HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/03/23 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, March 23, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of January 27 and March 9, 1988
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Frederick Drew letter regarding horses stabled next to Woodlawn Park
Church at 124 Spruce Road.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-15: Consideration of proposed amendments to
Chapters 6.04, 6.08 and 19.04 of the Municipal Code
relating to number of dogs and cats permitted on
residential properties (Continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-34: Consideration of request to construct a
24-hour convenience store with a self-service gas
island at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and
Naples Street - Southland Corporation
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of April 13, 1988
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
- /
I275 Banner Avenue
~'a%v Chula Vista, California 92011
Planning Corarai s s i o~ '
The City of Chula Vista
Dear Friends,
Hs I promised during your meeting last night, here is a description of a
problem which I believe deserves your attention and your action,
regarding horses stabled in the city of Chula Vista. Specifically, I
call attention to those horses which are now being kept in a yard next to
the Woodlawn Park Church of God In Christ (124 Spruce Road).
During your meeting I met our new Director of Building and Housing,
Kenneth G. Larsen, C.B.O. and he provided some ±nformation on the above-
mentioned subject which I would have brought to your attention then
except that the meeting had proceeded past my point of opportunity.
Mr. Larsen advises that at the ccuncil meeting of Tuesday night, the
'staff' was assigned a task on the matter and that, in consequence, he
examined certain appropriate ordinances and he found that as many as 12
horses may legally be stabled in Chula Vista. He believes that it may be
decided that an appropriate response to the immediate problem (mentioned
above) could be to reduce the number of horses allowed at that cite via a
method of attrition (i.e., if a horse dies, for example, the number
allowed there would be reduced to eleven).
I feel that the problem is urgent enough to require a more immediate
response and I am herewith requesting you to advise the council that the
ordinance needs revision or change.
By ordinance, horses should not be stabled within the immediate proximity
of anything like a church, a residence other than the one controlling the
stable, or a school, business, or other establishment which may attract
people who ordinarily do not deal with horses. ~herever horses are
legally stabled within the city, their numbers should be limited %o no
more than two (adult) horses together with their immature offspring, such
offspring (or an equal number of the original horses) to be removed by
maturity.
The ordinance should further require that the health and general
condition of horses in the city meet certain reasonable-high standards
and further, that they be well behaved, (not wild), and well tempered.
The ordinance should require that, in any case, people who keep horses at
all show ~ood cause for doing so and that boarding, training, or other
business-like purpose would not be considered good cause. (Private uses,
such as for daily horse riding for the exercise or pleasure of it may be
good causes - and for such good causes, no more than two horses should
be wanted). If any ordinance carries exceptions, those exceptions might
consider that specific parts of the city - which are specifically named
would be entitled to be rural or semi-rural in character.
~!annzng Commission March 10, !988 page 2
At the instant case, the horses are kept in the open, next to an active,
and rapidly growing church, and there are also private residences in the
immediate proximity. Complaints from both sources hold that the people
fear some of the horses may be diseased; they create a bad and unhealthy
odor; and they threaten to cause bodily injury to people nearby via a
variety of means.
At one point, they were though to have stampeded and they broke their
fence down. One of the horses charged out of the yard and threatened to
run over a child.
Sometimes, the children who pass nearby inadvertently (or occasionally,
do deliberately) annoy or bother ('spook') the horses. Inasmuch as most
of the children are city-folk, and do not know about horses, they treat
them as zoo animals and they try to pet and feed them. Some fear has
been expressed that sooner or later, one of those children will be
bitten.
Aside from being an attractive nuisance, the horses also attract flies,
mosquitoes, roaches, mice, rats, and other vermin. That establishes a
difficulty for the neighbors who try to keep their own establishments
free of such vermin, and that, in its own right, creates a media for
disease infestation.
I am requesting herewith, that you consider this proUlem as rightly
within the purview of the Plannin~ Commission and th~at you take all
appropriate steps which would lead to the establishment in Chula Vista of
an ordinance which will eliminate and discourage recurrence of this
problem. In the meanwhile, I also request that you take such action as
is necessary to cure the immediate problem as a urgent issue.
Frederick A. R. Drew
Frederick A. R. Drew
1275 Banner Avenue
Chula Vis%a, California 92011
February 29, 1988
(619) 427 1804
The City Council
City of Chula Vista
4th Street at F
Chula Vista, California 92010
Dear Friends,
Some of my neighbors and some people who visit Chula Vista to attend
Church have come to me to complain of the numerous horses which are kept
in a yard next-door to the Woodlawn Park Church of God in Christ. They
consider the horses a nuisance and furthermore, a health hazard. I agree.
These horses are kept (in the open) at the center of an urban community
where they attract flies, mosquitoes, and other vermin which are capable
of transmitting diseases to humans. They create an unpleasant odor which
is detectable at great distances. Sometimes they are very noisy and
therefore they disturb and disrupt church services, and the peace and
tranquillity which the citizens living nearby should ordinarily enjoy in
their private homes at night.
The horses, themselves, ~ppear to be at some risk because human diseases
may be transmitted to them via insects or as airborne. They are at a
crossroads and therefore they are likely to be 'spooked' by passing motor
vehicles. They are likely to be annoyed or even pestered by children who
play nearby - and they may, (if "spooked') escape their pen and cause
death or injury to any human pedestrian.
However many horses can be tolerated by law, that number must be relatedT
somehow, to the number that can be reasonably used by a household. It is
unimaginable that any household can use as many horses as are seen kept at
that place and it appears to be a boarding stable rather than anything of
use to a household. Evidence of that conclusion is obvious when one notes
that the number of horses there varies from time to time - and that
variety is sometimes extreme. In any event, there are usually too many
horses there for the safety of the community or of themselves.
