, Emergency vehicles had had to ask people to clear the road in order to get through.
He had seen Telegraph Canyon Road traffic backed up east and west to 1-805. He did not think
the carwash was needed.
Jackie McQuaid Lancaster, 339 East "J" Street, CV, speaking also for Judy Wilson, pointed
out the three entrances and exits and stated that neither Halecrest Drive nor Hale Street
mentioned in the traffic impact report. The credit union and shopping center created much
traffic and there was rarely a place to park in the shopping center. She lived on East "J" Street
and passed the proposed carwash almost every day. There were three major concerns--the
PC Minutes
-11-
September 14, 1994
easement the station owner was not able to get from the shopping center, on-site traffic
circulation, and off-site circulation accessing the carwash. Not enough attention had been paid
to the other services of the station, including the car repair service, Ms, Lancaster also noted
there was no mention of the impact on Halecrest, and that the bingo bus passengers park on
Halecrest or Hale.
Principal Planner Griffin stated that on October 12, staff could elaborate on the traffic impacts.
The Safety Commission had an interest in the item and staff would try to get their
recommendation.
Mark Hayden, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, SD, on behalf of the applicant, said he
was agreeable to the continuance and would welcome further input. He stated they did not have
any control of the off-site drainage. The drainage from on-site to off-site is reduced. Traffic
impact was based on SANDAG standards,
Rod Bisharet, 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd., CV, the applicant, stated that the water was
recycled up to 85%. Some of the water evaporated. The water coming off-site would be
recycled. He had tried to get an easement from the shopping center but had not been able to.
There were seven cars being stored on the facility, but they could be moved if necessary .
Principal Planner Griffin noted that detailed questions and answers could take place on October
10, The applicant, however, would like a general reaction from the Commission.
Commissioner Salas stated she was familiar with the gas station. She agreed with the residents
that she found it difficult at times to get in and out of the station even without a carwash,
Commissioner Moot asked if paying $200 per month for gas precluded him from voting.
Attorney Basil assured him it did not.
Commissioner Moot asked why the owner of the shopping center opposed the easement, He
asked that the Planning Department write to ask him to give his reasons for disallowing the
easement.
Commissioner Ray was concerned about the traffic and internal traffic patterns, the right hand
turn coming out of the carwash and the exit area to the right. He would like to see how that
worked. He stated that in tenns of the number of parking spaces, it is detennined by the type
of business and square footage. Commissioner Ray asked how many employees parked at the
facility .
Mr. Bisharet answered that there were three spaces. They park onsite or next door.
Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see that addressed.
PC Minutes
-12-
September 14, 1994
Commissioner Martin was disappointed in staff's drawings. He requested that larger drawings
be included in future staff reports, because they were too small to read. He also requested better
traffic reports.
Chair Tuchscher asked if staff had used a turning template on the internal circulation.
Principal Planner Griffin assured him that they had, and that it did work.
Chair Tuchscher stated he did not have a problem with traffic offsite. He would not go out of
his way to go to a limited carwash. He would be interested in hearing what the Traffic Engineer
would say. Regarding drainage, Chair Tuchscher asked if the water coming off the cars would
go into the storm drain system.
Mr. Bisharet stated that water outside the carwash when exiting would go into drainage catches
and would go underground into recycled water.
Chair Tuchscher encouraged the applicant to try to work something out with the adjacent
property owner. Internal circulation was his biggest concern on the project.
MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) to continue the open public
hearing to October 12, 1994, when it could be addressed with more specificity.
Commissioner Moot stated that the applicant may use the argument that people would use the
shopping center when stopping at the gas station. The shopping center might get some benefit
from the easement.
Mr. Bisharet stated that he would like the Commissioners to visit the facility, He would clear
off the vehicles that were not supposed to be there.
Safety Commission Minutes
July 14, 1994
Page 11
9. REPORT on Shell Gas Station Improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road & Halecrest Drive (This item
heard before Item 8)
Chair Thomas announced that he had been advised by the City Attorney to abstain from the item. He
appointed Commissioner Smith to chair the item and left the dais.
Steve Griffin, Principal Planner, presented staff's report.
Commissioner Smith stated the entry way was a concern due to stacking of cars and felt the entire west
driveway should be designated/painted with "No Parking." Another concern was water drainage on the
surrounding streets creating breakdown of the streets. He suggested a secondary drainage system at the exit
of the car wash as well as botts dots that would assist to shake off any additional water.
Steve Griffin responded that additional drainage was possible. He understood the City's concern regarding
water drainage especially since the situation with the Bonita Glen Car Wash. There were drains at the exit
of the car wash. There was a condition that the City required the applicant to enter into which required the
applicant to sign an agreement agreeing to repair any damages caused by water to the streets at their cost.
He understood that the drying process for the car wash was more effective than the one on Bonita Glen Drive.
Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Bonita, CA 91902, represented the owners of the Telegraph Canyon
Shell Gas Station. He introduced the station owner, a consultant, and a sales representative of the car wash
manufacturer. There would be an additional 40 trips per day generated by the car wash. Most of the people
using the car wash would be those motorists already stopping at the station for gas. The level of service for
the surrounding streets would not be negatively impacted. He outlined the differences of the proposed car
wash and the one on Bonita Glen Drive including the drying mechanism and speed of the car wash. The
system would be operated by token or receipt. If a motorist received a token or receipt and chose not to have
their car washed at that time, there would be a specified period of time when the motorist could return and
receive their car wash. There were community benefits that would occur with the project. The applicant was
being required to dedicate an additional seven feet of frontage to the City for future road widening of
Telegraph Canyon Road. When the original drainage culvert was installed, there was not an easement secured
from the property owner, but another condition of the development was that the City would receive the
easement. The applicant tried to secure a no-cost easement from the Vons Shopping Center owner to have
traffic exit the car wash through the shopping center, but had not been successful.
Rod Bisharat, 501 Telegraph Canyon Road, Chula Vista, CA 91910, was the owner of the Telegraph Canyon
Shell station. He commented that if the Commission was concerned with possible stacking, the speed of the
car wash could easily be increased in order to accommodate more cars. He doubted there would be a
stacking problem because he only anticipated approximately 80 cars per day over a 12 hour period, dusk to
dawn. Studies showed that most car washes were done in the middle of the day, not on the way to or from
work, The busiest time for the gas station was during the morning and late afternoon as people were making
their commute to and from work. The slowest time for people to get gas was the time that most car washes
occurred.
Greg Cox reiterated that the applicant was entering into an agreement agreeing to fix any damages that might
be caused by water, He did not feel that there would be any problems, but the City was protected.
Commissioner Miller asked why the entrance to the car wash was not where the exit was, It would create less
of a stacking problem.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
July 14, 1994
Page 1 2
Mark Hayden, Tait & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123, stated the reason the car wash
traffic flowed west to east was because a majority of the traffic for the gas station entered from Telegraph
Canyon Road, If the traffic flow had been reversed, a majority of the cars would have to make a U-turn in
the station to enter the car wash. He commented that a car would take out approximately three gallons of
water from a car wash. However, the blower in the car wash would remove most of the water. A car tended
to drop any access water in approximately 15 to 20 feet and the exit of the car wash was 30 feet. Water
would drain prior to passing the stop sign.
Commissioner Smith asked for comments from Commissioners.
Commissioner Liken said it seemed that a primary concern was the stacking of cars. He had viewed the car
wash on Bonita Glen Drive and indicated it was self-monitoring. He asked if a reader would be used for
motorists with receipts or if an attendant would be there to start the car wash.
Chuck Druhat, 1930 San Marcos Boulevard, San Marcos, CA, was the sales representative for the car wash
equipment. A token box would be located at the entrance to the car wash, The conveyor had various speeds.
The car wash time frame was 1 1/2 to 2 minutes at the maximum. With regard to water on the cars, the water
would be blown off by a 40 horsepower blower. There were seven nozzles used to blow off all water. A
motorist using a credit card at the pump would take their receipt to the cashier to receive either a token or
a code to be used at a later date if desired. If there was a backup of cars, chances were that a motorist would
return at a later time.
Commissioner Smith indicated the Commission's concerns were drainage and stacking. The architects had
addressed the problems. The driveway fronting Halecrest needed to be painted and signed with "NO
BLOCKING/PARKING." He felt the fact that the applicant had entered into an agreement regarding possible
water damage meant that the applicant recognized that some water would be carried out. He wanted to make
sure the drainage issue was addressed by the Council.
Commissioner Miller agreed with the marking of the driveway on Halecrest.
Commissioner Smith said that if an independent outside traffic consultant performed a study on the project,
the Commission would like a copy of such a report.
10. Oral Communications - None
STAFF REPORTS
11. Ensdneerint! CIP Proiect Schedule - Distributed for Commissioner information.
12. Chula Vista Police Deoartment Traffic SummarY for lulv 1994 - Distributed for Commissioner
Information.
OTHER BUSINESS
13. ProDosed Citvwide Products
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
IN/e.1
f
..
h S C:.Q:ralv
:35 w..t rlot'e"'CI A~1'\ue
"'O""'OOd. Cau'!)''''' 9030'
Tel 1310,"2.707.
C80~' 782. '~82
FAX 13101673.0276
- - -
-----
--
EXHI~IT A i
1N:11.'
- .......
.- "-"'n_"
June 28. 1994
Mr. Rod Bisharat
TELEGRAPH CANYON SHELL
501 Telegraph Canyon
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Rod:
There are (31 kinds of washing machines designed for the oil companies: They are
listed as follows:
,.
Drive- Thrus
Handles:
2.
Tunnels
Handles:
3,
Rollovers
Handles:
(Uses guide rail. customer driving the vehicle. each wash
takes 45 seconds, (11 minute with dryingl.
(60-751 cars/hour.
(Uses conveyor system. customer or employee driving the
vehicle, each wash takes 111 minute, 1-112 minute with
drying).
(40-60) cars/hour.
(Uses treadle. customer drives the car to a stop. machine
handles the wash. takes 131 minutes without upgrade. up to
(51 minutes with upgrades.
(12,20) cars/hour.
A conveyor system car wash can stack up to (41 cars in the building and 121 outside
as each one is in a certain stage, (pre,soak, wash or rinse 8& dryl.
A rollover system can wash one car at a time.
If you heve any Questions. do not hesitate to call me.
,
~~-'
Chuck Peraekian
NIS Corporation
CP/kw
Enclosure
G
Manufacturers and Erectors of 'Jehicle Cleaning EQUipment
Corweyance Syatema . LiQuid BIOW-off Syst8m& . LiQuid Rec_y systems
.
SITE
CARWASH
STACKING
(.
EXHIBIT B
SITE COMPARISON
BONITA vs 'fELBGRAPH
Bonita
sq. ft.
.
Corner Lot
Access Both street
.
2 Island/4 Dispensers
.'
Volume - 240k gal/mth
8000 gal/day
727 cars/day
Entry - 7
Tunnel - 1
Exit - 0
'l'OTAL STACK 8
,.
.-- <._, ,,----,-
.
..
Telegraph
18,698 sq.ft.
.
Corner Lot
Access Both street
.
2 Is1and/4 DispenserS
130k gal/lIIth
3883 gal/day
353 cars/day
Entry - 5
TUnnel - 2
!:Xi t - 3
'l'OTAL S'l'ACK 10
~
'-
SITE VOLUME - GASOLDfE 'l'OTALS
SUPPORT DATA
FRIDAY 6/24/94 7:00a... - 9:00p...
TIME OUTSIDE INSIDE 'l'OTAL AVG./HR
* 6:58-9:50 500.9 446.5 947.4 315.8 *
9:50 - 1:21 386.5 430.7 817.2 233.4
1:22 - 3:03 193.7 213.8 407.3 203.8
3:15 - 4:59 222.1 228.9 451. 0 225.5
* 5:00 - 7:00 271. 7 517.2 788.9 394.9 *
7:00 - 8:40 188.8 282.4 471.20 235.6
PEAK
A.M.
P.M.
7:00
5:00
9:00
7:00
*SUPPORT DATA DERIVED VIA DAILY COMPUTER RECEIPTS
,
~----~- ~'- - -
,...
------.--.-
10/03/84 13:52
,
tt818 %78 UZS
TAIT . ASSOC.
1iEI001
, . 7P4~
fAIT &. .SSO("'t....Ti$.1NC
EXHIBIT C
Co/tsulting Enf1l'l""
CMf . "tanrring . Surveying. EtMrOtttneIIUI
nx~
OCTOBER 3.
. 1994
A'l'TN:
CITY Of CEroLA VUTA
pv.m;ING DEPQTl'tENT
STEVE GRTfi'PTN
FAX NO.
691-5171
'1'0 :
FROM:
MARKA.BA'!DEN
nrr , ASSOCIATES, INC.
RE: TELEGRAPH CANYON SHELL
FAX NO. (~19' ~78 - 1~25
'1'ransJlii ttinq
3
paqes, includinq cover memo.
COMMENTS: STEVE .-
AS REQUESTED. LIST OF SUPPORTING PAC'l'S AND EXHIBIT FOR THE SUBJECT
SITE.
PLAESE CALL WITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
" .
'.
~03/e4 13:53 !t619 278 1525
TAIT . ASSOC,
~002 ,
,
~
Pest site conditions allowed the rwtdom and excessive pl8c8ment of
vehicles on site.
Proposed site plan cIe&r1y designates parking areas from vehicular use
areas.
Proposed carwash use will have limited hourS of operation - 78.m. to
7p.m. .
Staggered Peak Hours:
Cerwash VI. Gasoline
Low Station Volume:
Current 353 cars per day during a 12 hour period = average
29 carslhour.
Projected with cerwash (+12%) 395 cars per day =
average 33 per hour.
Projected Increase of 4 C8I'S per hour
Mitiastive M....... IrRA (Refer tg Exhibit)
Stripe "No Parking- in front of Service building.
Place "Stop. sign at exit point.
Add concrete curbing at end bay.
Post employee policy of maintaining site Traffic Control.
Recommendation
Approve USE permit with stated Mitigative measures with the following
added condltion:
Applicant agrees, at his expenIe, to have a City approved Traffic
engineer aeNI site traffic conditions after a S month operation period.
If it is deemed that additional mitigative measures are nec~e ury the
applicant will -ill' ee to one or more of the following:
Restrict the hourS of ..,....uon of the CBrW88h.
Umit ~e of C8!W88h
DedIcate Employee to worK gas ielsnda st puk hourS to expedite
eervlce.
Close end ServIce Bay.
'.
f:SP31 02fc
. ,.03/84 13:54 cue 278 n,Z5
I' A'l h' ffftijl 1'111 fl i.'. J '
. /~ ~~'Q~~L11~
.lli, ~ ~ ~i~i ~ !m ~i lli 11!m
iffJ tlf ~ bi;m ,itlH!ffl !fj lli!iJ
it:" II J iflJ.~ I~!i!!lil fa · in
!i~~ !:. U!' 'I ,hI ~!jl!n p.
H,till.liHi " ,. JU~ · m
;;
--+
~ I J i
-
I I
. ,
, ,
'-. '-
.
t _
"1 :..
Ji :.-
"'" '.
'.,' f
.... .
. ~ &
. .
! -=:~
,
.
I
, .
" .
.....
....
.
,-J.
., .
. ~,
. ~. '\ :--:.. . .,...........
I: ~~.. ~ / ,
. 'iIJ ' . J : .~ I I
f J; .Iim ~ ill ~" I I
f J.~ B I kua 6
if ~rili! f
Uil~, I"i. .
jll ~ _
I -I't
tfi
.
I I , .U'
j I
TAIT . ASSOC.
c
<
o
II:
,. .
.. ... .'
\.. , ....
.-----.
{... -j
. .
~
z
~
i
(3
~
w
...
I
I
" I r
JMIa 1~11YH
1ZI003
I
f
I
EXHIBIT D
October 3, 1994
File: YS-599
TO: Stephen Griffen, Principal Planner
VIA: Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Enginee~
FROM: Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic Engineer ~
SUBJECT: Proposed Car Wash at Shell Gas Station located at 501
Telegraph Canyon Road
After reviewing the traffic volumes collected recently in
the area of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive, I have
determined that the adjoining streets will not be significantly
impacted by the addition of the proposed car wash. Halecrest
Dri ve in the vicini ty of Telegraph Canyon Road is a Class I
collector with a curb to curb width of 64 feet. Telegraph Canyon
Road is a six lane Class III collector. The current vehicular
count for Telegraph Canyon Road is approximately 41080 vehicles
per day. It has been estimated that an additional 40 trips will
be generated by the car wash. The current levels of service for
the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halel::rest Drive are
as follows and will not change as a result of this project:
A.M. Peak Period B
Mid-day Peak Period A
P.M. Peak Period B/c
A level of service analysis was also completed for the
intersection of Halecrest Drive and Hale Street and for the three
peak periods of the day the level of service is at A. The
proposed project will also not have a significant impact on the
operation of this intersection. Furthermore, recent Growth
Management Traffic studies for westbound Telegraph Canyon Road
between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive show a level of service
of C during the A.M., mid-day and P.M. peak periods which is
performing within the City's traffic threshold standard.