According to the reports to me, Councilmember Malcolm pmomised people in
the community, while he was campaigning for re-election - that he would
'get rid of' the problem. He has reneged.
The people also report that it appears obvious that the only reason why
you tolerate this affront to their community is because it is, at-large,
considered a 'black' community and you are willing to allow that community
to suffer what you would never dare suffer upon a non-minority
neighborhood.
I urge you to make repair, and to immediately respond to this letter by a
public statement of intent.
Frederick A. R. Drew
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1988 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-15 Consideration of proposed amendments to
Chapters 6.04, 6.08 and 19.04 of the Municipal Code
relating to the number of dogs and cats permitted o~
residential properties (Continued)
A. BACKGROUND
In September, 1987, the City Council, in response to a written request
from Ms. Patricia Bodi, directed staff to review the City's animal regulations
to determine if it would be appropriate to allow a greater number of dogs on a
single family lot (please see attached for Ms. Bodi's letter).
This item was continued by the Commission from the meeting of January 13,
1988, with direction for staff to consider additional provisions which would
distinguish between larger and smaller single family lots, as well as larger
and smaller animals. The Commission also requested further input from the
Senior Animal Control Officer.
The item was further continued at the request of staff from the meetings
of February l0 and 24 in order to finalize several proposed revisions to the
draft ordinance.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposal is exempt from environmental review.
C. PECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
amending the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
D. DISCUSSION
Chapter 6 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code presently allows no more than
three dogs and three cats on an R-1 single family lot, and two dogs or two
cats in mult-T~le-family zones. The keeping of four or more dogs or ca~s is
considered to be a kennel/cattery and is not allowed in residential zones.
The purpose in limiting the number of domestic animals on residential
properties is to help control the potential adverse impacts of noise, odors
and sanitary conditions on surrounding residents.
The Senior Animal Control Officer, Mr. Bill Will, reports that enforcement
of the regulations occurs primarily from complaints by neighbors. The owner
is first given a warning to reduce the number of animals and then a citation
is issued if necessary. Enforcement is almost totally restricted to dogs,
because cats are not licensed nor required to be under the direct control of
their owner, and residents often claim that the extra cat(s) are strays. The
limitations are also somewhat misleading by the fact that puppies under
four-months old are not considered dogs and are thus exempt from the ordinance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1988 Page 2
Note: Regardless of the number of animals permitted, Chapter 6 also
contains provisions which require animal premises to be kept sanitary and free
of offensive odors or disease, and which prohibit animals from being allowed
to disturb the peace or constitute a public nuisance or hazard. (In the case
of noise, an affirmation by two separate residents of a disturbance of the
piece is prima facie evidence of a violation.)
E. ANALYSIS
In response to the Commission's request, Mr. Will has prepared a memo
outlining the position of Animal Control (please see attached). The Director
of Public Safety, Chief Winters, concurs with Mr. Will's recommendations and
the draft ordinance has been revised accordingly as follows:
Mr. Will agrees with the Commission that it would be appropriate to apply
the multiple-family limit of two dogs or cats to smaller single-family lots
using a lot size of 3,500 sq. ft. as the cut-off. This lot size distinction
is consistent with the present application of the multiple-family limit to R-2
lots, which allow one dwelling unit for each 3,500 sq. ft. of land area. In
contrast, Mr. Will recommends against distinguishing between large and small
dogs due to the fact that while larger breeds may create greater odor and
sanitation problems, smaller breeds often generate more noise.
The prior draft ordinance included a provision which would have given the
Senior Animal Control Officer the discretion to increase the number of animals
on a case-by-case basis in consideration of unique but unquantified conditions
such as an oversized lot or increased separation from adjoining dwellings.
The draft ordinance has now been revised to eliminate any discretion and to
establish a sliding scale which would allow up to four dogs for a lot between
10,000-15,000 sq. ft., five dogs for a lot between 15,000-20,000 sq. ft., and
six dogs if the lot size is 20,000 sq. ft. or larger. Lots between
3,500-10,000 sq. ft. would be allowed the existing single-family limit of
three dogs and cats.
Single-family dwellings are often located in ~-3 zones, and some
multiple-family dwellings are located in commercial zones as well. In order
to provide an equitable and consistent set of regulations, the ordinance has
been revised to refer to land use rather than the underlying zone. Several
definitions have also been revised to conform with the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments would legitimize Ms. Bodi's current circumstance
because she presently maintains five dogs on a lot of approximately 15,000 sq.
ft.
WPC 4811P
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE NUMBER OF DOGS AND CATS PERMITTED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Section 6.04.030 Dogs, cats-quantity permitted ~/~%d~$a)/~.
A. EX Single-family lots of less than 3,500 square feet and all
Multiple-family dwellings ~X: The keeping of any animal
other than one d-~one cat-~ or two dogs, or two cats per
dwelling unit $~/~1~)r-~-~-~l~t$~$I~/~[~ is pro~bited.
B. ~y ~7//z/oh(~/ Single-family lots with at least 3,500 square feet
but less than 10,000 square feet: The keeping of more than
three dogs and three cats Y~/%~e/~I/~ is prohibited.
C. Single-family lots with at least 10,000 square feet but less
than 15,000 square feet: The keeping of more than four dogs and
four cats is prohibited.
D. Single-family lots with at least 15,000 square feet but less
than 20,000 square feet: The keeping of more than five dogs and
five cats is prohibited.
E. Single-family lots of 20,000 square feet or larger: The keeping
of more than six dogs and six cats is prohibited.