I have also investigated the on-site traffic circulation and
the proposed car wash entry access of approximately 110' will
allow about seven vehicles to stack up without blocking the
Halecrest Drive entrance to the site. This stacking distance
should be adequate for most of the day and shcluld not pose a
congestion problem for Telegraph Canyon Road or Halecrest Drive.
The car wash as proposed along the northerly side of the existing
building is at the preferred location available from a traffic
engineering point of view. The long entry access combined with
another long exit point provides car wash users the opportunity
to be separate from other non-car wash customer's vehicles. The
gas dispensing islands should not be adversely affected by this
proposed project. The three driveways also help in reducing
congestion and in helping on-site traffic circulation.
.
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Telegraph Canyon Road Service Station-Carwash
Addition
PROJECT LOCATION:
501 Te~egraph Canyon Road
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
639-080-21
PROJECT APPLICANT: Rod Bisharat
CASE NO: ~S-94-27
DATE: July 22, 1994
A. proiect Settinq
The project site is an existing, 18,698 square foot, 24 hour
Shell gas station, with a snack shop, located at the northeast
corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest Drive. The site
includes: a 1764 sq. ft. 3 bay service building with an
accessory snack shop and a 1248 sq. ft., 2 island canopy
station. The applicant is proposing the sale of beer and wine
during snack shop hours which would be 7: 00am-7: OOpm from
April to October and 7: 00am-5: OOpm from November-March. Three
driveways provide access to the site, one via Halecrest Drive
and two via Telegraph Canyon Road. Ten parking spaces exist
on site. There are a maximum of two deliveries per week
(gasoline and/or products for the snack shop) and
approximately 350 customers per day. There are three existing
10,000 gallon underground storage tanks and one 500 gallon
waste oil tank. All tanks have received the required permits
from the County Hazardous Materials Waste Division. The
average graded slope of the site is 2\. North Island Federal
Credit Union is located to the north of the site. Another
service station is located across Halet:rest Drive to the west.
An entrance to the Telegraph Canyon Plaza shopping center is
to the east of the site and to the south across Telegraph
Canyon Road is a medium-high density residential condominium
project.
B. Pro;ect Descrintion
The proposed project consists of the addition of a 630 sq. ft.
carwash. The applicant projects that the carwash will
generate an additional 40 patrons per day. The station will
therefore service approximately 390 patrons once the carwash
is built. The hours of operation will be 7:00am-7:00pm from
April-October and 7: 00-5: 00 from November-March. The carwad-~f.t:-
. -~-
. --
~ _r ~~~
. fiL.""
, .
contains a reclamation system which will allow an 85% reuse of
the water used. The carwash will service two cars at one
time and allow stacking for 8 cars, five at the entry and
three at the exit. The construction of the carwash will
decrease parking on-site from ten to eight spaces; this is a
sufficient number for compliance with City parking
requirements (Sec.19.62, City zoning Ordinance) for,this type
of use.
The applicant will be required to provide a 7' dedication
along the frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road to allow for a
six-lane major arterial with bike lanes. Sufficient
dedication is required to meet the half-width standards for a
six-lane major with bike lanes (a bike lane in the eastbound
direction and one in the westbound direction) or as specified
by the City Engineer.
The street -dedication will decrease the amount of possible
landscaping fronting Telegraph Canyon Road and may prevent the
project from meeting City landscaping standards. However the
amount of landscaping proposed will be an increase over what
is existing currently on the site. prior to issuance of a
building permit, a landscape plan must be submitted and
approved by the City Landscape Architect.
An agreement is required for the applicant to relocate all on-
site facilities impacted by the street widening, including
signs, private lights and tanks. When Telegraph Canyon Road
is widened(future DIF project) then the west driveway on
Telegraph Canyon Road may be required to be closed.
When the existing box culvert was built, an easement was not
dedicated to the city for repair and maintenace of the
cul vert. Therefore, the City Engineering department is
requesting this applicant to dedicate a drainage easement
over the Telegraph Canyon Channel for this purpose. Payment
of the Telegraph canyon sewer development fee and
transportation development impact fee will also be required.
The aforementioned dedication of a street and drainage
easement are consistent with the City requirements for other
properties which front the northern side of Telegraph canyon
Road.
The carwash construction will require removal of the existing
pavement on site where the carwash is proposed and the
geotechnical condition of this area will need to be reviewed
before carwash construction, to ensure that the area is
adequate for the proposed structure, A soils study is
therefore required to be submitted. said report and schoo1
impact fees must be submitted prior to issuance of the
building permit. The fire department will require one on-site
fire extinguisher.
->
, .
The carwash is orientated towards retail commercial uses to
the east. The project is not located immediately adjacent to
any residential dwellings. However, nearby residents have
raised a concern about the level of noise generated by the
proposed carwash. In reponse to this concern, noise level
readings were taken on site and the applicant has provided
data as to the expected noise levels to be generated by the
carwash (attached). The ambient noise level on site is
currently 72 dBA. Noise will diminish with increased distance
from the site. One hundred feet from the carwash, the noise
level will be 64 dBA. The nearest sensitive noise receptor is
a single-family dwelling 300' from the project site, As the
noise level is 64 dba, which is below a level of significance
per the City Zoning Ordinace, and as noise levels diminishes
with distance, the noise level at 300' will be below a level
of significance at the nearest single-family dwelling.
Nearby residents have also raised a concern about crime in the
area generated by the carwash. The police department has
reported one complaint within the last year relating to loud
music. The police department commented that one complaint is
negligible for the busy project site area and does not warrant
a concern on the part of the department.
Required discretionary approvals include Design Review and a
Conditional Use Permit.
C. ComDatibilitv with Zonina and plans
The project site is zoned for CCP (Central Commercial with a
Precise Plan) and designated commercial retail. Conditional
Use Permit approval will assure that the project will be in
compliance with the General Plan and City Zoning Ordinance.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista
(including the attached Environmental Checklist Form)
determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
E. Mandatorv Findinas of Sianificance
1. Tbe project ba. the potential to .Ub.tantially degrade
the quality of the eDvirOlllllant, .Ub.tantially reduce the
babitat of a fi.b or wildlife epecie., cau.e fi.b or
wildlife population to drop below .elf-.u.taininsr level.,
threaten level., threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce tbe number or re.trict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important example. of the ..jor period. of California
.
history or prehistory.
The addition of a carwash to an existing gas station in
an urbanized area will not reduce the habitat of Fish or
Wildlife species.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
The addition of a carwash to an existing service station
will not hinder short-term goals. It will comply with
long-term City conservation goals as outlined in Chapter
3 of the General Plan, which has determined water
conservation as an objective in the "Water Facility
Plan. " The carwash will use a water reclamation system,
which will reclaim 85% of the water used for this
service. This reclamation system will prevent this use
from placing a significant demand on water resources in
the region and will support the City's long-term
environmental goal of reclaiming water in situations
where it is "safe and feasible."
3. The project has possible effects which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the
subsection, "cumulatively considerable" .eans that the
incremental effects of en 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.
All impacts, both individual and cumulative have been
found to less than significant, as the result of the
applicant's compliance with the City'S Code requirements.
City facilities are adequate to serve the proposed
project and no new facilities will be required. The
project does not have the potential for individually
limited effects being cumulatively considerable.
". The environmental effects of . project will ClaUse a
substantial adver.e effect. OD buman beiDg., either
directly or indirectly.
The proposed project will not cause any significant
impacts and is in compliance with threshold standards for
fire, police, school, and other public services as
discussed in the threshold section of the Initial Study.
Noise impacts are negligible and the project will not
cause adverse effects to humans, either directly or
indirectly.
F. ~onsultation
1. Individuals and Oraanizations
City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew, Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Ken Lee, Planning
Duane Bazzel, Planning
Ed Batchelder, Planning
Luis Hernandez, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent:
Mark Hayden, Tait & Associates
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached
Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study
and any comments received during the public review period
for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista.
Further information regarding the environmental review of
this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~~ ~ LJ ~it~
ENVIRO AL' VIEW 00 ATOR
7~~~/j.f/
.
,<'
Case No. IS-94-27
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of PropoDeDt: Rod Bisharat
2.
Lead AgeDcy Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address aDd pboDe Number of Proponent: 501 Telegraph Canyon Road
Chula Vista, CA 92010 (619) 421-3000
4. Name of Proposal: Telegraph Canyon Shell Carwash
s. Date of Cbecklist: July 22, 1994
.....dally
liplr_a'
I_pact
PMeatially
IiipIrKBat
.......