F. Non-residential lots: The keeping of more than three dogs and
three cats is prohibited except as permitted by Chapter 19 for
Kennels, catterles and pet shops.
Section 6.08.010 Definitions
B. "Cattery" means a place ~/dd~td/~//Q~r//¢~//c~/~ kept for
the purpose of boarding, breeding, raising, selling or
exchanging of cats;
C. "Kennel" means a place ~//~dd~/~//~d~¢/~/a/~/~ kept for
the purpose of boarding, breeding, raising, selling or
, exchanging of dogs;
E. "Pet shop" means an establishment involved in selling or
exchanging {but excluding boarding, breeding or raising) any
birds, dogs or other pets, all of which for the purpose of this
chapter are ca/le~ pets.
F. ~/ "Puppy" means a dog of four months or less in age.
~ ~$ $ $ ~ $ ~l ~/r/ l ~ l JT~/ l ~l l $ ~l /e/r/ l ~ ~ ~ l lW~/ l ~ ~l ld~ ~ / /d/a/~ / ~
~ ~ / /d~ / ~/r/e/ / ~/ / dd~ %%~d / /a/ / ~ z / / /~ ~ / /d~ / ~c/~d / /c/~ / ~ ~/ / ~
-
EXHI BIT A
PROPOSEO REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE NUMBER OF DOGS AND CATS PERMITTED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Section 6.04.030 Dogs, cats-quantity permitted ~/tt~ dt~t Þl/t6~t~.
A. 'U Single-family lots of less than 3,500 square feet and all
Multiple-family dwellings t6~tt: The keeping of any animal
other than one dog, and one cat-;- or two dogs, or two cats per
dwelling unit ~/i/~ØYI;rp7ttfi~ 7i/tI6~t is prohlbited.
B. '" p..t7//ztittIf Single-family lots with at least 3,500 square feet
but 1 ess than 10,000 square feet: The keep1 ng of more than
. three dogs and three cats 1"/t~~/~f)/t6~t is prohibited.
C. Single-family lots with at least 10,000 square feet but less
than 15,000 square feet: The keeping of more than four dogs and
four cats 1S proh1b1ted.
D. Si ng1 e-fami 1y lots with at 1 ei!st 15,000 square feet but 1 ess
than 20,000 square feet: The keeping of more than five dogs and
t1ve cats 1S proh1b1ted.
E. Single-family lots of 20,000 square feet or larger: The keeping
of more than S1X dogs and S1X cats 1S proh1b1ted.
F. Non-residential lots: The keeping of more than three dogs and I'
three cats is prohibited except as permitted by Chapter 19 for
kennels, catter1es and pet Shops.
Section 6.08.010 Definitions
B. "Cattery" means a p1 ace 'llr/f/rIrI /f6øn /t:Ir/ /~6tt/ /r:kIW /ift kept for
the purpose of boarding, breeding, raising, selling or
exchanging of cats;
C. "Kennel" means a place 'liMtk//fr/llrf//Jt//rf.rJrfrl/í:'tt.t//itt kept for
the purpose of boarding, breeding, raising, selling or
. exchanging of dogs;
E. "Pet shop" means an establishment involved in selling or
exchanging (but excluding boarding, breeding or raising) any
birds, dogs or other pets, all of which for the purpose of this
chapter are cal led pets.
F. 'if "Puppy" means a dog of four months or 1 ess in age.
$é¢t 6~/ßtØ~tØ7Ø Kt~~t7~i/¢íttét é~/i~d/pét/~"6p~tdé~ á~itédt
Ké~~é7~i//~fikf.///'~~//þ~t///~~//t~i77//~~//t~é//~//6f
ttÞffjtKI~Ó/fifiý/6t/~//té771~p//t:Ir//ét¢~þ~pl~p//~/ßAfßt/,//¢'t11/~/6t
6t"ét/~//~/6f/~t!Vj/Y~rf/t~~/~~/Øf/AI0f-1/~'ptrlrfl/Af~/Ai~rI~/p;ttt
YØØf//~rf/~A1/ß6ðí//¢~~1trtvtrl/fcV/X~~~~J/.///Yøøt//~rf/AV~rI/~/t/J~ttAtP~//í
UUU¡f
Section 19.04.118 Kennel
"Kennel" means
~d~W~d~d~$~a/r/e/~d~/~/s/~f6~v5~/c~Mi~d~/Q/l/d/e/r~dd~ a place
kept for the purpose of boarding, breeding, raising, selling or exchanqing of
dogs.
Section 19.04.179 Pet Shop
"Pet shop" means an~shment involved in selling or exchanging (but
excluding boarding, breeding or raising) any birds, dogs or other pets, all oF
which for the purpose of this chapter are called pets.
Additions
//////////// Deletions
WPC 4811P
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: Febl-~al"~ 5, 1988
TO: C~ief Winters, via Cpt. Hawkins, via Lt. Blackston
FROM: SP. AC0 Will
SUBJECT: Change in zoning and Animal Re~ulations
A Mrs. Patricia Bodi petitioned the City Council in an attempt
to change a zoning ordinance to allow the keeping of more than three
dogs in a single family dwelling. The City Council instructed the
planning department to look into the matter.
The planning department took the matter to the planning commission
on January 6, 1988 with the intent of allowing more than three dogs on
the property of citizens if certain conditions exist. Each case would
be considered individually with the Sr. ACO making the final determin-
ation. I did not agree with this proposal in it's entirety and the plan-
ning commission continued the issue until February lC, 1988. to allow
for more input. This date has now been continued until February,2k, 1988.
Recommendation:
I suggest we do not change the zoning to permit a greater number
of dogs than we now allow unless the resident has 20,000 sq. ft. as
required for the keeping of horses. (cvmc 6.0k. OlO). Even then dogs
should be kept to a maximum of six.
I also suggest that single family dwellings with less than 3,500 sq. ft.
be limited to the same requirements as multiple family dwellings.
City of Chula Vista, California
A 111
(CVM0 6.04.030b) states "The keeping of any animal other than
one dog, one cat, two dogs or two cats per dwelling unit ina multi-
ple-family zone is prohibited."
The biggest single reason for anyone to keep more dogs than are
already fallowed is to breed them and sell the puppies. This consti-
tutes a kennel and a kennel is a business. At the current limit of
three dogs we have citizens keeping two bitches and one male and they
are breeding them and selling the puppies. If each bitch has five pups
you now have thirteen dogs on the premises. Puppies are not considered
dogs until they are four months old so there is no requirement for
licensing or vaccinating and they can be kept legally for several mon-
ths. Thirteen dogs on a lot in a residential neighborhood creates noise
and sometimes sanitation problems.
~ile it's assumed by most people that small dogs are less problem
than large ones, this is not necessa~ily true.
Example:
Some small breed dogs such as Poodles and Ehaso Apso's are usually
very noisy while some of the larger breeds such as the Irish Wolfhound
and Malemu~e are usually quiet dogs.
As we are all aware,"Pit Bulls" are an extremely popular breed
among a certain segment of the population. "Pit Bulls are also very
quiet dogs. Im sure some citizens will star~c raising them if we allow
more dogs. Pith the public paranoia towards "Pit Bulls I feel we will
be creating more problems than we are solving.
Naturally, sanitation problems would be worse with larg~ dogs than
with small ones. However, when it comes to cleaning up after animals
all I can say is "ever~hing is relative".
-2-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Due to the noise and offensive odors, even Government Animal
Shelters are not erected in residential neighborhoods.
I feel we would be doing a diservice to the majority of our citizens
for the benefit of a few if we allow more dogs to be kept in resident-
ial neighborhoods.
I have been in contact with Steve Griffin of the Planning Depart-
ment and we are attempting to come up with an ordinance that will
benefit everyone. We are due to meet again if you are agreeable with
these suggestions and/or have different ones.
-3-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~ugust 21, 1987
Mayor of Chula Vista
City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Gentlemen~
I am writing to request your consideration to a variance of the
Chula Vista City ordinance which states tsar only three (3) adult
dogs may be kept in one household.
I have five (5) small adult Pomeranians weighing from 2 - 7 pounds
each. I have had these pets from 2 - 4 years and cannot bear to part
with them.
My residence at 203 Sandstone Ct. (lot 166 of Larkhaven Chula Vista
Unit ~3 Map ~7590) is situated on a large lot at the end of a cul-
de-sac, measuring approximately 125 feet x 140 feet or in excess of
17,000 square feet. (Map attached showing dimensions of lot.) The
dogs are normally inside the residence. When they are outside, they
are confined to the rear yard which is enclosed by a six foot redwood
fence.
When the dogs are outside, they are not a nuisance to any of my
neighbors. There is a school yard (Fred Rohr school) on the south
side of the property and therefore no neighbors on this side. The
neighboring ~ouse to the rear of my, property is on a hill and at least
400 feet from my house and cannot be seen from my residence. My closest
neighbor is on the north side of my property which is separated by
the six foot fence. I have talked with these neighbors and the dogs hay,
never bothered them.
The yard where the dogs have access provides them shelter Wlth a
covered patio and is kept clean of dog debris. I have a contract
with Terminex Pest Control and they provide monthly service to control
fleas and other insect pests inside and ou~
My home was visited on August 1, 1987 by officer Jean Lareau of the
Chula Vista Police Department Animal Control Division. She found
the premises to be very clean and the dogs well cared for and healthy.
(I have attached her signed statement of findings for your information.)
As I have stated above, there have been no complaints from the neighbors
of the dogs creating a nuisance. The only complaint was from a party
who does not live in Chula Vista. They filed a complaint because they
purchased a litter of my female's puppies and they are now dissatisfied
with these dogs. The complaint they filed was that I was running a
kennel without a license. I am NOT operating a kennels these dogs
are not a business. These are my pets. Should my dogs have puppies,
of which there have been three litters in four years, for a total of
eight puppies, they must be sold or given away as I cannot keep all
these dogs. I wish to keep only the adult dogs I purchased as my pets
I feel that due to the small size of my dogs, their total weight does
not compare with that of one German Shephard. If the ordinance permits
three dogs and one chooses to keep three German Shephards, the sanita-
tion, possible noise and nuisance is greatly multiplied in comparison
to the total weight of 25 pounds of my Pomeranians.
If there is any additional information y~ wlsh or a visit to my home
tQ see the premises and dogs, do not hesitate to contact me. My work
phone is 232-9815, home phone is 427-8313.
Please do not make me get rid of my loving pets. I eagerly await your
consideration of this matter at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
203 Sandstone Ct.
Chula Vista, CA 92011
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN*
ON AUGUST 1, 1987, IN ANSWER TO A NOTICE OF CITIZEN COMPLAINT
CONCERNING AN UNLAWFUL KENNEL, AN OFF/.QIAL VISIT WA~ MADE TO
203 SANDSTONE CT. THE FoLLWoING ITEMS ARE OBSERVED~
1. FIVE POMERANIANS, RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2 - 7 POUNDS WERE
PRESENT. ALL DOGS ARE WELL-CARED FOR, IN HEALTHY CONDITION,
WELL-GROOMED, QUIET AND PASSIVE. NO SIGNS OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT
ARE NOTED.