Mitipted
'-....
IipIrKallt
..pact
No
&.plc'
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of D 0 D 181
an established community (including a low,
income or minority community)?
CommeDts: The project site is zoned for CCP (Central Commercial with a precise plan) and
designated retail commercial. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit will assure that the project
will be in compliance with the General Plan.
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
IBI
o
o
o
181
Pagel
,
"-
........,
. ....1iaI1y liiplfic..t '-' ....
IiIpIfkaat v..... liipilk.at No
.."" M1tipled .."" ..",.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 D 0 181
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 D 181
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 D 181
housing?
Comments: The proposed addition of an automated carwash to an existing service station will not
generate any additional population, thus placing no demand on local housing.
III. GEOPHYSICAL Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 D 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 D 181
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 D D Ii!!
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 D 181
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [J [J [J B
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The existing site is developed, graded and therefore no geophysical impacts are expected,
The carwash construction will require the removal of the existing pavement on site where the carwash
is proposed. The geotechnical condition of this area will require review before construction.
Therefore the engineering deparunent has required the submittal of a soils report prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
D
D
[J
181
~. ,
, ..hG..l
~'
....tially
htntlally IiplfitaDI '-"U
&pIRu.t v""u lipir.ual No
_piC! Mitipled l_pacl i_pact
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181
of surface water quality (e,g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 D 181
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 D 181
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either D 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 D 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: On-site drainage facilites consist of surface flow to Telegraph Canyon Road and to
Halecrest Drive and a double 8' wide by 6' reinforced concrete box culvert (Telegraph Canyon
Channel). These facilities are not adequate to serve project, However, surface drainage is adequate
and the adequacy of the box culvert for the conveyance of 50-year storm flows is unknown. The
project will not increase runoff to the facility, The project does not propose new paving, therefore
runoff is not expected to increase.
Off-site drainage facilities consist of curb inlets at the northeast corner of the intersection. Two
double 5'-8" by 4'-3" R.C.B,s exist downstream, in addition to a double 8'x 6' R.C.B. and single 12'
x 5'-6" R.C.B. These facilities are adequate to serve the project,
ibe water proposed for use will be 85% reclaimed and is not expected to create a significant demand
on water resources.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
D
181
o
o
o
181
c) Alter air movement, moistUre, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
D
o
181
D
o
o
181
Page 3
.....tially
"'.tiali)' -fkp' '-....
llpifkaat v..... -fkp' No
l.pHt ......... ....c. -""
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The project is expected to generate a traffic increase of 40 ADT (trips per day).
Currently, there are 37,430 trips per day and traffic engineering has detennined that the 40 ADT
increase is not significant. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact air quality in the area,
APCD does not require a permit for the project.
VL TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TlON. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 D D 181
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g., 0 D 0 181
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 D I!!I
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 D 0 181
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 D 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: See comments under Air Quality.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impocts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 D 181
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? D [J 0 181
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 D D 181
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal [J [J D I!!I
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [J [J D 181
,
1:1___ A
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
Comments: The proposed addition of a carwash to an existing service station ,does not have the
potential to impact sensitive species or habitat.
I
-- .
.....-
....meaal
I_pitt
.....tiaUy
_lkaa'
v.....
-...
No
I_plct
'- ....
8pllic..t
-""
o
o
D
181
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation D 0 0 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 D 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The project site currently uses electrical services for air conditioning and lighting. The
project will involve the upgrade of electrical service to three phase from existing underground service
from Telegraph Canyon Road for this use. This addition will be within the existing limits for
electrical service in the ,area and will not significantly impact current service to the area.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed addition of a carwash to an existing service station does not pose a
concern regarding possible hazards on site. Three gasoline tanks do exist on site, which are pennitted
by the County Hazardous Materials Waste Division (HAZMAT). The applicant will be required to
submit a business plan to HAZMA T for their review and approval prior to issuance of an occupancy
permit. This will allow a review of hazardous materials on site and will ensure that the site in
compliance with County hazardous waste requirements.
x. NOISE, Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
o
D
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
D
o
181
o
o
o
\i!I
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
Page 5
.....tWIy
Iiplnu.1
..-
....rially
&pIrlCUl
v.....
-...
'-....
~ftcul
.."",
No
..",.
Comments: The carwash is orientated towards retail commercial uses to the east. The project is not
located immediately adjacent to residential uses. However, nearby residents have raised a concern
about the level of noise generated by the proposed carwash, In reponse to this .concern, noise levels
were taken on site and the applicant has provided data as to the expected noise levels to be generated
by the carwash (attached). The ambient noise level on site is currently 72 dBA, Noise will dimishes
with increased distance from the site, One hundred feet from the carwash, the noise level will be 64
dBA. The nearest sensitive noise receptor is a single-family dwelling 300' from the project site. As
the noise level is 64 dba, which is below a level of significance per the City Zoning Ordinace, and as
noise levels diminishes with distance, the noise level at 300' will be below a level of significance at
the nearest single-family dwelling.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schools? 0 0 [J 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 D D 181
Comments: The fire and police departments will be able to provide an adequate level of service to
the site, without an increase in personnel or equipment. The applicant will be required to provide
dedication along the frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road to allow for a six,Iane major with bike
lanes, Sufficient dedication is required to meet the half-width standards of said designation or as
specified by the City Engineer. The applicant will also be required to dedicate a drainage easement
over the Telegraph Canyon Channel to the City. Payment of the Telegraph Canyon sewer
development fee and transportation development impact fee will also be required. School impact fees
are payable prior to issuance of the building permit. These measures will ensure that environmental
impacts are at a level below significant.
)(0. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
o
D
[J
181
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold
Standards,
a) FirelEMS
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of
the cases, The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met,
since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 4 minute
response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
t.
PoInrially
IipIrlC..t
"plct
....tiaJly
IipIrtUal
v.....
Mitiplrd
IMstna
SpiReaa'
",act
No
I.pact
Comments: The fire department will require one fire extinguisher for the carwash (I extinguisher per
3,000 sq,ft or any portion there of). The fire department will be able to provide an adequate level of
fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel.
b) Police 0 D 0 181
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The police department has indicated that they will be able to provide an adequate level
of service to the proposed facility, Nearby residents have also raised a concern about crime in the area
generated by the carwash, The police department has received one complaint within the last year
relating to loud music. The police department commented that one complaint is negligible for the
busy project site area and does not warrant a concern on the part of the department.
c) Traffic
o
D
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of
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 Standard, The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Comments: The project will not create unacceptable Levels of Service(LOS) at intersections adjacent
to or in the vicinity of the project site. The primary access roads are adequate to serve the project.
d) ParkslRecreation
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,OOO population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
. .comments: As the proposed project is not residential, the threshold standards for parks and
recreation do not apply.
e) Drainage
D
o
D
IBI
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
--
Page 7
.....dally
1ipi1k..1
....Cl
.........,
lipilica.t
v.....
....Ied
'-....
8pifkaal
.....,
No
..""
Comments: On-site drainage facilites consist of surface flow to Telegraph Canyon Road and to
Halecrest Drive and a double S' wide by 6' reinforced concrete box culvert (Telegraph Canyon
Channel), These facilities are not adequate to serve project. However, surface drainage is adequate
and the adequacy of the box culvert for the conveyance of 50-year storm flows is unknown. The
project will not increase runoff to the facility. Since no paving is proposed, runoff is not expected to
increase.
Off-site drainage facilities consist of curb inlets at the northeast comer of the intersection. Two
double 5'-S" by 4'-3" R,C.B.s exist downstream, in addition to a double S'x 6' R.C.B, and single 12'
x 5'-6" R,C.B. These facilities are adequate to serve the project.
When the existing box culvert was built on the project site, an easement was not dedicated to the city
for repair and maintenance of the culvert. Therefore, the engineering deparunent is requesting this
applicant to dedicate a drainage easement over the Telegraph Canyon Channel for this purpose, which
is standard for properties fronting the northern edge of Telegraph Canyon Road.
f) Sewer
o
o
o
1m
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The applicant is required to pay sewer impact fees which are based upon the gallons
per day for which the carwash is expected to generate (listed in the engineering master fee schedule),
This will ensure that impacts to existing facilities are at a level below significant.
g) Water
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treaUDent, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off,
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effe~t at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The water used by the carwash will be 85% reclaimed and is not expected to create a
significant demand on water resources, The fire department has indicated that fU'e flow is adequate
for the project. Due to this fact, the Sweetwater Authority has determined that there is no need for
new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. Water systems are adequate
to serve the project and no impacts are expected.
XllI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 D 1m
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
"'estu,lIy
......Ii.Uy liplrlc"" LeatHII
IipIrlU_1 v..... lipiliaal No
I_plcl MhiptH "plcl I_pitt
C) Local or regional water treaUDent or distribution 0 0 0 181
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? D 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: As discussed in the threshold section above, the impacts to utilities and service systems
are less than significant.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) ObstrUct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19,66,100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The carwash proposed to be added to an existing service station will be located behind
an existing strUcture on site and will not impact the view of the site. The increase in lighting is
negligible, as the carwash will be used by patrons 7:00am- 7:00pm from April-October and 7:00am.
5:00pm from November-March. The project site is not located immediately adjacent to residential
uses, The lighting which is involved will be reviewed during design review and will be required to
meet City lighting standards, so as to not impact surrounding uses. The project proposes an increase
to on,site landscaping, which will also be reviewed during the design review. The increase in
~dscaping will provide a more aesthetically pleasing view of the site ftom the roadway,
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
Page 9
i
)
.....tialIy
"'ndally tiplrlCUl '-....
IipIrlc..t v..... IipIrKUt No
.."" ......... .."" I_pic,
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 I!!I
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan D 0 0 181
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The proposed project is an addition of a carwash to an existing service station in an
urbanized area and will not impact cultural resources,
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The proposed project, an addition of a carwash to an existing service station in an
urbanized area, is not expected to impact paleontological resources,
o
o
D
181
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 I!!I
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed project is not residential and will not impact recreational opportunities in
the area.
XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for
mandatory findings of significance, If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: Please refer to section E of the Negative Declaration.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 D 0 181
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: Section E. Negative Declaration
p....... 10,
-,
- IipInc..t a-tHII
IipIrlCUt v..... lipllic..t No
I_plct Mhiptrd ....ct I_pacl
C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 D 0 181
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: Section E Negative Declaration
d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 D 0 181
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: Section E Negative Declaration
-
Page 11
...---.---'-"
\.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least
one impact that is a .Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
-
o Air Quality
o Transponation/CirculatioD
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Hazards
o Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Culrural Resources
o Recreation
o Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Water
DETERMINATION:
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 Ihe environment, 0
there will not be a significant effect in Ihis case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 0
one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a .potentially significant impacts' or .potentially
significant unless mitigated.. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain 10 be addressed,
~ ~'J (-?.J)~~)
Environmen Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
?/~~Jqv
D e '
,
APPEI'\DIX 11l
Case No. IS-94-21
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I.
Cum:nt Zoninl on aite: CCP
North
South
East
West
CCP
R3 GP
CCP
CCP
Does the project conform to the current zoning? Yes
11. General Plan land use designation on site: Commercial Retail
North Commercial R<tail
South Mt:dium-Hich ResiJl'lltl;,1
East Cnn'm~rc;al RC1Jil
West Commercial Retail
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land U,c Diagram'? CUP aooroval will assure eomoatibilitv
Is the project area designated for conservation or open spac< or adjacent to an area so design.ted?.l!2.
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic route,! Y c' Telcoranh Canvon Road is a scenic hi.hwav within the City ,
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used 10 prot<ct or enhance the scenic quality of the route), An increase in
nd ca in from what is existin will enhance the view tlf Ihe ~ile fr "' the rnadwa
III, ~
If the proposed project is resideotial. please complete Ihe "ollowing: N/A
, School
Caoaci,,'
Enrollment
Units
prooosed
Generating
Factors
Sbldcnts
Gcn-.d
From Pmiect
Elementary
.30
.29
Junior Hi&h
.10
Senior Hiah
IV. Remarks:
~in& or Representative
-
7~2./~"
Date
08:00
'la
Uti19 ZH
.1:\1! . A:):.U\".
ItIIiIIUU4,
" .
"
~ J.99~g 3QJf1 ,., 1\ ",\' I
. 'U CllYS Oto'~ I
$. a". ,; ~- ~;J' 'I .'
~-'1!N- ~~.~ .
~ ", , ,.,. I ' I
CII1 -0 . .
. 'lilt --.'.." . ,
.!-~ I
. '.~'-'.. . \. ". '
' '... :'R-itZ
~')~f~" i('~.-,..~.... .'1'" . f-.
' . " ...,', .,: ~ I""
" .....
. :;; c'L ,~~ -.~ .. I
.~ ~.,
'" . "" . · @. .
~ . \< \. ~ . ~J Ie "
.," Q " , , , 'IS ' ~ tC\ I (~ t. .
;!!! '.. ....g. . ~ ~ . '\ I', .".. ~ ~
'. "'~ ':}~::::::. :~~ ~ ".~.. .~.>I I" l~ ~~~
'. ~ · ~.~ ::};;;l . ~ ~ 'c. .~ ' . : I ,., ~;..:. ~ ~;,
.. .t.. '~''..'...,.. 'II. . '. ' hi "u . '~~ ~ :..
.- . ~ ..... .. ):, iI..
^ ';~~~~, :;;:I:"~"}; ~ " '. ~. , I .: I: . ~Q~ :';'. ~ ~'=~"
~.., '.. .. . ~ ^
" r,' , ;,' .,. .'. _ ~. '. :.; '.Ii :~. '.
..... .' :.,"';..' . . ., '..
!'oJ ,~. ',,:'.\.':,;:~: ;':', I' .,~. .'~ I.~~~, ~ ~ ~t
~ .~~: ~: I~i:'~ . . ~ '~ '> ~ ~ ~ t~ ,
Q }'!-,:f; it~' t?:~ ~ . .., ~ r.i ' . . '. J ' 0 1\1 f'I) '" )0 '"
'~'. .. <. "\If .. ~". .. .. Q ~CI
:,x ;:~!'l~ ~t~. ~~~~~~.
..:'~t~! ~i~;:. ~o "~ ~~~
\ ;.... 11. '~ \ L' ~ . t Q~
\ ....l~::..u~ .'!t~~ ~ I ~', ~~'~
,. .." , . -...- ..
. '. "._--..,-,------~, - -
,'.. :. ..~'/, ;,:. ,,:', ~ " -, r
. . ".
,
I
I
.
. ,
I
I
..
....
.
..... -,
. I,'
'f
"
.
. .
.
.
.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: June 6. 1994
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, Asst city Attorney (Draft Heg Dec , EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation
Crime prevention, police Department (H.J. Diosdado)
community Development, Redev. Economic DeV. only
current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om silva (IS' EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Hatin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route ~orm only)
other
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS- 94-47 /FA-~/DO-093 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR-_)
Review of Draft Neg Dee (1S- /FA- /DO- )
~he Project consists of: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an
existing service station for a car wash,
other minor on-site improvements and dedications
of street right-of-way.
501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.
Location:
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you bave
by 6/15/94
Comments:
,
\
-,
,,- - ;.. ..
,OUTING roM
JUN - 'i 1994
- -,.......
..... '.
DJCrE: June 6. 1994
~r-
Fr;,
,
',. ~en Larson, ~ilding A .ousing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Clitt swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolt, Aut city Attorney (Dratt "eg Dee a EIR)
carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recr.ation
Crime prevention, police Department (M.J. Dio.dado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic DeV. only
current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista El.mentary scbool District, ~ate Shurson
sweetwater Union B.S. District, ~om Silva (IS' EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - It annexation is involved)
Hatin Hiller, project ~racking Log (rout. ~orm only)
other
DOUQ Reid
Environmental s.ction
SUBJECT: Application ~or Initial study (IS_~FA-~/DQ:093 I
Checkprint Dratt EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB- IDO ,
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP J
Review ot Environmental Revi.w Record (FC- ZRB-----1
Review ot Dratt Neg Dee (15- /FA- /DO- I
~b. proj.ct consists ot: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an
existing service station for a car wash. '
other ~inor on-site improvements and dedications
of street right-of-way.
Loc.tion:
501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.
Pl.... revi.w tb. document and ~ortlard to - any co...nt. you b.ve
by 6/15/94 .
COJII/D8nt.:
/lfZj - . i
O#71l /1'-' ~. I'.er~~
- - I1fb// ~
Y~-15ffq
t,
Case No. p;-t1lf-27
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
I. Draina\!e
A.
Is the project site within a flood plain'? No. I#/~ ~~ I(N; /J0f'" ~Fo.I ~~D B'/ FEW..
If so, state which FEMA Floodway Ftequency Boundary. &l1A.
.