2. THE PREMISES ARE VERY CLEAN. THERE IS NO OFFENSIVE ODOR,
DEFICATION OR FLY/PEST INFESTATION.
3. THE PREMISES ARE AT THE END OF A SECLUDED CULDESAC PROVIDING
A SPACIOUS AREA WITH MORE THAN ENOUGH SPACE FOR EXERCISE, SHELTER
AND AN OVERALL HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY
IS FULLY ENCLOSED WITH SIX-FOOT REDWOOD FENCING WHICH FULLY
RESTRAINS THE ANIMALS ON THE PREMISES.
MS. BODI DEMONSTRATED TO ME AN EXCEPTIONAL CONCERN FOR THESE
ANIMALS AS WELL AS SINCERITY FOR PUBLIC WELL-BEING. SHE STATED
TO ME THAT THE DOGS ARE NORMALLY CONFINED TO THE HOUSE AND ONLY
ALLOWED IN THE REAR YARD. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DOGS ARE NOT
RUNNING LOOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ARE CLOSELY CARED FOR
SO AS NOT TO BE A NUISANCE TO ANYONE.
MS. BODI ALSO STATED THAT SHE IS NOT BREEDING AND SELLING DOGS
AS A BUSINESS AND I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD LEAD ME
TO BELIEVE ITHERWISE.
MS. BODI HAS BEEN SINCERE, COOPERATIVE AND WILLING TO RESOLVE
THIS SITUATION WHILE WISHING TO KEEP ALL HER PETS.
Should you wish any further information, please contact me at 691-5123.
OFFICER JEAN R. LAREAU
BADGE NO. 7217
CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
August 21, 1987
We, the undersigned, are the neighbors of Patricia J. Bodi
who lives at 203 Sandstone Ct.. In response to her inquery,
we freely state that the dogs at her residence have not
created a nuisance with regard to noise or any other condi-
tion. Further, we have not seen any of her dogs running loose
in the neighborhood.'
Signature.' ~ ~ /~~
Address, 2Z~ ~~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1988 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-34; request to construct
24-hour convenience store with sel~-serve gas at the
northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street -
The Southland Corporation
A. BACKGROUND
This item is a request to construct a 24-hour convenience store with two
self-serve gas islands and freestanding canopy on 0.48 acres located at
the northwest corner of Nilltop Drive and Naples Street in the C-N zone.
The sale of gas ("service station") and proposal for 24-hour operation in
the C-N zone are both subject to Planning Commission approval.
An Initial Study, IS-88-43, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
January 12, 1988. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that
there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that
the Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-43.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-88-34, to construct a 24-hour
convenience store with self-serve gas at the northwest corner of
Hilltop Drive and Naples Street subject to the following conditions
Iconditions c thru e are mitigation measures to reduce trafic impacts
to a level of insignificant pursuant to a traffic study done for the
project):
a. Should any problems arise and/or any complaints be received
regarding the extended hours, the matter shall be returned to
the Commission for review and reconsideration.
b. The site plan and architecture are subject to review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator, whose decision may be
appealed to the Design Review Committee.
c. The abutting project curbs, gutter and sidewalk shall be
relocated to a line 32-feet along Hilltop Drive and 26 feet
along Naples measured from the existing centerline of the two
streets as specified by the City. The length of the curb
relocation shall be for the full length of the project frontage.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1988 Page 2
d. The curb transition between the project frontage and the
existing curbs along Hilltop Drive shall be limited to about 110
feet to minimize impacts on the corner residential parcel
fronting on Hilltop Court.
e. The signal standard in the northwest corner of the intersection
shall be relocated behind the new curb and gutter.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North C-N Commercial
South R-1 Single family
East R-1 Single family
West C-N Commercial
Existing site characteristics
This corner site has 140 ft. of frontage on Hilltop Drive and 150 ft. of
frontage on Naples Street. A full-service gas station previously occupied
the property, but the site has recently been cleared and is presently
vacant. A neighborhood commercial center adjoins the property to the
north and west, with single family dwellings across Hilltop and Naples to
the east and south.
Proposed use
The proposal involves a 2,900 sq. ft. convenience store and two pump
islands covered by a 24'x36' freestanding canopy, with 17 on-site parking
spaces and associated circulation areas and landscape planting. The
structure, pump islands and a large landscape planter are oriented toward
the intersection. Four existing 12 ft.-wide driveways would be removed
and replaced with two 30 ft.-wide driveways off Hilltop and Naples. An
internal connection to the adjoining commercial center parking lot is also
proposed on the westerly boundary of the site.
D. ANALYSIS
Service station
The Municipal Code provides that service stations shall clearly be
required by public convenience, that they shall not cause traffic hazards
or undue congestion, and that they shall not result in a nuisance to
residents or other surrounding uses. A full-service gas station
previously occupied the site, but had been established prior to the
current regulations requiring a conditional use permit, and thus was
considered a legal nonconforming use.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1988 Page 3
The requirement to find a clear need based upon public convenience is
designed to provide control over the historical tendency of conventional
service stations to cluster at every available commercial intersection.
This consideration is less important when only one corner is commercially
zoned within a neighborhood, and gas is simply one of the items offered
for sale by a convenience facility. Nevertheless, this proposal would
appear to satisfy the public convenience requirement in that there are no
other gas facilities within the area.
In terms of traffic hazards and congestion, the scale of the operation
along with the areas set aside for circulation and vehicle stacking appear
adequate to accommodate expected activity levels without adverse impacts.
With no expectation of traffic congestion and no on-site repair
activities, the proposal should also not have any adverse effect on
adjacent residents or uses.
24-hour operation
The Municipal Code limits hours in the C-N zone to between 7:00 a.m. and
11:00 p.m. These zones are located within the neighborhoods they serve,
and the limitation on hours is intended to protect adjacent residents from
excessive traffic and noise during the late evening and early morning
hours. The restriction is flexible, however, in that the Planning
Commission may grant an extension of hours upon a finding of no adverse
impact.
The proposal is for 24-hour operation of the convenience store and gas
pumps. The areas of potential conflict are the single family homes to the
east and south. Although these dwellings are separated from the site by
public streets, the convenience facility is oriented toward the
intersection and the late evening and early morning activity and noise
potential could be a concern and annoyance to these residents.
A study conducted several years ago indicated there was no correlation
between extended hours and the number of disturbances at neighborhood
centers. The activity levels between ll:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are usually
minimal and the ready availability of convenience goods and gas on a
24-hour basis can represent a particular convenience for surrounding
residents.
Since the purpose of the C-N zone is the provision of convenient goods and
services without unduly effecting the residential enjoyment of the area,
the sentiments of adjacent residents should be given considerable weight
in the decision to extend hours of operation. Consequently, we have
recommended approval provided no significant opposition is expressed at
the hearing, and subject to a condition requiring reconsideration if
problems or complaints surface in the future.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 23, 1988 Page 4
E. CONCLUSION
The proposal appears to meet the standards of the Code for service station
use and extended hours. We would also like to congratulate the applicant
and architect on a creative building design and site plan which, if
approved, will hopefully spur interest in renovating and revitalizing the
adjoining commercial center. Although there are a few remaining design
issues to be resolved, these are expected to be settled at staff level.
F. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The availability of 24-hour self-service gas will provide a
convenience to surrounding residents. There are no other service
stations within the immediate area.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The pump islands are located across public streets from adjacent
residents. Circulation and stacking areas appear adequate to avoid
traffic hazards or congestion.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposal complies with all conditions specified in the Code for
service stations. Compliance with all applicable codes, regulations
and conditions will be required prior to the issuance of development
permits.
4. 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 General Plan recognizes the need for service station facilities
at appropriate locations convenient to the motoring public. The
proposal in question is such a facility.
WPC 4787P/2652P
~ I~PCC 88 34 .;
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: 7-11 Food Store and Gasoline Dispensing Facility
PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner, Naples Street and Hilltop Drive
PROJECT APPLICANT: The Southland Corporation
?811 University Avenue
La Mesa, CA 92041
CASE NO: IS-88-43 DATE: March 10, 1988
A. Project Setting
The project site is located at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and
Naples Street. The property was previously used as a service station; it
is within a previously urbanized area.
On April 20, 1987, three underground gasoline storage tanks and one
underground waste oil storage tank were removed in the presence of
personnel from the Chula Vista Fire and San Diego County Health
Departments.
Subsurface testing of the soils were conducted and the following
conclusions were reached:
The findings of this investigation indicate that hydrocarbons have
been discharged to the subsurface at the subject site.
Based on the distribution of hydrocarbon-affected soils encountered
in the soil borings, it appears that a product line leak or leaks
occurred at the dispenser islands. The hydrocarbons detected within
the gasoline tank cavity maY be the result of tank fitting leaks,
overspillage, or product return flow from the line leaks along the
product line trenches.
Multiple leak incidents are suggested by the vertical distribution of
hydrocarbon concentrations and the presence of two distinct
hydrocarbon odor varieties.
Product migration appears to have been largely vertical. This is
supported by the proximity of soil borings that did not encounter
detectable hydrocarbons to borings with elevated levels of
hydrocarbons.
Nydrocarbon-affected soils are present to a maximum depth of 80 feet
within soil borings excavated on site. These soils do not, however,
appear to extend laterally beyond the property margins.
city of chula vista planning department CRY OF
environmental review section CHUIA VI A
-2-
Active natural degradation is suggested by the turpentine-like odor
and the benzene to total xylene ratio in samples exhibiting the
turpentine odor.
Based on the lack of utilized water wells in the immediate vicinity
and the extreme anticipated depth to ground water beneath the site,
it does not appear that the hydrocarbons encountered in this
investigation will adversely affect the beneficial uses of ground or
surface waters in the Lower Sweetwater Hydrographic Subunit.
The project site is served by two principal streets. Hill top Drive is
designated north-south major road. The current street width is 36 feet
between curbs within 80 feet of right-of-way. The City will require the
wi~ehing Of Hilltop Drive opposite the project site to 32 feet wide
half~treet measured to the centerline.
Naples Street is a designated east-west collector road south of "L"
Street. The current street width is 40 feet between curbs within 80 feet
of right-of-way. The City plans call for flaring out the west leg of the
intersection at Hilltop Drive for at least 100 feet to a 26 foot wide
h~tf~street 'measured from the centerline, tapered through a 180 foot
transition to the existing curb line.
The latest computerized intersection capacity programs were used to
calculate the Volume/Capacity IV/C) ratio and the LOS of the
intersection. The two-phase, signalized intersection of Hilltop Drive and
Naples Street, with its 55 second signal cycle, currently operated a
LOS D. The capacity calculations are shown.
The intersection capacity was also tested with a 30-second signal cycle,
..which'~resu~t~d in an operating LOS C and with less vehicle delays at the
~h~i~~ The southbound approach leg would operate at LOS D.
B. Z, Proje~t Description
~The~P~oject consists of the construction of a 2,898 sq. ft. convenience
~market with 17 parking spaces. 38% of the site would be landscaped. Also
~!uded as part of the project is consideration of a Conditional Use
~ Pef~it to permit the installationof a gasoline pump island with four dual
gas dispensers.