What is the location and description of existin& on-site drainage facilities'? ~IH'RoCE ~ 'ft>
;~"':::::-"'::. :;':.":: >:.:::,;:,: r::::.-::;.'::~!~:'\~' '
Are they adequatt to seNt tht project'? Nt! .
If not, please explain brid1y. t::uUAL-l!. DI~uA,cE. ,'" A .-~...n=: - T'NE ~ -""<;-'M/Y ~
:::~-: :o:,::I'"~\I("",~ ~ 1;'"{)-YE9" ~ 73"..'" t~ Viol:::'!.
'U tPe> ..,.,:n::~ Wlu.. AI,,"- IA/'''':;~~ ".,.....~::='t.I'1'Y,
What is the location and description of existing off-sitt drainlit facilities'? rJJu, tM./.ETS A,r "fIfE
IJ' -' ~!.ti" 4'"
=r=:,-::~: -rJ+r< ,~LSf!!&.-r, . -r'1ooh 'D61"'~ I If J1Y -::! ::;:.$
'AI ~J2'o/l.'Ji!..c..&.It"r:> <,A/he 12.'I<~fb 1l.c...tM"'~"'n..tJ
Are they adequate to seNt the project'? Ye.:;. #r1lEtIM.
If not, please explain briefly. ~.
B.
C.
D.
E.
iAo n.
&1/~r4
Tranroortation
A. What roads provide primary access to the project'? -n::, I" &.i2~ I"~...N_( C?.....b,
B. What is the estimated number of one.way auto lrips to be aenerated by the project (per day)'?
Lfo A.pr ()V~ ,;.'J( /QnIJ{;, uSE... '
c. What are tht Average Daily TraffIC (A.D.T.) volumes 01\ dIe.primary ICCeSS IOIds before and
after project completion'?
Street NameBefme After
1J:/~c.l?J.R+ I"~V",J ~f:>. ~1 /I.,~"" 3~ &/70
Do any of these volumes n~.s the City's Leve1-of.Service (1..0.5.) -C" desip ADT
volume'? If yes, please specify. f'/t:J .
,.,.2
wpc~~cn.9I /JII, IIUUJ) (11(.111>>.91)
Ys -5q<:f
.
, .
Case No. 'I~...qL/-.:rl
If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not Ipplicable, explain briefly.
tJlA.
,
. D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? Yt;..<_
If not, please explain briefly. /oJ 4 .
E. Would the project crute unacceptable Levels of $ervU:e (LOS) at inteneetionl adjacent to
or in the vicinity of the project site? "r".
If so, identify: Location "{~
Cumulative L.O.S. ~~
F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (AJi
equivaJent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips), If yes, a Traffic Impact AnaJysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TlA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigauble advme impact, or that
all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non,significance.
Yes >< No
The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
G.
Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts !hat will muh from implementation of
the proposed project? Yes)( No
If yes, please describe. N fA
.
Is the project CO!'~istent with the criteria established in the City's TrInspanItion Pblsinl Plan,
General Plan Traffic Element. and all ocher pettinent traffic .IlI;...? Please referenCe any
other traffic: impact IlUdies for roadway aqments that may be impacted by die proposed
project. v~~.
.H.
L
J.
Is a traffic stUdy required?
Yes
)(.
No
Is!hm any dedication required? y~.;; A'.JW.'&' _....~ ~ .....,";o1>&1'Il CAI./",."J .--''1>.
,
Jfso,pleasespecify.~"'~''''/ I"'~' ~ I!;--""'r.~'~ l/ol~~w:.,~~ ~
~ A S'J(- LAAE AAIJDL f?,:>~v Wm! g,l!&: ,....,-. "1Jcr::t1':.:~ y;,Eo,,~-n.A/ IS
n__...A_ ..... ~_-n.re ~U::-Wl1:n71 ~bItIlr;t;. DF 5A/~1?P$(~ 4Z. Mr
.
Ys -9f9
Case No. rs.JJI/-:l7
K. Is there any street widening required? ,",0..2E A~flD7 ~ DlrT7!!:l:> IAAPc././
1f so, please specify. 2 r. /qq" ~AhAA C/..I ~ 0 !:W~/<NJ "f7:>
MA/lJL. #A y....~f ~~.
L. Are there any other street improvements required? YEG.
1f so, please specify the lenen1 natUre of the necessmy improvements.
~: ~r:,/'..aA"1I rJUrv,,~' 1!Jo>A-r::> J~ W/DI9fEr:>{J:=/lT'?JIl.E. DJ.e-. ~)I
__ _ . I w~r PJl!Jv€wA ~ /J#J .,..-e, ~.... "~nMI't'~ I?~Ah <:::;f{A/1
.
II€. C' ~.,~n.
, .
M. Will the project IIId related public improvements provid~ utisfaaoI)' UIffic ICrvice for
existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions'? (please provide a b,rief
explana:ion). EJ( /I!;.,-/NI:. {jyJr:> rrloAlc.... YE<:; .
FtJ~~. 12.UtL.~_r."'.ArF-AAl.- 9t~/ ~f'D~/AAf~ $>~, W~ WI*'<I,$.
6r=-_=e~~ CAA!voAf ~1:> A~ A- ~u.rvl9~ '];I.r.F. ~.
m. ~oi1s
A. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? UN /CAIrHA/A!
B. 1f yes, specify these conditions. N.IA .
C. Is a Soils Repon necessary? ~. 'Pffr::L '77> rSGtJANc.l!r t:>F= gUIt..DnoIt: ~"'<.1rT'S.
IV. Land Fonn
A. What is the averag~ slope of th~ site? Z ~
B. What is the maximum~slope of the site?50~ (>fr>E <;;L.~-- A-r.l"l.fr:: 1o.k:.e.-n.t~"'1 'I
P1?I::PU:TY /..{NE-)
V. 1'loise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site tha: are significant enough to justify tha:
a noise analysis be required of the applicant? No.
VL .y.'aste Generation
How much solid IIId liquid (sewer) waste will be pnented by the proposed project per day'?
Solid 2:2..r::btAJr::6 PI5D Dt.Y' ~~D !E1(I"im-Il(; l~,
lJquid )7Z~ -;;;;~-'lt;;, ____eo T2*Y{~.~ ~r=>/Jc) hJe4 ~>I!fe:-nAl'(:' U(E.
What is the location and liB or existinllCwer Iina 011 or downs1relm from Ibe 1ite'1
Lf3" V.c..P. ~WF.G lANE IN ~'.#'4J'A"'f:f I".A^I.."'^^' D.">4~..
AI' I/./!'.P. ~&,~ LJ,J~ ILl l$A,r:;.-LJ~T:JIUVFE.-
Pflv:A~ ~~,.~~ ~"f7E:.f2A.L r:,J-5~..
Are they adequate 10 serve the proposed project'? (If DO. p1ease explain) ;tp;.
....
-- .---.-.---,
( .
Ys-91'}
Case No. :r.S-'N-J.. 7
vn. ~ationaJ Pollutant Discharl!e Elimination Svstem CNPDES) Stormwater Reouirements
Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the SWe Waru Resoun:es Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Permit? No.
.If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain wily an NPDES permit is required.lJlA.
,
Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for die plUpOSed project?
Yes X No
AdditionaJ comments NlJ1J1!!..
vn. . Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other
issues. (i)A 'DU.'I1A.(;.E ~-AC:':.ME5Jr ,...W:# TIlE -rl!!LS.~I2A~ OI..JY&J ~~J UI~
tIJe. ~I:'.:IV..A~ ~ T"f.f~ L::rrY lfJF Cl.4LJ~ \I,~ A~ c..'A=:, fFi5Z%> fA.! -t"JI~ ~-n1G"'f::~
I;-r-t"F'P FIhWI c....,n-:...... L. ~MJ!:AJI ~ MA."'; *~rt""'rfAf~."'I"1E~, hA.~
~tza.I z, 1~4-.
,
. ('J; PA Y'I-'fEAlr' t::& ~ -,.,::, e"'~~ r~-I~IJ S~IJ.::"~ ~1.J1w4iR.."'" IMIf/ML..,- ~IEE kin I
~ 1?J!::9Jr.~-
(i)-n..tE -rbd1~-nDAl DE~'-"'PUEA/'r IMPAtt!:f .c:E;E. ~F,f!!P"!t lIJ TJlE. A~I-IEl>
'1tf:r U'-. ""~ .U~,.. L. ~ ~ "'RY tfVbE>l",A< _.,..,.,., 'M-. .......
~~~
?k,hl
Date
m .,'
ROUTING J'ORM
DJCrE: June 6. 1994
Xen Larson, Building , Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Clift SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2)
Ricbard Rudolt, Aut city Attorney (Draft Ifeg Dec , EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty schmidt, Parks , Recreation
Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
community Development, Redev. Economic DaV. only
current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob sennett, city Landscape Arcbitect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary scbool District, Xate Sburson
sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS , EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Hatin Miller, project Tracking Log (route torm only)
other
~1(;;
.,.
A/lJr1f}
. "_ ~ _.......~-,r"
Douq Reid
Environmental Section
.:z7
SUB:JECT: Application tor Initial study (15- 94-tr/FA-654 /DCr.093 I
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_IDQ I
Review ot a Draft EIR (EIR-_IFB-_IDP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR- )
Review ot Dratt Neg Dec (15- IFA- IDQ- )
~be Project consists ot: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an
existing service station for a car wash. ..
other minor on-site improvements and dedications
of street right-of-way.
501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.
z,oc.tion:
Pl.... review th. document .nd torward to .. any cou.nt. you b.ve
by 6/15/94 .
(
Ju~
cou.nt.:
.
I
.
'.
Case No. /-j- P<?- 0<' 7
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? ~ 1ft'hat is the FU'e Department.. estimated
lUetion time? d./Yfldu, - t.J M1 ~~.
B. Will the FU'e Depanment be able 10 provide an lIdequate level of fire ...oceaion for the
proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? ~;p .
C. Remarks ..JA./I/ M~.Ju.JJ.") /Jfl~.I.uAg~. - o:zA II'> &(1 ~
~~J.~)
Fire Marsha!
In;,., /t;tj
D ( I
ate
,
- ,
WI'C#.~mPl ~.Iml.n) 1Jof.1000.PI)
....6
.-- c
l.1iULA VISTA POUCE DEPARTMENT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE:
:r~. 2.0 I ,qq~.
./
~~id I ~\....~~~ ~C.;A{ ;
;[ e...6 t>~~, :I:-r\v ./d-iJ .~ ~M "l-4'..
. \... Sn Df::. I 'f../
fv\ :r '\:;n.1H. c:L.,...cu I I.:...-' ~ '<,
.,
"
Q..f>..H ~ ~ L . I~.
/0
~',
. ,.'
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
PROJECT:
.:t:.. 'b- - q '-l - 1.- 7
/ The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any c:omments regarding this project It this time.
_ Infonnation on the project, or within the plans. does not provide enough detail 10 pennit
crime prevention analysis.
_ Please forward the following infonnation to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
11u e~ 0 ~cMAA"11 ~/\ \.tfu1- -1.0
IN\(tMn1$A'V\JI~. UA\ rl, ~ ~p
~
Comments:
--- -
11t"IA.J" NI J G
-trlCML ~ '~iLhnA'~~ . ~
~. ~ "-- 'z( 'r" A:t, ~ ,., . ~~ . &,p i;..... ~ """ ~J--
'^"-~ J'"
c:c: BrookC!"er. SCA
\., .
'OUTING FORM
DATE: June 6. 1994
!'O: Xen Larson, Building , Housing
Jobn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
clitt SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Ro..nberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (1513, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Aut city Attorney (Dr.tt If.g Dec , EIR)
carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty schmidt, parks , R.cr.ation
Crime prevention, police Department (M.J. Dio.d.do)
Community Develop~n~, Redev. Economic Dev. only
current Planning (,.,<II ")
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Arcbitect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Cbula vista Elementary School District, Xat. Shurson
sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS' EIR)
Haureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - It annexation i. involved)
Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route torm only)
other
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental s.ction
.,77
SUBJECT: Application tor Initial study (15- 94Jrr'7FA-654 IDQ:093 I
Cbeckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_IFS- IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_IFS-_IDP I
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR--1
Review ot Draft N.g Dec (15- IFA- IDQ- )
!'b._Proj.ct consists of: The addition of. 630 sq. ft. addition to an
existing service station for a car wash. .
other minor on-site i~provements and dedications
of street right-of-way.
501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.
J,oc.tion:
Pl.... r.vi.w tbe document and torward to .. any couent. you bav.
by 6/15/94
couent.: JV6 U;1?11l1!J1~;?
d-
.
ROUTING FORM
DJCrE: June 6. 1994
!'O: Ken Larson, Building , Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Clift SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISIJ, EIRI2)
Ricbard RUdolt, Aut City Attorn.y (Dran IIeg Dec . EIR)
Carol Gove, Fir. Department
Marty SChmidt, Parks , Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economi.c Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance PllU212ing
Bob Sennett, Ci.ty Landscape Arcbitect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
cbula Vista Elementary Scbool District, Kate Sburson
SWeetwater Union H.S. District, flom Silva (IS. EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - It annexation :l.s :l.nvolved)
Matin Miller, Project flracking Log (rout. ~or11J only)
Other .
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental Section
.Location:
077
5UB:JECT: Application for In.1tial StUdy (IS- 94..M"/FA-li54 /Da=093 )
Cbeckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_IFB-_IDO J
Review of a Draft EIR {EIR-_IFB-_IDP I
Review ot Environmental Rev.1ew Record (FC- EM- )
Review of Draft N.g Dec (IS- IFA- IDQ- J
JOb. Proj.ct consists ot: The addition of a 630 sq. ft. addition to an
existing service station for a car wash. .'
other minor on-site improvements and dedications
of street right-of-way.
501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.
1>1.... review the document ant1 ~ortfard to .. any cO.IIJII.nt. you bave
b~ 6/15/94 .
CO.llllllents: 7kA~~r',~ ~~&~c..2 ~
~ wiIi:-riL (N.~ P..&... H..,..~ iT ~tt..~
~. ~~~ ~~1 7h &t4 ~-~ J!/ ~ w-n/:... tlw..d~,.1
"'-<L...".,. .
IOARD OF EDUCATION
J06EPH D. CIMIINGS. PIID.
LARRV CUHNNGHAM
a.ARON GlES
PATRICK A. JUCO
GREG R.SANDOVAI.
IUPERltfTENDENT
LBIA S. GL PIID.
. .
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DlS1mCT
84 EAST OJ" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFOltNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORnI
June 13, 1994
, JUtJ 1 6 )(1(.,
Mr. Doug D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~ I
_. ....,. ,
RE: IS-94-27IFA-6541 DQ-093
Applicant: Rod Bisharat
Location: 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.
Project: Gas Station Extension/Car Wash
Dear Mr. Reid:
This is to advise you that the project, located at 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd.,
is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children
from Kindergarten through Grade 6. Greg Rogers School is the home
school for this project.
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
a(e being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also
buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth
and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.28 for non-residential
area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.131square
foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $.151square foot) to assist in
financing facilities needed to serve growth.
If you have any questions. please contact this office.
Sincerely,
~~ cs,~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
.-:c~. - "
( .
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FII'h AVlnul
Chula VlI'a, Call1ornla 8181 '-2186
CSI8) 8111-5500
Division of Planning and Facilities
June 14. 1994
..
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: 15-94-27
The above project will have an Impact on the Sweetwater Union High
School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to
Govemment Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to Issuance of
building permit.
Sincerely .
/
~/~
Thomas Sliva
Assistant Director of Planning
-15/ml
-"
RECEiV::D
r JUN 1 61994
PLANI\I:i'm
'-
~
I
.~..
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SWeetwater Aumority
505 Garrett Ave.
(hula Vista, CA 92010
JULY 12, 1994
SHELL STATION - 501 Telegraph Canyon Road
'!his letter will serve to confirm that existing water supplies
and fire hydrants are adequate far fire protection. purposes for
this developrent.
~ a.;d~
CAROL A. OOVE
FIRE MARSHAL
CAG/l a
.
.
, .
_ wEETWATER AUTHORIT'
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2326
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912.2326
(619) 420-1413 .
FAX (619) 425-7469
June 14, 1994
P' ,..
_rUII",_' _
GOVERNING BOARD
BUD POCKl.INQTON. CHAIR.......'"
GEORGE H. WATERS. YICE. CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EDWIN J. STEELE
MARGAREt A. WELSH
.lAMES S WOLNIEWICZ
CARy F. WAIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
DlAN J. fltEEY[S
SECRnARy.ADMtNISTRATIV( AIDE
, --
. ,
'JUN 2 0 1~~.l
Mr. Douglas Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED ADDITION TO SERVICE STATION FOR CAR WASH
501 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
CASE NO: 15-94-27
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1994
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 isa l2-inch steel water main located on the east aide of
Halecrest Drive adjacent to the proposed development. out records
indicate that there is one water service to this property.
Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 88 map which shows the existing
water facilities.
At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing
system to provide fire protection for this project. All plans
develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the
Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating rire r10w
requirements. Based on this requirement, this project .a7 result
i~ the Deed for Dew water Iflt"l or IUbltant1al alteratioD to the
ez1st11ui ..ter syst_. The Authority recommends that your Agency
work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are
adequate to meet the added demands prior to iasuing a building
permit. An approved reduced pressure principle backflow device is
required on the existing and any proposed water service for this
aite.
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 97 p.s.i. to a minimum of 72 p.a.i.
~
A PIlblic Agency.
-- ",...4.:,__,.' ",;,,,,. rJ.ul.. V:.I... ......*' 1:..._.._>11:__ A____
( .
Mr. Douglas Reid
City of Chula Vista
Re: Water Availability
Case No. 1S-94-27
June 14, 1994
page two
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-1413, ext. 239.
very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
d-~1'-
L. Smyth
Engineer
JLS:RC:ln
k:\lorelet\wp51\1S9427.ltr
enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 88 map
pc: Mr. Rod Bisharat
501 Telegraph canyon Road
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Mr. Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
--
PRO ECT SITE
I
I
-! .
--
.
February 11, 1994
520 ADT
A-dcl. N&AJ A-l>T ck.e. -to Qr ~sJ....'
":20 A-1>T
7:"5. ~ _ fi5 '- 2D~f( 4-% ;;/~
iJ :II
Deputy Director of Publ! 7f!A-N5- D1F:: ':3DG """ 2D =- &/20.
ci ty of Chula Vista /;) . ~
Public Works Department Avy '-t'v~'i:>)"OtIS :& :-:;-
276 Fou~th Avenue ,4.e,z. tCAR. ubi;e-
Chula V~sta, CA 91910
!:Xi ~h-'d-- A- DT .'
/~() .Jf- ~ .::
m~
TA'T & .t.SSOClATES. ONC
Consuning Engineers
? ~ q:::
ATTN: Cliford L. Swanson
RE: PROPOSED CARWASH ADDITION TO EXISTING SHELL SITE AT
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/HALECREST, CHULA VISTA, CA
Mr. Swanson,
On Wednesday 2/9/94, I met with both Frank Rivera and
Joseph Asuncion of the Public Works Department to discuss the
proposed carwash addition, City required C.U.P/Design Review
Process, and probable conditions that may be imposed by the Public
Works Department.
Through our discussion it was determined that the Public Works
Department would probably condition the project to provide an
easement for the existinq underground drainaqe culvert. dpd;~a~e
..up to 14' of property On__~I!!~egr~canyon RQ~d, ~ request public
improvements consistent w~ththe Telegraph Canyon Road dedication.
A condition for both and easement and dedication is understandable,
however, due to the proposed scope of Work a requirement to provide
public improvements make the project economically unfeasible.
Shell oil Company would very much like to proceed with this
project, although, if public improvements will be a City
requirement the project will be cancelled and the available funds
spent elsewhere.
It was suggested by Frank Rivera that I contact you to get a
preliminary determination of whether public improvements would in
fact be a requirement.
,
:.J
-.!
I have enClosed a marked up Survey indicating the site
carwash and would be happy to meet with you to discuss
and answer any questions you may have.
and proposed
the proposal
"
I will call you on Monday, February 14, to confirm receipt of this
package and possibly to set a meeting with the City of Chula Vist
and Shell Oil Company.
Office
MAH/bm
Enclosure
cc: Richard Zanoni, Shell Oil
Al Barazi, Shell Oil
Jeff Stegman, Shell oil
.
~~ft.-
~
~~
'DEPARTMENi OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
March 21, 1994
File. &8-001
"
Tait . Associates
36'5 Ruffin Road. suite 230
San Diego, California 92123
Attention:
Mr. Mark Bayden
,IftlU. CAJtWASB AT TBLBGRAPB CANYON ROAD/BAI.BCRBST
This is in response to your letter dated Fel):ruary 11, 1994
concerning requirements which might be placed upon the addition of
a carwash at .the subject location. You indicated that dedication
of street and drainage easements were understan~Ahle. You did,
however, indicate that if installation of public i~rovements were.
required the project would not be economically feasible.
Although the City is allowed by ordinance to require the
de"-ications and street improvements for projects that exceed
$20.000 in value, this addition is not anticipated to increase
traffic so significantly that your ianediate i~rovements are
required. Consequently, we are willing to limit our requirements
at this time to dedication of street and drainage easements and
payment of the Transportation Development l~act Fee (Trans DIP)
and SR-125 Interim Facilities (SR-125 DIF effective after 1-1-95) .
we will, however, require that your clients execute an agreement
requiring payment by them for all on site relocation work
necessitated by the street widening when it occurs. ~s would
include relocation of signs, private lights, tanks, etC.
Please note that the project will be assessed a "!'ransportation
Development I~act Fee of $6,120.00. There will be no traffic
signal fee in that the increase in traffic does not exceed 20\ of
the existing traffic and is exempted in that circumstance; until
such time as a project is submitted, other potential ~ees can not
be determined.
further que.tion., pleue c:ontact 8ill mlrich at
WAU:wau
,
/
...~\F-.. .\______...m
,.
I
~M~
~ ....~ :
~~~~
- ~- =
CfTY OF
CHULA VISTA' . .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
"
June 28, 1994
File I ZB-OOl
....~~:....~
Tait , Associates
3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230
San Diego, California 92123
Attention:
Mr. Mark Hayden
SHELL CARWASH AT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/HALECREST
As requested after your phone conversation with Bill Ullrich the
week of June 13, this letter is to correct the amount of
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) which will be
required for the subject project. In a letter dated March 21, 1994
the TDIr was stated to be $6,120.00. That amount wall JIIiscalculated
and should have been $12,240.00.
The fee was based upon 20 additional trips being generated by the
car wash addition. The actual number should have been 40 balled
upon SANDAG generation factors of 5 trips per fueling space. The
previous calculation was based upon 4 pumps rather than 8 fueling
spaces. Please see the enclosed SANDAG generation rates. The
traffic signal fee is still not applicable with the revised trip
increase in that the increase still does not exceed a 20'.
We apologize for the incorrect information in our previous
correspondence. If you have any further questions please contact
Zoubir Ouadah at 691-5180.
'&7~~
Cli d L. Swanson
Deputy Director of Public Works/
City Enqineer
WAUl 86-SHELLTCR
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA i'i'O/(6'91691.S02,
,
'.
Case No. .::r..r- yy. o?7
APPENDIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period
.
wpcT.~CNTCIREIN022.PI ~. lain) (Jof. 1020.93)
THE CITY OF arou. VlSI'A DISQ.OSURE STA'JEMENT
You arc required to file a Stalemenl or Disclosure or cenain ownership or financial intcrests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on aU matters which will require discretionary action on the pan or the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all olher official bodies. The .following inrormation must be disclosed:
1. Ust tbe Dames or aU persons baving a financiallntcrest in the propeny which is tile subject or tbe application or tbe
contract. c.l-, owner, applicant, contractor. subrontractor, material supplier.
Shell Oil COA
Rod Bisharat - Dealer
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (t) above is a corporation or pannership, !ist tbe Dames or aU iIIdividuats OWIIing
more tban 10% or the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership.
Shell Oil Co.
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (t) above is non-profit orpnization or a trust, list Ibe Dames or any person
serving as director or Ihe non-profit organization or as trustcc or beneficiary or lrustor or Ihe lrusl.
NIl>.
4. Have you had more Ihan S2S0 wonh or business lransacted wilb any member or Ihe City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council wilbin tbe past twelve montbs? Yes_ No...,a. If yes, please iIIdicate person(s):
5. Please Identify each and every person, iIIcll!ding any agents, employees, consultants, or iIIdependeDt contractors who
you have assigned 10 represent you berore tbe City in Ibis mauer.
Tait & Associates - Consultant
Rod Bisharat
- Dealer
6. Have you and/Or your officers or apnlS, ill lhe aurePle, CIODtribuled more than S 1,000 10 . CDuDCilmember ill the
curreDI or precedinl election period? Ycs_ No xx 1f)'CS, IIIle which CouDCllmemher(s):
Dale:
b-2-fV
· · · (N01E:
11
AI&8dI addIlioaaJ..... ~
I ,&7-:fft;::;Plitant
PriDt or type Dame or coDlllClorlapplitaDI
11
"
~...~- :-:.....-.-
.......JMdub."...". _.- :.-:" _,..... -,..........., vJ:_~.
. __'.._ _.. .-Jo_