C;~' Compa~bil-ity with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project is in conformance with the retail designation of the
General Plan and the C-N zoning of the property.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
The project could potentially impact the level of service provided by
adjacent streets.
-3-
Based on SANDAG's published trip generation rates, the project site with
2,898 square feet of floor space and 4 gasoline pumps will generate 1,970
average weekday trips.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
The traffic impact study supports the approval of the project with the
following mitigating measures:
1. The abutting project curbs, gutter and sidewalk should be relocated
to a line 32 feet along Hilltop Drive and 26 feet along Naples
measured from the existing centerline of the two streets as specified
by the City. The length of the curb relocation should be for the
full length of the project frontage.
2. The curb transition between the project frontage and the existing
curbs along Hilltop Drive should be limited to about llO feet to
minimize impacts on the corner residential parcel fronting on Hilltop
Court.
3. The signal standard in the northwest corner of the intersection will
need to be relocated behind the new curb and gutter.
4. With the above curb relocations and some pavement widening, the City
will be able to restripe the approach legs of the intersection of
Hilltop Drive and Naples Street to provide left-turn storage lane in
each direction of travel, including a southbound right-turn lane on
Hilltop Drive north of Naples Street. These improvements will
significantly improve the operations of the intersection; the
resultant impacts of the project will be insignificant.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The entire site has been developed for a number of years and is void
of any significant natural or manmade resources that could be
affected by this proposal.
2. The project conforms to the long-range development and protection
plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront and, therefore, will not achieve
any short-term objectives to the disadvantage of these longer-term
goals.
3. This ~eveloped project site is within the confines of a larger
commercial area. This minor expansion will, therefore, not have any
cumulative effect which could adversely affect the environment.
4. The project will not result in the emissions of any substances,
noise, vibration, glare, etc. which could adversely impact human
beings.
-4-
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Stephen A. Ray & Assoc.
4215 Spring Street, Suite 217
La Mesa, CA 92041
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Chula Vista Municipal Code
IS-77-92
EIR-84-14
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
· 92010. ',
ENVIRO~/ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC O175P/4904P
city of chula vista planning department CRY OF
-- environmental review lectlon. (:::HUL~. VIOl'A,
FOR OFFICE USE
~/~ Case No.
INITIAL STUDY Receipt~No. ~c11-7z~
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by ]
Application Form Project No. ~-~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) NORTHWEST
CORNER OF HILLTOP DR. & NAPLES ST.
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. SEE LEGAL ATTACHMENT
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4. Name of Applicant THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
Address 7811 UNIVERSITY AVE. __ Phone(619) 466-0711
City LA MESA State CA Zip 92041
5. Name of Preparer/Agent STEPHEN R. RAY & ASSOCIATES
Address 421~ SPRING ST., SUITE 217 Phone(619) 465-9161
City LA MESA~ State CA Zip 92041
Relation to Applicant CONSULTANT
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
x Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations . Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans "Hydrological Study
X Site Plan X Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans ..... Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or x Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
FD~ ! [Rev. 12/R2)
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 20,909 or acreage .48 ACRES
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
N/A
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms · Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
''~.~.- ?ype(s) of land use NEIGHBORHOOD COMERCIAL
- ~:,r~ Floor area 2898S.F. Height of structure(s) 25~-]0~
Rez~?r~'~, Tvn~ of construction used in the structure TYPE V NON-RATED
.' ' .d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets KITTY CORNER TO
HILLTOP DR. ~ NAPLES ST. ~ WITH REAR OF BLDG. TO AD,IACENT
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 17 PROPERTII
f. Estimated number of employees per shift VARIES , Number of
shifts VARIES Total 4 MAX.
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
ONE-THOUSAND CUSTOMERS (PER DAY)
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate L--MILE
RADIUS, THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION ~TANDARDS
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
SELF-SERVE GASOLINE
Hours of operation 24HRS.
k. Type of exterior lighting 50W BT-25 HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided ·
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure{s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
l, If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
GASOLINE SELF-SERVICE
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? NONE
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placedt NONE
C. HOW much area (sq. ft. or acres) k~ill be graded? NONE
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut N/A
Average depth of cut N/A
Maximum depth of fill N/A
Average depth of fill
- 4-
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) AIR CONDITIONING ~- ELECTRICAL
APPLIANCE$~ WALK IN COOLER BOXy ICE DISPENSERS AND
FREEZERS
4. indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft, or acres) N/A
5. if the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. SALES PERSON5
6. t{ill highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? YES
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? APPROXIMATELY -1000 AUTOMOBILE TRIPS PER DAY.
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTItIG
1. ~qg)09y
..... Has a'geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach)
~ Ha~ a Soils Report on the project site been made? YES
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
· ~r.e any~,of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? No {If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? No
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic ~ater supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. ~ONE~
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No.
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. NONE
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? No
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? GASOLINE STORAGE TANKS
WH)CH HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. SITE VACANT.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North SHOPPING CENTER
South RESIDENTIAL
East RESIDENTIAL
West pARKiNG LOT
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? IIf so, how many?) No.
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? IIf so,
ho~ many and what type?} NONE
Please provide any other information ~hich could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
O~ner/owner in escrow*
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: JANUARY 12, 1~88
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
Case No. JC -a2-q-?-
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:North
South
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site: (~_~
North ~
South /~_~,~ ~
East ~ ~ ~
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown/in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkl~d are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.)
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? IIf
so, please describe.) ~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity {per year) ~ ~mo~ ~.~
Natural Gas (per year) ~.q~>O ,~-~
Water (per day) ~0~ ~
6. Remarks:
Dire~dtor of~'la~ning or Representative Date
-lO-
Case No. /3
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
· c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
....... drainage facilities? ~//~-T FZDw/ ~
e; Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
g. Are they ~dequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation
~. What ro~ds provide primary ~ccess to the project?
b. Wh~t is the estimated numbe~ of one-wa~ auto trips to be
i~.??~?~'---~ generated by the project (per d~y)?
: :~:" c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
'~:)' ,, , project completion?
Before After
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
e. ~]] ~t be necessary that addSt~ona] dedication, ~den~ng a'nd/oP
~pPovement be Bade to ex~st~ng streets?
[f so, specify the genePa] nature of the necessaPy actions.
- ll
Case No. IS
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards~'~/O~A~Dpd/k/-~/~O ~
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~/J
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~Y~.
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
Iper day) Factor Pollution
· - co Zql x 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons Z~/,~ X 18.3 =
NOx (NO2) ~d/~ X 20.0 :
Particulates 2q/~ X 1.5 = 3
Sulfur 2~/~ X .78 : I
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ ~/~ Liquid I~
Jthat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent .,
to the site? ~ S~F~ L//d~ ~L~ ~c~¢~.~ J~,
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? t~S.
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
City En~/dneer or Representative Date
Speed Letter, ~:.~j~ ~-~,o~--"
From
Date Z- ! -~/~' Signed
REPLY ~'-~t-c~v~ ~-, ~'~ ~_O'-.j %'T' ~- ~ - ~ ~
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
liquefaction?
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure?
A significant modification of any unique
geological features?
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards?
2. Soils
a. Does the project site contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion
of
soils, either on or off-site?
A significant amount of siltation?
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources?
YES POTENTIAL
b. Could the project result in:
A significant Change in quantity or quality
of ground water?
A significant alteration of direction or rate
of flow of ground water?
Any other significant affect on ground water?
4. Drainage
a. Is the project site subject to inundation?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate of amount of
surface runoff?
Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity
of any natural water-way or man-made facility
either on-site or downstream?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
Change in amount of surface water in any
water body?
..~,~ .~,~ Exposure of people or property to water
?~c'~ii~!~"~.:related hazards such as, flooding or tidal
~ ......... waves?
~ 5. Resources
Could the project result in:
....... Limiting access to any significant
mineral resources which can be
.~.. ~:.~economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change
in
topography or ground surface relief features?
YES POTENTIAL
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
b. Could the project result in.
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke?
E~issions which could degrade the ambient
.r quality?
Exacerbation or a violation of any National
or State ambient air quality standard?
Interference with the maintenance of
standard air quality?
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regionally?
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies (RAQS)?
8. Water Quality
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public water supplies?
9. Noise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary sources?
b. Could the project directly or indirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels?
YES POTENTIAL NO
10. Biology
a. Could the project directly or indirectly
affect a rare, endangered or endemic species
of animal, plant or other wildlife; the
habitat of such species; or cause interference
with the movement of any resident or migratory
wildlife? ~
b. Will the project introduce domestic or other
animals into an area which could affect a
rare, endangered or endemi~ cies? ~
ll. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological resource? ~
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object? __~
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values? ~
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? __~
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use /~
Circulation ~
Scenic Highways
Conservation _~
Housing
Noise _~
Park and Recreation ~<
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety
Public Facilities
YES POTENTIAL
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan?
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
Widely at variance with prevailing community
standards
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public?
Will the proposal result in a~ew light
source or glare?
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site?
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area?
The substantial demand for additional housing
or affect existing housing?
' !.?"-'~,~! ~¢omrm~ity Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the community or this project?
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the following services?
~.-~ ..... Fire Protection
Police Protection
Schools
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
Including Roads
YES POTENTIAL
16. Energy
Could the project result in:
Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption
of energy?
A significant increase in demand on existing
sources of energy?
A failure to conserve energy, water or other
resources?
17. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for new systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas
Communications systems
Water
Sewer or septic tanks
Solid waste & disposal
18. Human Health
Could the project result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard?
l~. Transportation/Access
Could the project result in:
A significant change in existing traffic
patterns?
An increase in traffic that could substantially
lower the service level of any street or highway
below an acceptable level?
20. Natural Resources
Could the project result in a substantial
depletion of non-renewable natural resources?
YES POTENTIAL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involVe:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances {including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition? ~X~
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level?
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
~ . ~erm impact on the environment is one which
·-~- ..... period of time, while long-term impacts
~, . will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connec-
~~l~ion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or ,/
indirectly?
- 21 -
J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the
design, construction or operation of the project:
Project Proponent
Date
K. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
y~ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
-- although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARF" i is
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for
consideration and adoption.
It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
--effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
It is found that further information will be necessary to
-- determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
Envi~ment~Revi ew Coordinator Date
V
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS I
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. ,,
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION) A TEXAS CORP
List thee-names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
THEJ~ND CORPORAT i ON
2. If~ny pers~on identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the-names--of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning ..any partnership interest in the partnership.
J6DIE THOMPSON
JERE THOMPSON
JOHN THOMPSON
3. I~.,~,m::persOn~'ident~fled' pursuant to (1) above ~s a non-profit organization or a
t~j~*Ti~t the names of any person serwng as director of the non-profit
o~;{))~at~on or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. H~~o¥~than $~SO worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff~': Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)
)Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc--GE-f~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acti~g as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~~j ~
c - . 1/12/88
S ~ gnaturp_~p~f appl ~can~ ,
WPC 0701P STEPHEN R. RAY
A-110 P'rint or type name of applicant